[Senate Hearing 118-540]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-540
ANTI-NGO LAWS
AND OTHER TOOLS OF DEMOCRATIC REPRESSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 12, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-201 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon RAND PAUL, Kentucky
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey TODD YOUNG, Indiana
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland TED CRUZ, Texas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
GEORGE S. HELMY, New Jersey 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
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator From Maryland............. 1
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 3
Rutzen, Douglas, President and Chief Executive Officer,
International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, Washington, DC.... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Gigauri, Eka, Executive Director, Transparency International
Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Wang, Yaqiu, Research Director for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan,
Freedom House, Washington, DC.................................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Ms. Wang's Response to Senator Van Hollen Regarding China's
Export of Surveillance Technologies............................ 30
Select List of Human Rights Defenders Missing or Imprisoned in
China, September 2024, submitted by Senator James E. Risch..... 32
(iii)
ANTI-NGO LAWS
AND OTHER TOOLS OF DEMOCRATIC REPRESSION
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
Cardin, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin [presiding], Shaheen, Coons,
Kaine, Van Hollen, Helmy, and Risch.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee will come to order.
Our hearing today is on anti-NGO laws and other tools of
democratic repression, and we thank our witnesses for being
here to share their expertise and knowledge and to help us deal
with this extremely important subject, a trend that we have
seen growing that is adding to the concerns of the backsliding
of democratic states.
The use of defamation laws, foreign agent registration
laws, and anti-NGO laws to silence free speech is nothing new.
We see it in Russia, in Nicaragua, and Uganda, whose
leaders have long used these tools to target journalists,
judges, civil society activists, and opposition political
figures to consolidate power and silence dissenting voices and
views.
Ethiopia has shuttered over 1,500 civil society
organizations for failing to submit their annual reports.
Uganda's horrific new law targeting LGBTQI+ individuals has
resulted in mass evictions, violence, and arrests.
India, over the years, has weaponized this Foreign
Contribution Regulation Act to suspend several American and
international NGOs' operations in the country including
respected human rights organizations like Amnesty
International.
And Hungary launched an investigation into Transparency
International, a nongovernmental organization that takes on
corruption worldwide.
Of course, the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing is an
expert as using so called legal mechanisms to silence citizens
and critics alike.
Nowhere has this been more on display than what has
occurred in Hong Kong in recent years as the passage of the
National Security Law and entry into force of Article 23
destroyed what remains of Hong Kong's democracy.
But in recent years we have also seen more and more nations
that we would consider mostly democratic or partially free
turning to these laws as tools of repression.
It is deeply concerning that democracies from Georgia to
India to Turkey have used their legal systems against
journalists, opposition politicians, human rights defenders,
and civil societies.
So I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us
today to discuss this important topic. You have all done
impressive work in this space.
I want to acknowledge that many of these laws are totally
legitimate. There are reasons to register foreign agents, to
protect individuals from defamatory attacks, to require NGOs to
pay fees or taxes one time, to use Interpol red notices to
track down fugitives and criminals.
And you might hear some of these actors claim we are not
anti-civil society; you have a registration of the 501(c)(3)
laws in the United States.
Yes, but of course, the problem is when these laws are
turned into tools of repression and intimidation. Those in
power know the effects of these tactics.
They have led to draw on expensive procedures. The heavy
financial and psychological cost of these legal measures on
their targets creates a chilling effect, silencing government
critics and stifling democratic dissent.
That is why as chairman of this committee I have made it a
concerted effort to counter these trends: the Human Rights
Defenders Act, which I introduced this year, the Transnational
Repression and Accountability and Prevention Act, which was
enacted last year, the International Freedom Protection Act,
which the committee has reported out, and of course, the Global
Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.
Since the Global Magnitsky sanctions program went into
effect in 2017 the United States has sanctioned over 650
foreign persons and entities. Congress, acting on a bipartisan
basis, has made huge impacts in supporting and defending human
rights.
The United States and the international community have
certainly taken important steps to address these challenges. I
am very supportive of programs like Reporter Shield,
Journalists in Distress Network, Scholars at Risk, and the
lifeline embattled CSO assistance funds.
These are all critically important. But we need to do more,
and time is of the essence.
For so many years the Republic of Georgia has been a bright
spot in the former Soviet Union. But just this April, despite
massive street demonstrations, the government passed a foreign
influence registration law that goes into effect this fall.
Amazingly, this law is modeled after a Russian law, and
considering what Russia has done to Georgia, that is
unbelievable that they would follow that path that allows the
government to target nonprofits and activists.
It intends to intimidate and ultimately force the closure
of civil society voices that are out of step with the
government.
The sponsors of the law and the governing Georgia Dream
political party have been very clear about their intentions and
about which civil society actors they perceive as enemies.
The poster behind me shows a bank of posters hung in front
of one of our witnesses' home, Eka Gigauri. She has to face
that every morning when she walks out of her house. Similar
posters have been placed in front of Transparency International
offices.
These posters say, ``Our homeland is not for sale,''
calling in question the loyalty of the people that are
advocating against these repressive laws, a statement intended
to impugn and label NGO leaders as foreign agents.
Congress and this committee in particular has a
responsibility to take bold legislative action to confront the
use of these laws head on and to support the bold activists
that are determined to hold on to democracy.
Today in my office I am releasing a video showcasing the
incredible stories and work of human rights defenders,
courageous people from Uganda, Venezuela, Burma, and Colombia
who are speaking out in order to hold their governments
accountable.
I encourage you to visit the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee website and our Twitter account at SFRC--Dems to
watch the video.
I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work
to protect the essential elements of liberal democracies:
Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, media freedom, and
religious freedom.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, their
assessment of our efforts in this regard so far, and
suggestions on how we can be more effective in the years to
come.
It is now my pleasure to turn to the distinguished ranking
member, Senator Risch, for his opening comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for
that, and certainly your work in this field is to be recognized
and appreciated.
First and foremost, I think we should all agree and
recognize this is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan
issue, and it is an American issue and something we all need to
work on together.
Unfortunately, it is a fact that autocrats and their
governments will do whatever it takes to stay in power. They
survive and in some cases reemerge, using creative methods to
repress their political opposition and silence human rights
advocates and others who seek to shine a light on their
actions.
The tool of choice for authoritarians these days is anti-
nongovernmental organization laws, also referred to as foreign
agent laws. These laws claim to stop foreign influence but in
reality are used to close the space for civil society and
opposition.
Autocrats fear the loss of control, and this ensures
opposing ideas are neither seen nor heard. It should not
surprise anyone that the model anti-NGO law was first designed
by Vladimir Putin.
