[Senate Hearing 118-95]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-95
U.S. SUPPORT OF DEMOCRACY AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 28, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-279 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 MITT ROMNEY, Utah
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
TIM KAINE, Virginia 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 BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
Damian Murphy, Staff Director
Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey.............. 1
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 3
Lopez, Leopoldo, Venezuelan Freedom Activist, Co-Founder of the
World Liberty Congress......................................... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
Tsikhanouskaya, Sviatlana, Leader of the Democratic Forces of
Belarus, Vilnius, Lithuania.................................... 12
Prepared Statement........................................... 14
Wilson, Damon, President and CEO, National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), Washington, DC................................ 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 18
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Mr. Leopoldo Lopez to Questions Submitted by Senator
Brian Schatz................................................... 33
The Committee Received No Response From Ms. Sviatlana
Tsikhanouskaya for the Following Questions by Senator Brian
Schatz......................................................... 34
Responses of Mr. Damon Wilson to Questions Submitted by Senator
Brian Schatz................................................... 34
Responses of Mr. Damon Wilson to Questions Submitted by Senator
Chris Van Hollen............................................... 35
(iii)
U.S. SUPPORT OF DEMOCRACY AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Murphy, Kaine, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Ricketts, and Young.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee will come to order.
Two years ago, as the people of Cuba took to the streets
chanting ``Down with the dictatorship,'' government forces
tried to silence the protesters with tear gas and violence.
Afterwards, a Catholic priest from Cuba visited me and told
me about a young man who came to see him in church. He related
the story, saying, quoting the young man, ``I would fight,''
the young man said. ``I would give my life for the cause of
freedom if only someone would know that I died. If only someone
would know that I died.''
I think about that 2 years later as I look around the world
at those people willing to risk their lives to defend democracy
and human rights, from the activist facing execution in Burma
to those being jailed by dictatorships in Belarus or Venezuela,
to those bravely protesting for their fundamental freedoms
across Iran. I think about what we can do to support these
people who are alive and fighting so they will not want to die
just to be remembered.
The international community, in my view, is not doing
enough. The United States is not doing enough and Congress is
not doing enough. We are trying, but we need to do much better.
I hope to hear from all of our witnesses today about what
more we must do to support human rights and democracy. How can
democratic nations like our own better respond to autocrats
like Putin and Xi, who have been meeting and marshaling their
forces across the globe?
Do we have the right tools to hold them accountable for
their blatant atrocities of the rules-based international
order, to combat their aggressive disinformation campaigns
inside their own countries and around the world, and to counter
their economic warfare and diplomatic bullying whose impact can
be seen when we look at how many countries were unwilling to
censor Putin for his war in Ukraine?
For too long, authoritarianism has lured world leaders with
the promise of personal wealth and perpetual power.
Authoritarian regimes have also been investing in technologies
to control and repress their citizens, leading to social credit
systems and intrusive state surveillance.
We need to adapt our assistance to keep up with emerging
technologies that can support democracy activists and human
rights defenders, to keep the internet on when dictators try to
turn it off, to shield the identity of those trying to report
the truth.
At the same time, we must also confront and understand the
causes of the way of coup attempts that have increasingly
undermined governments across the globe. From Burkina Faso and
Tunisia to Peru and Brazil, we cannot stand idly by as
democratically-elected leaders are threatened or pushed out of
power by mobs or militias, because despite all of these
challenges, pro-democracy movements are fighting back in some
of the world's most repressive environments and fragile
democracies continue to push forward with democratic reforms.
I am pleased that this week the Biden administration is
convening the second Summit for Democracy with events in
Washington and Zambia, the Netherlands and South Korea, but I
am not sure I totally understand what the results of the first
one are. We have to strengthen our efforts to help nations
deliver for their people who want nothing more than peace and
prosperity.
That is why I will be introducing two important pieces of
legislation: first, the Protect Global Heroes Act, which will
create a new limited visa category for human rights defenders
and democracy activists facing imminent danger and persecution,
and second, a comprehensive countering authoritarianism bill to
strengthen the U.S. response and the tools to combat autocratic
regimes.
Beyond such legislation, the United States must better
leverage our democracy assistance, international diplomacy. and
sanctions regimes. We must keep pushing for the release of
Chinese political prisoners like Ilham Tohti, the Uighur
writer, or Luis Manuel Otero in Cuba, or Vladimir Kara-Murza in
Russia.
Their struggle against tyranny is also our struggle. It is
in the national interests of the United States to support the
people and organizations fighting for freedom. Respecting human
rights delivers the stability and fairness that makes
investment, capital growth, and innovation possible.
Democracies bring more wealth to more people and are more
stable than autocracies. Democracy is more than just an ideal.
It is a governing system to which people can hold their leaders
to account and advance human rights.
Democracy is a practical engine of self-correction and
improvement that empowers people to constantly peacefully
struggle towards a better life. It is that better life that we
want to help make a reality.
With that, let me turn to the ranking member for his
comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The United States has been the largest and most robust
supporter of democracy and human rights around the world.
Unfortunately, in spite of our significant investments and
efforts, freedom and democracy are constantly under attack.
According to Freedom House's 2023 Freedom of the World
report, it is the 17th consecutive year of decline in freedom
across the globe. We have all plainly seen authoritarians
across the world increase their attacks on internationally
recognized human rights.
In every region totalitarian and authoritarian nations like
China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran are implementing new tools to
silence a civil society. Putin's war in Ukraine is the most
blatant attack on democracy we have seen since the Cold War.
The United States, alongside our European allies, have been on
the forefront of supporting Ukraine in this battle for freedom.
Ukraine is not the Kremlin's only target. Inside Russia,
the Russian people have had their political and civil rights
stripped. Any form of dissent is punished. The most prominent
opposition leaders are jailed on fabricated charges and given
harsh sentences.
Russia's authoritarian influence has stretched to Belarus,
as well. We are honored today to have Sviatlana with us and she
is going to testify here today.
As the President-elect of Belarus, she was forced to flee
after dictator Lukashenko stole another election. There are an
estimated 1,463 political prisoners inside Belarus. I look
forward to hearing from your experience how the U.S. can better
support freedom fighters such as yourself.
The next battleground for freedom and democracy will be
Taiwan. China has made clear its willingness to take Taiwan by
force. The U.S. and the rest of the world must not stand idly
by.
We know exactly what the Chinese Communist Party would do
to destroy rule of law and human rights because they just did
it in Hong Kong. They were testing the West to see how we would
respond.
Now the Chinese Communist Party continues its subjugation
of this once vibrant city, including the persecution of Jimmy
Lai. We strongly condemn this and Mr. Lai should be released
immediately. Beijing should know the world has not forgotten
about him or the Hong Kong people.
The Biden administration must not allow Taiwan to become
the next Afghanistan. As we learned the hard way there, when
the U.S. retreats, the rest of the world suffers. We have seen
the human rights of women and girls completely obliterated by
the Taliban in very short order.
It is important to remember that democracy is more than
just about holding elections we are seeing play out in Nigeria.
In a healthy democracy, elections must be free, fair, and
transparent.
Now I ask today's witnesses what can the U.S. do better to
support democracy and human rights around the world. As the
Biden administration holds its second Summit for Democracy this
week, I hope to see less talk and more action.
I agree with the Chairman in that regard. This is the
second one. We did not see much come out of the first one, but
again, sometimes these things do take time to blossom, but they
should concentrate on actually getting something done. The
speeches are wonderful.
It is one thing to gather countries together for a
conference, but we need to do more than just pay lip service to
democracy and human rights. Democracy can only endure when they
have institutions that are strong and can sustain them.
Condemnation of human rights violations in the speeches are
all well and good. What we really need is action. I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses on what U.S. tools have
worked to support democracy and human rights and where we can
improve.
The dictators and authoritarians keep inventing new ways to
suppress. We need to get creative.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Let me introduce our witnesses. We are deeply honored to
welcome Leopoldo Lopez, a Venezuelan pro-democracy activist,
public servant, and opposition party leader. Mr. Lopez served
two terms as mayor of the city of Chacao before founding the
political party, Voluntad Popular, in 2009.
In retaliation for his efforts to speak out against the
brutal Maduro regime, he spent more than 3 years under
horrendous conditions in a military prison, subjected to
torture, solitary confinement, and years more under house
arrest before seeking refuge in Spain.
Mr. Lopez has received widespread international recognition
for his work fighting for democracy and freedom in Venezuela.
He is a co-founder of the World Liberty Congress, a new
initiative gathering pro-democracy activists and political
actors to share ideas on how to combat autocratic regimes.
We welcome you and thank you for traveling here to join us
with us today.
We are also honored to welcome Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya,
the leader of Belarus' democratic opposition. After the regime
jailed her husband, Sergei, who was running against the
ruthless dictator Alexander Lukashenko in the 2020 elections,
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya valiantly stood for election in his place.
The Lukashenko regime prevented free and fair elections in
Belarus. However, Sviatlana is widely believed to have won the
most votes. Since then, she was forced out of Belarus, but has
admirably represented her country across the transatlantic
community, fighting to keep the pressure on the regime in Minsk
and serving as a voice for those resisting its brutal
repression.
We warmly welcome you as we build support for the
Belarusian people's democratic aspirations in the face of
Europe's so-called last dictator. Thank you as well for
traveling and joining us today.
Finally, we welcome Mr. Damon Wilson, the president and CEO
of the National Endowment for Democracy where he leads the
organization's mission to develop and strengthen democratic
institutions around the world.
Mr. Wilson has demonstrated his deep commitment to
supporting freedom and democracy around the world throughout
his storied career, which includes work at the State
Department, NATO, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the National
Security Council. We are honored to have you here with us today
and, again, we thank you for your time.
We will start off the witnesses' testimony. Your full
statements will be included in the record without objection. We
would ask you to try to summarize in 5 minutes or so, so that
we can have a conversation with you after your testimony.
We will start off with Mr. Lopez.
STATEMENT OF LEOPOLDO LOPEZ, VENEZUELAN FREEDOM ACTIVIST, CO-
FOUNDER OF THE WORLD LIBERTY CONGRESS
Mr. Lopez. Thank you very much, Chairman Menendez, Ranking
Member Risch. It is an honor for me to be here talking about
something dear to our hearts and to our destiny, which is the
fate of democracy in Venezuela and in the world.
As you said, I was sent to military prison in 2014 after
calling for protests against the autocratic regime of Nicolas
Maduro. I spent almost 4 years in solitary confinement, was
sentenced to 14 years in prison, and then sent to house arrest
from where I escaped in 2019 and spent the next year and a half
at the Spanish embassy, and at the end of 2020, I was able to
escape from Venezuela against my will, because I never wanted
to leave my home country, and now I have been living in exile.
As Senator Risch was saying, democracy is in decline, 17
years of consecutive decline according to Freedom House.
According to V-Dem, 70 percent of the world's population is
living under some sort of autocratic regime. However, global
polling also shows that 80 percent of the world's population
want to be free and we have seen that in the protests in China,
Iran, and Cuba, surprising protests, but are an element that
gives us hope that people want to be free.
I am often asked why Maduro is still in power and this is a
question many people ask me, and there are many ways to answer
this question. Some people would say it is because of the
military that supports him. Others would say that it is because
of the natural resources. Others would even say that it is
because of the opposition not being united.
However, I believe that the real reason--the main reason
why Maduro is still in power--is because of the international
support that he has received from the adversaries of the United
States--from Russia, from China, from Iran, from Belarus, from
Cuba and from other autocratic regimes.
Maduro very clearly is part of an autocratic network, what
Anne Applebaum has described as Autocracy Inc., an autocratic
network that is aligned in protecting themselves, defending
themselves diplomatically, creating a kleptocratic network, and
pushing forward their view that autocracy should be the world
model for governance. Its main enemy very clearly is liberal
democracy and its main enemy within that is very clearly the
United States, who has been promoting liberal democracy
worldwide.
Being in exile gave me the opportunity to meet hundreds of
other political activists, democracy defenders like Sviatlana,
and many others that have gone through what I went through,
exiled political prisoners and those now living in an
autocratic regime.
We have worked to come together through an initiative that
is called the World Liberty Congress, as Senator Menendez just
mentioned. The World Liberty Congress is an initiative to bring
together like-minded activist movements that are willing to go
forward and support the process to bring about democracy in our
country.
Alongside Garry Kasparov from Russia and Masih Alinejad
from Iran, we convened more than 180 activists and leaders and
met in Lithuania at the end of last year and created an action-
oriented way forward to support these pro-democracy movements.
It is not an easy task, but the most important task that we
have is to recognize that we are not alone. We spent the first
day in Lithuania hearing more than 40 delegations and we heard,
to our surprise, the same story told in different ways from
different perspectives from different voices.
It was the same story of harassment, political prisoners,
people going into exile, crushing the hopes of the people to be
free and it is from this perspective that today I ask you the
following proposals.
First is the decisive support to democracy movements.
Democracy movements today require the support of the United
States and beyond. Democracy movements today are facing a
paradigm shift.
In the 1990s, there was belief that democracy was going to
happen everywhere in the world. It was going to knock on the
door, but now we know that democracy needs to be actively
fought for and we need the support for these freedom society
movements that are all over the world.
Second, we need to emphasize the reality of political
prisoners and transnational repression. We need to also
increase the cost for a regime which has political prisoners.
Third, there needs to be massive access to free and
uncensored internet in closed societies. We believe that to
combat misinformation and to give the people the possibility to
communicate and mobilize it is critical that access to the
internet is widespread, accessible to the people under
autocratic regimes.
This will also give the people within autocratic countries
access to new tools to get resources inside their countries
using financial technology.
Fourth, sanctions need to be rethought. Sanctions are not a
silver bullet. Sanctions are a means to an end, but sanctions
are a tool that needs to be used because they can be an
effective way to pressure the regimes.
