[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]