Russia's anti-NGO law has been used as a model since then
across the world in repressive places. In nations like
Azerbaijan and Belarus dictators have used lawfare to
consolidate control and close the space that once existed for
small amounts of free speech.
Laws that criminalize government watchdogs and champions of
democracy are used to crush dissent and shield corrupt
officials from scrutiny.
In places like Sudan and Syria both formal and informal
restrictions are used by malign actors to control what, when,
where, and to whom life saving aid can be delivered.
This weaponization of restrictions against legitimate NGOs
undermines U.S. values and interests. I am particularly
concerned about our friends in Georgia. Despite clear
statements from the EU, the passing laws to restrict NGO
activities will halt EU membership.
Georgia's government has persisted. I am glad the U.S. has
undertaken a review of our policies toward Georgia and am
supportive of the current pause in assistance.
Senator Shaheen and I were pleased to go to Georgia in 2012
as we watched the first real free and fair election. I think
both of us were very pleased at what happened and the way it
was initially received.
Since then, our confidence and our view, at least mine, and
I think, having conversations with Senator Shaheen, have been
disappointed, and I think that is probably an understatement,
at the movement back toward what the Georgian people had been
blessed with, and that was freedom from the Russian bear.
So we hope as we go forward that things turn around in
Georgia. Hungary has also made several attempts to advance
anti-NGO legislation, and Slovakia has an active proposal that
would require NGOs that receive funding from abroad to label
themselves organizations with foreign support.
The EU has warned that it will take legal action and launch
infringement procedures against Slovakia if it does so.
In China it is no surprise the government views foreign
NGOs as threats to its national security. Its anti-NGO law
drastically reduced the ability of both foreign and domestic
civil society actors to work in China.
China is locking up human rights advocates and torturing
them, and it is pursuing them abroad through transnational
repression.
We must remember these victims and advocate for them. I am
submitting a list of their names for the record. Beijing's
actions do not occur in a vacuum. When it prosecutes human
rights advocates other authoritarian actors take note.
In 2020 Beijing unilaterally imposed a national security
law on Hong Kong ending the city's fragile autonomy. Since then
the Hong Kong government has weaponized this law and other
colonial era laws to criminalize political dissent.
I think we are all aware of the terrible case of Jimmy Lai.
His trial has been delayed repeatedly and is a mockery of the
rule of law. Hundreds of other political prisoners have been
jailed alongside Mr. Lai in Hong Kong, and the government has
even pursued dissidents who fled by issuing extraterritorial
arrest warrants.
In Africa many governments use anti-NGO laws to restrict
civil society activities, limit funding from international
donors, and control the operations of local and international
partners, including USAID.
This is happening in countries like Tunisia, Tanzania,
Sudan, Chad, Zimbabwe, and Rwanda. These examples I have just
cited are just a few of the many that occur all around the
world.
This problem is only growing as technology changes and
those in power find new ways to hold on to control. The United
States must do more to combat this trend.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today what
they are doing and what more can be done on this important
issue.
With that, I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Let me thank Senator Risch for his opening
comments, and as you pointed out in the beginning, I could have
given your opening statement, you could have given my opening
statement, because I think we both agree on the challenges that
we have to democratic states and other oppressive states on the
use of these tools.
So today we are honored to have three distinguished
witnesses. I am going to introduce each of you. Your full
statements will be made part of the record. We will ask that
you proceed to try to summarize your comments in about 5
minutes, leaving time for questions.
We are honored to welcome Mr. Douglas Rutzen, the president
and CEO of the International Center for Nonprofit Law, where he
has worked to improve the legal environment for civil societies
and public participation worldwide.
Mr. Rutzen also serves on the OECD Civic Space Observatory
Advisory Group and previously served on the advisory board of
the U.N. Democracy Fund. He has also served on USAID
Administrators Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid and
co-chaired the State Department's Global Philanthropy Working
Group.
I am also honored to welcome Ms. Eka Gigauri, a Georgian
public figure and civil activist who has been the executive
director of Transparency International Georgia since 2010, one
of the leading organizations in the fight against corruption.
She has bravely led efforts to counter Georgia's anti-civil
society legislation. She has also deep government experience,
firmly serving as the deputy head of the Border Police of
Georgia where she successfully moved forward anti-corruption
reforms and within the ministry of foreign affairs.
And last, I am pleased to welcome Yaqiu Wang, the research
director for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan at Freedom House. Ms.
Wang has an extensive history of working on human rights issues
in the region.
Previously served as a senior China researcher at Human
Rights Watch. She has also worked on press freedom issues with
the Committee to Protect Journalists focusing on China and
other Asian countries.
With that, we will start with Mr. Rutzen.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS RUTZEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT LAW,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Rutzen. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member
Risch, distinguished members of the committee. It is an honor
to testify today.
First, the data. In the last 5 years, 72 countries have
introduced 270 measures restricting civil society. Governments
are converting the rule of law into the rule by law to control
civil society and constrain civic freedom.
Disaggregating the data, 33 percent of the measures
restrict the ability to form or operate a nonprofit. Last month
in Venezuela the National Assembly passed a law that would give
Maduro's regime unbridled discretion to determine which
nonprofits can exist.
At the same time, as Chairman Cardin referenced, Nicaragua
closed down 1,500 nonprofits including religious organizations,
human rights groups, and the American Chamber of Commerce in
Nicaragua. In Afghanistan the government issued an order
banning women from working in a nonprofit.
So the first trend from the data: Barriers to participate
in civil society. Second, governments are restricting the
ability of civil society to access resources.
Consider Niger, where a nonprofit requires governmental
approval to receive donations even from local businesses or
citizens. Other countries, including Egypt, require
governmental approval to receive international philanthropy or
bilateral assistance.
We are also finding, as Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member
Risch articulated, the rise of these anti-foreign influence
laws, which are overbroad and intended to defund, delegitimize,
and intimidate defenders of democracy.
And this brings me to the third and final trend from the
data. Fifty percent of the restrictions sweep across society.
Examples include the national security law in Hong Kong,
Burma's counterterrorism law, and Belarus's law on extremism.
Governments are using these laws to target defenders
regardless of the sector they are in, whether civil society,
business, the media, or otherwise. They also couple this with
other tools including surveillance, harassment of the defenders
and their families, imprisonment, or worse.
As a result, we are seeing a holistic compression of civic
space. Some say that the world is witnessing a democratic
recession, but many countries have already entered a new phase:
The great repression.