Fifth, we believe that the private sector needs to be
included in this conversation. In the same way that the ESG
concept has brought trillions of dollars to investment in the
environment, we believe that to these three letters, ``ESG,''
there needs to be an additional letter, ``F,'' for freedom to
channel investment for the private sector to initiatives that
will help people to be free in different areas.
Fifth, we need to deny legitimacy to autocrats. We have
seen--sadly seen--that sometimes in the United States and in
other countries there is some sort of recognition of autocrats
and we believe that this gives them stability and a way to
continue to go forward.
Finally, the U.S. needs to lead from the front. There is no
way that the struggle for democracy and freedom will be won if
the United States does not lead this struggle and support the
transition to democracies elsewhere.
We need bipartisan support, as we have seen today, but this
bipartisan support also needs the incorporation of all of the
branches of government and include the alliance with other free
countries in order to fight the fight for freedom, which is
something that autocrats are very clearly doing with their own
interests and with their own view that autocracy should
prevail. For democracy to prevail, we need the support of all
of us.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Leopoldo Lopez
In February of 2014, after calling for nonviolent protests against
the corrupt and autocratic regime of Nicolas Maduro, I was arrested,
sent to a military prison, kept in solitary confinement for almost 4
years, and sentenced to 14 years of prison after a manipulated trial
concluded I was guilty of inciting violence through subliminal messages
during my public speeches. In 2017, I was sent to house arrest until I
escaped in April of 2019 to seek refuge at the Spanish Embassy in
Caracas, where I stayed until late 2020 when I escaped Venezuela to
meet my family that had been in Spain since 2019. My struggle against
the regime has now spanned decades. I was elected mayor of Chacao in
Caracas in 2000, reelected in 2004, and since then I was banned from
running for office and became the target of widespread attacks that
included two murder attempts. My story is one of many; I have not been
alone in this struggle. Hundreds of activists, social leaders,
journalists, union leaders, business people, students, military
officers, and common citizens have been the targets of the Maduro
regime. After being in exile and learning first-hand the testimonies of
hundreds of democracy defenders, I now know that far from being an
isolated case, this is the story of millions of individuals willing to
stand up and fight for freedom around the world.
Last November, we launched the World Liberty Congress to gather
pro-democracy leaders from more than 40 autocratic countries. The first
day, we heard 40 delegations. It was eye opening that for hours we
heard the same story repeating itself in different contexts and voices,
the stories at the frontlines. It is from that perspective that I speak
to you today, from the viewpoint of men and women who are willing to
risk their freedom and lives to achieve freedom and democracy. The WLC
is a non-ideological action-oriented alliance of democracy defenders
and freedom activists. We seek to provide pro-democracy movements with
political, legal, financial, and strategic assistance to enhance their
effectiveness. The idea of the WLC was initially spearheaded by Masih
Alinejad of Iran, Garry Kasparov of Russia, and myself, but today
counts among its membership hundreds of activists from across the
planet.
According to Freedom House, 2023 marked the 17th consecutive year
of democratic recession. This rise of autocracy has reached a level
where 70 percent of the world population now live under some type of
autocratic regime (According to V-Dem). However, this should not be
confused with the will of the people; global polling reflects that 80
percent of the world's population wants to be free and live in a
democracy. The recent and surprising protests in Iran, China, and Cuba
to mention just a few, show that despite the efforts of dictators and
despots, the will to be free remains consistent. However, it is also
true that these movements have become less successful given the
capacity of autocracies to repress and contain the transition to
democracy through civil protests. Nonviolent pro-democracy movements
went from a 60 percent success rate in transition to democracy in the
1990s to less than 5 percent today according to a recent study from
Harvard University.
I am often asked how a dictator like Maduro can hold on to power
even when his government and that of his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, have
plundered the country and caused living standards to fall to the lowest
of any nation in Latin America or the Caribbean. There are many ways to
answer this question. Some say it is because of the government's access
to natural resources, in particular oil, and the support from the
military. Some even say it is because of divisions within the
Venezuelan opposition. But in my view, there is one reason that stands
above the rest: Maduro gets support from autocratic regimes throughout
the world. These regimes provide funding, technology, military
supplies, and know-how--all of which are ruthlessly deployed against
those who are campaigning for human rights, democracy and freedom. In
my conversations with freedom fighters living under other autocratic
regimes, they tell the same tale of governments propped up by like-
minded autocrats.
Autocracies have aligned their efforts to support each other in a
non-ideological but very pragmatic alliance to learn from and support
each other. This concept, called ``Autocracy Inc.'' by Anne Applebaum,
is a complex web of transnational corruption and criminal affiliations.
Twenty days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin was in
Beijing solidifying his partnership with the Chinese regime, and both
states released a joint statement declaring their alliance in
international relations.
These partnerships are a critical component of the resilience of
these regimes. Russian oligarchs, anxious to prevent democratization in
Latin America, routinely send delegations to Havana, Caracas, and
Managua to discuss mutual ``security.'' The most recent visit was that
of Nikolai Patrushev, a Russian General, intelligence officer, and
orchestrator of war crimes in Ukraine. The topic of discussion was the
suppression of ``color revolutions.'' Disguised as a diplomatic
mission, this was a blatant Russian intervention in Latin America with
the specific purpose of sharing methods of repression to terrorize and
intimidate any possible dissenters. Putin, often considered to be a
traditionalist, nationalist, and right-winger, has thrown massive
support behind Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, who styles himself as a
socialist and a hardline left-winger. It's important to realize that
these despots' ``ideologies'' are actually a thin facade for
transnational corruption and the exportation of human rights
violations. Putin will face no domestic backlash for his ideologically
incomprehensible support of Ortega; Russian support is not rooted in
admiration for Sandinismo in Nicaragua. It is merely a strategy to make
the world less safe for those who respect human rights, the rule of
law, and democracy.
Democracy is in retreat. Whether we want to accept it or not, there
is a global battle being waged against liberal democracy by the forces
of autocracy. Dictators recognize that their enemy is the system of
democracy itself, because where it exists and thrives, it provides
indisputable proof that the corrupt and decrepit ideals of autocracy
are hollow and inferior. However, I want to stress that the fight
against liberal democracy is also a fight against the United States,
who is the principal defender and proponent of democracy on the global
stage.
This is why Chinese communists, Russian nationalists, and Iranian
theocrats have wholeheartedly embraced one another. They are not tied
together by ideology or principles. They are united merely by a fear of
popular grassroots mobilization which is the primary challenge to their
illegitimate rule, as well as a desire to undermine U.S. influence
across the world. They are thus willing to support each other
unconditionally, because they recognize that they face an existential
threat. If there is one purpose of my visit to this chamber today, it
is to convince you, and freedom loving nations everywhere, that the
political developments in Caracas or Khartoum or Hong Kong have direct
implications for the security of the United States. We, too, face an
existential threat.
There can be no delusion that sitting out of this fight is an
option. A passive United States which is content to do business with
dictators, and which shies away from doing everything possible to
embolden and empower freedom fighters is making the world safer for
human rights violators and kleptocrats. With or without the
participation of the U.S., this battle is being fought. It must be
understood that losing a square inch to autocracy outside of the U.S.
is a square inch closer to autocracy inside of the U.S. Those who seek
to spread autocracy and undermine democracy are not short of funds or
weapons. They have found new ways to protect their interests,
exchanging resources, intelligence, military support, and methods of
repression regardless of their supposed ideologies. This is why the
U.S. must take an active role in leading the creation of a parallel
alliance, which is held together by a shared commitment to protect the
values which we in this chamber hold dear.
Imposing sanctions on human rights violators is logical and
necessary, but because of the criminal transnational support between
dictatorships, there must be a comprehensive re-examination of the
policy tools available. Most importantly, we must realize that we don't
have the luxury of ``losing patience,'' or giving these grotesque
regimes even a shred of legitimacy on the international stage. To do so
not only condemns the people trapped inside to live in poverty and
persecution in perpetuity, but it also makes the world safer for those
who seek to replicate the Venezuelan tragedy, and I can say to you that
there is no shortage of these people around the world.
It must also be spoken out loud and plainly; the United Nations has
allowed some of the world's most rampant human rights violators to
masquerade as statesmen and honest members of the international
community. Last week, I testified at the UN Human Rights Council, where
the fact finding mission stated that Maduro is responsible for
committing crimes against humanity. It was striking to hear the chorus
of autocratic nations defending the Maduro regime. Once again,
irrespective of ideology, human rights violators align to present
themselves as legitimate governments and vote to protect each other's
interests. The resolution to expel the Iranian regime from the UN
Women's Rights Commission, for example, faced stiff resistance. Those
who voted against the resolution included: Bolivia, China, Kazakhstan,
Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Russia, and Zimbabwe. Journalist Hillel Neuer
dubbed this group the ``Axis of Shame.'' I will note that Venezuela
does not vote on these matters since it is not up to date with its dues
payments to the UN, but we can say with certainty that if it could, it
would be a part of this cohort.
Authoritarianism is a hollow and decrepit ideal. It is incompatible
with the human spirit, which innately yearns for freedom. Dictators
intensely fear bottom-up popular mobilization, which is why they invest
so heavily in suppressing it. By definition, authoritarianism centers
itself around the suppression of basic human rights, such as freedom of
expression, assembly, thought, and religion. This means that
authoritarians will always have enemies, both within and beyond their
borders. Dictators must always direct most of their energy, funds, and
influence into terrifying and suppressing the will of their people, or
their grip on power will slip.
We have spoken of the advantages autocrats have over democrats.
This, however, is an inescapable disadvantage of the dictators. They
rely on terror, extortion, and the steady flow of funds and weapons to
remain in power. Their opponents, however, are motivated by much more
powerful, incorruptible ideals. Victims of authoritarianism have had
their basic humanity stolen from them. This is why across the world,
pro-democracy demonstrators are willing to take to the streets week
after week, willing to be shot at, beaten, imprisoned, and tortured. In
many places, dictators are finding that their habit of abusing and
humiliating their populations creates a determined, and with the help
of free nations, increasingly organized and well-funded resistance.
Even after 7 months, the people of Iran continue to fill the streets.
When we see the images of Iranian women resisting a brutal theocracy, I
ask you; what could be a better use of U.S. influence and leadership,
than to embolden these people? What is a better demonstration of the
American ideals of democracy and liberty than the Iranian, or indeed
the Cuban, Hong Kongese, Sudanese, or Venezuelan people at this moment?
policy recommendations
Recommendation No. 1: Secure Bipartisan Support for Global Democracy
Assistance
It is critical that the issues of human rights and democracy not
become caught up in partisan politics. For the U.S. to lead a sustained
multinational effort to confront this issue, it is essential that
within all elements of the U.S. Government, there be a unified front
and commitment to preserve freedom and democracy at the global level.
This includes law enforcement agencies, the presidential
administration, congress, and the judicial system. Facilitating the
conditions for people to elect their own leaders and to not be
subjected to human rights violations should not be partisan. The U.S.
must speak with one voice on this issue.
Recommendation No. 2: Support Civil Resistance and Democracy
Initiatives
Research shows that the most effective engines to transition to
democracy are nonviolent popular grassroots movements. External
pressure is necessary, but should be viewed as complementary to pro-
democracy and civil resistance movements. It's key to understand that
internal pressure requires the mobilization of large numbers of people,
either protesting or voting. We need to find innovative ways to provide
resources, strategies, and coordination assistance to make these
movements more effective. The U.S. and its allies should assist civil
society initiatives which participate in community organizing and
provide training in nonviolent methods of resistance. These kinds of
initiatives are critical in not only getting people on the streets but
also increasing their effectiveness.
Recommendation No. 3: Declare Democracy a Central Foreign Policy Focus
The United States Government should make supporting organic,
localized pro-democracy movements a central focus in its foreign
policy. In other words, irrespective of political denominations, the
U.S. should seek to identify pre-existing movements who are struggling
for democratic change and provide them with technical and financial
support. All foreign policy decisions should take into account
potential consequences for human rights and democracy. It is necessary
to coordinate efforts within and beyond the U.S. Government. Different
U.S. departments and agencies should be working in conjunction toward
the same goal. Simultaneously, coordination with civil society and NGOs
is critical in expanding the reach of pro-democracy policies.
Recommendation No. 4: Incorporate the Private Sector
The struggle for freedom and democracy should also include the
private sector. We have seen the consequences of tying the economies of
free nations to autocratic ones like Russia and China. The war in
Ukraine demonstrated the danger of many European governments'
dependence on Russian oil. We have also seen how guided investment in
the ESG framework (Environment, Social, and Governance) has generated
trillions of dollars into more conscious investors. However, the SDG
(Sustainable Development Goals), which are the 17 goals approved by the
UN in 2015 on which ESG is based, makes no mention of human rights,
freedom, democracy, and has only one mention of transparency. This is
because the UN framework for SDG was discussed and approved with the
vote of many autocratic regimes. The issues of human rights, democracy,
and freedom are absent from the ESG framework, and we therefore propose
the inclusion of the ``F'' for freedom in the ESG. This will guide
investment and promote incentives for different initiatives that would
promote freedom in different areas, such as communications, secure
internet, and access to financial services.
Simultaneously, it's important to make consumers aware that the
goods and services they are consuming are manufactured or extracted in
autocratic regimes. For example in Xinjiang, the slave labor of Uyghurs
is widespread in the production of consumer goods. Corporations which
operate in autocratic countries should be exposed as being complicit in
these human rights violations. Their economic activity is instrumental
in propping up the regime of Xi Jingping, and U.S. consumers and
investors should be confronted with this reality.
