[Senate Hearing 117-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-5
THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY
AROUND THE WORLD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-045 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
Jessica Lewis, Staff Director
Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Menendez, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator From New Jersey................. 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Risch, Hon. James, U.S. Senator From Idaho....................... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
Albright, Hon. Madeleine, Former Secretary of State, Washington,
DC............................................................. 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 10
Dobriansky, Ambassador Paula J., Former Under Secretary of State
for Global Affairs, Washington, DC............................. 12
Prepared Statement........................................... 14
Ajak, Peter Biar, Ph.D., Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow,
National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, DC............... 33
Prepared Statement........................................... 35
Pwint Thon, Wai Hnin, Campaigns Officer, Burma Campaign, UK...... 39
Prepared Statement........................................... 40
Law, Nathan, Pro-Democracy Activist and Former Hong Kong
Legislative Council Member..................................... 44
Prepared Statement........................................... 46
(iii)
THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY
AROUND THE WORLD
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Menendez,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Coons,
Kaine, Markey, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Johnson,
Romney, Portman, Paul, Young, Rounds, and Hagerty.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. This hearing of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order.
Thanks, everyone, for coming, and especially to our
witnesses who we will hear from shortly.
For the purposes of this specific hearing, we are going to
pursue--as we get our technology under control in terms of
understanding when people sign in, we are going to do it by
seniority, but we will ultimately try to work towards whoever
appears at the time of the gavel, but we are not there yet. So
with my apologies for those who made it early, hopefully you
will still be in the rotation and others will not jump in front
of you. But for today, as we figure out how, when we have a
hybrid, how we can make sure that we understand where the
seniority is--I mean, where the in-time appearance is, we are
going to do this for today's purposes by seniority.
Given the state of the world and our own country, I felt it
was paramount to use my first policy hearing as chairman this
Congress to examine democracy as a fundamental American value
and how it drives our foreign policy. In every region of the
world today, authoritarian governments are seizing more and
more power, dismantling core democratic institutions, and
closing in on civil society and freedom of expression. Many
emerging democracies are plagued by scandal, corruption, and
citizen disaffection. From Turkey and Hungary, to Venezuela, to
the Philippines, autocrats are systematically dismantling
constitutional checks on their power. Unfortunately, the COVID-
19 pandemic has helped accelerate some of their actions by
providing an excuse to consolidate power and quash free press.
Of course we cannot seriously talk about democratic decline
around the world without confronting the stress tests on our
own democracy. The assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th
was the culmination of coordinated misinformation fueled by a
systemic undermining from the very highest office in the land
of the foundational elements of our democracy, including the
right to vote, a free press, and our institutions themselves,
tragically, the same pattern we are seeing in democratic free-
falling countries.
But I would offer that our strength as Americans is our
commitment to strive for that more perfect union. We take
seriously our responsibility to continually ensure that our
citizens are equipped with the knowledge of their rights and
responsibilities in a democratic society so that they can hold
their leaders accountable. We ensure people have the right to
vote and that our judiciary remains independent, and a course
correction when we must. History has proven that democracies
are more peaceful when their people are more prosperous and
more secure, and it is in our national interest to champion
these values.
So with that in mind, as leaders around the world that
publicly and privately question whether the United States can
still talk about democratic promotion, I say we must. It is
simply in our interest. And I remind those who I have talked to
around the world who have challenged that proposition that the
reality is that our institutions withstood the challenges that
were presented to it, from its judiciary, to the Congress, to a
free press and its vibrancy. All of these elements may have
been tested, but they withstood the test.
Our driving question of today's hearing is why the United
States must support democracy around the world as a fundamental
American value and the most effective tools we have to support
democratic resilience and expansion. Last year, I published a
report documenting the steep cost that the Trump presidency
exacted on U.S. foreign policy and national security.
Interviews with current and former U.S. officials, foreign
officials, national security experts, all affirmed that
President Trump's actions made it harder to effectively
champion human rights and promote democracy abroad, and we
largely ceded the moral ground on the global stage at a time
when we needed it most to counter the authoritarian forces of
Russia and China.
Today, Beijing and Moscow are driving global authoritarian
expansion to increasingly-sophisticated digital authoritarian
surveillance and control tools and simple old-fashioned arrest
of peaceful protesters in the shutting down of independent
media. The United States must counter their malign efforts with
a worldwide campaign to promote democratic values. We must also
lead a serious attack on the lifeblood of these autocrats, the
kleptocratic ways in which they loot public coffers to sustain
themselves and erode freedom globally. We must maintain
consistent and continuous pressure on authoritarian governments
to stop them from abusing the rights of their citizens and
exporting disinformation and other tools of repression abroad.
Tragically, we can look around the world and see countries
that may have once had so much promise overtaken by military or
self-interested autocrats. The recent coup in Burma represents
a direct and pressing challenge to our aim of restoring values
to the center of our foreign policy. Across the Middle East, we
must not be silent in the face of human rights violations for
fear of offending a security partner. Our partnerships are not
blank checks. We are seeing the Egyptian Government not only
targeting democracy and human rights activists in Egypt, but
also targeting the family members of U.S. citizens who
criticize their policies. In Saudi Arabia, I will continue to
press for accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
In Ethiopia, the path to credible elections in June has
closed considerably. The ongoing conflict in Tigre with
credible reports of mass atrocities and violence in other
regions means millions of Ethiopian voters will be
disenfranchised, absent dramatic change. And to the East in
Sudan, the civil--the civilian-led transitional Government is
facing serious economic and political headwinds.
Let me end closer to our own borders. As we prepare to
celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Inter-American Democratic
Charter in September, we have seen in the region a series of
deeply flawed or fraudulent elections. Entrenched
authoritarians have clung to power in Havana, Caracas, and
Managua. After 6 days--excuse me, I wish it was 6 days--six
decades, Cuba remains firmly in the grasp of a dictatorship,
and nowhere in our hemisphere has democratic deterioration
produced greater human suffering than in Venezuela. Maduro's
brutal criminal regime has unleashed a humanitarian crisis and
has perpetrated crimes against humanity in order to silence
dissent.
We have an opportunity now to reassert the U.S. role in
championing democracy and human rights around the globe. We do
this because it is right and because it is in our interests.
Our investments in democracy are our best hope for bolstering
the stability and prosperity of our neighbors in far-off
countries alike, and for keeping our sons and daughters out of
war. To continue to champion democracy and human rights in
foreign policy, we need to have a fuller sense of the
challenges we face and how the United States can best rise to
face them, and shortly we will turn to our witnesses to get
their perspectives.
With that, I would like to turn to the distinguished
ranking member for his comments.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Menendez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Menendez
introduction/overview
Thank you everyone for coming today and thank you especially to our
witnesses. For my first hearing as Chairman this Congress, I feel it's
critical that we examine democracy as a fundamental American value, and
how it drives our foreign policy. In every region of the world today
authoritarian governments are seizing more and more power, dismantling
core democratic institutions, and closing in on civil society and
freedom of expression. Emerging democracies are plagued by scandal,
corruption, and citizen disaffection. From Turkey and Hungary to
Venezuela to the Philippines, autocrats are systematically dismantling
constitutional checks on their power. Unfortunately, the COVID-19
pandemic has helped accelerate some of their actions.
Of course, we cannot talk about democratic decline around the world
without confronting the stress tests on our democracy. The assault on
the U.S. Capitol on January 6 was the culmination of coordinated
misinformation . . . fueled by a systematic undermining--from the very
highest office in this land--of the very foundational elements of
democracy in this country including the right to vote, a free press,
and our institutions themselves.
Our responsibility is to continually ensure that our citizens are
equipped with the knowledge of their rights and responsibilities in a
democratic society so that they can their leaders accountable. And
course correct when we must. History has proven that democracies around
the world are still more peaceful, their populations more prosperous
and more secure, and it is in our interest to still champion our
values.
So the focus of today's hearing is why the United States must
support democracy around the world as a fundamental American value and
the most effective tools we have to support democratic resilience and
expansion.
Last year, I published a report documenting the steep costs the
Trump presidency exacted on U.S. foreign policy and national security.
Interviews with current and former U.S. officials, foreign officials,
and national security experts affirmed that President Trump's actions
made it harder to effectively champion human rights and promote
democracy abroad. In doing so, we largely ceded the moral high ground
at a time on the global when we needed it most to counter the
authoritarian forces of Russia and China.
Today, Beijing and Moscow are driving global authoritarian
expansion in an attempt to make the world a safer place for their
repressive forms of government . . . through increasingly sophisticated
digital authoritarian surveillance and control tools and simple old
fashioned arresting of peaceful protestors and shutting down
independent media. The United States must counter their malign efforts
with a worldwide campaign to promote democratic values. We must also
lead a serious attack on the lifeblood of these autocrats--the
kleptocratic ways in which they loot public coffers to sustain
themselves and erode freedom globally. We also must maintain consistent
and continuous pressure on authoritarian governments.
around the world
Tragically, we can look around the world and see countries that may
have once had so much promise . . . overtaken by military or self-
interested autocrats. Unfortunately, this list is not exhaustive.
The coup in Burma represents a direct and pressing challenge to our
aim of restoring values to the center of our foreign policy.
Our failure to ensure real accountability and costs for the bad
behavior of Burma's military over the past decade in part got us here
including removing sanctions and failing to call out a genocide in
Rakhine State. But it is not too late to impose accountability.
Across the Middle East, we must not be silent in the face of human
rights violations for fear of offending a security partner. Our
partnerships are not blank checks. In Egypt, we are seeing the
Government not only targeting democracy and human rights activists in
Egypt, but also targeting the family members of U.S. citizens who
criticize their policies. And I will continue to press for
accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
In Ethiopia, the path to credible elections in June has closed
considerably. The ongoing conflict in Tigray, with credible reports of
mass atrocities, and violence in other regions mean millions of
Ethiopian voters will be disenfranchised, absent dramatic change. And,
to the east, in Sudan, the civilian-led transitional Government is
facing serious economic and political headwinds. Recent elections in
Uganda and Tanzania were marred by repression and fraud.
venezuela/western hemisphere
Let me end closer to our own borders . . .. As we prepare to
celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Inter-American Democratic Charter
in September, we have seen in the region a series of deeply flawed or
fraudulent elections.
Entrenched authoritarians have clung to power in Havana, Caracas,
and Managua. After six decades, Cuba remains firmly in the grasp of a
dictatorship.
And nowhere in our hemisphere has democratic deterioration produced
greater human suffering than in Venezuela. Maduro's brutal criminal
regime has unleashed a humanitarian crisis and has perpetrated crimes
against humanity in order to silence dissent.
closing
We are at a pivotal moment . . . we have an opportunity to reassert
the U.S. role in championing democracy and human rights around the
globe. We do this because it is right, and we do it because it is in
our interest. Our investments into democracy are our best hope for
bolstering the stability and prosperity of our neighbors and far off
countries alike, and keeping our sons and daughters out of war. To
continue to champion democracy and human rights in foreign policy, we
need to have a fuller sense of the challenges we face and of how the
United States can best rise to face them. For that, we shall turn to
our witnesses.
introduction of witnesses
Albright
It is my honor to welcome Secretary Madeleine Albright. Secretary
Albright served as our first female Secretary of State, working as the
nation's top diplomat from 1997 to 2001. Prior to that, she served as
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Born in Prague, Secretary
Albright and her family fled the Nazis and eventually settled in the
United States. We are fortunate to be hearing from Secretary Albright,
given her decades of public service at the highest levels of our
Government and her deep personal experience with the democratic
struggle. Welcome, Madame Secretary.
Dobriansky
We are also joined by another formidable diplomat, Ambassador Paula
Dobrianksy. Ambassador Dobriansky served as Under Secretary of State
for Global Affairs from 2001 to 2009 and as the President's Envoy to
Northern Ireland in 2007. Welcome, Ambassador.
Ajak
I would like to welcome Dr. Peter Biar Ajak. Dr. Ajak is a civil
society leader, political dissident, and scholar from South Sudan. He
is the founder of the Juba-based Center for Strategic Analyses and
Research, and chair of the South Sudan Young Leaders Forum. An
outspoken advocate for free and fair elections, Dr. Ajak was convicted
of disturbing the peace and jailed for 18 months in South Sudan's
notorious Blue House prison. Facing death threats upon his release, he
was forced to seek safe haven in the United States, where he continues
to advocate for democracy back home. Welcome, Dr. Ajak.
Law
I would next like to introduce Mr. Nathan Law. He is a co-founder
of the Network of Young Democratic Asians, aiming at promoting
exchanges among social activists in Japan, Taiwan, Burma, Thailand, and
other East Asian countries. At 23, Mr. Law was elected to Hong Kong's
Legislative Council in 2017 and became the youngest Legislative
Councilor in history. Yet his election was overturned in July 2017
following Beijing's constitutional reinterpretation. After the
imposition of the Hong Kong National Security Law in mid-2020, Nathan
fled Hong Kong, but he continues to be a strong advocate for democracy
there. Welcome, Mr. Law.
Pwint Thon
Finally, welcome to Ms. Wai Hnin Pwint Thon (WAY-NIN PINT THAWN).
She is a Burmese human rights defender working with the non-
governmental organizations Burma Campaign UK and Advance Myanmar. Wai
Hnin (WAY NIN)'s advocacy is inspired by her father, who is one of the
country's leading Muslim human rights activists. He has been detained
by the Burmese military since the military coup on February 1st.
Welcome, Ms. Pwint Thon.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much. I concur that it
is appropriate that the first policy hearing we have in this
Congress is on the state of democracy around the world because,
after all, when it comes to foreign relations or the success
and operation of a country, democracy is foundational to that,
and the United States remains the gold standard for democracy.
Yes, we do wind up having disagreements and a little pushing
and shoving as to how we execute democracy, but we have in
place an independent judiciary that resolves those disputes,
and we then accept those and move on and execute the democracy
that the founding fathers gave us.
And while we have been rightly focused on combating the
coronavirus pandemic, another worldwide threat is taking shape,
and that is a decline in democracies and democratic principles,
many of which that you have referred to, Mr. Chairman, in your
opening remarks, and I concur in those. Before COVID-19 broke
out in Wuhan, China, democratic backsliding had already become
a serious global concern. The ongoing pandemic has given
opportunistic leaders another excuse to grab power and suppress
their own citizens' fundamental freedoms and human rights.
It is happening even in countries who had once struggled to
actually reach a level of democracy, and I do not think we have
to look very far. Right in our own neighborhood, Venezuela went
from a country that was, as much as anything, a democracy into
what it is today, which is anything but. And one of the
disheartening things is how quickly something like that can
happen in very short order with just one or two leaders who are
not committed to the rule of law and democracy.
Rather than keep its promise, the Chinese Communist Party
is doing everything it can to erase Hong Kong's autonomy. One
of the largest threats to rights and freedoms is Beijing's so-
called National Security Law, which has been used to arrest and
instill fear among teachers, journalists, and activists in Hong
Kong. While COVID-19 infected the world, the restrictions used
to fight the virus are also used to fight democracy, including
by limiting protests, delaying elections, and implementing a
press of state-sponsored censorship. Just this week, 47 Hong
Kong democracy activists were charged under the new National
Security Law.
In Africa, countries, like The Gambia, Sudan, and Ethiopia,
have seen important moments of democratic progress in recent
years. However, the pandemic and the political, economic, and
security realities have put these democratic transitions under
tremendous strain and jeopardize their progress. At the same
time, we have seen countries, like Tanzania, Uganda, and
Zimbabwe, further backslide in the face of increasingly
authoritarian and corrupt behavior by their leaders. Despite
these challenges, democracy remains in high demand amongst most
Africans.
After enjoying some democratic progress since 2011, Burma's
recent military coup has set the country back, dramatically
back. Courageous citizens protesting this authoritarian regime
have been met with violence, leading to scores of death and
injuries of innocent protesters. Hundreds have been arrested,
including the father of one of our witnesses today. The
military, in an effort to quash all dissent and momentum for
protests, also weaponized access to the internet to avoid and
block communication between those who want to communicate in
protest fashion. While news of democratic backsliding around
the globe can be disheartening, it is a reminder that we must
fight for and defend democracy and democratic values. The
United States needs to continue to lead the world in supporting
democracy and rule of law.
The United States has robust programs to promote democracy,
the rule of law, and respect for human rights across the globe.
We support civil societies, organizations, and election
preparation, and improving media literacy, and increasing
women's participation in the political process. This work
continues despite significant obstacles. Authoritarian
governments in places, such as Russia and China, continue to
enforce draconian anti-NGO laws, which limit our ability to
support civil society. Even as we remain focused on our
domestic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must not turn a
blind eye to democratic backsliding across the globe.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on how
the United States can continue to lead on promoting democracy
and supporting civil society actors around the world. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Risch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Risch
Thank you very much. I concur that it is appropriate that the first
policy hearing we have this Congress is on the state of democracy
around the world. Because after all, when it comes to foreign relations
or the success and operation of a country, democracy is foundational to
that.
The United States remains the gold standard for democracy. Yes, we
do wind up having disagreements and a little pushing and shoving as to
how we execute democracy. But we have in place an independent judiciary
to resolve those disputes. We then accept those and move on and execute
the democracy that the founding fathers gave us.
While we have been rightly focused on combatting the Coronavirus
pandemic, another worldwide threat is taking shape: that is the decline
of democracies and democratic principles, many of which you have
referred to, Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks. I concur on those.
Before COVID-19 broke out in Wuhan, China, democratic backsliding
had already become a serious global concern. The ongoing pandemic has
given opportunistic leaders another excuse to grab power and suppress
their own citizens' fundamental freedoms and human rights. It's
happening even in countries who had once struggled to actually reach a
level of democracy.
I don't think we have to look very far. Right in our own
neighborhood, Venezuela went from a country that was as much as
anything a democracy into what it is today which is anything but. One
of the disheartening things is how quickly something like that can
happen in very short order, with just one or two leaders who are not
committed to rule of law and democracy.
Rather than keep its promise, the Chinese Communist Party is doing
everything it can to erase Hong Kong's autonomy. One of the largest
threats to rights and freedoms is Beijing's so-called ``national
security law,'' which has been used to arrest and instill fear among
teachers, journalists, and activists in Hong Kong.