But progress is possible thanks to courageous colleagues on
the front lines in the defense of democracy. And how can this
committee support those efforts? As detailed in my written
testimony, there are three Ps: Programs, personnel, and policy.
First, programs. The U.S. Government should create a global
program to serve as an early warning system and to preemptively
address anti-NGO laws.
In terms of mitigation programs, let us ramp up initiatives
that help defenders operate in restrictive environments. A good
example is the Surge and Sustain Fund which helps defenders
access the internet. And let us expand protection programs to
cover the full range of defenders under threat.
Second, personnel. Let us ensure there is sufficient
personnel at both State and AID to address the defense of
democracy including transnational repression.
Finally, policy. Senator Cardin, I thank you for your
leadership in championing the Global Magnitsky Act. However, in
recent years there has been a slowdown in the use of sanctions.
Perhaps the committee could exercise oversight authority to
promote the more effective use of these authorities.
Finally, as bills advance through the Senate, please help
ensure that they safeguard civil society, not only
internationally but also here at home.
In closing, thank you for holding this hearing and inviting
me to testify. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rutzen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Douglas Rutzen
Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished members of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee: thank you for inviting me to
testify. I appreciate your interest in the legal environment for civil
society around the world.
democratic repression
According to Freedom House, global freedom has declined for 18
consecutive years. Seventy-one percent of the world's population--5.7
billion people--live in autocracies. Some say the world is witnessing a
``democratic recession,'' but many countries have already entered a new
phase: the Great Repression.
As a tool of repression, governments are enacting legislation to
restrict civil society, including human rights groups, development
organizations, religious organizations, and chambers of commerce. In
doing so, governments undermine freedom, peace, and prosperity.
According to ICNL data, 72 countries have introduced more than 270
legal initiatives restricting civil society over the past 5 years.
Governments are converting the rule of law into the rule by law. They
are using legislation to consolidate power, control civil society, and
constrain civic freedom.
global trends
Lifecycle Legislation
Thirty-three percent of recent restrictions undermine the right of
people to form and operate a civil society organization (``CSO'').
Combined with preexisting laws, governments have erected significant
legal barriers to enter civic space. For example:
In Belarus, organizing or participating in the activities
of an unregistered association is a criminal offense subject to
imprisonment.
In Eritrea, a citizen seeking to establish a relief
organization must have access to $1 million, which is more than the
average Eritrean will earn in her entire lifetime.
In Afghanistan, the Ministry of Economy issued a ban on
female employees of domestic and international CSOs.
Last month, the National Assembly of Venezuela passed a
law that gives the government almost unbridled discretion over which
CSOs can register and subjects registered organizations to strict
government control.
At the same time, the Nicaraguan government revoked the
legal status of more than 1,500 nonprofits, including hundreds of
religious organizations, the American Chamber of Commerce of Nicaragua,
and human rights groups.
Access to International Solidarity and Support
Governments are restricting the right of civil society to receive
funding from domestic and international sources. Instead of defending
civil society, they are defunding civil society, undermining
fundamental freedoms and property rights. For example:
In Niger, development CSOs must obtain government approval
to receive donations, including from local citizens and businesses.
In Saudi Arabia, a CSO must have the government's
permission to organize domestic fundraising events, even a gala dinner.
In Egypt and many other countries, the government has
broad discretion to determine whether a CSO can receive international
funding.
Eighteen countries, including Georgia, have introduced
foreign influence registration laws. Many of these laws have overbroad
and vague provisions, enabling governments to stigmatize, burden, and
isolate civil society.
The Evolution of Legal Restrictions
Years ago, scholars wrote about closing space and focused on laws
targeting CSOs. Today, we are seeing the rise of restrictive laws that
apply to all sectors of society. These whole-of-society laws account
for 50 percent of the legal restrictions tracked by ICNL over the past
5 years.
These laws enable governments to target democracy defenders in
civil society, the political opposition, business, the media, or
otherwise. For example:
This year, the National Security Law in Hong Kong was used
to convict dozens of democracy defenders of subversion.
Indonesia's Criminal Code outlaws statements that
undermine the ``honor'' or ``dignity'' of the President or Vice
President. It also prohibits verbal and written insults against the
government or state institutions.
Tanzania's Online Content Regulations prohibit the
publication of any online content about the weather, droughts, or
``natural calamities'' without approval from the authorities.
Last month, a military court sentenced a local journalist
to life in prison under Burma's overbroad counterterrorism law.
Belarus is misusing counterterrorism and anti-extremism
legislation to stifle dissent.
In Venezuela, Maduro's regime arrested over 2,400 people
connected to post-election protests.
At the same time, many governments target defenders by utilizing
surveillance, online harassment, Interpol red notices, imprisonment, or
worse. Governments have an extensive toolkit to compress civic space
and repress democracy.
progress is possible with local leadership
Countries as diverse as Nigeria, Moldova, and Morocco have adopted
more enabling legislation affecting civil society, though continued
vigilance is necessary. In many other countries, restrictive laws have
been rejected. In addition, courageous individuals around the world are
undertaking heroic efforts to advance democracy and rights in
restrictive environments--often at great risk to themselves.
Democracy and rights cannot be imposed from outside. Fortunately,
in every country, there are people whose skill and dedication inspire
confidence that progress is possible.
illustrative international initiatives
While reform must come from within, the international community can
assist by helping to safeguard defenders and civic space. There are
scores of initiatives; the following are a few illustrative examples:
The Lifeline Embattled CSO Assistance Fund, which provides
small, short-term emergency grants to CSOs threatened because of their
human rights work.
Reporter's Shield, a USAID-funded program that defends
investigative reporting around the world from legal threats meant to
silence critical voices.
The Surge and Sustain Fund, a program run by the
Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The
fund supports user costs for open-source VPN and circumvention
solutions serving users in highly restrictive censorship environments.
Scholars at Risk and the Journalists in Distress Network,
which provide support for academics and journalists under threat.
The Open Government Partnership, where civil society and
governments co-create commitments to enhance civic space and to promote
participatory, accountable governance.
Foundations, international organizations, and the private sector
play a critically important role in this ecosystem of support. In
addition, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom are among the governments that have strategically engaged to
protect and promote civic space.
recommendations
Based on the input of our partners around the world and the current
ecosystem of support, I respectfully suggest three lines of effort for
the Committee's consideration: Programs, Personnel, and Policy:
1. Programs. Programs should prioritize prevention, mitigation, and
protection.
In terms of prevention, the US Government should create a stand-
alone global program that proactively and preemptively addresses anti-
NGO laws and related legal threats to civil society. This is a top
priority.