Recommendation No. 5: Consistency in Denying Legitimacy to Dictators
The U.S. should not send any financial or military assistance to
regimes who are anti-democratic and commit human rights violations. For
example, the U.S. enjoys a beneficial military partnership with
Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, who is the world's longest installed
dictator, ruling the country with an iron fist since 1986. If the U.S.
is to credibly stand up for democratic ideals on the world stage, there
can be no double standard or deviation for the sake of U.S. interests.
All dictatorships are incompatible with human rights, and the U.S.
should make it clear that it opposes dictatorships everywhere.
Similarly, the U.S. should use its influence with the European Union to
adopt a similar stance. The U.S. cannot democratize the world alone;
the full cooperation of free nations is critical if the authoritarian
threat is to be countered.
Recommendation No. 6: Massive Access to Internet, Smartphones
Autocratic systems are closed societies. Dictators spend much
effort restricting outside information to prevent any challenges to the
official narrative of the regime. Dictatorship is far more difficult to
maintain with a well-informed populace. Restrictions on the free flow
of information constitutes an enormous challenge for democracy
advocates within autocratic nations. To successfully mobilize large
numbers of people for demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience,
activist leaders need uncensored and widespread methods of
communication which circumvent the control of autocrats.
A program to distribute smartphones en masse in autocratic
countries is a practical way to do this. It would assist not only in
effective communications and combating misinformation, but also for
access to different innovations and services that could be provided
directly. There are also new technologies such as Starlink which can
gravely undermine autocrats' controls on access to information.
Recommendation No. 7: Support for Exiles
As the U.S. repositions its foreign policy to prioritize pro-
democracy and pro-human rights work, it should simultaneously take into
account the lives of activists who have been subjected to arbitrary
detention, torture, disappearances, and assassination attempts. The
U.S. has traditionally offered asylum to many of these people, but the
process must be expedited. The circumstances on the ground often change
rapidly, and the U.S. needs a process which rapidly assists human
rights defenders who will face arrest if they are not quickly removed
from the country. Bureaucratic steps in the visa granting process must
be removed.
Another way to assist democracy defenders is with stable migration
status. There are thousands of exiles in the U.S. who have a fragile
status, which restricts their ability to travel. One of the main
challenges we have is to coordinate the efforts of those who are exiled
and those who are still in the country. Political refugees in the U.S.
should be able to move freely to coordinate pro-democracy efforts with
their colleagues who are still inside the dictatorship.
Recommendation No. 8: Support and Visibility for Political Prisoners
The Department of State estimates that there are over 1 million
political prisoners around the world. These people are not afforded
legal protections and are regularly subjected to heinous forms of
physical and psychological torture. They are not allowed visitation or
the right to appeal, and are frequently unaware of what they have been
charged with. We should elevate the voices of these people whenever
possible. The U.S. should apply diplomatic, economic, and political
pressure to countries who have political prisoners. It should also
highlight their names and facilitate international awareness of their
plight. These brave people cannot be forgotten or allowed to rot away
in prison cells for speaking out against dictatorship. Additionally,
the U.S. can also provide legal support to the families of political
prisoners for them to advocate and communicate on their behalf more
effectively.
Recommendation No. 9: Support International Enforcement Mechanisms Like
the ICC
The U.S. and other democracies should explore ways to make
international institutions more effective. The supposed mission of the
United Nations of promoting global peace and protecting human rights is
gravely undermined when countries like Russia and China exercise such
massive influence in UN decision-making. The potential for
international enforcement mechanisms is immeasurable, but needs to be
re-evaluated.
The U.S. should support the international institutions which
identify, investigate, and punish crimes committed by autocrats.
Organizations like the ICC are critical in the prosecution of these
crimes, as we have seen in the recent decision by the ICC to issue a
warrant for the arrest of Vladimir Putin to be tried for war crimes. It
also initiated an investigation against Nicolas Maduro for crimes
against humanity. I will also reiterate that the fact-finding mission
of the UN Human Rights Council also identified Maduro as having
committed crimes against humanity. It's critical that the U.S. and
allied countries support these institutions so they can be more
effective in their work.
Recommendation No. 10: Rethink Sanctions and Empower Magnitsky
legislation
The imposition of sanctions has been a consistent tool for
democracies to prosecute authoritarians for human rights violations.
The U.S. should lead the way in pioneering new forms of targeted
sanctions for corrupt officials in countries such as Venezuela.
Magnitsky legislation has been a breakthrough on this front, denying
Russian oligarchs or Venezuelan regime officials the ability to
purchase properties or move with their families to live in free
nations. Kleptocracy is not about ideology; it is about the theft of
funds for private gain. By finding new ways to deny corrupt officials
the ability to spend their ill-gotten monies, the appeal of
transnational corruption is lessened.
The Venezuelan regime pedals the lie that sanctions are the cause
of the humanitarian catastrophe in Venezuela, which we know to be
untrue. In 2019, before the imposition of sanctions, the Venezuelan
economy had collapsed by more than 60 percent, and 4 million people had
already fled the country. Let's be clear; the situation in Venezuela is
the result of government mismanagement and corruption.
Sanctions are one of the few peaceful diplomatic tools which can be
used to consequence regimes which violate human rights. Without them,
the autocrat has no reason to restrain his behavior. To increase the
effectiveness of sanctions, we should take into account the
transnational systems of corruption which prop up these regimes. They
should confront the enablers--the individuals and companies which
continue to do business with autocrats. Simply sanctioning regime
officials will be insufficient in orchestrating political change.
Recommendation No. 11: Respond Effectively to Transnational Repression
Transnational repression is the attempt by autocrats to commit
crimes against their opponents outside of their borders. This is an
extremely common occurrence, and methods can include kidnapping,
murder, extortion, unlawful deportations, coercion by proxy, or
assault. Within our activist network at the World Liberty Congress,
Masih Alinejad was subjected to an assassination attempt in New York
earlier this year. Paul Rusesabagina, who we are glad to report was
released from prison this week, was kidnapped in 2020 by the Rwandan
Government, boarding a plane he believed would take him to Burundi, but
instead flew him to Kigali where he would be imprisoned. Another case
within our network is that of Palestinian activist Fadi Elsalameen, who
has been subjected to assassination attempts by the Palestinian
Authority despite being a U.S. citizen and living in Washington. U.S.
security and intelligence services should find effective methods to
protect human rights defenders whose lives are threatened by dictators.
There should be efforts to pre-empt attacks, and also to provide
consequences for dictators when they send their agents to commit crimes
against people in other countries.
Recommendation No. 12: Use of FinTech and Bitcoin/Lightning To Overcome
the Obstacles of Autocracies To Bring Financial Support
We must use new technologies to move resources inside autocratic
regimes without the surveillance of dictators. This includes using
FinTech and Bitcoin/Lightning to transfer resources to activists. We
have seen in recent periods that autocratic regimes seek to limit the
access of NGOs by controlling their ability to use external financing.
Providing reliable financial support is critical for democratic
movements' success, so new methods of financing which circumvent the
financial systems of autocrats are required.
Recommendation No. 13: An Alliance for Freedom
The cooperation of autocrats has been spoken about extensively. The
central thesis of the World Liberty Congress is the need to articulate
a global alliance of activist leaders who not only advocate for freedom
internationally, but are willing to risk their lives inside their
countries to achieve a democratic transition. We seek to identify
concrete ways in which we can empower one another and cooperate to make
our own movements more effective. By pooling together our experiences,
resources, and strategies, we form a much more formidable threat to
dictators. The membership of the WLC is extremely diverse--religiously,
culturally, ethnically, geographically, and ideologically. However,
because we have all faced the same brutal methods of repression and are
all advocating for democratic transition, we are able to form a
cohesive front. This is an excellent starting point, but is
insufficient without the backing of a multinational alliance of
sympathetic governments.
The U.S. should empower activist movements like the WLC and
cooperate with our initiatives to advocate for the liberation of
political prisoners, coordinate sanctions against kleptocratic
networks, and train activists in nonviolent resistance. It should also
use its global influence to enlist other governments who value freedom
to do the same. Uniting freedom movements who are committed to fair
elections, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and the
restoration of democracy is essential in this fight, and the U.S. has
an enormous leadership role to play in making this a reality.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya.
STATEMENT OF SVIATLANA TSIKHANOUSKAYA, LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC
FORCES OF BELARUS, VILNIUS, LITHUANIA
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member
Risch, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for
this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of millions of
Belarusians struggling for their freedom and independence.
I want to tell you about the dire state of democracy and
human rights in Belarus and how it impacts on regional security
and global interests. I will provide brief remarks and my full
testimony is submitted for the public record.
In 2020, Belarusians voted to remove the dictator
Lukashenko, who had been in power for 26 years. Initially, I
had not planned to enter politics. I just wanted to support my
husband, Sergei, who had been arrested after announcing his run
for the presidency.
I participated in the presidential elections as the united
opposition candidate. The regime did register me as a candidate
as a sort of joke. No one will vote for a woman, they thought,
but they were mistaken. According to independent polls and
observers, I did win.
Voting for me, Belarusians voted for change, for democracy,
and for the future of our country in Europe, but Lukashenko
refused to step down. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets
in peaceful protest to defend their vote and their future. The
regime responded with violent crackdown on the innocent
citizens.
Brutal state repression targets all groups, women and men,
children and seniors, activists and journalists, doctors and
athletes, human rights defenders and entrepreneurs. Tens of
thousands were arbitrarily detained in KGB jails. They were
tortured, humiliated, raped, and even beaten to death.
Recently, the United Nations admitted that the repressions
in Belarus have all the signs of crimes against humanity. More
than 4,000 were imprisoned on trumped-up political grounds.
Prison terms are extremely long. My husband, Siarhei
Tsikhanouski, received 19\1/2\ years. My own sentence is 15
years. Political prisoners have become symbols of courage and
dignity. Ihar Losik, Maria Kalesnikava, Pavel Sevyarynets,
Mikalai Statkevich, even Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Ales
Bialiatski, just to name a few, but thousands more remain
invisible and receive very little support.
Despite the fear and terror, Belarusians have not stopped
fighting for a single day. People joined the nonviolent
underground resistance, conducted acts of disobedience and
sabotage.
With the start of the Russian war against Ukraine, our
resistance intensified. More than 86 percent of Belarusians are
against Belarus' engagement in Putin's war.
Our goal is to liberate Belarus from tyranny and preserve
its independence. There is no doubt that an independent,
sovereign, democratic Belarus is in the interests of the entire
international community.
However, Putin's Russia does not see Belarus as an
independent country, but as a vassal state. With the help of
Lukashenko, Russia expanded its military presence and has taken
over economic and financial controls.
To please Moscow, Lukashenko destroys Belarusian national
identity, the core of the nation's soul, and resistance. The
Russian military is freely using Belarus territory, making our
country a co-aggressor in the war against Ukraine.
Finally, Putin just announced that Russia is deploying
tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus by July 1 this year. Some
call it occupation, some creeping annexation. Putin wants
Belarus as a consolation prize in case he loses the war in
Ukraine and we must not let it happen.
Russian troops must be withdrawn from Belarus territory and
Belarus should stop its participation in this unjust war. I
believe that democratic changes in Belarus would shorten the
path to Ukraine's inevitable victory.
I urge the United States to appoint a special envoy on
Belarus to oversee the growing Belarus agenda, to take strong
measures on releasing political prisoners, and ending the
terror unleashed against Belarusians.
It can be done through strong targeted sanctions in
coordination with the EU, U.K., and Canada to increase
assistance for Belarus democratic movement, civil society,
media, human rights defenders, and all their repressed; to
initiate international proceedings against Lukashenko's regime
for crimes against humanity, for crime of aggression, and for
complicity in war crimes in Ukraine; to continue supporting
Ukraine in its brave fight for the right to be themselves and
decide their own future.
I urge the U.S. Congress to update the Belarus Democracy
Act to reflect the role of Lukashenko in the war and suggest
policies for the U.S. Government. I welcome the initiative or
strategic dialogue with Belarusian Democratic Forces and call
to introduce this mechanism by other friends of Belarus.
In conclusion, I would like to express my deepest gratitude
to the United States, its people, and government for the
decades of principled and strong support for a democratic,
sovereign, and independent Belarus. We share the same values
and aspirations, and we must continue to fight for freedom
together.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tsikhanouskaya follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished members of
the committee: thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about
the dire situation of democracy and human rights in Belarus and its
implications for regional security and global interests.
I will provide brief remarks while I would like to ask Chairman
Menendez to accept my full testimony for the public record.
In 2020, Belarusians voted out incumbent Aliaksandr Lukashenka and
protested against his refusal to step down. The illegitimate regime
responded with lawless crackdown against political forces, civil
society, and the media. Systemic repressions affected literally all
strata of the society: women and men, children and seniors, workers and
teachers, athletes and lawyers, medics and religious communities.
Arrests are accompanied by violence, torture and degrading
treatment amounting to crimes against humanity, as it was repeatedly
recognized by the international community, including in the reports by
the UN and OSCE experts.
Repressions led to 60,000 administrative arrests and criminal
cases, at least 5,000 political prisoners, and hundreds of thousands of
Belarusians fleeing their country. Prison terms are extremely long, for
example my husband Siarhei Tsikhanouski received 20 years, my own term
is 15 years. We cannot wait till these terms expire, we must do
everything to end the regime and to free people.
Names of many political prisoners became symbols of courage and
dignity--Ihar Losik, Maria Kalesnikava, Pavel Sevyarynets, Mikalai
Statkevich, even Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski--just to
name a few. But thousands more remain invisible and receive very little
support. Repressions affected more than 1,500 Belarusians who support
Ukraine and oppose the war.