While COVID-19 infected the world, the restrictions used to fight
the virus were also used to fight democracy, including by limiting
protests, delaying elections, and implementing oppressive state-
sponsored censorship. Just this week, 47 Hong Kong democracy activists
were charged under the new national security law.
In Africa, countries like The Gambia, Sudan, and Ethiopia have seen
important moments of democratic progress in recent years. However, the
pandemic and the political, economic, and security realities have put
these democratic transitions under tremendous strain and jeopardized
their progress.
At the same time, we've seen countries like Tanzania, Uganda, and
Zimbabwe further backslide in the face of increasingly authoritarian
and corrupt behavior by their leaders. Despite these challenges,
democracy remains in high demand among most Africans.
After enjoying some democratic progress since 2011, Burma's recent
military coup has set the country back, dramatically back. Courageous
citizens protesting this authoritarian regime have been met with
violence, leading to scores of deaths and injuries of innocent
protestors. Hundreds have been arrested including the father of one of
our witnesses today. The military, in an effort to squash all dissent
and momentum for protests, also weaponized access to the internet to
avoid and block communication between those who want to communicate in
protest fashion.
While news of democratic backsliding around the globe can be
disheartening, it is a reminder that we must fight for and defend
democracy and democratic values. The United States needs to continue to
lead the world in supporting democracy and the rule of law.
The United States has robust programs to promote democracy, the
rule of a law, and respect for human rights across the globe. We
support civil society organizations in election preparation, in
improving media literacy, and in increasing women's participation in
the political process. This work continues despite significant
obstacles. Authoritarian governments in places such as Russia and China
continue to enforce draconian anti-NGO laws, which limit our ability to
support civil society.
Even as we remain focused on our domestic response to the COVID-19
pandemic, we must not turn a blind eye to democratic back-sliding
across the globe. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on
how the United States can continue to lead on promoting democracy and
supporting civil society actors around the world.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let us turn to our first panel. It
is my honor to welcome Secretary Madeleine Albright virtually.
Secretary Albright served as our first female Secretary of
State, working as the Nation's top diplomat from 1997 to 2001.
Prior to that, she served as U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations. Born in Prague, Secretary Albright and her family fled
the Nazis and eventually settled in the United States. She is
one of the most significant voices in the promotion of
democracy in our country. We are fortunate to be hearing from
Secretary Albright given her decades of public service at the
highest levels of our Government and her deep personal
experience with the democratic struggle as well.
We are also joined by another formidable diplomat,
Ambassador Paula Dobriansky. Ambassador Dobriansky served as
undersecretary of state for global affairs from 2001 to 2009
and as the President's envoy to Northern Ireland in 2007.
Welcome, Ambassador.
With that, we will turn to Secretary Albright first, and
then we will go to Ambassador Dobriansky.
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Albright. Chair Menendez and Ranking Member
Risch, thank you so much, and members of the committee. I am
really delighted that you asked me to share my thoughts on the
state of democracy, and I so applaud the fact that you are
making this your first hearing. As you mentioned, Chairman
Menendez, it is a topic that I approach through the prism of my
own experience, having come to this country in 1948 after my
family fled both communism and fascism in Europe. And I have
always been a grateful American, and I was taught by my father
to appreciate both the fragility of democracy and its
resilience.
In the past quarter century, I have testified before this
committee on many occasions, and I have not always agreed with
every senator on every topic, but I do not ever recall having
had a quarrel about the importance of democracy. So today, in
the interest of time, I will devote my remarks less to the
widely-reported symptoms of freedoms' decline than to the
question of what we can and should do about it. And so to that
end, I will stress three points.
First, the United States must lead. Many countries can and
do help, but no other nation has both the historic
identification with liberty and the geographic reach to inspire
and strengthen democratic institutions in every region. If
America is not out front, others will take our place, either
despots, who rule with an iron fist, or extremists, who
acknowledge no rules at all, and this would leave the world
with a choice between repression and chaos, and we owe our
children a better alternative than that.
My second point follows directly from the first: America
must set the right example. People across the globe will not
follow us if they do not believe us, and they will not believe
us if we fail to match our words with actions. I will not dwell
on the events of January 6th, but you can be sure that our
rivals will not soon let the world forget the spectacle of
American democracy under siege from within. And just recently
in Burma, the military launched a coup because its leaders
refused to accept the results of a democratic election. Sound
familiar?
The truth is that we have to be able to understand what is
going on in every single way, and the truth is that the
autocrats in many countries have echoed the words of our past
President when attacking their legitimate opposition, their
courts, the independent press, and natural--national
legislatures. Meanwhile, here at home, efforts are under way in
many States to chip away at the right to vote, the very
cornerstone of freedom. And to be clear, just as it is
fraudulent for people to vote illegally, so it is fraudulent to
deny citizens the best possible chance to cast their ballots
within the law. And when it comes to holding fair elections,
there is no comparison: denial of the franchise, not deception
at the polls, is by far the bigger problem.
And I do think, as I make my third point, is that building
and sustaining democracy should be a first principle, not an
afterthought, in U.S. foreign and national security policy, and
the reason should be clear to all of us. And let us look around
the world, and some of--both of you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, have looked at some of this. From South Asia to Central
Europe, and from the Middle East to parts of Africa and Latin
America, democracy is steadily losing ground. Not since the
Cold War have we seen a broader or more ominous threat to human
freedom. So what should we do, fall apart and retreat or come
together in defense of our core beliefs?
When I was Secretary of State, I helped launch what we
called the Community of Democracies, an effort that continued
under the leadership of Ambassador Dobriansky in the Bush
administration, and I am delighted to be able to testify along
with her. We were committed to the idea that democratic
governments should assist each other in creating jobs,
improving services, and countering threats. The time is right
to revive that sense of solidarity. For America, that means
helping to strengthen liberty's cause through the employment of
every available foreign policy tool, including aid, trade,
sanctions, bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, and
partnerships with advocacy groups and the private sector. We
must also apply the lessons we have already learned about the
need for patience, inclusivity, a holistic approach to how we
go forward. And I think that that is a very important aspect in
terms of looking at what lessons we have learned and that they
have to be tailored to the individual circumstances of the
countries involved.
The bipartisan National Endowment for Democracy and its
four core institutes--NDI, IRI, CIPE, and the Solidarity
Center--are rich sources of wisdom on all of these points, and
it has been my honor to be associated with these institutions
since they were founded by President Reagan, and to have served
as chairman of NDI since 2001. And I know they stand ready to
work with this committee as it reviews and strengthens
democracy programs.
Now, some will tell you that a democracy-centered foreign
policy reflects a kind of starry-eyed idealism, and that the
only way to protect our interests is through hard-headed
realism. And is there some truth in that? Yes, I will not deny
it. But in the vast majority of cases, support for democracy
serves both our interests and our ideals. History has shown us
that free countries make better neighbors, more reliable
friends, and the only allies we can count on consistently. And
that is why backing democratic values must be the centerpiece
of any strategy to create a more secure, stable, healthy, and
prosperous global environment, a kind of setting in which
Americans can thrive.
A little more than a century ago, a U.S. President asked
our armed forces to cross the ocean to make the world safe for
democracy. Today, we must support democracy to make the world
safe, and we should do so with confidence. Despite recent
setbacks, we know that democracy is resilient, and so, too, is
the United States. Our economy is one of the strongest and most
innovative in the world because we have a system of government
that supports the rule of law and protects the rights of
individuals. We know as well that, even now, no words speak
more powerfully to the aspirations of all people than that
singular pledge of liberty and justice for all.
As President Biden wrote in the Interim National Security
Strategic Guidance issued last week, and I quote, ``We must
prove that our model is not a relic of history. It is the
single-best way to realize the promise of the future.'' And,
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is much more I
could say, but time is precious, and so I really look forward
to any of the questions you might have. Thank you so much for
asking me to participate in this important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Albright follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Albright
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the
committee.
Thank you for inviting me to share my thoughts on the state of
democracy around the world. It is a topic I approach through the prism
of my own experience, having come to this country in 1948 after my
family fled both communism and fascism in Europe. I am a grateful
American, and I was taught by my father to appreciate both the
fragility of democracy and its resilience.
In the past quarter century, I have testified before this committee
on many occasions. I have not always agreed with every Senator on every
topic, but I do not recall ever having had a quarrel about the
importance of democracy.
So today, in the interests of time, I will devote my remarks less
to the widely reported symptoms of freedom's decline than to the
question of what we can and should do about it.
To that end, I will stress three points.
First, the United States must lead. Many countries can and do help,
but no other nation has both the historic identification with liberty
and the geographic reach to inspire and strengthen democratic
institutions in every region.
If America is not out front, others will take our place: either
despots who rule with an iron fist or extremists who acknowledge no
rules at all.
This would leave the world with a choice between repression and
chaos; we owe our children a better alternative than that.
My second point follows directly from the first. America must set
the right example.
People across the globe won't follow us if they don't believe us,
and they won't believe us if we fail to match our words with actions.
I won't dwell on the events of January 6, but you can be sure that
our rivals will not soon let the world forget the spectacle of American
democracy under siege from within.
Just recently in Myanmar, the military launched a coup because its
leaders refused to accept the results of a democratic election. Sound
familiar?
The truth is that autocrats in many countries have echoed the words
of our past President when attacking their legitimate opposition, their
courts, the independent press, and national legislatures.
Meanwhile, here at home, efforts are underway in many states to
chip away at the right to vote, the very cornerstone of freedom.
To be clear, just as it is fraudulent for people to vote illegally,
so it is fraudulent to deny citizens the best possible chance to cast
their ballots within the law.
When it comes to holding fair elections, there is no comparison:
denial of the franchise, not deception at the polls, is by far the
bigger problem.
My third point is that building and sustaining democracy should be
a first principle, not an afterthought, in U.S. foreign and national
security policy. The reason should be clear to all of us.
Look around the world from South Asia to Central Europe and from
the Middle East to parts of Africa and Latin America; democracy is
steadily losing ground.
Not since the Cold War have we seen a broader or more ominous
threat to human freedom.
What should we do?--fall apart and retreat, or come together in
defense of our core beliefs?
When I was Secretary of State, I helped launch what we called the
community of democracies, an effort that continued under the leadership
of Ambassador Dobriansky in the Bush administration.
We were committed to the idea that democratic governments should
assist each other in creating jobs, improving services, and countering
threats. The time is right to revive that sense of solidarity.
For America that means helping to strengthen liberty's cause
through the employment of every available foreign policy tool,
including aid, trade, sanctions, bilateral and multilateral diplomacy,
and partnerships with advocacy groups and the private sector.
We must also apply the lessons we have already learned about the
need for patience, inclusivity, a holistic approach, and remedies
tailored to the individual circumstances of the countries involved.
The bipartisan National Endowment for Democracy and its four core
institutes--NDI, IRI, CIPE and the Solidarity Center--are rich sources
of wisdom on all of these points.
It has been my honor to be associated with these institutions since
they were founded by President Reagan, and to have served as Chairman
of NDI since 2001. I know they stand ready to work with this committee
as it reviews and strengthens democracy programs.
Now, some will tell you that a democracy-centered foreign policy
reflects a kind of starry-eyed idealism and that the only way to
protect our interests is through hardheaded realism.
Is there some truth in that? Yes, I won't deny it.
But in the vast majority of cases, support for democracy serves
both our interests and our ideals.
History has shown us that free countries make better neighbors,
more reliable friends, and the only allies we can consistently count
on.
That is why backing for democratic values must be the centerpiece
of any strategy to create a more secure, stable, healthy and prosperous
global environment--the kind of setting in which Americans can thrive.
A little more than a century ago, a U.S. President asked our armed
forces to cross the ocean to make the world safe for democracy. Today,
we must support democracy to make the world safe.
And we should do so with confidence.
Despite recent setbacks, we know that democracy is resilient and
that so too is the United States. Our economy is one of the strongest
and most innovative in the world because we have a system of government
that supports the rule of law and protect the rights of individuals.
We know as well that, even now, no words speak more powerfully to
the aspirations of all people than that singular pledge of ``liberty
and justice for all.''
As President Biden wrote in the Interim National Security Strategic
Guidance issued last week, ``we must prove that our model isn't a relic
of history; it's the single best way to realize the promise of the
future.''
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is much more I
could say, but your time is precious and so I will stop now and look
forward to any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We look forward
to that opportunity to ask questions. Ambassador Dobriansky.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY, FORMER UNDER
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Dobriansky. Thank you, Chairman Menendez,
Ranking Member Risch, and other distinguished members of this
committee. Good morning, and thank you also for inviting me to
appear before you today to discuss a topic of great importance
to the United States and to our allies. This hearing is timely
and welcome, and I am also very delighted to share this panel
with Secretary Albright. I will submit my full testimony, but I
am going to try to abbreviate it to stay within the time frame.
Great power and competition defines the current
international environment and shapes the prospects for
democracy development. China and Russia are seeking to diminish
American power and influence, fragment our alliances, and
undermine other national security interests of the United
States. We can expect strategic competition with Beijing and
Moscow to continue and even intensify. How to deal with these
threats should be a central focus of U.S. foreign policy going
forward. Defending democracy and universal freedoms must be a
key element of U.S. strategy.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Russian
President Vladimir Putin warned of a new era of confrontation
with the West, asserting Russia's prerogative to carry out an
independent foreign policy. He asserted that Western values are
not Russian values. And despite over two decades of efforts to
incentivize China to be a responsible stakeholder, its leaders
continue to pursue aggressive regional and global behavior, to
violate international trade norms and standards, and to commit
egregious human rights abuses against its own people, including
Tibetans and Uyghurs. As I speak today, Beijing is also tearing
up the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and stripping away
Hong Kong's democracy.
China and Russia have become increasingly aligned, even
though they have not established a formal alliance. As Steve
Hadley and I wrote in the Atlantic Council's Insights Memo,
Russian and Chinese leaders share an authoritarian, ideological
orientation, and perceive American power and democratic values
as a threat. They are working together more closely to
undermine American influence and discredit our political
economic and social system. In Latin America, Africa, Europe,
and the Middle East, China and Russia have used proxies,
economic instruments, disinformation campaigns, election
interference, corrupt relationships, energy resources, and soft
power to subvert both fragile and well-established democratic
governments, and, thus, to foment instability. They have
engaged Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba in these anti-American
efforts.
Venezuela is a flashpoint for Chinese and Russian
investment and malign influence. Both nations have invested
billions into Venezuela, taking advantage of its economic and
political weakness, its vast petroleum resources, and their
close relationships with a corrupt Maduro regime. Russian arms
manufacturers sold $4 billion worth of weapons to Venezuela
over the last 10 years, and China has invested some $67 billion
in Venezuela since 2007. These instruments have propped up an
illegitimate government and have undermined prospects for
democracy, but it does not stop there.
Russian disinformation and election interference campaigns
have targeted Columbia. In late 2019, Colombian Vice President
Marta Lucia Ramirez accused Russia and its allies in Venezuela
of fomenting protests through social media campaigns. A few
months later, New York Times journalist, Lara Jakes, reported
on a State Department assessment that described Russian-linked
social media accounts as conducting an influence campaign. That
campaign has been under way not only in Colombia, but elsewhere
in South America. By undermining democracies in the region,
Russia and China seek to create instability in our backyard.
Russia and China have expanded investments in Africa as
well. In 2003, annual Chinese direct investment in Africa was
just $75 million, but by 2009, it reached $2.7 billion. Through
its One Belt One Road Initiative, China is offering fragile
democracies in Africa new rail lines, highways, and other
infrastructure projects. African nations are finding that these
projects have left them with massive debt and a lack of
control. Russia is also increasing its investments in Africa,
too, especially its military presence. It is striving to create
a Red Sea Naval Logistics Facility in Sudan.
Russia and China are waging a fierce battle against
democracy through disinformation campaigns, cyber intrusions,
investments, and attacks on Western values. China's substantial
economic, financial, and technological leverage also constrains
how countries can respond to this, whether in Europe, the
Middle East, or elsewhere. So defining democracy and promoting
democracy and human rights--defending and promoting democracy
and human rights abroad is not only a moral imperative, but
also a sound strategic approach.
Let me just briefly respond to what are the most effective
means of achieving this core objective: a strong military and
economic foundation at home; working closely with our allies
and other nations to advance a coherent, compelling moral
narrative about democracy and Western values; overcoming
others' complacency to secure the support in challenging the
falsehoods put forth by Moscow and Beijing; providing fragile
democracies with humanitarian assistance through USAID as well
as democracy support through such institutions as the NED
family, the Development Finance Corporation, and EXIM Bank;
imposing targeted sanctions against specific activities, such
as Russia's energy investments in Venezuela; sanctioning
government officials or others responsible for corruption and
human rights violations through the Global Magnitsky Act of
2016. I have strongly advocated for the use of Global Magnitsky
against Cuban officials and their accomplices who have
committed gross violations of human rights, including modern-
day slavery by trafficking of doctors, work to destabilize
democracies in the Western Hemisphere, and collaboration with
China, Iran, and Russia. And significantly, in January of this
year, Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets designated the Cuban
Ministry of Interior and the first Cuban official, the minister
of interior, Lazaro Alberto Alvarez Casas, for serious human
rights abuses against Jose Daniel Ferrer, who is held in a
Ministry of Interior-controlled prison.
So, in conclusion, let me say Ronald Reagan advanced a
foreign policy predicated on U.S. global leadership, military
strength, and moral clarity. We bolstered our ties to
democratic allies, challenged regimes hostile to our interests
and values, and promoted political and economic freedom abroad.
This strategic approach advanced both U.S. interests and global
freedom. It was successful then and can be successful today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Dobriansky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Dobriansky
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and other distinguished
members of this Committee, good morning and thank you for inviting me
to appear before you today to discuss a topic of great importance to
the United States and to our allies. This hearing is timely and
welcome.