In terms of mitigation, let's ramp up programs that help defenders
operate in restrictive environments, such as the Surge and Sustain
Fund.
In terms of protection, there are already a number of programs.
Let's review their scope to see if they should be expanded to cover new
categories of defenders. In addition, let's be sure they offer
comprehensive services, including risk assessments, digital security,
physical security, legal assistance, and psychosocial support.
2. Personnel. The US Government should ensure there are sufficient
personnel dedicated to addressing threats to defenders, including
transnational repression. This should include trained officials in the
Department of State's regional bureaus and additional staff in USAID's
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance and the Department of
State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In addition,
regional bureaus and embassies should be required to have specific
plans in place on the protection of defenders and to report regularly
on the sufficiency and implementation of those plans.
3. Policy. I thank Senator Cardin for his leadership in championing
the Global Magnitsky Act. The Act has significantly advanced
accountability for human rights violations around the world, and it
serves as a model for other countries establishing similar mechanisms.
That said, as colleagues at Human Rights First have documented,
there has been a significant slowdown in the use of Global Magnitsky
sanctions in recent years. Perhaps the Committee could exercise its
oversight role to promote more and effective use of these authorities.
We would also welcome legislative language encouraging the
Administration to consider transnational repression, and the
undermining of democratic institutions, when determining whether to
impose sanctions.
In addition, at the Summit for Democracy, 13 countries committed to
supporting civil society in exile. The US should engage with these
countries to ensure there is a safe place for human rights and
democracy defenders to continue their courageous work.
As a final policy ask, a number of bills affecting civil society
are working their way through Congress. When you consider these bills,
please ensure that they safeguard civil society and philanthropy, both
internationally and at home. If helpful, ICNL is prepared to provide
nonpartisan analysis, and please be assured of ICNL's continued
collegial and constructive engagement as bills arise.
In closing, I thank Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Risch for
inviting me to testify at today's hearing. I appreciate the opportunity
to share ICNL's perspectives with the Committee, and I look forward to
your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your comments.
We will now go to Ms. Gigauri.
STATEMENT OF EKA GIGAURI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSPARENCY
INTERNATIONAL GEORGIA, TBILISI, GEORGIA
Ms. Gigauri. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member
Risch, distinguished Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak at this hearing. I am thankful for the long standing
bipartisan support toward Georgia by this committee.
I am here to share a local perspective on resisting anti-
NGO laws in Georgia as well as my personal experience of being
targeted as a human rights defender.
The introduction of anti-NGO laws in different parts of the
world is an alarming and growing trend. Anti-NGO laws first
championed by Putin's regime in Russia enabled a smooth shift
toward the consolidated autocracy.
In countries like Georgia, when such laws are introduced,
autocrats amplify Russian anti-Western disinformation,
cultivate social division, and undermine partnership with the
U.S. and the EU, all against the will of the majority of
citizens.
Prevailing in this struggle requires two key elements:
Unity among proactive citizens who have chosen freedom, valuing
it enough to defend it, and consistently strong support from
the international democratic community for the vibrant civil
societies they help develop and grow.
In Georgia this means the United States speaking and acting
with a legitimate moral authority assertively and convincingly
as it has done for nearly three decades when it helped
Georgians protect their sovereignty, independence, and
democratic aspirations.
This is not to suggest that America should do the job for
citizens who choose freedom over authoritarian rule. A free
country is never granted, even by the greatest allies. It is
earned by its citizens for whom America has always been an
inspiration.
The key point is that in places where the pro-democracy
movements are strong and America's well established
partnerships are challenged by actors like Russia, as in
Georgia maintaining a high level of support in backing
democratic aspirations of nations can tip the balance.
In Georgia the introduction of anti-NGO laws, commonly
referred to as the Russian law, sparked massive resistance.
Yet, the authorities continue to push the red lines to
establish a Russian style system of governance. For every
citizen of Georgia the upcoming elections on October 26 are
essentially a referendum on a clear choice between a
democratic, prosperous European future and the misery of being
a Russian satellite.
If Georgian democracy is defeated and the country pledged
into the Russian orbit again, this would mean an evaporation of
the chances for the further democratic development of any
country eastwards and southwards from Georgia.
Geopolitically, this would mean Russia once again marking
its backyard, claiming Georgia as a part of its sphere of
influence.
As per Russian playbook autocrat objectives are simple--
silencing critical voices, closing civic space, and
neutralizing free media. Anti-NGO legislation is a convenient
tool for these goals, providing a facade of legality.
In Georgia, the process proceeded in three phases. The
first one was preparing the ground for legalizing repressions.
In this phase a massive coordinated smear campaign was launched
against the civil society, USAID, and U.S. based democratic
promoting organizations.
Among others, my family members and I have been subject to
verbal attack and intimidation by high level public officials
as well.
Phase two, passing the law despite the public opposition.
So the law was passed. Mirroring Russian disinformation,
authorities amplified coordinated disinformation, portraying
civil society and their international supporters as a global
war party destabilizing Georgia.
The government adopted an openly anti-American stance and
announced a shift away from the strategic partnership with the
West.
The phase three, enforcement of the law. It includes
labeling NGOs' members and activists as foreign agents, a term
deeply stigmatized in Georgia due its Soviet era connotations,
imposing heavy fines and seizuring assets of those who refuse
to register, requiring NGOs to disclose sensitive personal data
with refusal leading to the penalties and asset freezes.
The situation in Georgia is dramatic, but I am not here to
seek sympathy. In Georgia we are engaged in a generational and
existential struggle defending sovereignty, independence, and
the dream of a democratic future.
We are determined to stand our ground. We are not alone.
American and European allies support the Georgian people by
delivering clear message to autocrats, reassuring pro-democracy
actors, sanctioning those who undermine democracy, and
initiating the MEGOBARI Act and the Georgian Peoples Act.
This support is deeply appreciated by every Georgian who
chooses freedom over oppression. Georgians understand that
freedom is never granted but always earned, as it has been
throughout our history.
With the support of America and its allies we once built an
emerging democracy that has been an inspiration in our part of
the world, and I believe that with your help we will prevail
once again.
Thank you, and I am ready to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gigauri follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Eka Gigauri
Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, Distinguished Senators,
thank you for the opportunity to speak at this hearing. I am thankful
for the long standing bipartisan support toward Georgia by this
Committee, the very professional staff and your continued attention
toward Georgia in times of crises.
My name is Eka Gigauri, I am the executive director of Transparency
International Georgia, the largest Civil Society Organization working
on good governance and corruption in the country. I am here to share a
local perspective on resisting anti-NGO laws in Georgia, as well as my
personal experience of being targeted as a human rights defender, and
to present the views shared by a broader civil society of Georgia.