The regime treats political prisoners as hostages, using them to
cast fear inside the country and to bargain for international
recognition. The regime maintains a high level of terror while changing
the political system, ideology, and legislation into neo-Stalinism. The
very concept of solidarity is outlawed in Belarus as the regime tries
to break every horizontal connection in the society.
Nevertheless, Belarusians have not given up fighting for a day. But
now we must resolve two formidable tasks: liberate Belarus from tyranny
and preserve its independence. The democratic forces of Belarus are not
delegating this work--it is our duty and responsibility. But we need
help of the world to win this fight.
There is no doubt that an independent, sovereign, democratic
Belarus is in the interest of the entire international community. We,
Belarusians, are the legitimate force to bring democracy to our own
country and this by default cannot be seen as an interference in
internal affairs.
We have seen an unprecedented outpouring of support and solidarity
since 2020. This energy should become the international strategy to
realize the commitment to independent and sovereign Belarus.
The most damaging factor to democratic hopes of Belarusians has
been Russia's interference in our internal affairs. Without the
Kremlin's help Lukashenka would have lost power even before 2020. To
return the debt he makes illegal concessions to Russia. This includes
agreements expanding Russian military presence and handing over
economic and financial controls to Moscow. The Russian military is
freely using Belarus territory, making our country a co-aggressor in
the war against Ukraine. To please Moscow and make space for the
Russian world, Lukashenka destroys Belarusian national identity, the
core of the nation's soul and resilience before external threats.
Finally, Putin just announced that Russia is deploying tactical
nuclear weapons in Belarus by July 1 this year. This is his way to
deter Western support for Ukraine but also portraying Lukashenka as
Putin's puppet. Some call it occupation, some creeping annexation, but
it is clear that Russia's actions damage Belarusian and global
interests. As long as Belarus remains under Russian control it will be
an outpost of its aggressive projects, and this is unacceptable for us
and for the world.
It is time for a strong response to Russia's hostile, colonialist
actions against Belarus. I urge the world to support our demand of full
removal of the Russian military from Belarus and complete termination
of its involvement in the war. We cannot postpone Belarus until after
the war. As we see this, a democratic Belarus would drastically shorten
the way to Ukraine's victory. Going further, we see sustainable peace
as the result of a comprehensive approach to stabilizing the region.
This should entail a Marshall Plan for Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus
since regional security and stability are only possible when all these
nations are free of Moscow's control.
In the same vein, it must be guaranteed that the post-war
arrangements have no place for Russia's special interests in Belarus.
Such deals would lay the foundation for new instability. Discussions
about peace must include the Belarusian democratic forces who have the
legitimacy and think about national interests.
Russia denies to both Belarus and Ukraine their fundamental right
to have a sovereign state. However, these two nations are not the final
destination for Russia's ambitions, they are a stepping stone on the
path to dismantling the Transatlantic partnership. Therefore, I urge
the U.S. and like-minded nations to continue supporting Ukraine,
including with the most advanced military equipment, in its brave fight
for the right to be themselves and decide on their future.
The war has made it clear to Belarusians that relations with
hostile Russia must change. The United Transitional Cabinet has adopted
an approach to revising ties with Russia. This includes leaving the
military alliance and the Union State Treaty. Instead, we started
working on the European perspective for Belarus. This will also include
joining regional initiatives and broad partnerships with neighboring
states. I ask the U.S. Congress to support this strategic change for
Belarus.
The U.S. Congress has always been active on the Belarus agenda. In
2021, the Belarus caucus was officially launched in the House. Senator
Shaheen and Senator Wicker founded the Free Belarus caucus in the
Senate. The Congress adopted four iterations of the Belarus Democracy
Act and resolutions assessing and highlighting the developments in
Belarus. Now is the right moment to update the BDA to reflect the role
of Lukashenka in the war and suggest policies for the U.S. Government.
Lukashenka lost the mandate to represent the Belarusian people.
Yet, he and Putin perceive the lack of full derecognition as a green
light to realize their illegal ambitions and enjoy impunity along the
way. I call the U.S. to complete this effort and to fully de-recognize
Lukashenka and his regime as being under full control of the foreign
power to the detriment of the very statehood of Belarus. This process
must be accompanied by a growing recognition extended to democratic
forces.
The U.S. sanctions against the Lukashenka's regime have shown their
impact. This leverage should be further strengthened by removing
loopholes and enhancing coordination with the EU, UK, and Canada.
The regime is implicated in a series of crimes and must be held
accountable for the crimes against humanity, the crime of aggression
and for complicity in the war crimes in Ukraine. Lukashenka made the
war against Ukraine possible. The attack on Kyiv and Bucha came from
Belarus. He remains the only ally of Russia, fulfilling all requests of
Putin to help him in this aggression while brutally repressing any
forms of protest from Belarusians against the war. Lukashenka deserves
to sit next to Putin at the tribunal for the crime of aggression.
Finally, I want to reiterate the need of not just keeping Belarus
in the agenda but to make this attention practical, to focus
international efforts on taking away space and resources from the
regime. Cooperation with the U.S. in this sphere has proven to be
impactful and this momentum can be further increased, especially when
it comes to the UN and its Security Council.
In conclusion, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the
United States, its people and government, for the decades of your
principled and genuine support for democratic, sovereign, and
independent Belarus. The U.S. global leadership on these issues has
always had a decisive role. We share the same values and aspirations,
and we should stay in this fight together.
Thank you. I am looking forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wilson.
STATEMENT OF DAMON WILSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY (NED), WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Wilson. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch,
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss how the environment in which we work has fundamentally
changed, how NED is adapting, and what more our nation could
do.
The endowment was created 40 years ago with bipartisan
congressional backing as an independent foundation dedicated to
strengthening democratic institutions and values around the
world.
At the time, fewer than 60 countries were considered free.
Soviet-backed communism seemed stable behind the Iron Curtain
as Moscow fueled conflicts around the world.
Today, while the world is far more democratic,
authoritarianism is again on offense led by Beijing and Moscow.
Last week, as Xi Jinping was departing Moscow, he said to
Vladimir Putin, ``Now there are changes that have not happened
in 100 years. When we are together we drive these changes.''
``I agree,'' Putin said.
These changes they are referring to are meant to make the
world safe for autocracy, which by definition means a threat to
democracy. This underscores the biggest shift our nation must
make in its support for democracy and human rights around the
world.
We must recognize that our work and that of democracy
advocates on the ground is taking place in a more hostile
environment. Autocracies are waging a sophisticated coordinated
global campaign to undermine freedom.
They are increasingly using technology, financial networks,
and manipulated media environments together not only to better
control their own people but also to bolster each other,
capture elites, and undermine democratic practices and rule of
law.
As such, democracy advocates must work in common cause in
support of liberty and freedom. It is an extraordinary honor to
be testifying alongside Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and Leopoldo
Lopez, two heroes of democracy.
Indeed, democratic leaders would be in power today in Minsk
and Caracas if not for the backing that Alexander Lukashenko
and Nicolas Maduro have received from the likes of Putin, Xi,
and Diaz-Canel.
Sviatlana and Leopoldo have told you that they are not
fighting a fair fight. This new environment means that we must
learn, adapt, and raise our game by helping our partners on the
front line do the same, and thanks to Congress that is what NED
is doing.
The endowment now provides $300 million in grants to more
than 1,500 civil society and media organizations in over 100
countries. This includes support for our four core institutes
which draw upon the expertise of both major U.S. political
parties as well as the business and labor communities.
We are singularly focused on our mission of supporting the
courageous people on the frontlines of freedom in the most
challenging and dangerous places.
At NED, we do not presume to tell our partners what they
should do. We support their democratic ideas. We stand by them
in their nonviolent struggle. NED's approach is built on
people, on long-term relationships of trust. Our unique
structure allows us to respond quickly as when Afghans fled the
Taliban takeover, Iranians or Cubans suddenly mobilized in
protest, or Nicaraguans were expelled from their homeland.
We are increasingly using resources to enable our partners
to work together and to learn from each other to fight malign
information operations, to protect media integrity, tackle
kleptocracy, and foster democratic unity to counter
authoritarian influence.
We stepped up our investment in innovation to ensure
democratic activists have access to the latest tools to work
more safely and effectively, and we are supporting efforts by
civic actors to gain a seat at the table around the digital and
technological norms shaping the future.
This committee has asked what the United States can do
better to support democracy and human rights around the world.
To defeat this network of autocrats, democracies must unite
around a focused counter mobilization across multiple sectors.
Our nations should put democracy at the center of U.S.
foreign policy by treating democracy as strategy, not programs.
This means recognizing that the advance of democracy is among
the most cost-effective national security strategies.
We should ensure foreign assistance bolsters democracy.
Most aid does not support democracy directly. However, it
should support efforts to demonstrate that democracies deliver
for their citizens.
We must enlist other democracies to commit new resources to
support freedom and human rights around the world, including
creating NED-like organizations. We must also adapt our own
institutions to ensure that they remain nimble. When a coup or
invasion occurs, rigid project management is the wrong
approach. Our learning curve needs to outpace the learning
curve for dictators.
Finally, we must keep those on the front lines of this
struggle in the lead. Democratic change is more successful and
sustainable when it is anchored in local circumstances.
We should be proud of our efforts, confident in our values,
but humble in our approach. We must begin by also keeping
Ukraine and Taiwan's ability to safeguard their democracies
front and center and we should remain optimistic.
The record numbers of those fighting repression and fleeing
authoritarian regimes provide proof that people everywhere
understand what the research shows--people are happier,
healthier, safer, and wealthier living in a free society.
History tells us the most repressive and seemingly secure
regimes can crumble, brought down by ordinary people demanding
freedom, and it is our honor to ensure that those working for
justice, dignity, and freedom know that we have their backs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Damon Wilson
Good morning Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and Members
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our nation's
approach to democracy and human rights at a consequential moment of
rising authoritarianism.
I also want to acknowledge the two Members who also serve as
honorary members of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) board of
directors, Senator Kaine and Senator Young. Thank you for your service.
The Endowment was created 40 years ago with bipartisan
Congressional backing as an independent, nonprofit, grantmaking
foundation dedicated to strengthening democratic institutions and
values around the world. At the time, fewer than 60 countries were
considered free. Soviet-backed communism seemed stable behind the Iron
Curtain as Moscow fueled conflicts around the world.
Today, while the world is far more democratic, authoritarianism is
again on offense, led by Beijing and Moscow, in an increasingly
coordinated campaign with autocrats around the world from Tehran to
Minsk to Havana.
Last week in Moscow, as Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi
Jinping was departing, he said to Vladimir Putin, ``Now there are
changes that haven't happened in 100 years. When we are together, we
drive these changes.'' ``I agree,'' Putin said.
The changes they are referring to are meant to make the world safe
for autocracy which, by definition, means a threat to democracy.
This underscores the biggest shift our nation must make in its
support for democracy and human rights around the world. We must
recognize that our work, and that of our partners on the ground, is
taking place in a more hostile environment. Autocracies are waging a
sophisticated, coordinated global campaign to undermine democracy. They
are increasingly using technology, financial networks, and manipulated
media environments together not only to better control their own
people, but also to bolster each other, capture elites, and undermine
democracies.
As such, democracies must work in common cause in support of
liberty and freedom.
Today, I have the honor of testifying alongside Sviatlana
Tsikhanouskaya and Leopoldo Lopez--two heroes of democracy who were
forced to flee their home countries by autocratic leaders desperate to
silence their voices through any means necessary, including violence or
imprisonment. At NED, we are privileged to partner with the movements
and values they represent.
But the truth is that democratic leaders would likely be in power
today in Minsk and Caracas if not for the backing Alyaksandr Lukashenka
and Nicolas Maduro have received from the likes of Putin, Xi, and Diaz-
Canel. Sviatlana and Leopoldo can tell you that they are not fighting a
fair fight.
This new environment means that we must learn, adapt, and raise our
game by helping our partners on the frontline do the same.
Thanks to Congress, that is precisely what NED is doing. The
Endowment provides $300 million in grants to more than 1,500 civil
society and independent media organizations in over 100 countries. This
includes funding for our four core institutes which draw upon the
expertise of both major U.S. political parties, as well as the business
and labor communities, to inform our work.
On behalf of our grantees and staff, I want to express our thanks
and appreciation to this Committee for your enduring support. You've
enabled NED to stay singularly focused on our mission of supporting the
courageous men and women working on the frontlines for freedom in the
most challenging and dangerous places, as reflected in our largest
programs: China, Russia, Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Belarus, North
Korea, Venezuela, Ukraine, Pakistan, and Sudan as well as places like
Zimbabwe, Iran, Nicaragua, and Haiti.
Our partners efforts to advance democracy keep us humble. They
remind us that ``made in Washington'' strategies for a particular
country won't deliver sustainable democracy. Because the future of
every nation ultimately lies in the hands of its own people. At NED, we
don't presume to tell our partners what they should do or how they
should be governed. We support their democratic ideas. We stand by them
in their non-violent struggle.
In Ukraine, for example, NED partners are working to document war
crimes in real time, countering Russian information operations, and
helping to ensure Ukraine emerges from this brutal conflict an even
stronger democracy.
In Belarus, NED partners ensure access to independent information
across the country and provide support to political prisoners and their
families.
In Venezuela, NED partners document the horrific abuse of political
prisoners and work to hold the Maduro regime to account in
international bodies.
From Ecuador to Nigeria, our partners expose how corruption linked
to CCP-backed companies undermines rule of law in their own nations.
NED's support for Uyghur partners has been central to their ability
to document abuses against their community in East Turkestan and to
rally much of the free world to hold CCP authorities to account.
And, most recently, NED grantee the Tibet Action Institute revealed
to the world that the Chinese Government had taken nearly a million
Tibetan children--starting at age four--from their families and placed
them in boarding schools where they were subjected to indoctrination
intended to ``remove the Tibetan'' from them.