Great power competition defines the current international
environment and shapes the prospects for democracy development. China
and Russia are seeking to diminish American power and influence,
fragment our alliances, and undermine other U.S. national security
interests. We can expect strategic competition with Beijing and Moscow
to continue and even intensify. How to deal with these threats should
be a central focus of U.S. foreign policy going forward. Defending
democracy and universal freedoms must be a key element of U.S.
strategy.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Russian
President Vladimir Putin warned of a new era of confrontation with the
West, asserting Russia's prerogative to ``carry out an independent
foreign policy.'' He asserted that Western values are not Russian
values. And despite over two decades of efforts to incentivize China to
be a ``responsible stakeholder,'' its leaders continue to pursue
aggressive regional and global behavior, to violate international trade
norms and standards, and to commit egregious human rights abuses
against its own people, including Tibetans and Uighurs. As I speak
today, Beijing is tearing up the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration
and stripping away Hong Kong's democracy.
China and Russia have also become increasingly aligned, even though
they have not established a formal alliance. As Steve Hadley and I
wrote in an Atlantic Council Insights Memo, ``Russian and Chinese
leaders share an authoritarian ideological orientation and perceive
American power and democratic values as a threat.'' They are working
together more closely to undermine American influence and discredit our
political, economic and social system.
In Latin America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East, China and
Russia have used proxies, economic instruments, disinformation
campaigns, election interference, corrupt relationships, energy
resources, and soft power to subvert both fragile and well-established
democratic governments and thus to foment instability. They have
engaged Iran, Venezuela and Cuba in these anti-American efforts.
Venezuela is a flashpoint for Chinese and Russian investment and
malign influence. Both nations have invested billions into Venezuela
taking advantage of its economic and political weakness, its vast
petroleum resources, and their close relationships with the corrupt
Maduro regime. Russia's state oil firm, Rosneft, imported 503,000
barrels per day of oil in 2019, 62 percent of Venezuela's total oil
exports that year. Russian arms manufacturers sold $4 billion worth of
weapons to Venezuela over the last 10 years. And China has invested $67
billion in Venezuela since 2007. These investments have propped up an
illegitimate government and have undermined prospects for democracy.
Iran and Venezuela have cooperated to bypass damaging U.S. sanctions on
both their countries. Iran has also sent ships to Venezuela loaded with
gasoline and petroleum refining equipment, technical experts and
supplies.
But it doesn't stop there. Russian disinformation and election
interference campaigns have targeted Colombia. In late 2019, Colombian
Vice President Marta Lucia Ramirez accused Russia and its allies in
Venezuela of fomenting protests through social media campaigns. A few
months later, New York Times journalist Lara Jakes reported on a State
Department assessment that described Russian-linked social media
accounts as conducting ``an influence campaign.'' The campaign had been
underway not only in Colombia, but elsewhere in South America,
including Chile, Bolivia and Ecuador. By undermining democracies in the
region, Russia and China seek to create instability in our backyard.
Russia and China have expanded investments in Africa as well. In
2003, annual Chinese foreign direct investment in Africa was just $75
million. By 2019, it reached $2.7 billion. Through its One Belt One
Road Initiative, China is offering fragile democracies in Africa new
rail lines, highways, and other infrastructure projects. African
nations are finding that these projects have left them with massive
debt and a lack of control. Russia is increasing its investments in
Africa too, especially its military presence, by sending mercenaries to
Mozambique, Libya, and the Central African Republic. Moscow is striving
to create a Red Sea naval logistics facility in Sudan too.
China and Russia are waging a fierce battle against democracy
through disinformation campaigns, cyber intrusions, investment, and
attacks on Western values. China's substantial economic, financial and
technological leverage constrains how many countries can respond to
this, in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
Defending and promoting democracy and human rights abroad is not
only a moral imperative but also a sound strategic approach. What are
the most effective means of achieving this core objective? There are
several:
a strong military and economic foundation at home,
working closely with our allies and other nations to advance
a coherent, compelling moral narrative about democracy and
Western values,
overcoming others' complacency to secure their support in
challenging the falsehoods put forth by Moscow and Beijing,
countering influence operations in social media and exposing
them for what they are,
providing fragile democracies with humanitarian assistance
through USAID as well as democracy support through institutions
such as NED, IRI, NDI, the Development Finance Corporation, and
Eximbank,
imposing targeted sanctions against specific activities
(such as Russia's energy investments in Venezuela), and
sanctioning government officials or others responsible for
corruption and human rights violations through the Global
Magnitsky Act of 2016, including asset freezes, travel bans and
exclusion from financial services.
I have strongly advocated for the use of Global Magnitsky against
Cuban officials and their accomplices, who have committed gross
violations of human rights, including modern day slavery by trafficking
of doctors, worked to destabilize democracies in the Western Hemisphere
and collaborated with China, Iran, and Russia. Significantly, in
January 2021, Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets designated the Cuban
Ministry of Interior and the first Cuban official, the Minister of
Interior, Lazaro Alberto Alvarez Casas, for serious human rights abuses
against Jose Daniel Ferrer held in a Ministry of Interior-controlled
prison.
Ronald Reagan advanced a foreign policy predicated on U.S. global
leadership, military strength and moral clarity. We bolstered our ties
to democratic allies, challenged regimes hostile to our interests and
values, and promoted political and economic freedom abroad. This
strategic approach advanced both U.S. interests and global freedom. It
was successful then and can be successful today.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much to both of you for
your testimony. Let me start a series of 5-minute rounds here
for this first panel.
Secretary Albright, China is one of our biggest challenges
in the context of democracy and human rights. What do you think
are some of the most effective ways for the United States to
push back on China's efforts to erase the tenets, principles,
and international organizations that have enabled so much human
progress?
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I do think that there is
no question that China is our biggest problem and that they are
out there hustling in every single way. And I have made very
clear that with the Belt and Road policies that they are
undertaking, the Chinese must be getting very fat because the
belt keeps getting larger and larger, and some of it does have
to do with the fact that we have been absent and they are
filling a vacuum. And so we need to make clear that we need to
be back, and really do need to make clear in so many ways that
we are a leader in restoring and building democracy in other
countries.
I do think that we have to speak out very clearly about
what the problems are with the Chinese behavior and that it is
a complex relationship. One has to say that they are an
adversary, there is no question, militarily in terms of the
kinds of things that they are doing in the South and East China
Sea and threatening Taiwan. They are a competitor in so many
different ways in undermining various rules of technology and
stealing international--intellectual property, and they are
competing with us in so many ways, but there are issues on
which we have to cooperate. And I was very interested in
reading this morning that there already is a way for there to
be cooperation on dealing through the G20 with Secretary Yellen
and a Chinese representative from the Central Bank on some of
the economic aspects of climate change.
So it is a complex relationship, but the most important
thing we have to do is tell the truth and speak out when what
they have done in Hong Kong is unacceptable. I was there when
we did the turnover, and the bottom line is this is not the way
that it was supposed to work out, and we have to push back on
that. And I do think that some of our measures have to do with
imposing a series of sanctions on those who are responsible,
and we also have made--have to make absolutely clear that we
will not waver on our relationship with Taiwan.
I was very interested that President Biden in his Interim
National Security Guidance made very clear that we would
continue to work with Taiwan and to be able to push back on
whatever threat there is to them, but it is the most
complicated relationship we have with China. We have to pay
very close attention. We have to use the tools we have, which
are the military, the diplomatic, and the economic through
sanctions.
The Chairman. Thank you. Last week, Freedom House published
their annual Freedom in the World report. They called it
``Democracy under Siege.'' It highlights that 2020 was the 15th
consecutive year of decline in global freedom and the corrosive
efforts of China and Russia to curtail freedom. Other
disturbing trends include the rise of digital authoritarianism,
the exploitation of COVID-19 by liberal leaders to close space
for civil society journalists and human rights defenders. So
what would you both say is the main drivers for this decline,
and is there a difference between the threats to establish
democracies compared to threats to developing or fragile
democracies? We will start with you, Ambassador Dobriansky.
Ambassador Dobriansky. Thank you for the question. I would
start with a number of factors that have, I think, contributed.
As my opening remarks indicated, I think the activism of both
China and Russia both have worked extremely hard to undermine
Western values and they have stated it very openly and very
directly, and this is not new. That is why I cited, starting
with Putin's remarks in the Munich Security Conference of 2007
and moving forward. Both have tried to justify the kind of
violations of human rights and the kind of suppression that
exists both in Russia and China and deflect what is happening
there elsewhere.
Secondly, it is very much geared against the United States,
seeking to diminish our power, no less, and our influence, no
less the very values that we stand for, and also our alliances
and fragment our alliances. I would start with that. And then
secondly, I think we have been complacent. I think over the
last decades and in these 15 years, when you look at it, there
has been a kind of complacency where we have almost taken for
granted that we are strong, that our values have permeated and
have been taken on across the globe. And I think it is a wake-
up call that we have to work harder at this.
And then I would also add that in the mix, that you do have
a number of rogue regimes that have also added on to Russia and
China and the greater closeness of their relationship, which
has really come about more in recent years, militarily,
economically, and politically, and that, too, with the
assistance of Iran, Cuba, among others, Venezuela, Nicaragua,
that also has furthered that case. Finally, because you
mentioned the digital piece, I think that we are also seeing
the advent of technologies and the degree to which technologies
have also the--changed the way in which we need to advocate for
democracy, that there are new instruments that are, in fact,
being used and which we have to be more vigilant, aggressive,
and actually redesign our advocacy for democracy and our
defense of democracy, and I think that is an area where we have
come up short. We have been under attack, and we need to be out
in front.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you. Secretary Albright, let me start
with you on a question I would have about this subject
generally, and that is your proposition about the Community of
Democracies. You know, it amazes me that there are countries
who claim to be democracies that have things in place that
are--that are not democratic at all. They think holding an
election is all you need to do to claim yourself a democracy
where we know that a democracy--the basis of a democracy is
that power is in the hands of the people and not in the hands
of a regime that can hang on through military might or what
have you. And how do you--how do you handle that? How do you
underscore the fact that simply because you have an election
does not mean you are a democracy?
I think probably the best example of that, and there are a
number of countries around the world that do this, but Iran has
an election, and so why are they not a democracy? Well, they
are not a democracy because a committee gets together and
decides who can run and who cannot run, and that way the--those
that are in charge, a regime, holds power by holding an
election and then claiming it is a democracy. How do you push
back on that? What are your thoughts on that? What are the
arguments on that?
Secretary Albright. Well, thank you very much for asking
that. And let me say when we started the Community of
Democracies, one of the whole problems--excuse me--was whom do
you invite.
Senator Risch. Right.
Secretary Albright. You know, exactly as you say, not only
some that were doing the opposite kind of things than
democracies, but those that had very fragile democracies that
were not really working. And so that has been the problem with
the Community of Democracies. And as people think about how to
have a democracy summit, one has to kind of think about who
do--whom do you invite and who are the--which are the countries
that need to be supported with nascent democracies and those
that need help when they are fragile democracies. There are a
number of different ways of dividing all that up.
I do think the question of elections is always interesting
because the thing that I have always said is elections are
necessary, but not sufficient. Obviously they are a beginning,
but there is a requirement for a set of institutional
structures that go with them that establish a rule of law that
is absolutely essential that is able to deal with some of the
problems of corruption in various democracies, that is also
able to deal with how people behave with each other, the
establishment of a civil society that really operates and how
democracy has to deliver. I think that is one of the problems.
There are always these discussions about how and whether
economic and--economic policy is also part of a democracy
building policy, and I have said yes because people want to
vote and eat. And, therefore, there has to be a way that some
of the economic divisions that have been created are not
exacerbated by those who make them worse, but in some ways,
there is a way of dealing with what used to be called the
social contract, and that people are, in fact, treated fairly,
that the state has a responsibility towards them, and that they
have a responsibility towards the state.
But it is a very difficult issue, and I am very glad that
you all are considering this, is how do you decide what is a
democracy, and the truth is that a democracy is always a
journey. That is part of it, and we can never think that it is
done, and there is--we have just shown the problems that we as
the world's oldest democracy have had. We see the problems in
India, which is the world's largest democracy, and that there
has to be some way to determine which--what are the tools that
we use, along with our partners, in trying to strengthen new
democracies, how we deal with fragile democracies, and how we
do not let them be taken advantage of.
But as has been mentioned--Ambassador Dobriansky did--the
issues of technology, which are under--technology is really an
incredible gift, but it also has become a tool for those who
want to undermine democracy. So you have set out a very large
goal for all of us--Congress, and the executive branch, and
those of us that are out of government--in terms of the various
parts that we can work on with the National Endowment of
Democracy, our various partners in that, in order to push back
against those who think they have a democracy when they have an
election, or when they decide not to live up to their
constitutions by saying, yes, we will just extend the terms
that we have, which are part of the questions that are going on
in Africa at this particular time.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I wonder,
this is the foundational question really of what we are talking
about here. I wonder if you would give Ambassador Dobriansky an
opportunity to respond to that. I know my time is up, but----
The Chairman. Please go ahead.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Ambassador Dobriansky. And I will try to give a very brief
answer. Secretary Albright is correct in saying that in
thinking about the Community of Democracies, it is a challenge.
It is a challenge in determining who is at the table. And my
answer to you would be that it was not perfect, and we erred on
the side, quite frankly, of looking at those democracies that
were solid, those democracies that were fragile, and by putting
them at the table, it would actually be in our interest and may
be in their interest in doing so, and then excluding those that
we felt absolutely should not be at the table. And, quite
frankly, I will say to you that one of the toughest decisions
was actually dealing with who is represented from the Middle
East.
And I remember quite well because, when I was under
secretary and we held the first Community of Democracies
meeting. By the way, it happened to be in South Korea. But in a
later meeting, I remember that we had a lot of challenges
because of also evolution of democracy. As the Secretary said,
democracy is--and the evolution of democracy is not linear, and
you are going to experience challenges. So even though you have
a certain group at the table, then it may not be the same group
as you go on.
But I would end on this note. There was another component
to this that I think was also important which we advocated for
very strongly, that you not only have country representation,
but you also have the representation of the NGOs.
Senator Risch. Right.
Ambassador Dobriansky. And, bluntly speaking, some of the
countries were very resistant to that being the case, but we
persevered and we ensured that NGOs were also at the table so
there was a transparent, open discussion.
Senator Risch. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cardin, I understand, is
with us virtually.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank
both of our witnesses. There is no question that democracy is a
journey, and there is no question that globally we are seeing a
significant decline in democracies and the--how democratic--our
so-called democratic states are. So it is clearly a critically-
important point for the United States' future and security to
strengthen and preserve democracies starting at home, but
globally. So as we look at how we go about doing it, I could
not agree more with our witnesses that the U.S. must be in the
leadership, and we must devote the resources. That means we
have to devote the resources in our missions and diplomacy, our
foreign assistance, all of the above. And I want to just point
to one area of grave concern, and, that is, we have seen not
only a decline of democracy globally, but we have seen a rise
of corruption globally. And every country has corruption, but
in autocratic states, generally the corrupt system finances the
autocratic policies, and the violations of human rights, and
the ability to maintain power in the country.
So let us talk about what we could do to strengthen our
anti-corruption efforts. First, let me talk a little bit about
foreign aid, and let us talk about this because we have used
foreign assistance to try to strengthen good governance in
countries, and yet we have had limited success. I point to
Central America, which is a country that has had significant
problems of corruption, or Ukraine. Is there a better way that
we can use our foreign aid? Should it be larger? Should it be
more focused in order to deal with the institutions that are
important to preserve democracy and to fight corruption? Both
of you have mentioned the use of sanctions, something that I
strongly support. Sanctions worked. Look at all the fuss over
Dan Gertler's attempt to get an exception from the sanctions
and how significant it was that President Biden reversed that
particular decision, or look at the topic in the first summit
meeting between President Putin and President Trump. The
Magnitsky sanctions clearly were brought up. They are working,
and I--we strongly support that, and Senator Wicker and I have
introduced legislation to reauthorize and make permanent the
Global Magnitsky statute here in the United States. So we can
clearly use sanctions more effectively.
But I just really want to mention one other tool that
Senator Young and I are working on, and that is to use the
model of Trafficking in Persons where we have transparency in
what every country is doing to fight modern-day slavery, to use
a similar method to evaluate how well countries are doing in
fighting corruption, and then using that as our guide for our
bilateral relations.
So I just would like to give both of our witnesses an
opportunity, if they could, to respond. How important is it for
us to fight corruption, and how effective have we been in our
efforts to rid the financial support of autocratic governments
through use of a corrupt system?
Secretary Albright. Senator, if I might, I think that it
is--corruption is the cancer of democracy, and I think it is
something that has to be worked on very actively. I think your
last point about using some of the legal methods that we have
is very important and to look at other models. I think that
there are several things that can be done better, but this is
always disputable whether some of our assistance needs to be
conditioned on a series of things that have to happen
specifically, and whether there really is a way to measure
whether those conditions are being met.
And one of the whole aspects of what the--France's NDI
works on a lot is to establish institutions with the importance
of the rule of law and make sure that it is really carried out,
but that needs really help in terms of--I hate to say this--but
the threats of the sanctions. Sanctions are a way, I think, to
individualize more what--the various steps that have to be
taken, and to really make clear that those are kind of targeted
sanctions on those that are the villains in this literally, and
then also help the legal government to deal with them itself
through their legal systems. But I do think that we are not
going to be able to find ourselves into a positive place in
supporting democracy everywhere if we do not recognize that
corruption is the cancer that we are dealing with that has to
be eliminated through the steps that I have outlined and Paula
has also.
Ambassador Dobriansky. Thank you. Senator Cardin,
corruption certainly does tear at the very fiber of democracy.
It is the cancer, as Secretary Albright said. The three
propositions you put forward I agree with. First, I do think
that foreign aid should be allocated towards this purpose in
strengthening rule of law and judicial processes in order to
ensure that corruption is stemmed. Also, you mentioned the
Trafficking in Persons model. I happened, as you may recall, to
have been the undersecretary of state when the first
Trafficking in Persons Office actually was established at the
State Department. I know that model well, and I think you are
right in putting that forward as food for thought here. It has
been a very effective one in dealing with trafficked victims
and stemming the tide there, although it is still a human
rights abuse in many countries.