The introduction of anti-NGO laws in different parts of the world
is an alarming and growing trend. Anti-NGO laws, first championed by
Putin's regime in Russia, enable a smooth, swift, and decisive shift
toward consolidated autocracy. In countries like Georgia, when such
laws are introduced, autocrats amplify Russian anti-Western
disinformation, cultivate social division, and undermine partnerships
with the U.S. and the EU--all against the will of the majority of
citizens.
In many countries affected by this challenge, including Georgia,
resisting oppressive anti-NGO legislation has become a key battleground
for defending freedom and democracy. These battlegrounds are local, but
each struggle is being fought at the International geopolitical level
as well.
Prevailing in this struggle requires two key elements:
Unity among proactive citizens who have chosen freedom,
valuing it enough to defend it; and
Consistently strong support from the international
democratic community for the vibrant civil societies they helped
develop and grow. In Georgia, this means the United States speaking and
acting with legitimate moral authority, assertively and convincingly,
as it has done for nearly three decades when it helped Georgians
protect their sovereignty, independence, and democratic aspirations.
This is not to suggest that America should do the job for citizens
who choose freedom over authoritarian rule. A free country is never
granted, even by the greatest allies; it is earned by its citizens, for
whom America has always been an inspiration.
The key point is that in places where pro-democracy movements are
strong and America's well-established partnerships are challenged by
actors like Russia, as in Georgia, maintaining a high level of support
in backing democratic aspirations of nations--can tip the balance.
From our perspective, maintaining this support while drawing clear
red lines in U.S. foreign policy could be decisive. This is crucial, as
American foreign policy in action can deter those who attempt to steal
freedom from millions and encourage those who choose freedom over
autocracy.
Authoritarians who challenge American interests and undermine
democracy respond to red lines and perceive any reduction in U.S.
support--whether in communication or policy--as a green light to push
these boundaries. The same perception demotivates pro-democracy
activists and citizens who often risk their lives defending democracy.
I believe that hearings like this one by the Foreign Relations
Committee are essential to ensuring that American foreign policy
decisionmaking is informed by local perspectives. I appreciate the
opportunity to share what we have learned in Georgia in resisting
repressive legislation and Russia-inspired authoritarian drive behind
it.
In Georgia, the introduction of the anti-NGO law, commonly referred
to as the ``Russian Law,'' sparked massive resistance, energizing and
uniting previously fragmented pro-democracy actors. This led to
unprecedented civil solidarity, nationwide protests, the consolidation
of civil society and cooperation among pro-democracy political parties.
Yet, the authorities continue to push the red line as they proceed to
enforce the repressive legislation to establish a Russian-style system
of governance. For every citizen of Georgia, the upcoming elections on
October 26 are essentially a referendum on a clear choice between a
democratic, prosperous European future and the misery of being a
Russian satellite. Fair elections would be the way to materialize the
obvious choice of Georgian people.
However, the Georgian case, does have another, a geopolitical
dimension, which has even a bigger impact on the fate of democracy far
beyond our borders. If Georgian democracy is defeated and the country
plunges into the Russian orbit, again, this would mean an evaporation
of chances for further democratic development of any country Eastwards
or Southwards from Georgia. Geopolitically, this would mean the
erection of a new iron curtain in our region, with Russia once again
marking its backyard, claiming Georgia as part of its sphere of
influence.
Incumbent authoritarians follow a common Russian playbook when
introducing and enforcing anti-CSO legislation. Their goals, methods,
practices, and tactics toward local pro-democracy actors and their
supporters, including those in the U.S., are the same.
Their autocratic objectives are simple: consolidating power
requires silencing critical voices, closing civic space, and
neutralizing free media. Anti-NGO legislation is a convenient tool for
these goals, providing a facade of legality.
The process proceeds in Three Phases.
phase 1: preparing the ground for legalizing repression
In this phase, a massive coordinated smear campaign was launched
against civil society, USAID, and U.S.-based democracy-promoting
organizations. Local civil society activists were portrayed as enemies
of the state. The campaign included intimidation, defamation, threats,
and violence targeting activists and their families (myself included).
My family members and I have been subject to verbal attacks and
intimidation by high level public officials, my portraits were placed
on the ``public enemies'' posters placed by the ruling party activists
in every town nationwide, my property and vehicle was vandalized by
insulting graffiti. My fellow civil society activists have been
targeted in the same way. International donors, including USAID, faced
harassment from government officials and false criminal investigations
have been launched.
The reason why international donors and CSOs including TI has been
target is obvious. As an example, since 2011 TI Georgia provided legal
support to 22,401 citizens; won 880 cases in the court that implied
monetary compensations and included the cases 89 free media
journalists; and published annually around 25 reports and 157 policy
documents that exposed corruption and abuse of power.
phase 2: passing the law despite public opposition
Despite mass protests and clear advice from U.S. and European
allies, the law was passed. Authorities amplified coordinated
disinformation, portraying civil society and their international
supporters as a ``Global War Party'' destabilizing Georgia. This
narrative mirrors Russian disinformation. The government adopted an
openly anti-American stance and announced a shift away from strategic
partnership with the West while government-supported intimidation and
violence--continued.
phase 3: enforcement of the law
Phase 3 which is unfolding as we speak, involves the enforcement of
the law. The repressive measures embedded in this law include:
Stigmatizing NGO members and activists as Foreign Agents,
which for Georgians carries a deep historical and emotional weight.
There are practically no families in Georgia without at least one
ancestor persecuted in the early Soviet era, accused of being an
`Agent' or a `Spy' of a foreign power. These labels are not just
derogatory and insulting--they are a betrayal of our ancestors' memory,
carrying with them the unmistakable mark of Russian repression.
A series of heavy financial fines followed by the seizure
of organizational assets of representatives who refuse to register as
Agents of Foreign Powers or fail to provide any information requested
at the discretion of the authorities.
A mandatory legal obligation for NGO representatives and
affiliated persons or entities to provide any information, including
records, communications, personal data, data on mental health and
sexual life, information protected by non-disclosure agreements with
third parties, finances, and more--all subject to disclosure. Refusal
to comply can result in penalties or the freezing of financial assets.
The ruling party's major electoral promise is the legal prosecution
of the ``collective opposition'' to the regime, including pro-
democratic civil society.
Throughout all three phases, the authorities have waged a massive
and coordinated disinformation campaign using government-controlled
media, the public broadcaster, trolls, bots, fake social media
accounts, and commentators on the party payroll.