We find ourselves in a consequential moment for global democracy,
as the autocrats take their fight against freedom to new and dangerous
levels.
Last week, in Moscow, Xi and Putin reaffirmed their leadership in
the dictator's mutual admiration society, their ``no limits''
partnership stoking global fears that China will supply weapons in
support of Russia's war on Ukraine and, by extension, on democracy.
With China and Russia at the vanguard, authoritarian powers have
grown increasingly more assertive and ambitious, sharpening repression
within their own borders, while engaging in a sophisticated, wide-
ranging effort to corrupt and destabilize democracy in the rest of the
world.
In this era of global interconnectivity, the autocrats recognize
that keeping their own citizens in check is no longer enough to cement
their power, and so they're partnering with other like-minded autocrats
to share ideas, resources, and technologies.
Beijing invests billions of dollars on anti-democratic activities
in other countries because it understands that corroding democracy in
the rest of the world is the best way to protect the Communist Party's
monopoly on power in China. Russia works to crush democratic uprisings
in Europe and Africa to reduce the chances of a home-grown revolution.
Both seek to gain partners-in-crime to wield influence in international
institutions and neuter democratic and human rights norms.
These autocrats view democracy not just as a competitive system of
governance, but as an existential threat to their own survival. Despite
their rhetoric appropriating democracy and human rights, they know they
don't govern with the consent of their people. As Sviatlana and
Leopoldo can attest, they fear their people.
History is littered with dictators and despots working together to
maintain their own power. What makes the current cabal more effective
and dangerous is the sheer scale and scope of their activities and
ambitions, turbo-charged by technology.
They've widened their spheres of influence with media and marketing
campaigns that spread disinformation and divisiveness. Their corrupt
deals erode the rule of law and the credibility of institutions. They
exploit the openness of the financial sector to facilitate the
transnational flows of money, technology and information to their own
advantage, paving the way for corrupt governments in every corner of
the world to roll back rights and freedoms.
This is decidedly not soft power; rather this is what NED has
termed ``sharp power.''
For decades, NED has funded the most innovative and effective
individuals and organizations working for democracy. Our approach is
based on long-term relationships of trust. Constant listening and
learning from those fighting in the trenches ensures our programs and
strategies remain effective and relevant to emerging challenges.
Our unique structure allows us to pivot quickly, so that we're able
to respond quickly to events, such as when Iranians and Cubans suddenly
mobilize in protest, or when there's an opening for Sudanese,
Tunisians, and Burmese to resume their path towards democracy. Think
venture capital for democracy.
We specialize in identifying grassroot organizations with good
ideas and helping them develop their capacity. Historically, most of
our partners have operated at the community or country level. They
often lacked the resources or technical expertise to do battle against
strategies deployed by an increasingly sophisticated web of
transnational bad actors.
In recognition of this, Congress provided NED with funding
specifically designated to deal with these emerging global threats.
We're using those resources to connect our partners and accelerate
their learning from each other to develop cutting-edge approaches to
fighting information operations, protecting media integrity, tackling
kleptocracy, and fostering democratic unity to counter authoritarian
influence.
There, of course, is no equivalency between the open, nonviolent
tactics of democracy movements and the repressive, corrupt, and violent
techniques of autocrats. But as authoritarians increasingly work
together, so must we. To defeat the network of autocrats, democracy
supporters must unite around a focused and coordinated
countermobilization across multiple sectors.
When it comes to technology, for example, we don't need balloons to
tell us China is conducting surveillance on a global scale. Using big
data and biometric and facial recognition, Beijing has built
sophisticated systems to keep tabs on its citizens at home, while
offering up that technology to 97 governments, making repression easier
and more affordable than ever before. Greater collaboration among
democratic nations is urgently needed to confront digital
authoritarianism and leverage technology on behalf of democracy.
At NED, we're taking a systematic approach to innovation, helping
our partners outpace and outflank the autocrats by investing in
democratic networks that are sharing ideas and best practices across
movements and regions. We're ensuring democratic activists have access
to the latest tools to work more safely and effectively. And we're
supporting efforts by civic actors to gain a seat at the table around
the digital and technological norms shaping the future.
The authoritarians are also working to reshape global governance
and weaken systems by exerting influence over major international
institutions like the United Nations and even Interpol. Political,
business, and civil society leaders must join together to counter these
efforts, reinforcing alliances that defend democratic norms and deepen
democratic cooperation among key countries.
Democratic nations must support those who are bravely fighting the
good fight on the autocrats' home turf. As Americans, we should not
stand by and watch when activists and citizens are arrested and killed
in their quest for human rights and basic freedoms. They deserve our
support.
Most importantly, the democratic world must work together to help
Ukrainians defeat Russian aggression, and to help the Taiwanese
safeguard their democracy. To lose either to authoritarian invasion
would be a catastrophic blow to the cause of global freedom.
It seems obvious that supporting freedom beyond U.S. borders is
more than just a reflection of our democratic values, but a strategy
vital to our national interests and to global security.
So, it's ironic that Russia and China have made democracy a
priority strategy, while democratic nations have, more often than not,
relegated it to the sidelines. The autocrats wage war on freedom beyond
their own borders because they know it threatens their existence. We
must defend freedom in other countries because we recognize it is
necessary to our existence.
In fact, support for democracy is among the most cost-effective
national security strategies for democracies. As democracy advances,
the threats that democracies face recede.
As NED chairman Ken Wollack often argues, the notion that there
should be a dichotomy between our moral preferences and our strategic
interests is a false one. If our ultimate foreign policy goal is a
world that is secure, stable, humane and safe, where the risk of war is
minimal, then clearly supporting and advancing democracy should be a
national security priority.
The reality is that hotspots most likely to erupt into violence are
found, for the most part, in areas of the world that are
nondemocratic--places that experience ethnic conflict and civil war;
generate refugee flows across borders; harbor terrorists; produce
illegal drugs.
And we have learned that regimes that repress their own citizens
are more likely to act aggressively against their neighbors. This has
been borne out tragically by one man rule in Russia and China.
We also need to invite other democracies to join the United States
in stepping up their support for democracy around the world. The
European Union, United Kingdom, and Taiwan play critical roles.
Democracy advocates in allies such as Japan, South Korea, Australia,
and even India believe their countries could do more.
Progress in advancing democracy and human rights will come when we
align our foreign affairs and development activities in ways that
bolster democracy, especially in more open nations. Many of the
investments of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation, and USAID are not
democracy programs, but in transitional democracies they definitely
help democratic governments deliver.
Finally, we must keep those leading the struggle for democracy in
their own countries in the lead. Even as we push ourselves to sharpen
our strategies and to be more effective, we must not overwhelm the
agency of those leading this fight on the ground. Our role is to
support them.
Yes, these are challenging times for those of us who believe in
democracy and freedom. But we remain optimistic. While democracy in
many countries is on the back foot, the majority of people in most
places still prefer the dignity that comes with freedom--and many are
willing to risk everything in its pursuit.
We cannot be naive. The environment remains hostile and progress is
not linear. The autocrats are playing the long game. So must we.
But there are many reasons for hope--millions of them, in fact.
Globally, the demand for democracy has never been stronger. The record
numbers of those fighting repression and fleeing authoritarian regimes
provide proof that people everywhere understand what research tells us:
that people are happier, healthier, safer, and wealthier living in a
free society.
At the start of 2022, autocrats felt ascendant. Putin's forces
encircled Ukraine, as he met Xi Jinping in Beijing, while Xi was
consolidating more power than any Chinese Communist leaders since Mao.
The militarized theocracy in Iran was feeling more secure than it had
in years.
Flash forward 1 year. Putin failed in his ambition to crush Ukraine
and now faces an International Criminal Court indictment. China was
swept by the A4 White Paper protests, reversing zero-COVID policies and
representing the clearest expression of citizen demands for liberty and
rights since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Women now walk the
streets of Tehran without wearing the hijab, while the future of the
regime is challenged on the streets every day.
Despite rising authoritarianism, the human spirit is indomitable
and cannot be repressed forever. Lessons from the past teach that
democracies have more resilience and autocracies more brittleness than
we sometimes see in darker moments.
The fall of the Iron Curtain reminds us that even the most
repressive and seemingly secure regimes can crumble, brought down by
ordinary people demanding freedom. It is those people, ordinary people
who do extraordinary things, who we at NED are proud to support.
It is our honor to ensure that those working for justice, dignity,
and freedom know we have their backs.
Thank you for your time, attention, and support.
Senator Schatz [presiding]. Ranking Member Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
I would like each of the three of you to respond, if you
would, to the specific question I asked in my opening statement
and that is, look, we have all given long speeches here today
about the problem. We know what the problem is. We know what
the difficulties are, the challenges are, and we all want to do
something.
The question I have for each of you is, what is it that is
specific? There has been a reference made to some of the things
that we have done. Certainly, financial pressure is something
that is important, but those are hard to do and even harder to
enforce.
Maybe each of you could give me a short statement on what
you think the specifics are, starting with you, Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Senator Risch.
I believe that the most important aspect is to have a
paradigm shift in terms of what type of support is needed. For
a long time most of the support has been focused on development
issues and thinking that strengthening civil society is the way
to go for the moment when democracy knocks at the door to our
countries.
Now we know that that is not going to happen without a
struggle, without a fight, without the support for those people
who are willing to put their lives, their freedom, at risk, and
this is what I call the concept of a freedom society.
We need to identify the movements, the people, the
individuals, the activists, that are willing to stand up
against authoritarian regimes.
It is critical to have internal pressure. Democracy
transition requires pressure from the inside. People want to be
free, but people require the support from countries like the
United States and this is support that can be translated in
different types of aspects that are critical.
Of course, resources, capacity to communicate, and I
mentioned one that I believe is critical to every single
country that is under an autocratic regime--free and uncensored
access to the internet. This is something that can be a real
game changer.
We are today in countries that are under autocratic regimes
that are completely closed. People do not have information.
They do not have the capacity to effectively communicate and
have free access to uncensored internet.
Two, affordable smartphones can be a real game changer, and
I know that this requires some technological improvements, but
in the same way that the world came together to find a vaccine
for COVID-19, I believe that the free world needs to come
together to provide free access to the internet. This will give
the possibility to communicate, to mobilize, and to effectively
have a strong position against the autocrats.
The second is, I believe, that sanctions should be
strategically rethought. There is often a discussion around
whether sanctions should be imposed or not imposed.
I do not think that this is black or white--sanctions or no
sanctions. This is about effective sanctions and,
particularly--and I can tell that in the case of Venezuela, it
is not only to sanction those government officials or the
officials of the dictatorship.
It is also about identifying the enablers: the individuals,
the companies within and without the autocratic countries that
are creating this criminal structure of kleptocratic regimes to
give impunity to these regimes.
These are some concrete ideas that I think need to be
thought of.
Senator Risch. I appreciate it. Sviatlana, could you give
us a couple of words?
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. Thank you.
I might reiterate all that Mr. Lopez said, but as for
Belarus, in particular, I want you to initiate the
international tribunal against Lukashenko and his cronies for
he does not feel impunity for his crimes against Belarusian
people and his crimes of aggression.
We are asking to increase sanctions on the Belarusian
regime to punish them. Also, close loopholes because usually
regimes do have opportunity to use other countries to
circumvent sanctions and it gives them opportunity to survive.
We are asking to a create coalition of countries for
independent Belarus to keep our crisis high on the agenda. We
are asking to initiate the discussion on Belarus in
international organizations. We ask--the hearing on Belarus in
G-7 and the U.N. Security Council also to include in their
discussion nuclear weapons.
Block the regime from taking the seat in the U.N. Security
Council. As I said, send special envoy to Belarus to have
constant communication with the Government of the U.S.A. Also,
declare that all the agreements that Lukashenko made since 2020
are illegal, that they will not be--they will never be
recognized by democratic countries, and also speak out in
support of Belarusian independence.
Now, when our sovereignty is under threat, we see the signs
of creeping occupation. It is very important that powerful
countries are defending our independency, our sovereignty, and
people will feel this. Of course, be vocal about Belarus
because people in our country who are fighting, they need to
feel that they are not abandoned, they are not forgotten, and
that the world with them. It gives us inspiration to continue
our fight. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
I have a specific question for you. Had your election
actually come to fruition--we know you won, but that does not
do any good unless you actually take office. We also know that
in these countries that repression is only successful because
the military, the police, and the security forces obey the
orders of the head of state.
What is your thought about what would have happened had you
taken the presidency? Would you have been able to take command
of the military and the security forces?
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. One of our main tasks is to split
elites and split military environment around Lukashenko, but it
might happen only when those people inside the regime see that
Lukashenko is not recognized, he is losing legitimacy, he is
unrecognized in the normal democratic world, that there is no
future with him.
In that case, they will--at particular moment of our
history, they will take the side of people and we already see
the signs. You know that Lukashenko launched a new law that
allows him to bring people from the military service to death
penalty if they are accused of state treason. He is afraid of
internal coup d'etat or internal betrayal, and we have to split
these people even more.
Senator Risch. That is--obviously, that is a key. If you
can peel off major people in the security forces and/or the
military that changes the dynamics because, obviously, they
have the command and the power and that is where it is at. That
is how they keep order.
Be interesting to see by looking at the personalities
involved there which ones are the most likely to flip because
that is what is going to change it. There is no question about
it.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator.
I would outline a couple of key points where we could do
better. The first begins with that paradigm shift of
understanding democracy as strategy. Support for democracy is
the most effective return on investment for our national
security in a world in which autocracies are on offense
attacking democracy.
Second, leaning in on innovation. This is where
understanding how to leverage technology for democracy is key.