And then I want to go to sanctions. I believe firmly in the
effective deployment of sanctions, and particularly targeted
sanctions. And I do not know if you heard, but in my opening
remarks, I particularly focused on Global Magnitsky, how
effective it has been, and I was delighted to see that Global
Magnitsky was deployed for the first time ever, in fact,
against Cuba and identifying the Cuban minister of interior,
and for the kind of human rights abuses that he has presided
over, particularly with regard to Jose Daniel Ferrer. But also
I have advocated for putting corruption into Global Magnitsky
because it is not just about human rights abuses. It is also
about corruption, and what we have seen certainly with the
trafficked Cuban doctors, which relates to human rights abuses
and outright corruption. So I think, Senator, what you have
said is exactly right, and that is what we should be doing.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Let me just thank both the witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. I did hear your opening statement. I have
been listening to it, but let me just point out that the U.S.
Global Magnitsky law does apply to corruption. Unfortunately,
the European version is not as strong and it is something we
should be working on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Romney.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
both of the witnesses on this panel. Most instructive. We have
seen the retreat of freedom in numerous countries around the
world, and you have both described the malevolent effort on the
part of Russia and China in pushing their agenda. Why are we
failing? Why are we less successful? We are the largest economy
in the world. We spend massive amounts on our military, on our
soft power, and yet we are--we are seeing the retreat of that
which is essential to our freedom and to our prosperity and to
the well-being of people throughout the world. If you had to
help us understand what we are not doing right and what we need
to do differently, what might that be? And let me start with
Secretary Albright and then Ambassador Dobriansky.
Secretary Albright. Thank you very much, Senator Romney. I
think that it is a basic question as to why we are failing. I
do think that in some ways, we were taking too much for granted
at the end of the Cold War when all of a sudden there was this
great spurt of democracy and countries wanted to figure out how
to have democratic governments. They did not have the
infrastructure for it. And it is interesting because President
Reagan, when he spoke in Parliament, he said that the problem
was that we were not very good at defining ``democracy'' versus
``communism,'' and I think that is true. That is why we--he
established the National Endowment and the various institutes
under it, and we were doing very well, frankly, immediately
after the Cold War.
And I think--and I keep asking myself the question of then
what happened. And I think that we took for granted in many
ways that countries would automatically understand that there
were still malevolent forces within the countries that were
going to undermine it, and that the various economic divisions
were then--they are set out for demagogic leaders to
exacerbate. I also think that we have been somewhat naive about
the methods that the Russians specifically--we are dealing with
a former KGB officer. Putin knows how to use a variety of
tactics to undermine other countries and is using the new
technology in ways that we have not developed a good enough
defense system.
And so I do think that one of the things that is going to
have to happen, and from my sense, is that as I read some of
the Biden material, they are aware of the kind of undermining
that is being done through cyber and misinformation in the way
that technology is being used, and the Chinese and the others
are doing it. And so I think that having this kind of a hearing
and having really the sense that we have, one, not paid enough
attention, we have been AWOL, two, that, in fact, we have not
used our ``public diplomacy tools'' well enough in order to
counter a lot of what is going on, and really then have more
defensive ways of dealing with the cyberattacks and things that
have been going on, and understanding that there are an awful
lot of holes in the way that we are responding to this new
threat.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Ambassador Dobriansky. Senator, thank you for the question.
I would use the term which I used before in response to the
Chairman's first question, which is ``complacency.'' I believe
that we have been very complacent about what we are about, and
when I look at the past and certainly post-cold War to the
present time, we have not been engaged in advocating, strongly
advocating for our values and what we are about. So
complacency, I think, has been problematic, but combined with
the fact that we have not adjusted to the new kind of
ideological warfare.
I remember that you years back had identified Russia as our
geopolitical foe, and absolutely we have to adapt to the kinds
of instruments that are being used to undermine not just our
values, but values in human freedoms at large. There is this
kind of effort that is taking place, as my statement just
started off with, the great power competition, which is geared
specifically to undermining not just U.S. power and to fragment
our alliances, but, in fact, to stem the tide of democracy
development. So complacency has to be addressed, an awareness
of the kinds of new instruments that we should be using to
advance democracy.
And I would also add in this a moral narrative, and the
moral narrative is truly important, and not just us. It has to
be with our allies, our partners, those who subscribe to
democratic values, to understand that there is this kind of
ideological challenge and battle of ideas. And finally, I would
just say, which I think is the essence of this hearing, which I
welcome very much today, and that is that democracy needs to be
a core element of U.S. foreign policy, and integrated at the
front end, as has been said many times here this morning, not
at the back end.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Menendez,
Ranking Member Risch, I think it is a great signal that we are
doing this hearing on democracy early in this Congress, and
that the message that you have sent with your opening
statements with your engagement is of coming together around
this important and urgent work of defending democracy. We have
got two great witnesses on our first panel to hear the
questions that have been asked about Venezuela, about Cuba,
about Sudan, about Ethiopia, about countries around the world
where democracy is on its back foot. And where authoritarian
forces, like the regimes in China and Russia, and some of their
partners in Venezuela, and Iran, and Cuba are on the march. It
gives me a sense of encouragement that we are having this
bipartisan and purposeful conversation at this critical moment
in the arc of democracy in human history.
So if I could, to Madam Secretary, Secretary Albright, your
opening was just tremendous and inspiring. I was texting two of
my kids who are college students and said, if you can find this
right now, you should watch it. It is more important than
anything you are learning in class. And to Under Secretary
Dobriansky, thank you as well for your voice, and your service,
and for your engagement.
I do not think that our toolkit has kept up with the
emerging threats to democracy, and, in particular--in
particular, both the manipulation of technology by
authoritarian regimes. The chairman put out a very powerful
report about digital authoritarianism and the ways in which
China is using the tools in the digital age. But I also do not
think we have matched it with good old-fashioned engagement,
outreach, and investment. The Development Finance Corporation
is an attempt in a small way at answering the Belt and Road
Initiative. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is an attempt
at continuing to engage in development in fragile states where
we are trying to provide support. But we are under funding
democracy and governance, and I think we are underutilizing
those tools.
As the chairman in this Congress of the Appropriations
subcommittee that will help give some resources and some lift
to these initiatives, I would welcome your thoughts, Madam
Secretary, Madam Under Secretary, on how we can strengthen our
toolkits so that those countries that are fragile and that are
backsliding that want to choose to come our way have got both
the means and the ability to do so before civil space closes
irreparably, and before they end up captured in the debt trap
diplomacy of the Belt and Road Initiative irreversibly. Madam
Secretary, if I could first go to you.
Secretary Albright. Well, thank you very much, and I do
think that part of the problem has been--is that there is a
movement on the other side. There is kind of rising nationalism
in a number of different countries, which is interpreted in
many ways in creating what has been now called illiberal
democracies. Hungary is a perfect example of that where Orban,
who used to be one of our favorite dissidents, all of a sudden
decided that he was going to use the problem of immigrants or
ethnic groups within Hungary to try to make nationalism greater
and then pushing back on democracy in every way. By the way,
one of the books I wrote was called ``Fascism: A Warning,'' and
I do think that it is--it was a warning in terms of the fact
that the basic divisions that are in society are then
exacerbated by those leaders who want to make them worse,
identify with one group at the expense of another who then
become the scapegoat. So I think we need to look generally at
what is going on in countries.
I also do think that we need to make our tools stronger or
sharper, so to speak. I think that--I will obviously speak very
strongly about the importance of funding the National Endowment
for Democracy, various groupings, and we work together. By the
way, one of the things that I always enjoy as chairman of NDI
is to work with Senator Sullivan and IRI and do things together
to show that working in bipartisanship is very important, that
something that is the basic element of democracy is respect for
an opposition party. So us working together and getting funding
is--I cannot begin to stress how important it is. And I will be
very happy, if I am welcomed, specifically to talk about the
budgets because I do think they make a difference.
I also think that we have not done enough recently to
really look at how information can be exchanged--not
propaganda, but information--and that the various instruments
that are part of that have been either underfunded or have been
malignly used in different ways. And we are dealing with a very
different kind of system, as I mentioned earlier, that the
Russians are able to use from their Communist Party experience.
And I do think that what we have to figure out is how to put
our money in a way where it really does make a difference, and
the aid programs, and you mentioned the MCC and a number of
ways. And you have been instrumental in helping the Institute
of Peace--by the way, Paula and I were on this together--about
how to deal with fragile states because they then become petri
dishes for those who hate us and are very dangerous. And I
think we need to keep examining how to do that.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Secretary. If I might, just
a closing point that Senator Cornyn and I have a bipartisan
bill about strengthening civics education within the United
States. In recent surveys, there are as many young Americans
who support and believe in socialism as believe in capitalism.
There are profound doubts about democracy, particularly after
the events of January 6th and the disinformation about the
value and legitimacy of free and open societies that we have
lived through. It is my hope that on a bipartisan basis, we can
move to a renewed investment in civics education to strengthen
our own democracies you have both spoken to.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and
I appreciate your indulgence.
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Ambassador Dobriansky. Mr. Chairman, may I give a----
The Chairman. If you can----
Ambassador Dobriansky. I will be very fast. I just want to
say the Senate----
The Chairman. I am sorry. Time wise, we are a little
constrained, so.
Ambassador Dobriansky. I am going to be very fast. The
Senate--Senator, you are correct on the toolkit. We definitely
need to ramp up our toolkit. Secondly, you mentioned the
Development Finance Corporation and also EXIM Bank and--or MCC.
Both play an important role. And I did want to add EXIM Bank,
and the reason why I happen to chair the Chairman's Council on
China Competition at EXIM Bank, and, quite frankly, our
businesses are not on a level playing field, quite frankly,
with what the Chinese are doing. So, let me just say it is an
important question, and it is one that has to be dealt with,
the toolkit.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I am sure, as the
chairman of the subcommittee, he will have--Senator Coons will
have opportunities to further involve himself in getting the
expertise he wants to hear from, but thank you for the
question. With that, I understand that Senator Johnson is with
us virtually.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Senator Johnson?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Okay. Well, maybe we will come back to him. I
understand that Senator Paul is with us virtually.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Senator Paul?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Okay. Then let us go to Senator Rounds, who I
understand is with us virtually.
Senator Rounds. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Rounds is recognized.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, and I would just like to take
this opportunity to thank both of our panelists today for their
service to our country, and thank you very much for your expert
testimony today as well.
I think the most recent conversations that have been going
on here, I think, are getting to the heart of something that we
should discuss in more detail with regards to those countries
who we would love to have join the group of democracies around
the world. They look at the United States as someone, an
organization that they would love to have as an ally, as a
friend, as a partner in business, and working in humanitarian
efforts as well. And yet in many cases, we are seen as coming
in as a big brother and basically looking at them saying, we
are going to tell you how you ought to do business. We are
going to tell you how you should change things in your own
country. At the same time, you have both Russia and China, as
you have indicated, both looking at our very open society and
the way that we not only are self-critical, which is
appropriate, where we try to make ourselves a more perfect
union, they see it as saying that we are not perfect and we
should not be criticizing those who we are suggesting that we
know better than.
And yet at the same time, while both Russia and China are
more than willing to criticize us and to point that out to the
individual organizations or countries or leaders in countries
that we are not perfect, they also come in with a huge toolkit,
and I wanted to explore that just a little bit more. How do we
as a Nation not only come in to say, look, we think there is a
better way, and we think it is more appropriate to exercise a
government which is democratic in nature, and at the same time,
though, say that we want to be your business partner? What are
we missing in the tool bag? Both of you have kind of spoken to
the fact that that tool bag is so critical. Could you take just
a few minutes and share with us what you think are the items in
the tool bag that either need to be improved upon or that need
to be added?
Secretary Albright. May I start? I do think that one of the
things that we have made a point of with NDI is not to go
around just saying it is the American way or no other way. I do
think that it is important to work with other democratic
countries to talk about that there is no one exact model, but
that it is really the role of the people, and civil society,
and the rule of law, but not--you cannot impose democracy. That
is an oxymoron. What you can do is be supportive of various
things in the countries that are going in that direction, but
also make clear that it is not just American democracy. I think
that is an important part.
I also do think, and I think this more and more, is that we
need to have a different relationship with the private sector,
the NGOs and civil society clearly, and then educational
institutions, but also businesses because, as I said earlier,
the economies in those countries have to be assisted because
people want to vote and eat. And there has to be a way that the
private sector is brought in very early, not at the end, in
order to figure out how to help improve those societies so that
that economic disparity is--disappears and that there is an
equal opportunity, and that it does not give the opportunity
for authoritarians that are trying to do something else to
exacerbate those divisions. But I think we need to look more
specifically at how to improve the toolbox, sharpen it. It is
not as if we do not have the tools. We just are not using them,
I think, in a very clever way.
The Chairman. Mm-hmm.
Ambassador Dobriansky. I agree with everything that the
Secretary has said. I would say, Senator, that in some
democracies, you cannot just pick it up and transplant a model
onto the soil of another country. It does not work. So what is
crucial in terms of a strategic approach, you have to work with
the grassroots. You have to be guided by what is happening on
the ground, and every country is different in that regard. I
think the Secretary is absolutely right in highlighting the
private sector working with businesses, and I would only add
one piece to that, and that is something that both NDI and IRI
and the entire NED family has done. And that is that it is not
just the United States reaching out, but actually we co-
partner. We do projects with Australians. Let us take Burma, in
the case of Burma, working with the French and working with the
Australians. That kind of partnership also, I think, adds
strength to the advancement of democracy. It is not unilateral.
Senator Rounds. I think sometimes one of the best toolbox--
or tools that we have in the toolbox is the relationship that
we have with other allies when we join together to help. And I
cannot tell whether I have any time left or not, but, Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back if I do. Thank you.
The Chairman. The senator is just right about on the
button. Thank you very much. Senator Kaine has been waiting
patiently and chairs the subcommittee on one of the most
important parts of the world where this question is very
prevalent, in the Western Hemisphere.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and what great
witnesses. So just looking at the news this morning before I
came, I saw two interesting announcements that exemplify the
topic. The first was an announcement by the Quad--U.S., India,
Australia, Japan--that they are going to join together to
accelerate the development of vaccines in India to use in India
and other countries in Southeast Asia, democracies in the
region working together for something good. The second was an
announcement by China and Russia that they are joining together
to explore building a lunar space base together on the moon, so
cooperation between authoritarian adversaries that have
traditionally been pretty skeptical of each other. This is high
stakes stuff right now.
The question that I want to ask, Senator Romney asked why
are we not being more successful, and, Madam Ambassador, you
said complacency. I think there is another ``C'' word that I
want to make sure we get right and that is ``consistency.'' You
know, I think if you look at the history of democracy promotion
initiatives of the United States, you often run into some
consistency challenges. In this hemisphere, the U.S. helped
topple the Guatemalan left-leaning democratically-elected
government in 1954, Chilean left-leaning democratically-elected
governor--government 1973. But there has been sort of a
tradition of tolerating the strong men on the right side,
dictators, under the ``he is an SOB, but our SOB,'' apocryphal
language that has been used about Somoza or about Trujillo.
Even more recently, the OAS that we want to strengthen to
perform in the hemisphere did courageous work in calling out
Venezuela, and we used that courageous work of the OAS to help
assemble other nations that would pressure Venezuela. But when
the OAS called out irregularities in the Honduran elections in
2017 and said the election should be rerun, the United States
just went ahead and recognized the president anyway. And that
president is now the subject of a massive drug prosecution that
is going on in New York as we speak for helping potentially
foment drug importation into the United States.
So I think sometimes when countries around the world look
at us, they wonder are we being consistent about promoting
democracy. A critique of the Cold War, for example, was
President Truman announced the Truman Doctrine to protect
democracies against authoritarians, but over time, it sort of
devolved into check the Soviet Union, and we did not even mind
authoritarians as long as they were not pro-Soviet Union. So
the question is for both of you. How important is it, if we are
going to promote democracy that we do it consistently and call
out abuses, whether they are by left-leaning governments or
right-wing governments?
Secretary Albright. Senator, you have asked, I think, or
made a point that is one of the most difficult ones. I teach,
and I teach about decision making in the United States and
foreign policy. And one of the hardest issues is consistency
because we are inconsistent, and there are times that I have to
admit that sometimes we have to be inconsistent because we
cannot just cut off relations with a particular country, and so
I do think this is the hardest question. I do think that what
we need to do, however, is always call out the kinds of aspects
that you have raised, which may not necessarily lead to us
cutting off relationships with that country, but that we need
to at least make clear to the people within that country that
we think that what has happened is inconsistent with the kinds
of policies of developing democracy and helping them.
But I do think the hardest question is whether we have a
consistent policy, and we do not, and I think in some cases we
cannot, but I think that this all bears more examination
because it is truly difficult. I have not believed that it is
correct not to have diplomatic relations with a country because
we need to know what is going on in that particular country for
our own benefit so that we know what our policy should be.
Senator Kaine. Madam Ambassador. Thank you.
Ambassador Dobriansky. I will only add to your point,
first, consistency does matter, and you are quite right in
saying it, and I know this because I served as undersecretary.
And then when I was in the Human Rights Bureau at the State
Department, many countries would come forward and would say,
well, that is not what the last Administration did or the
Administration before that; that from Administration to
Administration, there is a change of policy, a change of
approach. So consistency does, in fact, matter.
I do think that one thing we have been very consistent on,
at least as I see it, is that these values matter. They matter.
They are part of what we are about. When I look at the
immigration challenge that is before us, China and Russia are
not facing an immigration challenge. People want to come to
this country whether we are consistent or inconsistent and for
all the flaws that we may have because they know that we have
institutions where they can have transparency, a recourse for
action if wronged, and economic opportunity, and a better way
of life. So I would put that as a silver lining in this mix, at
least in terms of as we evolve, and democracy is not a linear
path. But let me add one more, and that is I think also in this
question, the public-private component also matters. It is not
just about the U.S. Government, but it is also about the work
and the involvement of our private sector and what our private
sector does in keeping our feet to the fire. And being here
in--certainly here in the Senate, that is reminding us what the
American people are about.
And I will end on this note. I have to say I am a strong
proponent of the Quad, and I am really glad that you made that
point. I think the Quad is a very important organization that
has been key in terms of challenging China, and it is something
that also matters in terms of democracy and proponent--the
advancement of democratic values.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Ambassador Dobriansky. Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What a great hearing.