The situation in Georgia is dramatic, but I am not here to seek
sympathy. In Georgia, we are engaged in a generational and existential
struggle, defending sovereignty, independence, and the dream of a
democratic future. We are determined to stand our ground.
We are not alone. American and European allies support the Georgian
people by delivering clear messages to autocrats, reassuring pro-
democracy actors, sanctioning those who undermine democracy, and
initiating the MEGOBARI Act and Georgian People's Act. This support is
deeply appreciated by every Georgian who chooses freedom over
oppression.
what can make your support most effective
We are in a new stage of the global struggle for
democracy. Each country is unique, but a more uniform U.S. foreign
policy that draws clear red lines for autocrats would better reassure
millions who look to America for inspiration.
Expanding direct communication between U.S. policymakers
and local pro-democracy players--an ``early warning system''--can
improve situational awareness and policy response.
International donor support is vital. U.S. Government
backing the donors pressed by authoritarians is critically important.
Civil societies function in emergency mode. Swift support
is needed to secure top priorities. In Georgia, top priorities include
election monitoring, countering disinformation.
Progressing with the MEGOBARI Act and the Georgian
People's Act could have a strong positive impact.
U.S. sanctions should target individuals undermining
democracy and serving Russian interests, not the people of Georgia,
whom America supports.
Georgians understand that freedom is never granted but always
earned, as it has been throughout our history. With the support of
America and its allies, we once built an emerging democracy that has
been an inspiration in our part of the world, and I believe that, with
your help, we will prevail once again.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much for your testimony
and for your courage.
Ms. Wang.
STATEMENT OF YAQIU WANG, RESEARCH DIRECTOR FOR CHINA, HONG
KONG, AND TAIWAN, FREEDOM HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Wang. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the Chinese government's tactics to
suppress political dissent.
China's authoritarian regime poses one of the biggest
threats to American democracy and security. It is in the
fundamental interest of the United States to support Chinese
people's fight for democracy.
Globally, Freedom House has tracked 18 consecutive years of
decline in rights and freedoms, driven by worsening repression
in autocracies and also backsliding in democracies, as my co-
panelists spoken about.
China ranks among the least free countries in the world and
has declined significantly since Xi Jinping assumed power in
2012. Following a multiyear crackdown, China's civil society
now has been largely decimated.
Increasingly, authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong are
deploying national security laws to criminalize independent
human rights activism and journalism. Numerous human rights
activists in mainland China and Hong Kong are languishing in
jail on bogus national security charges as we speak.
These courageous individuals have made extraordinary
sacrifices for standing up to the Chinese Communist Party. It
is imperative that the U.S. Government stand by them.
The CCP's long arm of repression also stretches abroad,
including on U.S. soil. China conducts the world's most
sophisticated and comprehensive campaign of transnational
repression.
Beijing's tactics span the full spectrum from harassment
and assaults, to co-opting other countries to render exiles, to
mobility controls, to cyber attacks, and coercion by proxy.
Last November, Chinese diplomats and hundreds of people
belonging to pro-CCP diaspora groups organized demonstrations
in San Francisco during President Xi's visit.
The pro-Beijing groups harassed and intimidated and in some
cases violently assaulted Chinese, Hong Kong, and Tibetan
activists who came to protest Xi.
On American campuses, some Chinese students have reported
that they were intimidated by fellow students for speaking
critically of the Chinese government.
Beijing's digital surveillance has also made organizing
pro-democracy activities very difficult in the U.S. in the
first place. Chinese social media and messaging apps such as
WeChat, which are heavily used among first generation Chinese
diaspora, are also heavily censored by the Chinese government.
In recent years the U.S. Government has stepped up its
response to CCP influence operations. The Department of Justice
has issued a number of indictments in cases linked to the CCP.
The growing focus on the threat is a positive development,
but U.S. officials face the challenge of maintaining a
targeted, proportionate, and rights respecting approach while
also intensifying their overall efforts.
Walking this line will require thoughtful policies and
careful execution. In this context Freedom House urges Congress
to continue to call public attention to political prisoners in
China and Hong Kong and urge their immediate and unconditional
release, meet regularly with their families, and provide
funding to support them and their lawyers.
We also call Members of Congress to work together to pass
legislations that support and protect activists and hold
perpetrators of CCP abuses accountable, including establishing
a limited visa category to provide at risk human rights
defenders with a multiple entry multiyear nonimmigrant visa and
providing relevant officials the necessary training to respond
to transnational repression.
Last, we call on the U.S. Government to impose targeted
sanctions of Chinese tech companies complicit in human rights
abuses. For example, companies that sell surveillance equipment
in Xinjiang should face economic penalties.
Congress should also hold hearings to better understand the
censorship and surveillance mechanisms of Chinese social media
messaging apps widely used in the United States and pressure
the companies to uphold users' rights to free expression and
privacy.
In late 2022, protests over deadly fire in northwest China
grew into one of the most open challenges to the CCP since the
1989 Tiananmen democracy movement. These white paper protests
brought out hundreds of thousands of people in China as well as
many in the diaspora, claiming their rights and demanding
freedom.
As Washington and Beijing engage more and more overtly in
geopolitical competition we should not lose sight of the
passionate longing for freedom that Chinese people still hold.
We should support their aspirations at every opportunity.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wang follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Yaqiu Wang
Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, and distinguished members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Chinese
government's tactics to suppress political dissent. I ask that my full
written statement be entered for the record. China's authoritarian
regime poses one of the biggest threats to American democracy and
security. It is in the fundamental interest of the United States to
support Chinese people's fight for democracy.
This testimony draws on Freedom House's years of research and
advocacy work on political prisoners, transnational repression, and
internet freedom in relation to China.
Globally, Freedom House has tracked 18 consecutive years of decline
in rights and freedoms, driven by worsening repression in autocracies
and backsliding in democracies, including efforts to undermine
electoral processes, armed conflicts, threats of authoritarian
aggression, and attacks on pluralism--the peaceful coexistence of
people with different political ideas, religions, or ethnic identities.
A growing trend is when states manipulate their own laws to crack
down on dissent and criticism, whether it is by recognized
organizations or individuals. Last year, people in 55 of the 70
countries surveyed in our Freedom on the Net report faced legal
repercussions for expressing themselves online.
Democracies are not immune to these trends, and a growing number
are imposing burdens on freedoms of assembly, association, and
expression through legal mechanisms. These restrictions affect the
rights of citizens in those countries, and have ripple effects around
the world, as authoritarian regimes cynically use poor behavior by
democracies to justify their own repressive rule.