The investments--modest investments--we have made in
circumvention tools to see a skyrocketing use of VPNs to gain
access to the internet, mirror sites to overcome firewall
blockages, investments in the next generation of technology as
well as tools like financial forensics skills to track
kleptocratic stealing of wealth.
Third, really adapting some of our tools. As I said,
sometimes our institutions are trapped in project management
and when things change--there is a coup, there is an invasion--
we do not need to be trapped by contracts on a project. We need
to be focused on how to actually be there with folks in the
fight and support them in real time and have that flexibility.
Senator Menendez mentioned his efforts behind the Global
Heroes Act. This has been a big challenge as we have seen
increasingly with rising numbers of democracy advocates forced
from their countries, pushed into exile.
Many countries do not have the capability to support them
with visas and are not able to get them set up, and I think a
rapid coherent response among democracies is quite important.
I would also say aligning other foreign aid, such as
economic support funds with the U.S. Development Finance
Corporation, MCC. A lot of USAID projects are not per se about
democracy, but in this world they should be aligned such that
they are helping support transitional democracies to deliver
for their citizens in this contest.
Finally, I would say it is important that we enlist others.
Many of our allies--democratic allies--Japan, South Korea,
Australia--are generous with development assistance.
We need them to be equally generous with democracy
assistance and I think that is somewhere where we can help
enlist other partners in this cause, all the while
understanding that we have to keep those in the fight in the
lead and to recognize it is their agency, their struggle, and
we are only behind to support them.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you
for being here.
I want to talk a little bit more about press freedom and I
am going to ask you each the same question. Well, actually, I
am going to ask a slightly different question for Mr. Wilson.
What is working on press freedom? Because we are,
obviously, seeing the trajectory is bad. I am wondering if
there are kernels of hope and what we ought to be investing in,
thinking about, talking about as quickly as possible because I
also want to cover internet freedom. Go ahead.
Mr. Wilson. I would say a couple of things. What we have
seen is a consolidation in autocratic control often of
mainstream media outlets, consolidation around TV stations,
print newspapers.
Where we have seen a burgeoning of creativity, innovation,
and ideas is on online digital platforms, YouTube channels, and
the growth in the audiences of these has been quite remarkable
and also sustained in a way in which independent journalism is
thriving.
We see this both in autocratic societies and semi-open
societies and so it is not all bleak. There is a lot of
opportunity there.
Second, investing in those new technologies to reach
audiences where they are--the use of Telegram channels, YouTube
channels, and other means, oftentimes arts outreach, to reach
mass audiences with democratic messages in broader audiences
when traditional TV outlets are not available.
Senator Schatz. Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. Here is my question for
you.
It seems to me--I have two questions, right, one on press
freedom and one on internet freedom, and it seems to me they
are increasingly becoming the same question. I would like you
to speak to press freedom and internet freedom and if in
practice this is becoming the same question.
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. In Belarus, there is no media freedom.
You know that since 2020, all the alternative media in our
country have been liquidated. Journalists were arrested. Tens
of them now are behind bars.
Belarusians have to be inventive, have to be creative in
these obstacles, and the leadership of media had to flee
Belarus and reinstall the media outlets in exile.
Now, we are using all the possible platforms like YouTube,
Instagram, controversial TikTok to deliver our messages to
Belarusian people and, moreover, in Belarus where all the
media--alternative media are declared as extremist and people
who are subscribed or follow tweets or whatever, they can be
sentenced to years and years in jail for this.
People know how to use VPN. People are being educated and
we are trying to deliver the truth to Belarusians on the ground
and to the world.
Of course, it is difficult to counter to Russian and
Belarusian propagandistic narratives because they use all the
possible state outlets, TV, to show the views of regimes and
that is why we are asking our allies in the countries to assist
more to our media, to open Belarusian services in international
media organizations like Voice of America, for example, just
the world to hear the voice of free Belarusians.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. As has been said before, the regular media in
Venezuela and in many autocratic regimes is completely closed--
TV stations, radio stations. Just recently, Maduro closed 80
radio stations in Venezuela.
Thinking that converting regular media as a way to
communicate with the Venezuelan people is something that does
not seem like it is going to happen.
Social media through access to the internet can also be an
alternative. However, we need to understand that social media
today has been contaminated by the influence of dictatorships,
particularly of Russia.
In the case of Venezuela, we have seen how the Russian
influence in the communications of social media is happening
through bots, through trolls, and that conversation has also
been impacting the perception of the Venezuelan people.
It is critical that we understand that the social media
conversation requires some participation and support
technological organizations to really combat the trolls, the
bots, the influence--the external influence of Russia and
others.
I will give you an example. In 2014, when we called for
protests, I was completely banned from regular media. I could
not go on TV stations or radio stations. We called for protests
only through Twitter. Only through Twitter were we able to get
hundreds of thousands of people to the streets.
Today, 10 years later, that reality has completely changed.
The conversation in social media is manipulated, contaminated,
and Russia plays a big role in the way in which this is
happening.
Free access to the internet is critical.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
The Chairman [presiding]. Let me thank Senator Schatz for
presiding while--we have an important banking meeting. We have
a few problems in our banking system.
Let me follow up. I listened intently to your testimony and
I got a summary of some of the responses you have given while I
was away.
I would like to get, if I can, a little more granular
because we are really trying to think about how do we support
those of you who are on the front lines in a meaningful way,
and I have heard--for example, Mr. Lopez, you said support the
activists for freedom, not just civil society.
In what ways? Because sometimes we hear, oh, if we support
A, B, or C in the country, it is going to be the United States
that is trying to create a subversive response or a overthrow
of whatever that existing tyrannical government is, and so
there is that question that is always raised, well, we should
not do that too much.
On the question of the internet, of course, part of our
challenge is that for the internet to be free and open, you
still have to be able to receive it on the ground in the
country that you are in.
We have this problem with Cuba where we would like to
have--I have been advocating for a free internet and thinking
about satellite transmissions and other ways--of course,
circumvention technologies that we use.
That then gets into the question of can you just beam into
a country where there are other international conventions that
suggest you can and can you get the receptions on the ground.
Just by way of example, when you say support those who are
fighting for freedom, give me a tangible. What would you--if
there was an A, B, or C, is that about economic resources? Is
that about greater access to our surrogate broadcasts? If you
can help me, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Lopez. Well, research shows that supporting civil
resistance and nonviolent movements has been proved effective
and what this means is supporting the possibility to provide
training, massive training, simultaneous training to activists
under autocratic regimes and training in civil resistance
methods, in nonviolent methods, in communications, in movement
building, giving the capacity, the confidence, to activists on
the ground that they are not alone, that they can have the
capacity to organize and to extend that organization.
In 2 weeks, we will launch what we have called the Global
Freedom Academy from the World Liberty Congress. This will take
place in Zambia. We will start with the training of the first
cohort of African activists that will be trained in these
issues.
We have taken the best practices from all of the research
and the information of what works in terms of providing
strength to movement building and we have a moonshot idea to
train in person 1 million people in the next 3 years in
countries that are autocratic, and this will give confidence in
the capacity to mobilize.
I can tell you firsthand that this works. We have done this
in Venezuela. We have created networks of activists, men and
women that are committed to the struggle for freedom, and this
is why there is a difference between the development type of
support that Mr. Wilson was talking about versus the freedom
type of support that we are talking about.
This needs to be decisive and there needs to be no fear in
supporting the movements and the people who are willing to put
their lives at risk to provide change.
We will always be confronted with the accusations of
regimes. They will accuse any activist of being a spy of the
U.S. or being a terrorist, of being influenced by the United
States or the organizations of the United States.
I remember one day Damon Wilson asked me, are you afraid
that you will be signaled as being supportive of the United
States or being part of this network? I said, they are always
going to say that. They always say that regardless of whether
you receive the support or not.
It is critical that that support is received.
The Chairman. Let me ask you about this. You mentioned in
your opening statement that sanctions need to be rethought.
In what way? Because sanctions is one of the few peaceful
diplomacy tools we have to get a country to rethink how it is
acting or to try to move it in a different direction. When you
say to be rethought, what are you thinking about?
Mr. Lopez. Well, we have seen recently in Venezuela a
massive scandal of corruption and it is very clear now to the
Venezuelan people and beyond that the problem of Venezuela is
not sanctions.
We have heard over and over that the crisis--the
humanitarian crisis in Venezuela--is a consequence of sanctions
and this is simply not true. In the year 2019, before the
sanctions were imposed, the Venezuelan economy had collapsed by
more than 60 percent. More than 4 million Venezuelans had fled
the country at that time.
It was not because of sanctions. It was because of
government mismanagement and corruption, and today we believe
that sanctions should be focused not only on government
officials, because the government structure is only a facade to
the real political economy, to the real power structure in our
country.
When we are talking about sanctions, we are thinking of
targeting the enablers, the individuals, the companies that are
behind this kleptocratic network of corruption that is
providing support to the dictatorship.
We also think that there needs to be some multilateral
thinking of how to apply sanctions because Maduro is linked
with Lukashenko, is linked with Putin, is linked with the
mullahs from Iran.
There is a transnational kleptocratic network that also
needs to be targeted in an effective way. That is what we are
thinking in terms of repurposing sanctions.
The Chairman. Thank you. It is very insightful. I have
other questions for our panelists, but let me turn to Senator
Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
each of you for being here. A special thanks to Sviatlana
Tsikhanouskaya and Mr. Lopez for the sacrifices that you and
your families have made to promote democracy and human rights.
Damon, thank you for your work as well.
We had a press conference last week with Ms. Tsikhanouskaya
and one of the things we talked about was the number of
Belarusians who have been imprisoned. Here, I have a picture,
Ihar Losik, who is a journalist who has been in prison now for
over a thousand days, who reports were that he tried to commit
suicide last week.
If we were going to make a poster for everyone who has been
wrongly imprisoned in Belarus, we would not have enough room in
this room, much less in the building. I am sure the same is
true in Venezuela.
One of the issues that we had talked about was trying to
encourage the State Department to appoint another special envoy
for Belarus. Can you discuss why that would be important for
the opposition movement in Belarus, Sviatlana?
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, for this
picture and that you are advocating for the Belarusian
prisoners whose number is increasing every day. Every day in
Belarus, about 17 people are being detained every day.
Of course, a designated special envoy to Belarusian
democratic forces has extremely important meaning. We had very
fruitful collaboration with Julie Fisher. She opened us a lot
of doors, created a lot of opportunities for us here in the
U.S.A. She delivered our messages. She connected us with the
necessary people here in the U.S. Government, and when she
left, we just physically felt this lack of attention, lack of
communication, lack of collaboration.
If there was a person who is like a bridge that is
connecting countries, is designated, it will be much more
easier for Belarusian voice to be heard here in these walls, to
be heard in the government, because we know that this attention
span is rather short and we have to be always on agenda that
Belarus is not overlooked in this situation, that Belarus is
not left for one day later so to update information about what
is going on in our country.
In this way, we hope for concrete, for decisive actions
from the U.S.A., because when this connection is lost, so we
are not in focus and we can easily be forgotten.
Senator Shaheen. You will be pleased to hear that Secretary
Blinken last week in his hearing said that he is hoping to have
a special envoy appointed very soon.
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. We will continue to raise that issue.
Can you talk about what the reaction of the people of
Belarus has been to Putin's announcement that he was planning
to move nuclear weapons into the country and what, as the
opposition, you think the United States and other countries
should do to try and discourage that?
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. People in Belarus understand that this
possible deployment is against Belarusian people's will and
against our constitution, that Russia now acts as an occupying
force. It violates our national security and makes Belarus
possible a target.
By deploying nuclear weapons, Russia is trying to subjugate
Belarus and deprive it of sovereignty, and I think that
international community must demand from Russia to stop
deployment of nuclear weapons and impose strong sanctions on
those who are responsible for this and, of course, launch a
hearing in the U.N. Security Council about this case and to
show regime of Lukashenko and Kremlin a strong reaction on this
because the feeling of impunity is very strong now in pro-
regime countries and we have to understand that dictators
cannot be appeased, cannot be reeducated, and they understand
only their language of power, and democracy has to show its
teeth.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Damon, I only have a little bit of time left, but I wanted
to ask you about Georgia because I was there the end of
February. I spoke with Ken Wollack before he was headed there
and one of the things we talked about is the fact that the
people of Georgia are still very interested in joining the EU
and looking west and, yet, the Government of Georgia seems to
be behind the people in supporting those efforts.
What more can we do to support the people of Georgia?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you for raising Georgia, Senator Shaheen.
We were quite concerned in the past 10 days when the
government tried to introduce a law that would restrict foreign
funding to NGOs, essentially, copycat laws that we have seen
proliferate across the world, this one mirroring quite a bit of
what was done in Russia.
In response to that, you saw the Georgian people turn out
in incredible numbers on the streets of Tbilisi. We sent our
chairman, Ken Wollack, to Georgia on a mission just to raise
our concerns with the government and to bolster and support our
partners and we have seen the government step back from the
brink at this moment.
I think that the real issue here is understanding. As you
said, the Georgian people see themselves in Europe and have
made that clear repeatedly and so our bet, our commitment, our
stand, needs to remain with the Georgian people across the
country, including outside of Tbilisi, who organized.
From farmers, agricultural unions to teacher groups, a much
broader cross section of society was mobilized and protecting
what they understood was backsliding, a hit at their democracy.
I think investing in the people, maintaining pressure on
the government not to do these types of things, and I think
really keeping a focus on how to support the enabling
environment and those actors to ensure a free, credible, fair
election as they look towards that next year and, ultimately,
to have the Georgian people decide that trajectory and their
future.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me just return to a couple
final questions.
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya, you have a unique insight in the global
fight for freedom--the wife of a political prisoner, the
candidate that won the election.
As a woman, do you think that there are any unique insights
that you face versus some others--Mr. Lopez faces or some
others face--in that fight for freedom as a woman in that
fight?