I have a million more questions, but my time is up.
The Chairman. I understand the feeling. Let me turn--I
understand that Senator Hagerty is with us virtually.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Senator Hagerty?
[No response.]
The Chairman. I am sure some of these members may have had
to go to another hearing. All right. I do not know of any other
member on the Republican side who is on virtually. If there is,
please speak up and we will recognize you.
[No response.]
The Chairman. And if not, then we will go to Senator
Booker, who I understand is with us virtually.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Senator Booker?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, I will turn to Senator Schatz, who I
understand is with us virtually.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
both of our testifiers. I want to talk a little bit about our
public diplomacy efforts. The U.S. Agency for Global Media does
great work through programs like Voice of America and Radio
Free Asia, but we know that more people today get their
information online. And so I am wondering, Secretary Albright,
how you are thinking about how we should do public diplomacy in
the information age. I know that you have made reference to the
fact that, you know, these are tools of democratization, but
they are also tools for autocrats. And how should the State
Department, in particular, think about modernizing the tools?
Radio is important, but it is not the main communications
channel for most people around the globe.
Secretary Albright. Thank you, Senator Schatz. I think,
again, this is a very difficult question because we have not
totally mastered how we deal with the new information tools at
all, frankly, and that there are differences in the way the law
looks at whether we have any--what the control is over the big
tech companies that actually not only produce, but send on
information. We also have great differences with our allies in
terms of the whole rule of privacy and a variety of different
issues.
I am going to--I have to tell you, I think--what I did was
create a group of former foreign ministers, and we have just
had a meeting on this virtually trying to sort out how--these
are foreign ministers from all over the world--how, in fact, we
are going to be dealing with this because this is not just an
American problem. And I do think that it has an awful lot,
again, to do--both Ambassador Dobriansky and I have talked
about the private sector, but this is one place where there
needs to be better cooperation and collaboration with the
private sector and trying to develop some rules of the game.
I have been very--my whole interest when I was a real
academic was in the role of information and political change,
and I cannot tell you how important Radio Free Europe and Voice
of America were in the post-communist world, and how people got
their information on public diplomacy itself. But the questions
recently about how they are--the tools being used are right up
there in terms of trying to figure out the rules of the game.
And I do think this is somewhere where Congress, and the
executive branch, and the private sector really need to look at
what the elements are and how to develop some kind of
acceptable rules of the game on it because it is like the Wild
West at the moment.
Senator Schatz. It sure is, and I would just offer the--to
the extent that you have given us guidance to think through--
our public diplomacy and our projection of democratic values
abroad depends on us setting an example. I think we need to be
cautious when we consider changes to the law or an
interpretation of the law as it relates to social media
platforms, as satisfying as those might be, and think about how
an authoritarian might use a certain fact pattern to shut down
dissent. So I think it is--this stuff is really complex, and we
need to understand some of our tech policy as a foreign policy
question and not just for other committees.
Secretary, I would like to ask you about the National
Endowment for Democracy and its affiliated groups. Obviously,
you are the leader in NDI. How does NDI actually interact with
the State Department and, in particular, can you talk about the
success that you have had in election monitoring work?
Secretary Albright. Well, first of all, we are funded
partially by the U.S. Government, and USAID, and various other
parts. We have very good relationships with the State
Department. But I really do think that one of the things that
we have to think about is how we operate in terms of explaining
more what we are doing to people in this country and abroad,
and the extent to which we are able, through NDI, and IRI, and
the Endowment, to kind of talk about the value systems and how
we operate. I do think--it was--you know, elections are
necessary, but not sufficient, but I really do think that when
we have ways that we monitor the elections and are able to say
whether they are right or wrong, when we also are able to have
representatives from the State Department and, frankly, members
of Congress go to the various countries to explain how our
system works rather than having it be something that is just in
a book, I think that relationship is very important. And I hope
that when we can actually travel again more, that more members
of Congress will go and visit these countries.
And if I might just tag onto that, there are foreigners
that come to the United States and the ambassadors, and I wish
that more members of Congress would have real conversations in
terms of the kinds of ways that our democracy works. I think it
is very important to use all the branches of our Government.
Senator Schatz. My final question for you, Secretary, and
this is--I think Chris Coons is going to love this one--is
about the size of our Foreign Service. We have been the largest
Foreign Service on the planet. That has been a point of pride,
not just as a statistical matter, but because it means that we
are projecting our power all around the world. I am wondering
if you could comment on the importance of funding the Foreign
Service in terms of democracy promotion for the chairman of the
Subcommittee on State and Foreign Ops.
Secretary Albright. There is no question that the Foreign
Service, the State Department, is essential in going out abroad
and explaining what this country is about. The State
Department, I was very proud to be asked to head it, very proud
of the people who worked there, and I think that we do not
recognize enough what a hard job it is. You know, people think
of Foreign Service as people that get dressed up and go to
receptions. It is one of the more difficult jobs in the
Government. We now have to do training for our diplomats when
they go abroad in terms of dealing with terrorist situations
and difficulties, and we do not have enough people. And
partially, what I find--I do believe in a strong military, but
I have to say the difference in the budget of what the Pentagon
gets, which is somewhere around $700 billion, in comparison to
what the State Department, which is at any time somewhere
between $40 and $50 billion, which not only has to pay the
diplomats, but have buildings that they can operate in, the
security, and then obviously the programs, which are the most
important part. So our very important tool of talking about our
values and being the eyes and ears of the U.S. Government is
being underfunded.
And so I am grateful that you asked that because I really
felt when I was there, that we were not, in fact, understood
well enough in terms of how we project America's national
security issues and values.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I think that would be classified
as a leading question if you were in a courtroom, but, in any
event, Senator Coons is taking copious notes. I understand
Senator Van Hollen is with us virtually.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. I want to thank both our terrific
witnesses for being with us this morning and really pick up on
the threads of some of the other questions that have been made.
But the Biden administration has been talking more and more
about looking at the frame of techno-democracies versus techno-
autocracies, really putting China front and center, a country,
which, of course, through its Belt and Road Initiative and
other initiatives, is seeking not only to export its
technology, whether it be Huawei or other forms of cutting-edge
technology, but also, in the process, export its model, and
including the surveillance state, which may be very attractive
to authoritarian governments that want to have both control
over their citizens and also prevent active dissent.
But my question really gets to what Senator Kaine was
getting at. As we--as we pursue that model, and I am interested
how useful you think that overall model is, how do we also look
at consistency across the board. Secretary Albright, you
mentioned Hungary. If you look at Turkey, they have also, for
example, shut down access to the internet and social media over
time. Right now in India, the Modi Government permanently
blocked over 500 accounts of people who were dissenting against
the Modi Government's handling of the farmer protests and
threatened to lock up Twitter and Facebook employees that did
not enforce this decision. In fact, Twitter, as a result,
blocked 500 accounts.
So if you could just talk about how we--how we deal with
that in the context of this overall framing because I could not
agree more with comment that the Quad, for example, is a really
important entity, and we need to pursue that. So how do we
pursue those interests, and, at the same time, try and apply
some consistency to those issues, like freedom of the internet
and dealing with governments that are using their powers to
clamp down on dissent by shutting down dissent on the internet?
Secretary Albright. I really do want to answer that, but I
do not want to keep doing the kind of thing that we are
thinking about as criticizing what happened in the past. What
has happened here, we did not pay attention to what was going
on, there is no question, and kind of dismissed the fact of
what the Chinese were doing. And we have been absent, and the
Chinese are on a march to prove their importance and are taking
up the vacuum that we created. And we need to understand that
without just going back, but we do need to know that we have
not been consistent and we have not been present. I also think
that what needs to happen is--by the way, what I do when I
teach, I say foreign policy is just trying to get some country
to do what you want, and so what are the tools? And my course
is called the National Security Toolbox, and there are not a
lot of tools. And what we do mostly is turn to the sanctions
tool because it is one that you can have some immediate effect
with if you find the people that are doing the various things
that you disagree with. But it has to be watched very
carefully, and it has to be used in a way that is more precise,
I think, in the targeted tools, and I do think we need to do
that.
The Chinese are roaming freely because we have not been
around, and I think that we need to also develop a policy, to
go back on something, which is in terms of including the
private sector in terms of helping the countries that need help
economically, not just through aid, but through the kinds of
things that the private sector can do, and we need to see that
there is space for us to operate in. I am troubled by my own
answer on the consistency because I would like to see
consistency, but it is hard, and I think that we need to
recognize that in some cases it is not doable. But I do think
also that we need to work with our partners, whether it is the
Quad or various other alliance structures.
I note that, for instance, Secretary Blinken is going to go
to talk to the Japanese and the South Koreans about the things
that can be done more together, that the alliance structure,
these are alliances of democracies, and, therefore, we should
be able to figure out how we can deal with some of the issues
that we have been talking about that do have to do with
consistency and do have to do with the fact that we have been
absent.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ambassador Dobriansky, since this
is the last question, we will let you also share your views.
Ambassador Dobriansky. All right. Thank you. Senator, I
think you raise important points. Consistency, I think we have
established, is a challenge. It is a challenge for all the
obvious reasons. But let me--let me add here, China is
definitively waging a disinformation campaign. There are cyber
intrusions, as we know, and also with their substantial
economic, financial, and technological leverage, one of the
biggest challenges is that other countries that engage
massively in trade and finance with China are also constrained.
They are very constrained in their actions. So it is not only
the issue of our trying to engage, combat others, counter
influence operations and social media, and expose them for what
they are, but also there is the challenge of the fact that many
countries are engaged by the nature of their relationships, and
then they are not willing to actually step forward and join us
in this battle. So that is something that I think is even, if I
could say, not only the issue of consistency, but we have a
real challenge here to look at, whatever continent it is.
I think back, and I will end on this note. Europe went
ahead in December with the European Investment Agreement with
China, and this was even before the Biden administration came
in and said, let us collaborate on our approach to China. That
already sets a type of foundation that is very hard to undo or
even work around, so consistency matters. Complacency matters.
But also, I think that we need to really look at our toolkit
technologically. The issue of digitalization of
authoritarianism is front and center for sure. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you both.
The Chairman. Thank you. Seeing no other member present,
unless there is some member who is with us virtually who we
have not called upon, and if there is, please speak up.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Hearing none, with the committee's thanks to
both of you, Madam Secretary, Madam Ambassador, thank you so
much for your insights. We appreciate it. This is a critical
question, especially at the beginning of a new Administration,
but certainly for the Senate to consider in its deliberations,
and you have greatly helped us along the way. Thank you very
much.
Secretary Albright. Thank you all. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Dobriansky. Thank you.
The Chairman. We have a second panel, which I now want to
introduce and bring up.
Let me first welcome Dr. Peter Biar Ajak. Dr. Ajak is a
civil society leader, political dissident, and scholar from
South Sudan. An outspoken advocate for free elections, Dr. Ajak
was convicted of disturbing the peace and jailed for 18 months
in a South Sudanese prison. Let me welcome Dr. Ajak. I would
next like to introduce Mr. Nathan Law. In 2017, at the age of
23, Mr. Law was elected to Hong Kong's Legislative Council and
became the youngest legislative counselor in history, yet his
election was overturned in July of 2017 following Beijing's
constitutional reinterpretation. So let me welcome Mr. Law. And
finally, let me welcome Wai Hnin Pwint Thon. She is a Burmese
human rights defender working with a non-governmental
organization, Burma Campaign UK and Advance Myanmar. Welcome,
Wai Hnin.
With that, your full statements will be included in the
record. We ask you to summarize them in about 5 minutes, and
let me start with Dr. Ajak.
STATEMENT OF PETER BIAR AJAK, PH.D., REAGAN-FASCELL DEMOCRACY
FELLOW, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Ajak. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, members
of the committee, I am honored to testify today on a topic so
close to my heart.
For 18 months, I endured a brutal illegal detention at the
Blue House Prison operated by South Sudan National Security
Service. My crime was criticizing President Salva Kiir's failed
leadership of South Sudan, which has turned the promise of our
hard-won independence into a decade-long nightmare. I survived
this imprisonment and Kiir's later attempt to either kill or
abduct me from Kenya because of the support of many human right
defenders, including several members of this committee. I am
grateful to you all and the U.S. Government for saving my life
and that of my family.
When South Sudan gained independence in 2011, Kiir was
appointed--not elected--appointed president and charged with
building institutions to allow for elections in 2015. But in
2013, he and former Vice President Riek Machar plunged our new
nation into a civil war. Kiir used the conflict to defer
elections from 2015 to 2018, and again to 2021. Although the
current peace agreement requires elections to be held by March
2022, he is already proposing 2023 and beyond.
Meanwhile, he has built a repressive security state in the
form of the National Security Service run by General Akol Koor
Kuc, who personally oversees the planning and the commission of
gross human right violations through Special Forces in his
office. A four-person task force in Kuc's office identifies
targets for extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearance, and
arbitrary arrests. Kuc also manages numerous corrupt schemes,
illegally extracting millions of dollars through public sector
corruption.
Kiir's failure of leadership has been devastating. The
poverty rate, which stood at 50 percent at independence, is now
at 82 percent. We ranked dead last in the 2020 Social Progress
Index, tied for the last place with Somalia in the 2020
Corruption Perceptions Index, and we scored only 2 out of 100
in the 2021 Freedom House Global Freedom Score. Our people are
living in unrelenting horror.
The United States needs to send a clear message to Kiir
that his repression of our people will no longer be tolerated,
nor any further delay of elections. You should sanction
perpetrators of gross human right violations, like Kuc, while
urging the African Union to urgently set up the Hybrid Court on
South Sudan to end impunity. If Kiir does not hold election on
time, his already illegitimate regime will have expired. Since
he was never elected by our people, this would necessitate a
new political paradigm to ensure a successful transition to
democracy. Despite severe oppression, our people made it clear
in the recently-concluded National Dialogue that Kiir and
Machar must exit the political scene. I hope the United States,
this committee, will stand with our people.
The South Sudan case highlight five challenges to democracy
not only in the Horn of Africa, but on the entire continent and
globally. One, restriction of press freedom by dictators who
know that information is power and who fear informed citizenry,
and act to keep our people ignorant of their misery. Two,
severe repression of political opposition and activists by
tyrants who fear losing power. Lacking the ability to compete
in free exchange of ideas, they resort to violence,
intimidation, and harassment. Through Department of State, the
U.S. should publicly identify and monitor the cases of
bellwether activists and act swiftly and decisively when they
face repression. If we are killed or detained with impunity,
then who will fight for freedom in our countries?
Three, entrenched leaders who abuse term limit whom the
U.S. must confront to reverse course. Four, Chinese promotion
of authoritarianism through anti-democratic tactics, financial
coercion, and physical intimidation. The U.S. need to counter
China by supporting exchange programs and expanding access to
U.S. institutions of knowledge. The U.S. also need to encourage
its private sector to expand investment in Africa where Chinese
capital is not only entrenching authoritarianism, but weakening
instruments of accountability. Finally, sham elections that
damper faith in democracy, making mockery of the sacred
instrument through which the sovereign will of the people is
expressed.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, the human desire
for freedom and opportunity gives me hope that, with right
policies and resolve, not only will dictatorship fail, but
freedom will thrive. Thank you very much for the invitation.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ajak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Ajak \1\
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and Members of the
Committee: I am greatly honored to testify today. This topic is close
to my heart. For 18 months, I endured a brutal, illegal detention at
the notorious ``Blue House'' prison, operated by South Sudan's National
Security Service (NSS). My crime was criticizing President Salva Kiir
and his failed leadership of South Sudan, which has turned the promise
of our hard-won independence into a decade-long horror. I survived this
imprisonment and Kiir's later attempt to either kill or abduct me from
Nairobi, Kenya because of the support of many defenders of human rights
around the world, including several members of the U.S. Senate and the
House of Representatives (many of whom are seated on this Committee). I
am extremely grateful to each and every one of you and the United
States' Government for speaking out for me when my voice was silenced,
and for acting quickly to save my life and that of my family.
It is only natural that I begin my testimony with the stalled
democratic transition in South Sudan. We gained our independence on
July 9, 2011 after our people voted overwhelmingly for separation in a
referendum made possible by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005,
which the United States brokered. At independence, Kiir assumed the
presidency by appointment, charged with building democratic
institutions that would allow for national elections to be held in
2015. But in December 2013, he and his former vice president Riek
Machar (now the First Vice President) plunged our new nation into a
civil war. Kiir used the conflict to defer the scheduled elections from
2015 to 2018, and again to 2021. And although the current peace
agreement requires elections be held by March 2022, Kiir is already
proposing 2023 and beyond.
In the meantime, he has built a repressive security state in the
form of the NSS whose powers are concentrated in the hands of his
kinsman, Gen. Akol Koor Kuc, who personally oversees the planning and
the commission of gross human rights violations through Special Forces
headquartered in his office. A four-person task force housed inside
Kuc's office identifies targets for extrajudicial killing, enforced
disappearance, and arbitrary arrest. Once the targets are approved by
Kuc, the Special Forces carry out the acts. Kuc has attended many
executions and personally pulled the trigger on several occasions. As
we speak, there are over 1,000 detained in secret NSS detention
facilities across the country. Although less widely reported. Kuc
oversees and manages numerous corrupt schemes illegally extracting
millions of dollars from oil, banking, gold, timber, charcoal, gum
Arabic, aviation, and other public sector corruption.
Kiir's failed leadership of South Sudan has been costly to our
people. As reported by the World Bank, the national poverty rate, which
stood at about half of the population at independence is now at 82
percent; \2\ our country ranked dead last in the 2020 Social Progress
Index; \3\ it tied for the last place with Somalia in the 2020
Corruption Perception Index; \4\ and it scored only 2 out of 100 in the
2021 Freedom House's Global Freedom Score.\5\ Although the oil is
flowing, our people cannot tell where the money goes. Our diplomats
have gone for nearly 2 years without salaries. Civil servants have not
been paid for months. Even the country's official army has gone for
months without salaries. It's only the brutal NSS and the Presidential
Guard, who personally protect Kiir, that get salaries on a regular
basis. Simultaneously, the inflation is high and the currency has loss
value as the Government monetizes the deficit.