China, which ranks among the least free countries in the world, has
declined significantly since Xi Jinping assumed power in 2012. \1\
President Xi has consolidated personal power to a degree not seen in
the country for decades. Following a multiyear crackdown on all aspects
of life and governance, China's civil society now has been largely
decimated. Increasingly, the government is deploying national security
laws--including National Security Law (2015), Foreign NGO Law (2017),
Counterterrorism Law (2018), and Counterespionage Law (2023)--to
criminalize independent human rights activism and journalism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Freedom House, ``Freedom in the World 2024: China,'' https://
freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous human rights activists are languishing in jail on bogus
national security-related charges as we speak, such as prodemocracy
movement pioneer Wang Bingzhang, who has been serving a life sentence
for espionage since 2002; human rights lawyer Xu Zhiyong, who is
serving a 14-year sentence for subversion of state power; and
journalist Huang Xueqin, who is serving a 5-year sentence for inciting
subversion of state power. Others have been forcibly disappeared on
unclear charges. Respected human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng has not
been heard from in 7 years.
China's ethnic minorities are facing even worse conditions. Rahile
Dawut, a Uyghur scholar, has been serving a life sentence since 2018
for separatism. Another Uyghur scholar Ilham Tohti is serving a life
sentence under the same charge. His family has not heard from him since
2017. Go Sherab Gyatso, a Tibetan monk and writer, is serving a 10-year
sentence for inciting separatism.
Similarly, in Hong Kong, over a thousand people have been
imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of assembly and
expression, many on national security grounds. In 2020, Beijing imposed
the draconian National Security Law (NSL) on the city, with broad
provisions that criminalize an enormous range of activity both inside
and outside Hong Kong. This March, Hong Kong's legislature passed the
Basic Law Article 23, the city's homegrown national security law.
Prominent political prisoners in Hong Kong include journalist and
publisher Jimmy Lai, who is facing up to life imprisonment for sedition
and collusion with foreign forces; human rights lawyer Chow Hang-tung,
arrested for inciting subversion; and activist Joshua Wong, convicted
of conspiracy to commit subversion.
These courageous individuals and many others in mainland China and
Hong Kong have made extraordinary sacrifices for standing up to the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It is imperative that the US government
stand by them.
The CCP's long arm of repression also stretches abroad, including
on US soil. China conducts the world's most comprehensive and
sophisticated campaign of transnational repression, and is responsible
for 25 percent of the cases Freedom House has documented in our data
base. The sheer breadth and global scale of the campaign is
unparalleled. \2\ Beijing's tactics span the full spectrum: from
harassment and assaults, to co-opting other countries to detain and
render exiles, to mobility controls, to cyberattacks, and to coercion
by proxy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Freedom House, ``NEW DATA: More than 20 Percent of the World's
Governments Engage in Transnational Repression,'' February 16, 2024,
https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-data-more-20-percent-worlds-
governments-engage-transnational-repression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's transnational repression activities are embedded in a broad
framework of influence that encompasses cultural and professional
associations, regional groups, and in some cases, organized crime
networks, which places it in contact with a huge population of Chinese
citizens, Chinese diaspora members, and minority populations from China
who reside around the world. Last November, Chinese diplomats and
hundreds of people belonging to pro-CCP diaspora groups organized
demonstrations in San Francisco during President Xi Jinping's visit
that harassed and intimidated--and in some cases, violently assaulted--
Chinese, Hong Kong, and Tibetan activists who came to protest Xi.
The CCP also poses the biggest transnational repression threat on
American campuses. Some Chinese students studying here reported that
they were intimidated by fellow students for speaking critically about
the Chinese government, or that their families back in China were
harassed by Chinese authorities. \3\ Beijing's digital surveillance has
also made organizing prodemocracy activities and recruiting like-minded
students difficult in the first place. Chinese social media and
messaging apps such as WeChat, which are heavily used among first-
generation Chinese diaspora, are also heavily censored by the Chinese
government. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Yana Gorokhovskaia and Grady Vaughan, Addressing Transnational
Repression on Campuses in the United States, Freedom House, January
2024, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/
TNR_UniversityReport_2024.pdf.
\4\ Freedom House, Beijing's Global Media Influence 2022:
Authoritarian Expansion and the Power of Democratic Resilience,
September 2022, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/
BGMI_final_digital_090722.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, one of the biggest challenges facing Chinese activists as
well as ordinary people who care about human rights and democracy both
inside and outside China is the CCP's sophisticated censorship and
surveillance apparatus. Freedom House's Freedom on the Net report has
consistently ranked China's regime as the world's worst abuser of
internet freedom. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Freedom House, ``Freedom on the Net 2023: China,'' https://
freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-net/2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, the US government has stepped up its response to
CCP influence operations that undermine human rights and democracy
within the United States. The Department of Justice has issued a number
of indictments in cases linked to the CCP, most recently this month
when Linda Sun, a former top aide to New York Governor Kathy Hochul and
former Governor Andrew Cuomo, was charged with acting as an agent of
the Chinese government. A few weeks earlier, in two separate cases, US
authorities convicted Chinese dissident Wang Shujun and charged
another, Tang Yuanjun, for spying on the overseas Chinese prodemocracy
community on behalf of the CCP.
The growing focus on the threat is certainly needed and a positive
development, but US officials face the challenge of maintaining a
targeted, proportionate, and rights-respecting approach while also
intensifying their overall efforts. Walking this line will require
thoughtful policies, updated laws, and careful execution.
Despite intense repression, Chinese people everywhere continue to
show inspiring resilience. In late 2022, protests over a deadly fire in
Urumqi grew into one of the most open challenges to the CCP since the
1989 Tiananmen democracy movement. The protests, dubbed the White Paper
protests, also drew widespread support from the Chinese diaspora, as
hundreds staged rallies in cities from Paris to Sydney, from Washington
DC to Raleigh, North Carolina.
As Washington and Beijing engage more and more overtly in
geopolitical competition, we should not lose sight of the passionate
longing for freedom that people in China are trying to express. We
should support their aspirations at every opportunity.