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. No. I think that women sometimes are--
tend to be even stronger than men and when obstacles put you in
such situations when you have to show your strength, when you
have to transfer your anger to strength or love to strength,
you just do this because you know that you are doing this for
your children, for the future of your country.
You act just like a mother, for you feel the pain of
everybody who is in jail, of everybody who has to flee the
country, but you realize that you are not alone, that you have
strong Belarusian people who really want to help you and the
world and you understand that you take strength from them as
well and you are powerful only then when you have people around
you.
As I am still here, there, I still have this power, so I
know that hundreds of thousands of people around the world are
supporting me, supporting our movement, and support their
friends in Belarus.
The Chairman. Thank you. It is a very great, insightful
answer. I am reminded all the time by my daughter, my wife, and
others that they are stronger.
Let me--and members of this committee as well. Let me ask
you what I asked Mr. Lopez. You specifically said in your
opening statement, increased assistance to the democratic
movement. In what way specifically would you want to see that?
Mr. Lopez. Well, I believe----
The Chairman. I am sorry, Leopoldo. I am asking Ms.
Tsikhanouskaya. You answered that for me, largely. I want to
hear from her perspective.
You said increase assistance to the democratic movement in
Belarus. Tell me what you would want to see us do or others in
the world do in doing so.
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. You know that it is impossible to fight
inside of Belarus at the moment. We have the underground
movement, underground resistance, anti-war movement in our
country.
Most of our NGOs have been ruined inside Belarus and they
have to--had to relocate outside, and all those initiatives,
organizations, they need assistance to continue the fight, and
we do not have opportunity to get this assistance only from
powerful countries, powerful foundations.
We are asking our--those people who believe in the changes
in Belarus, who believe in the Belarusian people, to support
our human right defendant centers who are supporting political
prisoners and their families, for them not to lose hope; to
support our media to deliver honest news to Belarusian people;
to support our cultural initiatives because we understand how
strengthening of national identity is important for Belarus
because for last 27 years Russia was ``Russifying'' everything
in our country and we have to keep our national identity
strong.
We are asking to support our sportsmen initiative because
our sportsmen went against Lukashenko's regime back in 2020 and
they are suffering because of this also a lot.
We ask not to invite pro-regime sportsmen to different
sports events, but instead invite free sportsmen. Also, just--
and when our people see that you are not--that they are not
abandoned, that they receive this opportunity to continue the
fight, to build ties, to create this--that you are
institutionalizing our relationship, they have power to
continue.
We are not asking to fight instead of us, but help us not
to be exhausted, not to be overstressed with this difficult
fight. We will do everything by ourselves on the ground, but
help us not just to sustain, but to win.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, our USAID administrator, Samantha Power,
recently wrote that, ``Advocates of democracy have focused too
narrowly on defending rights and freedoms, neglecting, among
other things, economic hardship and inequality.''
Do you--well, I do not want to say do you agree because you
are a grantee. I do not want to put you in a conflict, but give
me a sense of that. It struck me and, of course, economic
hardship and inequality, we deal with those core issues.
Sometimes that gives us a strengthening of democracy and less
likely for autocrats to be able to take hold.
By the same token, if our democracy assistance efforts is
about sending economic assistance to bright spot countries
where peaceful pro-democracy movements have been successful,
yet democracy remains fragile, which I think is a worthy cause,
but I am not sure that that now becomes the focus of our
assistance.
How do I help these two distinguished people create
movements that are successful in their countries if I am
focused on the bright spots alone? Can you give me a sense of
that?
Mr. Wilson. Senator, yes. I would sort of frame it a little
bit differently because you are exactly right, if you are
talking about Belarus, Venezuela, Russia, China, we need to
stand by those who are fighting for political freedoms, human
rights, dignity, individual liberties in a very, very hostile
environment.
What I welcome from the USAID administrator's point of view
is that a large part of foreign assistance in the United
States, but especially in our democratic allies is development
focused, and I think what she is arguing is aligning that
development focus behind our democracy objectives.
NED is not going to get involved, for example, in energy
projects or infrastructure, but USAID's funds that do that
should be focused in a way that they are supporting democratic
leaders, those on a transition path, to help them show that
their citizens that they can deliver.
That alignment, I think, is really important across the
foreign assistance approach because that is not always the case
and it is particularly not the case with some of our partners.
It is not a substitute for the direct democracy programs
that are absolutely required in the toughest places. That is an
area where the endowment specializes, and you cautioned against
the allegations that we would be seen as the instruments of the
U.S.
For us, it is very clear. For us, we stand behind their
ideas. It is their struggle, their ideas, what can they do, and
by our getting involved, how do we make them more effective
and, hopefully, more secure through digital security and
physical security.
I think there is a different way to think about it. We have
to stay focused on democracy assistance in the toughest,
toughest places and that is not development aid. That is where
we need to actually be able to think more like venture capital
for democracy, be able to take risk, invest in some new
technologies that lead to more secure VPNs where we have seen
skyrocketing access in Russia, or creative investments in
satellite television that have provided Afghans a new audience.
Whereas we have seen the effectiveness of a digital Wailing
Wall for COVID in China breaching the Great Firewall--that sort
of venture capital approach.
Also, we have talked a lot about media. Sometimes our
development assistance is restricted to capacity building and
training, but oftentimes these are quite sophisticated media
outlets. They do not need more trainings. They actually need
support with operations, content production, facilities, and
content, and I think some of those restrictions that is where
flexibility comes into play.
Finally, as Senator Shaheen talked about, Ihar, who was
arrested, who tried to commit--almost committed suicide while
he was in captivity, coming to this approach with flexibility.
We had a partner arrested in Belarus last week. Many
traditional donor agencies would have to stop their grant to
that organization because he has been arrested. We do not. We
work with the organization to pivot, to change the objectives,
to ensure that that organization can survive, the family is
supported, that it is focused on political prisoner advocacy
rather than just saying, oh, that project no longer applies,
and that mentality bringing in to all of our instruments of
flexibility, being relevant to the circumstances in which we
are in, I think, is helpful.
The Chairman. I appreciate if our development assistance is
going to have a democracy bent to it. That is great.
Of course, USAID is very often the entity that uses direct
democracy grants, and so I am concerned about making sure that
we do not turn away from helping courageous people like those
who are with you on the panel and think that let us go just
consolidate that which we have--and I do not want to use the
word forsake, but triage away from that, that is a dangerous
proposition.
I do not know if that is what the administrator meant. I
intend to have conversations with her about that, but it is a
concern to me.
Thank you all for those insights. I normally do not do
this, but we have a vote going on the floor. Is there anything
you have not said that you want to say before I close this
hearing?
Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. I would just like to support what you said at
the beginning of the Democracy Heroes Act, and I can tell you
that this is something that is very important for, I would say,
hundreds or maybe thousands of people who are in exile that do
not have a stable migration status, and that takes them to a
position where they are uncomfortable. They are in a fragile
position to continue their work from exile.
I commend this and I think that this is something very
important for the struggle of those of us who are in exile. We
need to continue to bridge those who are in exile like us with
those who are in the inside, and the Democracy Heroes Act in
the way you presented today, I think, is an important way
forward.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you.
Anyone else? Ms. Tsikhanouskaya.
Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. Yes. I just wanted to say a couple
words of gratitude to senators who are involved into--in
Belarus here, in the Belarusian Caucus who are keeping Belarus
high on the agenda and help us to fight with dictatorship and
Russia. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I would just foot stomp your last
point. The NED's forte is the toughest cases. If you look at
our top 10 portfolio--China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus,
Burma, North Korea, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Sudan--we are in the
toughest places uniquely, in a way, because we do not have to
have a cooperative grant agreement with the government.
Because we do not have field offices or a physical presence
in these countries, we can stand by those that are on the
frontlines of the fight for freedom in the most difficult
places and understanding that their success--when the
opportunity opens and they are in a position to succeed that
will have the greatest impact in mitigating the threats to U.S.
national security.
Seeing the support--democracy support in the most hostile
environments is fundamental to an investment in our own
security and that is why we are proud to stand by the cause and
the movement of people like Leopoldo and Sviatlana. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
This has been very helpful. We hope we can continue to
count on you as we develop a continuing agenda to maximize our
ability to deliver on behalf of freedom fighters and the
democracy movement in the world for insights.
With the thanks of this committee, the record for this
hearing will remain open until the close of business on
Wednesday, March 29. Please ensure that questions for the
record are submitted no later than tomorrow.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Mr. Leopoldo Lopez to Questions
Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
Question. The Venezuelan people do not have access to a free and
open internet--the government blocks websites, manipulates online
information, and cracks down on dissent.
How can the U.S. Government support people in Venezuela, and around
the world, who are subject to internet restrictions?
Would it be valuable for the U.S. Government to publish a regular
strategy on how to promote internet freedom as part of broader U.S.
foreign policy?
Answer. We believe that a regularly articulated strategy by the
United States to increase internet/information freedom will be
invaluable to freedom fighting movements not only in Venezuela, but in
all autocratic countries.
It's important to promote access to the internet for two primary
reasons:
I) Countering regime misinformation: Autocratic regimes rely on
misinforming their population as a means to stifle potential dissent. A
confused and divided populace is less likely to mobilize en masse. Free
and reliable access to the internet will undermine autocrats' ability
to set their false narrative, and is the first step in pro-democracy
mobilization.
II) Providing unrestricted channels of communication: Reliable and
anonymous methods of communication are necessary for the mass
mobilization of people required for pro-democracy movements. Organizing
massive civil resistance movements requires intimate logistical
coordination, so activist leaders need to be able to communicate freely
to organize and mobilize people without fear of pre-emptive crackdown
by regime intelligence services.
There are a variety of initiatives that show promise on this front,
such as Starlink, Jigsaw and others. The United States should lead the
way in exploring how these initiatives can be applied to the struggle
for freedom and democracy, and incorporate them into their foreign
policy strategy.
In conjunction with internet access, FinTech and Bitcoin/Lightning
are new technologies which can provide critical financial support to
people living within closed societies. Remittances abroad account for
$600 billion USD globally, the majority being sent into autocratic
nations. These funds can be subject to transaction fees as high as 30
percent.
Internet access can unlock FinTech and Bitcoin/Lightning inside
autocratic nations, which for millions of people can protect them from
inflationary costs. It also opens the possibility of receiving
transactions outside of autocrats' financial systems where they are
subject to theft.
______
The Committee Received No Response From Ms. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
for the Following Questions by Senator Brian Schatz
Question. Internet freedom has continued to deteriorate in Belarus
following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
How can the U.S. Government support people in Belarus, and around
the world, who do not have access to a free and open internet?
[No Response Received]
Question. Would it be valuable for the U.S. Government to publish a
regular strategy on how to promote internet freedom as part of broader
U.S. foreign policy?
[No Response Received]
______
Responses of Mr. Damon Wilson to Questions
Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
Question. According to Freedom House, global internet freedom
declined for the 12th consecutive year in 2022. Users faced legal
repercussions for expressing themselves online in at least 53 countries
last year. North Korea and China are the most extreme examples, but
leaders in many more--including in vibrant democracies--are censoring,
surveilling, and shutting down the internet.
Are restrictions on internet freedom antithetical to democratic
principles, and if so, how is NED working to address these challenges?
Answer. Digital rights are human rights. People today exercise many
of their core human rights online, including freedoms of information,
association, and expression. Citizens around the world use the internet
to organize, mobilize, deliberate, and engage in political and
governance processes. Therefore, unduly infringing upon internet
freedom is antithetical to democratic principles.
Unfortunately, the internet's emergence as a digital public square
has not gone unnoticed by authoritarian states and actors. Narrowing
civic space online--whether through legislative, administrative,
informational, or technological means--has quickly become a cornerstone
of their strategies to stifle democratic voices, disrupt collective
action, and silence independent media. Autocrats aim to exploit
emerging technologies and shift global norms in ways that support their
surveillance, constriction, and control of digital spaces.
Pushing back against the growing threats to internet freedom is
fundamental to the long-term resilience of global democracy. For this
reason, the Endowment is leveraging both its core grantmaking tools and
its democracy support activities to better equip civil society actors
for this challenge, providing knowledge and resources to counter
authoritarian attacks on democratic participation online. NED grantees
are: documenting internet shutdowns; conducting local and global
advocacy and helping to set internet standards; and localizing
censorship evasion tools for civil society actors worldwide.
Through the NED's core institutes--the International Republican
Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity Center,
and the Center for International Private Enterprise--the Endowment is
supporting political parties, the private sector, and trade unions to
strengthen their capacities and collaborate in promoting internet
freedom.
NED's International Forum for Democratic Studies (Forum) and Center
for International Media Assistance (CIMA) have supported this work
through research and convenings that bring together stakeholders from
NGOs, academia, independent media, and the tech sector, among others.
The Forum has examined authoritarian influence and democratic
vulnerabilities in the online information space as well as the contest
over global digital norms, including the implications of emerging
technologies such as artificial intelligence. CIMA has focused on the
ways that authoritarians are using internet shutdowns, cybercrimes
legislation, and targeted spyware to repress journalists and news
outlets. These activities help the democracy support community to
identify emerging challenges and foster concrete strategies for civil
society and donor responses.
Question. Would it be valuable to have the U.S. Government publish
a regular strategy laying out how it is marshaling resources to promote
internet freedom as part of broader U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. Clear and coordinated messaging and actions from the U.S.
Government regarding its efforts to support internet freedom would be
beneficial, particularly to our global civil society partners.
As NED partners have demonstrated, civil society and the private
sector are necessary allies in advocating for an open internet. As
authoritarian states seek to tighten their grip on digital public life,
the U.S. Government can play a critical role in fostering
multistakeholder and rights-based approaches to digital governance,
supporting civil society responses, and countering authoritarians'
export of digital repression.