Indeed, it's the people of South Sudan who bear the brunt of Kiir's
mismanagement of their country. Three million people remain in refugee
camps in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Sudan, the DRC, and the Central
African Republic. More than seven million people are in urgent need of
humanitarian assistance as the confluence of conflict, floods, and
macroeconomic crises devastate the population.\6\ Last year, we saw one
of the largest discharges of water from Lake Victoria into the Nile,
resulting in most of my home state of Jonglei being submerged in water.
This led to increased displacement, forcing many families to move to
Mangalla where they remain in urgent need of humanitarian assistance.
To revive the stalled democratic transition in South Sudan and
restore hope to our people, the United States, which midwifed the birth
of South Sudan and invested over 15 billion dollars since our
independence, needs to send a clear message to Kiir that his repression
of South Sudan's people will not be tolerated anymore and that any
further delay of elections is unacceptable. Kiir and his partner in
crime, Riek Machar, have imposed themselves on the people of South
Sudan for too long. Despite the severe repression in the country, our
people made this unequivocally clear in the recently concluded South
Sudan National Dialogue, demanding that Kiir and Machar urgently find
an exit route from the political scene. The United States, working
together with the African Union, the United Nations, and others must
demand that Kiir holds election by March 2022 since our people can no
longer endure his awful rule.
Holding elections would require specific tasks to be completed such
as the promulgation of a new constitution, the merger of various
militias into a national army, the appointment of new Elections
Commissioners, the conducting of the census, and the updating of the
voter registry. However, given Kiir's reluctance to implement the peace
deal, it is unlikely that any of these enormous tasks would be
accomplished on time. This means that March 2022 will likely come with
elections nowhere in sight, which is Kiir's intention since he is not
interested in giving up power. If Kiir does not make progress on these
vital areas, his already illegitimate regime will have expired. This
would be the appropriate moment to consider Liberian model where that
country's former dictator, Charles Taylor, was forced to step down to
allow a genuine transitional government to shepherd the country towards
the conduct of democratic elections.
Two urgent actions will need to be taken to make it clear to Kiir
that he must organize credible elections on time. First, the U.S.,
which holds the pen on the Security Council's establishment and ongoing
reauthorization of the U.N. Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), should
secure new language in the next reauthorization resolution, which must
be adopted by March 15, 2021, emphasizing that South Sudan must hold
elections by March 13, 2022, as required by the Agreement, or be
prepared to face actions that shall be determined by the Security
Council. It should also add to the mandate of UNMISS and tasks it must
undertake by all necessary means that it should support implementation
of key activities required to enable elections to occur on time.
Second, Kiir has claimed to have amended the 2018 Agreement to postpone
elections until 2023 but this change has not been endorsed by the South
Sudan's Parliament, which must by two-thirds majority approve any
changes. The parliament has not even been established. If the Security
Council does not explicitly reject this illegal move and insist that
all parties must comply fully with the 2018 Peace Agreement, then it
will have acquiesced to Kiir's bypassing the Agreement to push off
elections for a year and set a dangerous precedent. Failing to hold him
accountable next week will enable Kiir to extend the tenure of his
already illegitimate regime beyond what is specified in the Agreement.
This could very well spark large-scale violence with devastating
consequences for our people and the Horn of Africa.
Finally, the U.S. should continue to hold individuals responsible
for gross human rights violations and those thwarting the peace process
accountable through imposition of targeted sanctions under South Sudan
sanctions program, established by Executive Order 13664 and under the
Global Magnitsky Act. These individuals should include the NSS
Director-General, Gen. Kuc and his top cronies. The U.S. should also
push the African Union to urgently set up the Hybrid Court on South
Sudan to end the culture of impunity. Meanwhile the U.S. should
continue to support civil society groups, church groups, community-
based organizations, and women and youth coalitions that are working
hard to build consensus among our people.
The stalled democratic transition in South Sudan highlights the
challenges to democracy not only in our country, but also in the Horn,
and the entire continent of Africa. Five key challenges inherent in
South Sudan are omnipresent in the Horn of Africa and beyond,
including:
1. Restriction of press freedom: The assault on journalists and
press freedoms has become a global problem. The year 2020 set the
record for the number of journalists detained, while the number of
those murdered in the course of their work doubled from the previous
year.\7\ The entire Horn of Africa with the exception of Kenya has
consistently performed poorly in the treatment of journalists. While
South Sudan has habitually been the absolute worst, recently, Uganda
and Ethiopia have seen shocking levels of repression of press freedoms.
Even before the ongoing conflict in Tigray started, Prime Minister
Abiy's record on the freedom of press was dismal. And the recent
elections in Uganda have revealed to the world the extent to which
President Museveni is willing to go to suppress his people in order to
maintain power. Further down south, press freedoms have suffered since
President Magufuli came to power in Tanzania. In Zimbabwe, the
situation is worse than when Robert Mugabe was still in power with many
journalists being arbitrarily detained, tortured, or killed.
The authoritarian leaders know that information is power and if
people are informed, they will not accept the awful conditions to which
they are subjected to live. Hence, by restricting press freedoms, the
African dictators act to keep our people in the dark--to keep them
ignorant of their misery. While social media has allowed activists in
some cases to evade surveillance, authoritarian leaders have learned
how to create disruptions through propaganda, disinformation and
shutdown of the internet among others. Recently, China and Russia,
working in concert with many African dictators have made this situation
worst.
Yet, access to information is the bedrock of democratic
institutions. While the U.S. invests heavily in access to information
around the world, including in South Sudan, it is time to bolster these
efforts. Those who impede the work of journalist must be held
accountable and U.S. must increase its investment in free media.
Moreover, the U.S. will also need to apply its superior technology and
innovation to counter Chinese and Russian disinformation efforts.
2. Severe repression of political opposition, human rights
defenders, and activists: Because authoritarian leaders are ruled by
fear of losing power and control, they feel threatened by any hint of
opposition. Lacking the ability to compete in free exchange of ideas,
they resort to violence, intimidation, and harassment. My experience in
South Sudan highlights this clearly, as do recent farcical elections in
Uganda. Through state coercive apparatus, they detain, torture, or kill
perceived opposition, forcing many to flee for their lives. While the
U.S. often speaks out when these tragic events occur and imposes
punitive actions (including sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act),
it can bolster these efforts. Through Department of State, the U.S.
should publicly identify and monitor the cases of bellwether human
rights defenders and democracy activists and act swiftly and decisively
when they face repression. If we are killed or detained with impunity,
then who would be left to push for democratic reforms in our countries?
Therefore, developing measures to monitor the treatment of such
activists around the world will go a long way towards creating
political spaces that nurtures local movements and gives them the
resilience they need to prosper.
Moreover, the U.S. should incorporate the protection of fundamental
freedoms, including the treatment of political opposition, human rights
defenders, and democracy activists into its broader foreign policy
objectives. Instead of seeing promotion of democracy and stability as
competing priorities, it can formulate a comprehensive framework that
brings these two together since they are truly entwined. Such a
framework can serve as the foundation of any defense, economic, or
trade agreement with the United States and its allies. In addition, the
U.S. should increase support to civil society and democratic forces by
enhancing democratic civic education and the capacity of women and
youth to contribute to policy issues in their countries.
3. Entrenched leaders who abuse Term Limits: Many leaders in
Africa, including those who came to power on the promise of expanding
democracy in their countries, have increasingly become entrenched.\8\
Once they consolidate power, they wish to remain there forever by
removing Terms Limit. While Museveni did this long ago (removing both
Terms and Age Limits), the practice has now become commonplace as we
witnessed last year in Ivory Coast and Guinea. In the Horn of Africa,
Kenya is the only country in which Terms Limit still means something.
Since Parliament and Judiciary are often weak in many African
countries, Terms Limit play a critical role in preventing power
becoming concentrated in the hands of one person. The U.S. will need to
bring this topic back on the top of agenda in dealing with African
countries, deploying necessary inducements and disincentives to obtain
the desired outcome.
4. Chinese promotion of authoritarianism: The Chinese Communist
Party's (CCP) promotion of authoritarianism is a great concern in the
Horn, the continent of Africa, and around the world. The CCP uses anti-
democratic tactics, financial coercion, and physical intimidation to
secure support for authoritarian leaders who are usually in cahoots
with them. These efforts result in increased corruption, environmental
degradation, and displacement of people. The Chinese investments in
South Sudan, for instance, have only created misery in the form of
severe oil pollution and grand corruption, where South Sudanese oil is
stolen by their leaders in coordination with Chinese oil companies.\9\
In recent years, China has become emboldened in promoting its Party-
State model as a viable (even desirable) alternative to liberal
democracy. It has invested extensively in exchange programs, offering
scholarships to students, youth-wing of political parties, and African
security forces to study and adopt its model. It has built cultural
exchange centers all around the world, while deploying its companies to
bolster corrupt authoritarian leaders.
The United States needs to take seriously the Chinese ambition for
global dominance, aimed at remodeling the world according to its
values. Rather than seeking to impose a binary choice on Africans
between the United States and China, this requires intensified support
to democracy efforts and democracy activists who are fighting to defend
values of freedom in their own countries. Doing so will require
augmented support to anti-corruption efforts, exchange programs such as
the Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellowship, YALI, the Peace Corps, and
many others. Looking long-term, the United States will need to provide
scholarships and open up its institutions of knowledge. Moreover, the
United States will need to encourage American private sector to expand
its investments overseas, particularly in Africa, where Chinese capital
is only entrenching authoritarianism and weakening instruments of
accountability. Notwithstanding the risk averseness of American
companies, the U.S. Government can create mechanisms to make such risks
manageable for companies, encouraging them to expand responsible
capitalism around the abroad. Relying on humanitarian and developmental
aid alone will be too little to counter the increasing Chinese
influence.
5. Sham elections that damper faith in democracy: While we in South
Sudan have never had the privilege of choosing our own leaders, many
Africa countries hold elections on a regular basis. However, these
important processes of democracy have recently become farcical events.
In the recently concluded elections in Uganda, Museveni managed to
prevent independent monitoring of elections. This was also the case for
last year's elections in Tanzania, Guinea, and Ivory Coast. In 2018,
Emerson Managwagwa stole elections in Zimbabwe with impunity.
Elections are too important to be abused in such ways. They are the
instruments through which the sovereign will of the people is
expressed. While the U.S. Government often releases statements
condemning misconduct, no meaningful actions usually follow such words.
This will need to change. Moreover, the U.S. will need to increased
funding for elections monitoring throughout the world. And this funding
should not only just be for the voting, but for the entire process.
Elections, after all, are not events, but crucial processes through
which citizens renews the bonds of contracts that knit them together.
This year, 13 African states will hold elections, some of which
have already occurred. It's important these elections are held with
integrity. In addition, ensuring that the upcoming elections in South
Sudan, which must be held by March 2022, are held with integrity will
be crucial. The stalled democratic transition in South Sudan and Kiir's
horrific violations of human rights with impunity has set an awful tone
in the region. These abuses are now being replicated nearly everywhere
in the region with the exception of Kenya and Sudan. By acting
decisively to ensure that these elections are held on time and that a
new political paradigm emerges in South Sudan, the United States will
be sending an unequivocal message of hope to our citizens in South
Sudan and the Horn that a new era has dawned. This requires important
investments be made now to lay the foundation for democratic transition
in South Sudan.
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, Members of the Committee:
My presence before you today is a testament to the courage and the
resilience of many democracy activists around the world. It also speaks
to the critical importance of various mechanisms the U.S. Government
already has in place to support the work of civil society, human rights
defenders, and democracy activists. Indeed, while I am concerned about
the growing threat of authoritarianism, I am also cognizant of the
power of human desire for freedom and opportunity. And this gives me
hope that with right measures and resolve, not only will dictatorship
failed, but freedom will thrive. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
to this distinguished audience today!
----------------
Notes
\1\ The views expressed in this document are solely those of the
author, and do not represent the views of the National Endowment for
Democracy or any other organization.
\2\ The World Bank, ``The World Bank in South Sudan,'' https://
www.worldbank.org/en/country/southsudan/
overview#: :text=About%2082%25%20of%20the%20population,parity%20(PPP)
%20poverty%20line.
\3\ 2020 Social Progress Index Ranking, https://
www.socialprogress.org/index/global/results
\4\ Corruption Perception Index 2020, https://
images.transparencycdn.org/images/CPI2020_Report_EN_0802-WEB-1_2021-02-
08-103053.pdf
\5\ Freedom House, ``Freedom in the World 2021: Democracy under
siege,'' https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/
FIW2021_World_02252021_FINAL-web-upload.pdf
\6\ Care, ``South Sudan Humanitarian Crisis,'' https://
www.care.org/our-work/disaster-response/emergencies/south-sudan-
humanitarian-crisis/#: :text=While%20the%20peace%20process%20
between,of%20some%20form%20of%20humanitarian
\7\ Committee for Protection of Journalist, ``Murders of
Journalists more than doubled worldwide,'' https://cpj.org/reports/
2020/12/murders-journalists-more-than-doubled-killed/
\8\ https://africacenter.org/spotlight/erosion-term-limits-africa-
reflects-worrying-trend/
\9\ Yang Janli and Peter Biar Ajak, ``How Chinese Corruption
Spreads Misery Abroad,'' The American Interest, https://www.the-
american-interest.com/2020/09/22/how-chinese-corruption-spreads-misery-
abroad/
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Doctor Ajak. Mr. Law?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Mr. Law, are you with us virtually?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Okay. While we figure that out, let me turn
to Ms. Wai Hnin. Ms. Wai Hnin?
STATEMENT OF WAI HNIN PWINT THON, CAMPAIGNS OFFICER, BURMA
CAMPAIGN, UK
Ms. Pwint Thon. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
So when the head of the Burmese military, Min Aung Hlaing,
staged the coup, he knew there was a price to pay, but, of
course, he is expecting that he can get away with it, so it is
very important for us to prove him wrong. In Burma, people are
very brave and they are proving to Min Aung Hlaing that he is
wrong. When the military divided and when they thought to
arrest NLD leaders and other activists like my dad, they
thought they could stop protests, but we have seen the biggest
protests in more than 30 years. People are holding signs
calling for democracy, and these signs are written in English
because they want the world to help, but peaceful protests have
been met with increased violence by the military. People are
dying on the street every day, and children have been shot in
the head. The military is using every tool they have to silence
people from speaking out.
More than 60 people now have been killed for peacefully
protesting, and we now have more than 2,000 people in prison
since the coup started. And we do not know how many people have
disappeared, and we have not been told where they are being
detained or their condition, and they do not have any access to
lawyers.
Today is my father's birthday. Nearly half my life, we have
not been able to celebrate his birthday together because he is
in prison for speaking out, and my first memory of seeing my
Dad is through iron bars in Insein Prison. It is still very
hard for me, although I am used to it, and at the same time, I
am heartbroken and angry that so many children will now have to
go through what I went through, growing up without a parent and
not knowing when they will see the parents again. And this has
to stop.
It is not just in the cities and against peaceful
protesters that the military is attacking civilians. In Kachin
State, the military is firing mortar bombs into villages, and
more than 5,000 villagers are already hiding in the jungle. We
see military trucks and soldiers on the streets of Yangon and
other cities, but they never left the streets and many ethnic
states. In the past 10 years of reform process, human rights
violations against ethnic minorities have increased. The
military saw sanctions relax, even as they would continue
carrying on human rights violations against ethnic minorities.
This created a sense of impunity for the military. They even
thought they could get away with the genocide against the
Rohingya, and so far they have. And, of course, they can--they
think they can get away with staging a coup now because they
were allowed to get away with genocide.
People in Burma want the coup reversed, and they want their
democratically-elected government to be reinstated, but they do
not want to go back under the military-drafted 2008
constitution. In the U.S., you would not accept a situation
where your chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff chose three
cabinet members. You would not accept him choosing 25 percent
of the members of Congress. You would not accept it, and we
cannot either. People are risking their lives asking for
federal democracy, and the military was wrong to underestimate
the courage and resistance by the people of Burma, but so far,
Myanmar has not been wrong to think the international response
would be weak. My country is now controlled by the battle-
hardened soldiers. They are not diplomats. Statements alone are
not enough. Of course we are realistic and we know that
international action alone cannot free our country. We will win
our own freedom, but international action has an important role
to play.
I want to take this moment to thank the U.S. for being the
first to act against the coup, freezing government reserves and
sanctioning three military companies. You have been in the
forefront of supporting human rights and democracy in my
country, and I am really grateful for that. There is much more
U.S. can and must do. You must target the economic interests of
all the military and impose sanctions on military companies,
including financial services and insurance. Now that the
military control the government, revenues to them from oil and
gas need to be stopped, along with trade in timber and gems
from Burma. Please work with allies like the UK and EU to
coordinate these targeted sanctions. And the U.S. has arms
embargo, but most countries in the world do not. Please work
with allies to build a global coalition of countries imposing
arms embargo. In my written statement, I have listed more steps
that can be taken. There are many measures that U.S. can take,
diplomatic, economic, humanitarian, and legal.
In my country people are going out on the street every
single day, protesting, knowing that they could be shot
anytime, they could be arrested any time, and they could be
beaten anytime. They are risking their lives, and they are
doing everything they can. And we are asking, please, every
tool you have and everything you can to help us. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pwint Thon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Pwint Thon
Thank you members of this committee for offering me an opportunity
to testify.
When Min Aung Hlaing, the head of the Burmese military, held the
coup on 1st February, he knew there would be a price to pay. He
calculated the price would not be too high and that it would be a price
worth paying.
It is essential that we prove his calculations wrong. We have to
make the price higher than he expected.
In Burma the people have already done that. The military thought
that by arresting NLD leaders, and leaders of the uprising in 1988,
including my father, that they could stop protests.
Instead, there have been the biggest protests in more than 30
years. There is a mass civil disobedience movement, general strikes,
and boycotts of military companies. There is amazing creativity as
people find different ways to resist military rule. Communities are
coming together to support each other.
But peaceful protest has been met by increasing violence by the
military. People are dying on the streets. Children have been shot in
the head after joining protests for the first time in their lives.
They are holding signs calling for democracy. And the signs are in
English because they want the world to help.