In the absence of clear messaging from established democracies like
the United States, other countries may be more easily swayed by the
digital models of leading autocracies, which are all too willing to
provide strategic guidance, funding, and digital tools and
infrastructure that can encourage censorship, surveillance, and
targeted curbs on internet access. Communication of a coordinated
strategy that incorporates all U.S. Government actors engaged in this
space, notably the Department of State, USAID, and the Department of
Commerce, accompanied by diplomatic advocacy among U.S. partners
worldwide, could help to counter efforts by authoritarian actors to
promote more restrictive--and less free--internet regimes, whether
within their borders or around the globe.
______
Responses of Mr. Damon Wilson to Questions
Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
Question. Press Freedom in India and Pakistan: The State
Department's Human Rights Report was released on March 20. According to
the report, both India and Pakistan have seen increasing threats on
press freedom and both countries are increasingly dangerous places for
journalists trying to do their jobs. The State Department is not alone
in sounding the alarm--Reporters Without Borders (RSF) ranks India
150th and Pakistan 157th out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index,
and cites the dangers involved with being a journalist in both
countries. According to both the Human Rights Report and RSF,
journalists are subjected to harassment, threats, and even death in the
course of their work. This is concerning not only for freedom of
speech, but for the overall rule of law in both countries.
What programs, if any, does NED fund or support, either directly or
indirectly in India and/or Pakistan and what is NED doing to promote
free speech, protect journalists, and protect minority rights and
religious rights in India and Pakistan?
Answer. NED does not have an India-focused grants program. Instead,
the Endowment seeks to share best practices and highlight lessons
learned from India's democratic experience with partners around the
world.
In Pakistan, NED currently supports approximately 35 local partners
as well as the work of its core institutes--the International
Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity
Center, and the Center for International Private Enterprise--totaling
more than $3 million in FY 2023. The Endowment has long prioritized
support for programs focused on freedom of expression and independent
media, as well as promoting and protecting the rights of religious
minorities, and currently funds 12 projects that advance these
priorities.
Within our work supporting freedom of expression and independent
media, NED provides a total of $965,000 annually to six organizations
promoting free speech and protecting journalists. These independent
organizations are implementing projects related to digital and
workplace safety for journalists, countering disinformation, and
support for independent media platforms.
Regarding promoting religious freedom and protecting the rights of
religious minorities, NED provides $800,000 to six civil society
organizations. These projects include research and advocacy to remove
bias and hate speech against minorities prevalent in textbooks and the
school curriculum, the political empowerment of minority communities,
and public campaigns to promote interfaith harmony, tolerance and
pluralism. As freedom of religion and expression are cross cutting
issues for strengthening democracy and inclusive governance, many of
NED's civil society partners have incorporated these themes into their
activism and policy advocacy.
The project summaries below offer more details on NED's 12 current
Pakistan grants that focus on promoting freedom of expression and
independent media, as well as promoting and protecting the rights of
religious minorities:
freedom of expression and independent media
Organization: Digital Rights Foundation
Project Title: Fostering Safe and Democratic Online Spaces for Civil
Society
Summary: To strengthen the ability of civil society groups, human
rights defenders, and media practitioners to participate in online
spaces safely and to advocate effectively for digital rights. The
organization will maintain a cybersecurity helpline to provide
assistance to at-risk individuals and groups, conduct trainings on
digital security and online advocacy, and establish a digital media
fellowship program to foster online platforms for issue-based advocacy
and to promote freedom of expression.
Organization: Global Neighborhood for Media Innovation
Title: Fighting Disinformation and Supporting Independent Media
Summary: To strengthen journalists' skills in fact-checking,
investigative journalism, and their ability to identify and counter
disinformation in both traditional and digital media. The organization
will carry out an online media capacity-building project to increase
journalists' skills to counter disinformation and carry out
responsible, ethical fact-based reporting. The project will also
publish digital content produced by participants and organize webinars
on the thematic issues related to democracy, pluralism, human rights,
and media freedom.
Organization: International Federation of Journalists--Asia Pacific
Project Title: Promoting Labor Rights, Gender Equality and Freedom of
Association in Pakistan's Media
Summary: To strengthen the capacity of media associations to
protect and defend the rights of journalists and to support
collaborative efforts to promote greater gender equity in media unions.
The project will connect international labor experts with local
partners to strengthen the understanding of media worker rights and
develop a decent work agenda for media. The group will conduct advocacy
and trainings on strengthening unions, digital organizing, and gender
equity as well as monitor labor rights in the media sector.
Organization: Media Matters for Democracy
Project Title: Countering Online and Digital Disinformation
Summary: To strengthen the knowledge and capacity of media
organizations and journalists to identify and counter online
disinformation. The grantee will conduct research to update a toolkit
on digital disinformation. It will also carry out trainings for
journalists on how to identify disinformation online and teach
techniques to verify information and detect digital manipulation. The
project will also sponsor a fellowship to produce investigative stories
on digital disinformation.
Organization: [Name not for publication to maintain security and safety
of grantee]
Project Title: Supporting Freedom of Expression through Independent
Media and Citizen Journalism
Summary: To promote freedom of expression and enhance media
freedoms through independent reporting and citizen journalism. The
project will support a media platform that features independent media
reporting, investigative journalism, and digital content produced by
citizens. The content will focus on issues of human rights, government
accountability, and gender equality that are censored or ignored by
mainstream media outlets. In addition, the media outlet will launch
digital campaigns on public interest issues.
Organization: Women Media Center
Project Title: Enhancing the Skills of Women Journalists and Media
Students
Summary: To enhance the skills and knowledge of women journalists
and media students for the promotion of democratic values. The
organization will conduct trainings for women journalists and mass
communication students in cities across Pakistan to strengthen their
ability to increase public awareness on democratic issues such as
gender equality, public accountability, free and fair elections, and
freedom of expression and to improve their technical skills in
reporting as well as producing news packages and short documentaries,
script writing, camera-work, shooting and editing for television and
digital media.
religious minority rights and political empowerment
Organization: Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace
Project Title: Campaign for Education Reform and Minority Rights
Summary: To facilitate the development of a more tolerant and
inclusive curriculum in the public education system and promote policy
dialogue related to equal rights for religious minorities. The
organization will produce a research study on textbook content and
conduct national-level advocacy for education reform. The organization
will also engage with political parties as part of a campaign to
protect minority rights.
Organization: Center for Human Rights Education
Project Title: Training Institute for Democracy, Human Rights and Peace
Summary: To strengthen the skills and knowledge of activists in
promoting human rights, democracy, and peace and to promote public
discourse and activism on issues of peace and democracy. The
organization will conduct training courses for activists on democracy
and peace and tolerance to strengthen a grassroots movement on
pluralism and religious tolerance.
Organization: Center for Social Justice
Project Title: Advocacy Campaign for Inclusive and Equal Citizenship
Summary: To enhance advocacy for government policies and political
party platforms that promote inclusive and equal citizenship and to
promote active participation among religious minority communities in
electoral and political processes. The project will develop leadership
skills of religious minority political activists who will then engage
political parties, legislators, and other key decisionmakers on issues
of equal constitutional rights. The group will organize seminars,
conferences, and community-level meetings to promote public discourse
and mobilize citizens on these issues.
Organization: DAMAN
Project Title: Civic Education and Engagement for Minority Communities
in Sindh
Summary: To increase public awareness of and civic engagement with
democratic institutions and electoral processes. The organization will
conduct a civic education program to strengthen knowledge among women
and youth about democratic rights and good governance. The program will
include exposure visits to national- and provincial-level political and
civic institutions, awareness-raising sessions, advocacy training,
street theater performances, forums bringing together citizens and
elected representatives to promote public accountability, and a
celebration of International Democracy Day.
Organization: International Research Council for Religious Affairs
Project Title: Enhancing Understanding of Democracy and Religious
Freedom in Islam
Summary: To increase awareness of and support for democracy and
democratic principles such as peace, pluralism and tolerance among
religious communities. The organization will organize trainings for
religious leaders, media and youth on democratic values and concepts
within Islam and skills to strengthen democratic narratives and
practices within religious communities and society. Trained religious
leaders and opinion makers will conduct dialogues, seminars, and media
campaigns to strengthen awareness and acceptance of democratic values
and practices within their respective communities. The organization
specializes in outreach to religious communities and engages in
advocacy with government institutions on countering radicalism and
militancy.
Organization: Youth Development Foundation
Project Title: Making Local Government Inclusive
Summary: To promote civic participation among women, youth, and
religious minorities in local government. The organization will work
with civil society and the provincial government to launch a campaign
to increase voter participation and the number of candidates contesting
local elections from marginalized communities. The activities will
include community awareness sessions, mock voting exercises, and voter
outreach through television, radio, and social media highlighting
messages of political inclusion.
Question. Elections in Turkey: Elections are scheduled to take
place in Turkey on May 14. In the lead-up to the elections, the
Government of Turkey has intensified a media crackdown and sentenced a
leading opposition figure--the Mayor of Istanbul--to prison. The state
media agency has begun to heavily sanction and fine Turkish television
stations for their coverage of the earthquake and has continued to
stifle social media, including banning Twitter and a popular forum
site. There are also concerns over the past performance of the Turkish
Supreme Election Council, which has not addressed irregularities that
favor Erdogan, and annulled elections not in his favor.
What, if anything, is NED doing, either directly or through
entities it funds, to promote free and fair elections in Turkey?
Answer. In Turkey, NED supports civil society-led programs that aim
to increase voter participation and enhance electoral integrity. Out of
NED's 15 active grantees, the work of seven of our partners--which
include independent media outlets, human rights organizations, and
think tank and policy centers--directly focuses on the upcoming general
elections. In addition, three of NED's core institutes--the
International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute,
and the Center for International Private Enterprise--also have
election-related programming.
NED-supported election-related programs are primarily focused on
the following areas: non-partisan youth participation and voter
education; objective analysis of candidates, pre-election environment,
and voting day developments; combating disinformation; monitoring
campaign financing; voting rights; and nationwide coverage of the
election process.
The below list offers the summaries of current NED-funded election
related projects in Turkey:
To promote free and fair digital political campaigns. The
grantee investigates and monitors electoral violations in the
digital activities of political campaigns and publishes monthly
reports on findings. In addition, monthly op-eds by renowned
journalists inform civil society and media about the impact of
digital advertising on election integrity.
To promote a transparent election environment. The
organization examines, investigates, and reports on political
party programs, polls, and presidential and parliamentary
candidates. The target audience is primarily youth and
undecided voters. The project curates, and publicly shares
summaries of party programs on key issues such as education,
immigration, and economy in a nonpartisan way via biweekly
podcasts, a weekly online publication of articles representing
different political views, and weekly newsletters focusing on
young voters.
To promote youth participation in electoral processes
through countering disinformation. The project aims to equip
university students in three major Turkish cities with fact-
checking skills and tools. The organization will hold one
online and three on-campus workshops with university students,
prepare an election fact-checking toolkit, organize awareness
raising meetings, and provide live fact-checking on election
day.
To advocate for democratic, fair, and accessible elections;
and to monitor and document voting rights violations. The
project produces podcasts, TV programs, and animated videos to
raise awareness of voting rights. The organization also
monitors the election process to identify irregularities by
collaborating with international election monitoring groups and
coordinating a joint local CSO election observation platform.
The project will include election day monitoring in 20
different cities.
To strengthen and expand local media and their news coverage
in regions traditionally underrepresented in mainstream media,
and to enhance local media coverage of elections. The project
provides training on digital media, rights-based and election-
focused journalism in six different cities to promote local
journalism and electoral participation and transparency.
To strengthen free and fair elections through objective
election related analysis and information, and to monitor and
investigate irregularities and undemocratic practices related
to the electoral process. NED sponsors an organization that
provides evidence-based media coverage of the campaign season,
election day, and post-election period, particularly in regions
with a history of election irregularities. It also provides a
platform for political parties and candidates of diverse
backgrounds to communicate their messages and for voters to
express their opinions and priorities. The project produces
live coverage, short videos, written reports and podcasts.
To increase awareness about the election process and post-
election reforms. The project produces a series of
informational videos and blogposts on elections, post-elections
reforms and critical socio-political issues in Turkey to help
youth understand public policy. It also publishes regular
infographic and textual content on its social media accounts
aimed toward engaging youth on political developments.
To promote youth participation in the elections. The project
promotes informed and productive political discourse by
organizing political discussion forums with young men and women
from six municipalities across Turkey. The project brings
together young people from each selected municipality to
discuss issues facing youth and bring these issues to the
attention of leaders and candidates from each of the major
parties. Led by youth leaders, hundreds of youths have taken
part in issue-focused discussions in their communities, delving
into issues including youth employment, education, freedom of
expression, access to basic goods and services, and youth
participation in decision-making processes.
To promote accountability tool in the post-election period.
The project has mobilized its Youth Fellowship Alumni Network
to conduct a series of policy-focused interviews with officials
of the political parties running in the upcoming elections. The
interviews will then be analyzed and published. The Network
then plans to continue its advocacy efforts, keeping the
officials and the parties accountable for their promises and
policy positions in the campaign. Finally, the organization is
conducting opinion polls on election topics and broader
political issues in the country.
To provide data-driven information about Turkey's economy
that is central to political debate in the elections. The
project works with a local partner to collect and compare data
sets that connect adherence to democratic principles, such as
fair and inclusive elections, to the overall health and fortune
of the country.
Note: NED does not publish or publicly share the names of most partners
in the Turkey portfolio as the revelation of those partners could put
them at risk of harassment and harm. If you would like more detail on
partners in this portfolio, please contact NED and we will arrange a
secure briefing.
[all]