More than 60 people have been killed. All unarmed civilians. At
least two of those killed were tortured to death after being arrested.
The same soldiers who have been attacking and killing civilians in
Shan State, Kachin State and Rakhine State, the same soldiers who
committed genocide against the Rohingya, are now on the streets of the
cities in central Burma.
They beat children just for watching protests, they loot and they
kill. They are there to instill fear and terror and make people too
scared to resist military dictatorship.
Since the coup, around 2,000 people have been arrested or are
facing charges. The figure is likely to be much higher as we don't know
how many are being arrested in more remote areas of ethnic states. We
don't know how many people have simply disappeared.
For the families of those like my father who have been kept in
detention, we also don't know what has happened to them. We have not
been told where they are. They have not been allowed to see lawyers. We
don't know if my father and other prisoners with serious medical
conditions are getting the medication which they need to keep them
alive.
For almost half my life my father had been in prison for supporting
human rights. Today is his birthday and it's the 14th time we are
unable to celebrate together because he is in jail. It is very hard for
me even though I am used to it. I grew up with my father in jail for
his political activities. My first memory of my father is seeing him
through the bars of a jail cell.
I am heartbroken and angry at the same time that so many children
will now have to go through what I went through, growing up without a
parent, not knowing if or when they will ever be freed. This has to
stop. Decade after decade, generation after generation. It never stops.
Even under Aung San Suu Kyi's Government there were more than 200
political prisoners. 200 families torn apart because the Government and
military would not tolerate people asking for their human rights and
full democracy.
The United States is right to demand the release of Aung San Suu
Kyi, the President and arrested MPs. But it is equally important to
free the teenager in Myitkyina, the mother in Lashio, the shopkeeper in
Myawaddy, and the student in Loikaw.
The hundreds of people whose names are not known, who live in
places most people have never heard of, but who risked death and jail
to try to free their country. They are true heroes. We cannot again
have a situation where the pressure is relaxed when the high profile
political prisoners are freed. Never again should any political
prisoner be left behind in Burma's jails.
At the same time as locking up those calling for human rights and
democracy, faced with overwhelming public rejection of his
justification for the coup, Min Aung Hlaing has freed well known racist
nationalist prisoners from jail. People who incited, organized or took
part in ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Rohingya and who
incited and organized anti-Muslim riots.
There is a very real danger Min Aung Hlaing will play the
nationalist anti-Rohingya and anti-Muslim card to try to deflect
attention from the coup. Already we have seen Muslim political leaders
targeted and killed. There are millions of Muslims in Burma and more
than half a million Rohingya left in Rakhine State. Since 2012 we have
repeatedly seen how the military tries to whip up anti-Muslim and anti-
Rohingya sentiment to try to win public support. There is a very real
danger the military will do the same again now.
It is not just in the cities and against peaceful protesters that
the military is attacking civilians. In Karen State, where there is
supposed to be a ceasefire, the Burmese military have been firing
mortar bombs into villages and fields and threatening to use villagers
as slave labor to carry their equipment. New soldiers and convoys of
trucks of equipment are arriving. Already more than 5,000 villagers are
now hiding in the jungle.
The armored trucks and soldiers on the streets of cities that we
see today never left the streets in many ethnic areas.
In the past 10 years of the reform process, human rights violations
against ethnic minorities in my country have increased. During the
peace process, conflict has increased.
Since the reforms began 10 years ago, hundreds of thousands of
people from ethnic minorities have had to flee conflict and human
rights violations. Many are still living in squalid camps without
proper shelter, food, medical care and education for their children.
They didn't see any gains in the past 10 years.
One protester in Kachin state told me: ``It's great to see the
world is finally paying attention to Burma again and starting to
understand how ruthless the Burmese army is, but I hope they will still
stand with us and not ignore the suffering of our ethnic people even
after Aung San Suu Kyi is released.''
The military saw sanctions relaxed, offers of military engagement
and training and international companies working with their military
companies, even as they carried on with the same human rights
violations against ethnic minorities.
This created a sense of impunity for the military. They think they
can get away with it. So they commit more crimes.
They even thought they could get away with genocide of the
Rohingya, and so far they have.
A U.N. Fact-Finding Mission found that what took place against the
Rohingya in 2017 was genocide and crimes against humanity.
In 2019 Min Aung Hlaing, the head of the military, was sanctioned
by the United States. He was designated for his role in atrocities. But
he and the other generals sanctioned had no assets in the United States
to freeze. No further action took place following the designation. So
all that was left was a visa ban.
The only United States sanction the Burmese military faced for
committing genocide was that some of their soldiers were banned from
taking holidays in the United States.
Having just been allowed to get away with genocide, of course Min
Aung Hlaing thinks you will also let him get away with the military
coup. For the sake of my country, you must prove him wrong.
If you look at the signs of the protesters on the streets, they
don't want to go back to how things were before the coup.
It was an unacceptable situation with too many people, especially
ethnic and religious minorities, not only left behind but suffering
increased repression and human rights violations.
People want the coup reversed and the democratically elected
government reinstated, but they do not want to go back to the military
drafted 2008 Constitution.
They don't want to go back to a situation where the military
commits genocide and is defended by the Government.
In the United States you would not accept a situation where your
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff chose three members of the cabinet
and controlled every police force in the country.
You would not accept him setting his own budget.
You would not accept him choosing 25 percent of the members of
congress.
You would not accept it, and nor do we.
Protesters risking their lives on the streets are calling for a
federal democracy, like you have.
Min Aung Hlaing has been proved wrong in his calculations that he
could stop protests and resistance by the people of Burma.
But so far he has not been proved wrong in his calculations that
the response of the international community would be weak.
Statements are important and welcome, but they are ignored
repeatedly by the generals. They expect it. They are military men. They
are not diplomats. They respect strength and action.
We are realistic. We know that international action alone will not
free our country. We will win our own freedom but international action
has a critical role to play.
When we call for sanctions, we are not just making a plea for help.
We are calling on you to stop helping the military which oppresses
us.
Almost every weapon and every item of military equipment and
technology the Burmese military have comes from other countries or is
based on technology from other countries.
Every military company has been created using finance, technology
and equipment from overseas.
The military in my country is not isolationist. It has been built
and financed with international support.
The United States has always been at the forefront of international
action to support human rights and democracy in my country. We are
grateful for that.
But today American companies are working for military owned
companies. American companies help the military promote their company
products which help pay for their guns and their bullets. American
companies are channeling millions of dollars to the military.
I want to thank the United States for being the first to act after
the coup, freezing Government reserves and sanctioning three military
companies.
There is much more the United States can and must do.
The military are not the legal government of my country and the
American Government must not accept them as such. They have no
legitimacy and must not be recognized by the United States. We have
elected MPs and they have formed a Committee Representing Pyidaungsu
Hluttaw. They have the elected mandate from the people. The military do
not.
You must target the economic interests of the military. Sanctions
on military companies, including their conglomerates, Myanmar Economic
Corporation and Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings.
These sanctions must include services. Banking and finance.
Consultancy and legal services. Insurance and reinsurance.
Now that the military control the Government, revenues to them from
oil and gas need to be stopped. This should happen not by Chevron,
Total and others pulling out, or shutting down the flow of oil and gas.
That would leave many people in Burma and Thailand literally in the
dark. Instead, international companies should be asked to stop all
revenue and royalty payments. If they refuse, sanctions and anti-money
laundering laws should be used to stop this revenue flow.
Timber and gems will also be big revenue earners for the military.
The United States should sanction these sectors, barring imports
whether they come directly or via third party countries.
At the same time, we don't want to see more general trade sanctions
like removing trade privileges or a complete ban on imports from Burma.
This will hurt ordinary people too much. We need smart and targeted
economic sanctions.
The United States has an arms embargo, along with 40 other
countries. That means 151 countries do not have an arms embargo or
policies to prevent the sale of equipment to the military, or equipment
and technology which can be used for repression.
You are the most influential country in the world. Please use that
influence to work with allies like the UK to build a global coalition
of countries imposing arms embargoes. In this way, regardless of
China's veto at the U.N. Security Council, you can make progress
towards a global arms embargo.
There are like-minded countries such as the UK, Canada and members
of the European Union. Please work with them to coordinate targeted
sanctions and where necessary, show leadership and drag them along
behind you.
You have strong relationships with Japan and Singapore, countries
which play a key role in the economic and political fortunes of the
military. Please reach out to them.
Financial assistance to civil society organizations documenting
human rights violations and working for democracy will be even more
important now.
Victims of human rights violations by the Burmese military must
also be a priority for humanitarian aid. Internally displaced people,
the vast majority from ethnic minorities, have never received enough
aid for shelter, food, medicines and education. They should be first in
line for American aid. Refugees in camps in Thailand and Bangladesh are
also living in unacceptable conditions without the support they need.
Conditions which also make them especially vulnerable to COVID-19.
There is no shortage of measures which the United States can take,
diplomatic, economic, humanitarian and legal. All that is needed is the
political will.
By themselves some of these measures may seem small, but combined
they will have an impact.
Your leadership in taking these measures will be encouraging others
to do the same, multiplying your impact.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has long supported our campaign and he once
told us, everything that can be done must be done. If you haven't done
everything you can, you haven't done enough.
On the streets in my country, young people come back onto the
streets day after day despite knowing they could be shot. They put
stickers on their phones with their blood type in case they are
injured, and they put names of next of kin in case they are killed.
They are doing everything they can.
We are asking you to do everything you can to help people in Burma.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I understand Mr. Law is trying to
connect with us. Mr. Law, are you with us yet?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Well, I hope it is not the Chinese Government
seeking to interfere with Mr. Law's testimony from Hong Kong.
Well, let me turn to a round of questions. If we are able to
connect, we will certainly intercede his testimony at that
time. Let me turn to the ranking member for any questions.
Senator Risch. Well, thank you. Ms. Hnin, your testimony
was very good, particularly as far as details are concerned,
and that is, what we always hunger for is details on top of the
generalities that we know. But tell me this. The things that we
have done, what is your--what is your idea of how this is going
to end? I mean, the military takeover by the people who were in
charge have shown that--over many years that they--that they
can survive through a lot of pressure. How do you see this
thing ending? What is your--what is your thought on that?
Ms. Pwint Thon. Thank you very much, Senator. It is a very
good question. So the military is not immune to pressure. The
military is not immune to the, you know, international
pressure. So, so far, it has been over a month since the coup
started, and every day we have seen the situation getting worse
and worse. It is not just cracking down on peaceful protesters
anymore. It is pure killing in some parts of the country. And
what we have seen from the international community is mostly
statements of condemnation, and what we want them to do--and
especially United States is very powerful, and you can use with
your allies to, like I stated before, sanctions on military
companies. They care about their pocket. They care about
pressure. Of course these will not work straight away, but this
will send a very strong message to the military that they need
to respect human rights, and they need to stop violating human
rights on the ground.
Senator Risch. Well, thank you. I appreciate those
observations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. I understand that Senator Cardin
is with us virtually. Senator Cardin?
Mr. Law. Testing. Testing.
The Chairman. Is that Mr. Law?
Mr. Law. Yes. Yes. I am so sorry, Chairman. I do not know
why--the problem maybe is from my end, technical problems.
Sorry.
The Chairman. Okay. Well, we will recognize you now. Your
full statement will be in the record, and if you can summarize
your remarks. I read your statement. It is excellent. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN LAW, PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST AND FORMER HONG
KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMBER
Mr. Law. Great. Thank you so much, Chairman Menendez,
Ranking Member Risch, and the other distinguished members of
the committee. It is really my honor to be able to testify in
front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The state of democracy around the world is grim. The 2020
Varieties of Democracy Report found that 2020 was the first
year since 2001 that there are more autocratic institutions
than democratic ones in the world. The latest Freedom in the
World 2021 Report, produced by Freedom House, also recognized
this worsening democracy decline. We all are in the 15th
consecutive year of decline in the global freedom.
What Hong Kong people have suffered from in the past few
years are clear examples of it. 2018, the year that Hong Kong
people uprose. The scenes of millions of people marching down
the streets captured the eyeballs of every corner of the world.
We chanted for the promises made to us: democracy, autonomy,
and freedom. Congressmen in the U.S. vowed their support to the
movement and passed several bills, including the historic Hong
Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. We were all grateful for
the warm encouragement from around the world.
Yet starting from 2020, we have witnessed repeated
crackdowns from the Chinese Communist Party. Assemblies have
been banned, police brutality has emerged with impunity, and
Beijing has circumvented all our local legislation and
consultation process to impose the notorious National Security
Law. Under the law, the Government can prosecute anyone who
chants a protest slogan, display a Liberate Hong Kong flag, or
even participate in a primary. The National Security Law is a
convenient legal tool to silence the pro-democracy camp and
strip away our basic rights.
Last week was particularly devastating. The Government has
thrown 47 prominent activists in jail because they planned to
exercise their constitutional rights to run for office and veto
the Government's bills. Beijing has also announced an electoral
reform in Hong Kong that turns the city's Legislative Council
into a National People's Congress rubber stamp chamber. With
the democratic candidates likely barred, Beijing's appointees
will occupy more than half of the seats without an open
election. The election in Hong Kong has become selection.
The erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong reflects the world
Beijing wants to craft. Beijing is expanding its autocratic
influence and denounces democratic values on a global scale. It
tacitly stands behind the military junta in Myanmar by opposing
actions from the U.N. Human Rights Council and justifying the
coup as a major cabinet reshuffle. Hereby, I want to vow my
support to the protestors in Myanmar because they have been
through the toughest and bloodiest week in their anti-coup
protest where dozens of citizens were killed by the soldiers'
firearms. People died under the hands of tyranny. The
casualties and disastrous consequences incurred by dictators
are no less than climate emergencies or public health crises.
Yet the international community seems very reluctant to tackle
it with coordinated actions.
This latency has to be changed. We have to rise and defend
global democracy. The fight starts with formulating global
goals, visions, agendas, and actions. It can only be
accomplished by democratic countries working together to avoid
being divided and conquered by China. Here is the concrete
direction that can fundamentally change the trend of democracy
decline.
In the upcoming Democracy Summit, important democracies,
including the G7, European countries, and the other
democracies, should together with a preliminary formulation of
an alliance for safeguarding democracy worldwide. The goal is
straightforward. In the next 5 years, as long as we strive for
a one-percent improvement annually in the Global Liberal
Democracy Index, measured by the renowned Varieties of
Democracy Project, we can reverse the declining state of
democracy worldwide by 2026, and rise back to the level around
2012, the highest Democracy Index human societies have ever
achieved.
It is a measurable and essential goal if we are determined
enough to fight the rise of authoritarianism. Reversing the
trend of global democracy decline is the mission of our era.
Combatting the rise of authoritarianism led by China and
supporting Hong Kong's democratic movement is an important step
to this Nation. Hong Kong people will never give up, and we
will fight for democracy. As we say, [Speaking Cantonese
language].
Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Law follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Law
Thank you Chairman Senator Menendez, Ranking Member Senator Risch,
and the other members of the committee attending. It's my honor to be
able to testify in front of the Senate foreign relations committee.
The state of democracy around the world is grim. The 2020 Varieties
of Democracy report found that 2020 was the first year since 2001 that
there are more autocratic institutions than democratic ones in the
world. The latest ``Freedom in the world 2021'' report produced by
Freedom house also recognizes this worsening democracy decline, and
describes the situation as:
``Increasing autocracy threatens the rights of people in every
corner of the world. This is a global emergency that awaits a
coordinated response from the free world. Nearly 75 percent of
the world's population lived in a country that faced
deterioration last year.''
We are all in the 15th consecutive year of decline in global
freedom. What Hong Kong people have suffered from in the past few years
are clear examples of it.
2019, the year that Hong Kong people uprose. The scenes of millions
of people marching down the streets captured the eyeballs of every
corner of the world. We chanted for the promises made to us--democracy,
freedom and autonomy. Congressmen in the U.S. vowed their support to
the movement and several bills, including the historic ``Hong Kong
human rights and democracy Act'', were passed. We were all grateful for
the warm encouragement from around the world.
Yet, starting from 2020, we have witnessed repeated crackdowns from
the Chinese Communist Party. Assemblies have been banned, police
brutality has emerged with impunity, and Beijing has circumvented all
our local legislation and consultation process to impose the notorious
National Security Law. Under the law, the Government can prosecute
anyone who chants a protest slogan, displays a ``liberate Hong Kong''
flag, or even participates in a primary in the pro-democracy camp. The
National Security Law is a convenient legal tool to silent the pro-
democracy camp and strip away our basic rights.
The last week was particularly devastating. The Government has
thrown 47 prominent democratic figures in jail because they planned to
exercise their constitutional rights to run for office and veto the
Government's bills. Beijing has also announced an electoral reform in
Hong Kong that turns the city's legislative council into a National
People's congress style rubber stamp chamber. With the Democratic
candidates likely barred, Beijing's appointees will occupy more than
half of the seats without an open election. The election in Hong Kong
has become SELECTION.
The erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong reflects the world Beijing
wants to craft. Beijing is expanding its autocratic influence and
denounces democratic values on a global scale. It tacitly stands behind
the military junta in Myanmar by opposing actions from the U.N. human
rights council and justifying the coup as ``a major cabinet
reshuffle.'' Hereby I want to vow my support to the protestors in
Myanmar because they have just been through the toughest and bloodiest
week in their anti-coup protest, where dozens of citizens were killed
by the soldiers' firearms. I also stand in solidarity with the
#Milkteaalliance members who are fighting for justice and democracy in
their respective countries.
People died under the hands of tyrannies. The casualties and
disastrous consequences incurred by dictators are no less than climate
emergencies or public health crises; yet, the international community
seems very reluctant to tackle it with coordinated actions.
This latency has to be changed. We have to rise and defend global
democracy. The fight starts with formulating global goals, visions,
agendas and actions. It can only be accomplished by democratic
countries working together, to avoid being ``divided and conquered'' by
China.
Here is the concrete direction that can fundamentally change the
trend of democracy decline: In the upcoming April's Democracy Summit,
important democracies including the G7s, European countries and the
other democracies should come up with a preliminary formulation of an
alliance for safeguarding democracy worldwide.
The goal is straightforward: in the next 5 years, as long as we
strive for a one percent improvement annually in the global liberal
democracy index, measured by the renowned Varieties of Democracy (V-
Dem) project, we can reverse the declining state of democracy worldwide
by 2026, and rise back to the level around 2012, the highest democracy
index human societies have ever achieved.
It's a measurable and essential goal if we are determined to fight
the rise of authoritarianism led by dictators like President Xi and
safeguard the most needed values that guide humanity to dignity and
prosperity.
Reversing the trend of global democracy decline is the mission of
our era.
Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.
______
Attachment--BRIEF on the Latest Political Development in Hong Kong,
March 2021, From Nathan Law
Takeaways
Beijing loyalists will secure an overwhelming majority in
the future legislature and the selection ``election'' for city
leaders. The proposed overhaul will kill LegCo's existing check
and balance function as democrats will lose their veto power.
Implications for the regulatory and investment environment can
be far-reaching.
Most, if not all, democrats will be barred from the election
in practice since future candidates are subject to political
screening. Even if they survive the new nomination and vetting
requirements, they can still be disqualified, unseated or even
charged under the national security law.
Beijing leaders have already hinted that the new political
reform is paving the way for further national security
legislation, aka the controversial Article 23. The impact on
the city's future policies, especially those related to
regulatory environments, can be far-reaching.
1. beijing's political overhaul
Beijing is making a new effort to ensure ``patriots'' to take
charge of all governance levels. To achieve this, the National People's
Congress, China's rubber-stamp parliament, plans to pass a new
political reform that is expected to be announced on March 11 this
month. According to multiple local media citing unnamed sources,
several reform options have been put on the table, including the
following:
Changes in Selection Committee include:
Expanding the size of the largely pro-Beijing committee that
selects Hong Kong's leader from 1200 to 1500 seats.
Canceling the current 117 seats held by district councilors
in the committee. The seats will go to Beijing-handpicked CPPCC
members.
Changes in Legislative Council (LegCo) include:
Expanding the seats in the Legislature from 70 to 90 seats.
Cutting the number of directly elected seats: There are two
reform options. The more radical one has reportedly gained more
support, i.e. reducing the number of directly elected seats
from 35 to 20 seats;
Introducing an additional 40 seats that will be allocated to
Beijing loyalists from the selection committee;
Imposing a new requirement that future LegCo election
runners have to be screened twice, one by the selection
committee's nomination and another by a new ``vetting
committee''. The vetting committee will screen future
candidates' qualifications, which include Beijing's new demand
of ``loyalty.''
Replacing the current proportional representation system of
allocating the directly elected seats with a majoritarian one.
Similar to the promulgation of the national security law
legislation, local Beijing loyalists are mostly out of the loop
throughout the decision-making process of the new electoral reform. As
a staunch pro-government lawmaker, Regina Ip, suggested, Beijing has
already changed to whom it would listen and only consulted the top most
trusted advisers. Even members of more established pro-Beijing local
parties were excluded from the symposium in Shenzhen on the electoral
changes in previous weeks. At the same time, a new political party has
been established by mainland Chinese-born individuals. On March 9, they
emphasized that ``patriotism is their true colour'' and vowed to gain
seats and influence in the legislature and administration. In other
words, current pro-government parties are losing Beijing's trust and
would be further marginalized in the future. Chinese-born lawmakers or
mainland ex-pats will expectedly play a more vital role in city
governance.
Unlike the previous three rounds of political reforms in Hong Kong,
this reform is directly imposed by Beijing, without public consultation
and legislative approval. Rita Fan, former delegate to the National
People's Congress Standing Committee, even commented that pro-democracy
figures do not deserve to be consulted.
Implications
The Beijing-dominated selection committee becomes the new
influential sector, with democratic representation falling in
both the LegCo and the selection committee. The share of
directly elected seats drops to a record low, even worse than
the figure in Macao (i.e. Directly elected seats only account
for 22% in Hong Kong, compared to 42% in Macao). In their
place, Beijing-trusted candidates can dominate a sizable number
of seats in the LegCo.
Future election runners are subject to a two-step political
screening before voters can elect them. In practice, most of
the opposition leaders will likely be barred from elections.
Not to mention that candidates and election winners have to
survive pre-and post-election disqualification mechanisms under
the current arrangements.
Beijing loyalists are expected to secure an overwhelming 2/3
majority in the LegCo, giving them enough authority to change
the city's election system and pass further security-related
laws. When democrats lose their veto power against future
draconian legislations, the political landscape alteration may
affect the entire investment and regulatory environments.
Wolf-warrior-like politicians will become more active in
local governance after the power reshuffles: Under the loyalty-
vetting mechanism of the proposed electoral framework, not only
would democrats likely be screened out but so would moderate
Beijing supporters who occasionally criticize the Government's
policies. New pro-Beijing parties or wolf-warrior-like
politicians will give more influential voices in the future
policy-making process.
2. the hearing on the 47 pro-democracy figures
On February 28, 2021, 47 pro-democracy activists were charged with
a ``conspiracy to commit subversion'' for their participation in the
legislative primaries last year. As the first and most expansive use of
the new security law, the marathon hearing has the following
implications:
Even voting, the most peaceful way of political expression,
can be considered a breach of the national security law: The
case is a disregard of democracy since over 610,000 Hongkongers
took part in the city's first-ever informal primaries. Most of
the 50 democrats had obtained tens of thousands of votes. The
case is a perfect example of Beijing's tightening red line in
the territory--no matter how peaceful citizens expressed their
political beliefs, Beijing cannot tolerate any dissenting
voices.
Prosecutors can challenge the court's bail decisions: 15
defendants were kept in custody even after initially being
granted bail since government prosecutors had immediately
appealed against the court's bail decision. The same trick is
expected to be used on future arrestees.
Inhuman trial processing: The processing is criticized as
chaotic and judicially unfair. Throughout the 4-day hearings,
at least eight defendants were taken to the hospital by
ambulance. The 1st-day hearing lasted for 19 hours in total,
which the defendants' family described as ``torturing.''
Several defendants complained about a lack of access to their
lawyers. For 3 days, they had no access to showers or even
proper rests.
Special treatments in prison: All remands are subject to
solitary confinement, including meals and exercise. At least
four defendants were barred from contact with their families.
In addition to election runners, even facilitators have
become Beijing's new targets: On the eve of the hearing, the
mediating platform, Power for Democracy, was forced to cease
operation and disband after three of the organizers, Andrew
Chiu Ka-yin, Au Nok-hin and John Clancey, were prosecuted. The
platform has facilitated electoral coordination among pro-
democratic parties for nearly 20 years since 2002. An electoral
coordination platform as such is now facing unprecedented
pressure.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me turn to--I understand we
have a list of names here that may be online. Senator Booker?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Senator Markey?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Okay. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the folks who have testified for your courage, for your
determination, for your passion to fight for democracy. It is
your sacrifice that encourages those of us here who are looking
at how best to revive, and sustain, and advance our democracy
in the United States.
Peter, thank you for being with us in person. It is
wonderful to see you here safely and in Washington. As a
prominent civil society leader in South Sudan, as someone who
has endured imprisonment, I would be interested in hearing from
you what you think this committee can best do to support the
cultivation of democracy and peace in South Sudan, and what you
can share with us about democratic trends more broadly across
the continent, and what you see as the greatest threats to
civil society in South Sudan and across the continent.
Dr. Ajak. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Coons,
for your questions, and thank you for your support. One of the
things that I remember very well from the prison was being
briefed by the letter that you and Senator Booker wrote in
demanding for my release. And it was--I was in solitary
confinement at the time and was told that senators are speaking
on your behalf and you have to find a way to keep them quiet,
which was a crazy request given that I was in solitary
confinement.
People of South Sudan are yearning for democracy. This is
the reason why we sacrificed for more than two decades,
fighting a civil war and fighting for our own independent
state. But as you know, we have never voted. I am 37 years old,
and I have never voted in my entire life, and that is because
our president keep on postponing elections. Every time
elections come up, he keeps postponing them. So one thing that
this committee can do is to stress the importance of the
elections that are scheduled for next year to take place on
time and not be delayed again. This would require, of course,
getting the U.N., especially the U.N. Mission in South Sudan,
on board to review its mandate so that the elections are part
of its mandate. It requires possibly looking at appointing a
high-level U.N. envoy that shepherds the country toward the
conduct of these elections.
It also requires supporting the civil society, doing
exactly as what you did before, speaking out on behalf of
activists. As I speak with you, there are 1,000 people detained
in secret national security facilities across the country. So
your voices matter, and it sends a message to Kiir that he is
being watched and that he will be held accountable. Also urging
the African Union to set up the Hybrid Court so that there is
accountability for atrocities that have been committed in the
country.
But going beyond, the region, the whole Horn of Africa is
in crisis. What is happening in Tigray is shocking, and it
requires U.S. to speak out forcefully. Also recently, as we
have seen in Uganda, elections are being held, but they are
sham elections because these dictators are the ones monitoring
the elections, and, at the same time, the ones counting the
votes. So in the end, they count it for themselves. So U.S.
leadership in the region is critical because, as mentioned in
the previous panel, U.S. have been absent in the last few years
and it has allowed these authoritarian countries to take over,
especially China. It requires really countering China.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Peter, and it is, I
think, our intention in this committee and elsewhere to re-
engage and re-engage actively in the Horn of Africa as well as
throughout the rest of the world. If I might ask one more
question, Mr. Chairman, just of Wai Hnin and Nathan. Thank you
both for your courage. And I understand that, despite social
media restrictions, internet blackouts, a critical means of
organizing in the face of a coup and a crackdown has been
access to social media. If you could each speak to the
importance of a free and open internet and social media to
democracy and to activism in Hong Kong and in Burma, I would
welcome that. Here in the United States, we have a very
polarized social media landscape that has led to some
disinformation campaigns, and in our Congress, we will be
debating how best to balance protecting free speech online and
regulations to prevent disinformation. So if you could in turn,
Wai Hnin and Nathan, just briefly speak to that question. Thank
you.
Ms. Pwint Thon. For social media, it is very good for us
because compared to 2007 and in the past uprising, we have seen
the live footages of people on the street protesting. And now
they are shutting down internet from 1:00 a.m. until 6:30 a.m.
now, so we are worried what will happen because the military is
doing nightly raids and people cannot report it on social media
about the human rights violations happening on the ground.
So we are very grateful that we have live information
coming up from the country, and also it give more evidence to
the international community that they need to act now, but of
course the military is also using their social media platform
to spread false information as well. But on a greater level, we
appreciate having the internet, and we need that nightly
internet cut to be stopped so that, you know, human rights
violations can stop happening during the night as well. Thank
you.
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. First of all,
Hong Kong people can still have access to Facebook and Twitter,
these social media platform. But when they speak about the
situation of Hong Kong or urging the international community to
hold China accountable, they could be seen as breaching the
National Security Law. So it really adds up and spread wide
terror for them, making them afraid of expressing a genuine
opinion online. Furthermore, China has been deploying its
misinformation overseas, and also a lot of information warfare
are conducting. So I have always been urging countries working
with social media companies to really monitor and curb this
misinformation campaign led by state actors, and to really
safeguard democracy by stopping this infiltration to our system
and uphold the values of democratic society.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much. A vote is now
under way, so I will just ask if there is any member who is on
virtually who has not had an opportunity, if you would identify
yourself. Let me start off--I understand that maybe Senator
Hagerty is with us?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Okay. I understand maybe Senator Markey is
with us?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Senator Markey? Senator Hagerty?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Is anyone out there?
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Van
Hollen. How are you? I do not know if the others are here or
not.
The Chairman. Having not heard from either one of them, I
will turn to you, Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank all three of our witnesses today for their powerful
testimony and their courageous actions in support of freedom
and democracy.
Mr. Law, I have a question for you because I joined with
Senator Toomey, and last year we passed the Hong Kong
Accountability Act, which provided additional authorities for
the President of the United States to sanction officials
responsible for the crackdown and taking away freedom and
democracy in Hong Kong. The prior Administration used that for
some targeted measures against individuals. I was pleased to
see the Biden administration issue some sanctions against those
in Russia who have been very instrumental in the crackdown on
Navalny. And we are urging the Biden administration now to take
similar steps with respect to the further crackdown on Hong
Kong. As you said, 47 democracy activists, you know, have been
detained and threatened.
The sanctions authority allows for sanctions not only
against individuals, but also banks that bank those
individuals, the banks that those individuals rely on. Do you
think it would be productive if the Biden administration both
imposed further sanctions on individuals responsible for the
crackdown, but also use that authority to sanction some of the
banks that they do business with?
Mr. Law. Thank you, Senator, for your questions. The answer
is a resounding yes. It is an important tool by using sanctions
to have deterrence effect on the individuals who are
responsible for human rights violation, and, in fact, it is one
of the very few tools that can really impose hardship on an
individual level. So I agree that the list of sanctions on
Chinese and Hong Kong officials should be expanded. And, on the
other hand, sanctions on corporation which is colluding with
the Chinese Communist Party on human rights violations is also
important because sometimes these business, they are using the
name of unknown political actors, but actually they are tacitly
helping the Chinese Communist Party to promote its agenda, and
while really taking advantage of our open and democratic values
and system, but getting benefits from autocracies.
I think these kind of behaviors should be curbed, and the
business sector should be warned very carefully that they
should not be cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party and
other dictators. Otherwise, they will face consequences. I
think sanctioning is really such a clear message, and it is
much needed.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Right that is the idea is
that those financial institutions that are enabling those
individuals also recognize that they could be penalized through
the sanctions. Let me just thank all of you. As the chairman
said, a vote is on, and I see Senator Markey is here, but thank
all of you for your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. Is Senator
Markey with us?
Senator Markey. Thank you. Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. I can hear you loud and clear. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Markey. Beautiful. Thank you so much. Ms. Pwint
Thon, thank you for being here with us today, and I am
interested to hear how you think the United States can better
support the Burmese people in their push for democracy
following the military coup.
Ms. Pwint Thon. Thank you so much, Senator Markey, and
please take let me take this opportunity to thank you. I
understand that you sponsored the--Burma's Political Prisoner
Act as well. So this is the moment that, you know, we need that
more than ever now because there are growing numbers of
political prisoners in the country, and we need to continue. We
need the U.S. to continue its support and aid from the NED and
the Government to make a difference because we need more
organizations on the ground to document human rights violations
in the country. So that is one aspect of it.
And also, the other thing is, like I said, sanctioning
military companies and targeted sanctions is very important. We
are asking for U.S. to establish a global arms embargo as well,
global correlations of countries to impose an embargo. So when
you have that--the China's vetoes at the U.N. Security Council,
you can make progress towards that even with China. So that is
one action the U.S. can take. And you have so many tools that
you can use to help people in Burma, and please use those to
help us.
Senator Markey. We will do. We are with you. We are going
to have your back throughout this entire ordeal. We are going
to come out on the other side of it, but we need the United
States to exercise its historic moral, political, economic
leadership, and we are going to do that. Thank you for your
great leadership. And, Mr. Law, we have seen beautiful displays
of solidarity between pro-democracy Hong-Kongers and Burmese
protesters over the past several weeks. It seems that these
protesters are sharing information on how to manage the brutal
assaults by authorities. Do you see any unique opportunities
for the United States Government or private industry to support
these exchanges?
Mr. Law. Thank you so much, Senator, and also for your
continuous support for Hong Kong's democratic movement. I think
for now, we can form virtual community on social platform. We
can form mutual alliance that share our information and
consolidate our support to each other's democratic circles. So
it has been enhancing the ability of showing these protests to
the world, and I think the democratic communities in the
Western countries can also facilitate an exchange, increase the
education on the threats of authoritarianism. And these
processes is crucial because perception changes actions.
It really takes us to raise the awareness on what is
happening in Hong Kong and Myanmar in order for us to get
grassroots support in the Western countries and also push
forward to change. What we are facing is a global democracy
decline. It is a global democracy crisis. The Chinese
Government is tacitly backing the Myanmar group, and this is a
situation that we have to resolve with coordinated actions. So
I think the Western democracies really take a huge role in
here, and we are expecting consolidated efforts and
organizations that could step up and to defend democracy.
Senator Markey. Thank you, and, again, thank you for your
leadership. Thank all of you for your leadership. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. I know the roll
call is on, but I appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey. There is a vote
going on, so we will have to bring this hearing to a
conclusion. But I do want to ask each of you in 1 minute, which
I know is always difficult, but in 1 minute, tell me the one
thing you would want the United States to do as it relates to
your specific country that you think would make a difference.
Doctor.
Dr. Ajak. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. For me,
the one specific thing that people of South Sudan needs is to
exercise the right to elect their own leaders. We have never
had that right, and we have struggled for so long. We have
sacrificed so many people for us to get our country, and since
doing that, we have never had a chance to vote. The elections
are supposed to take place next year. We want the U.S. help so
that those elections happen and we finally get to vote. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Mr. Law.
Mr. Law. Well, for now, we have to see the decline of
democracy as a global crisis with global agendas, missions,
actions. So I think the U.S. definitely could play the role of
consolidating their efforts around the world, forming alliance
that aims at tackling the rights of authoritarianism, and
clearly positioning China as the greatest threat to our
democracy and our rule-based international system. It requires
a lot of cooperation and strength to do it, and I believe that
the Western democracies have to come together under the
facilitation of the U.S. and the other allies.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Hnin.
Ms. Pwint Thon. Thank you very much. We want to see the
Burma--the future of Burma, what we want to see is federal
democracy with equal rights for every individual living in the
country, and U.S. has already been using diplomatic pressure
and other pressure. So I would like to urge the United States
to use other measures that you have--economic, humanitarian,
legal, and also diplomatic--continued diplomatic pressure on
the military to stop human rights violations and stop this
coup, and give people freedom, and human rights, and democracy
that we deserve. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Well, thank all of you. You are
vivid examples of why democracy is so important. And those
willing to struggle for it in their respective countries, you
give us all a sense of inspiration. We salute and recognize
your individual sacrifices, and we thank you for sharing your
stories with us in the Senate and with the world.
This record will remain open until the close of business
tomorrow.
With the thanks of the committee to all of our witnesses,
this hearing is adjourned.
Dr. Ajak. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]