In this context, Freedom House calls on Congress to:
Continue to call public attention to political prisoners
in China and urge their release. Meet regularly with family members of
prisoners and advocacy groups, both in public and in private. When
calling for the release of political prisoners, emphasize that releases
should be unconditional. All charges should be dropped and expunged
from the prisoner's record. There should be no bail conditions, travel
restrictions, asset freezes, or other measures that restrict their
ability to work and live. In private, executive and legislative
officials and staff should meet with families to show support, share
updates on their loved one's case, and gather information relevant to
advancing their release. Private meetings with advocacy groups and
others are also important for information gathering and message
coordination. Public appearances by government officials on behalf of
the imprisoned individual, when appropriate and condoned by the
prisoner or family, demonstrate support for the prisoner and signal to
perpetrating governments that they should expect a sustained campaign
to free them. Many political prisoners and their families fear they
will be forgotten. Efforts to secure the release of political prisoners
should go beyond the most high-profile imprisonments and include
advocacy on behalf of lesser-known individuals, as giving political
prisoners a higher profile through advocacy work can improve their
treatment in prison and prompt governments to expedite cases.
Continue to provide funding to support political
prisoners, their families, and their lawyers, including adequate
support after release.
Establish a limited visa category to provide precleared
at-risk human rights defenders and democracy activists with a multiple-
entry, multiyear nonimmigrant visa. This would allow those facing
unjust imprisonment or physical threats due to the nature of their work
to continue their work from the safety of the United States, before
they are able to safely return home. Vulnerable human rights defenders
could be nominated by US embassy personnel in close consultation with
civil society partners and likeminded democratic governments. Freedom
House is pleased to support the Human Rights Defenders Protection Act,
led by Chairman Cardin and supported by a number of members on this
committee, which, among other things, creates a temporary visa for
human rights defenders under threat.
Pass legislation to address gaps in the US government's
response to transnational repression. This includes codifying a
definition of transnational repression, ensuring government officials
who may encounter perpetrators or victims of transnational repression
receive the training necessary to recognize and respond to the problem,
and strengthening sanctions authorities to make it easier to hold
perpetrators accountable. The Transnational Repression Policy Act,
which was introduced by Senators Merkley, Rubio, Cardin, and Hagerty,
includes provisions in all these areas. We urge its passage.
Impose targeted sanctions on or add to the Bureau of
Industry and Security's Entity List Chinese tech companies responsible
for or complicit in human rights abuses. For example, companies that
knowingly provide surveillance systems used for repressive crackdowns
in places like Xinjiang should face economic penalties. In the United
States, the Global Magnitsky Act allows for targeted sanctions on
private companies.
Provide funding to support the development and
dissemination of open-source, user-friendly, and privacy-protecting
anticensorship technologies. Anti-censorship technology, such as
virtual private networks, are critical for people in China to
circumvent state censorship and protect themselves against surveillance
and other forms of repression. Relevant programming should prioritize
supporting tools that are open-source, align with the highest standards
of privacy and security, and are user-friendly and localized to the
targeted communities to increase their uptake in use.
Scrutinize international censorship and surveillance by
Chinese companies. Congress should hold hearings to better understand
the scope, nature, and impact of politicized censorship and
surveillance on Tencent's WeChat platform and other Chinese social
media and messaging apps, then explore avenues for pressuring the
companies to uphold users' rights to free expression and privacy.
Politicians who choose to use Chinese platforms to communicate with
constituents should monitor messaging closely to detect any
manipulation, register their accounts with international phone numbers
when possible, and republish messages on parallel international social
media platforms.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Let me thank you for your testimony as well.
We will now have rounds of 5 minute questions from the
members of the committee.
I want to first start by inviting you all to always share
information with us in regards to individuals or sectors that
you believe we can be more aggressive in using our sanction
regime. We take that information very seriously.
In regards to individual sanctions, as I am sure you all
are aware, there is a standard that needs to be met,
particularly in regards to dealing with the banking
restrictions that are included in that because it does deal
with individual rights, and we have protection in our system.
But we will always take the information you supply us, and
we are aggressive, and we do thank both this Administration and
previous Administrations for using the sanction regimes that we
have created here in Congress.
We are the initiators of it, to use that to deal with the
issues we are talking about today. But we can be better at
that, and we welcome your input.
One of the hats I wear is I have been a member of the
Helsinki Commission since I have been in the U.S. Senate and
before in the House of Representatives. I have chaired the
Helsinki Commission.
One of the guiding principles of the OSCE is to protect the
rights of NGOs. I mean, that is one of the basic foundations of
the Helsinki principles.
So when we see NGOs denied the opportunity to operate
because of these repressive laws, that is contrary to the
commitments that were made with the OSCE participating states,
and China is not a member of that but certainly that applies to
Georgia.
I also want to just start with a question. Let me start
with Mr. Rutzen, if I might.
We have seen the use of traditional repressive tools such
as physical assaults, disappearances, and even murders of the
people who disagree with their governments.
But now we see these countries using so called legal means,
passing laws, and as Ms. Wang pointed out using social media,
the freedom of expression, the freedom of access, to use that
against and try to bring down our democratic systems of
government.
So tell me the calculations that are being made by what
type of countries that are now trying to mask their repressive
policies through the use of these methods rather than the
direct--we see, for example, in Venezuela Mr. Maduro is very
clear about physical assaults and disappearances.
What goes into that calculation, and how effective is it,
and what can we do about it?
Mr. Rutzen. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for your thoughtful
question.
What we are seeing, in some sense, is the rise of
authoritarian legalism where governments realize that the law
cannot only protect rights, but it can just as easily undermine
rights. And we see this throughout history.
I think about the apartheid era laws or the Nuremberg laws,
how the laws can be used to undercut human rights. And so this
has always been a tool in the authoritarian toolbox, but now it
is being amplified and replicated around the world.
You heard about the example of the Russian version of the
Foreign Agents Law then spreading to Georgia, and now a number
of other countries as well.
For many governments in their calculations they think that
they have some patina of political legitimacy if they can wrap
their restrictions under the cover of law. And that is why we
are seeing this rapid ascent of anti-NGO laws and other
restrictions on democracy defenders around the world.
The Chairman. What impact is Russia having on these
decisionmakings, for example, in Georgia? Is Russia--we know
that they get engaged in the internal affairs of other
countries. Are they actively encouraging these types of
activities?
Ms. Gigauri. Yes. I would say that they apprised our
government when the government has initiated this law and also
when looking at their stories what they were sharing in their
internal audience.
So you could see that they were very glad that it is
happening in Georgia. So just recently Meta has deleted around
60 fake accounts which were ruled and managed from the
territory of Russia but was attacking--they were attacking
those who were participating in the demonstrations against this
law and undermining their reputation.
And at the same time they were promoting the decisions of
the Georgian government. So I think that definitely these two--
I think that this is really linked with the interest of Russia,
and the interest of Russia is not to have democracy in Georgia.
This is for sure.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Ms. Gigauri, I have got a number of questions
for you since we have been watching this since 2012 from afar
and shaking our heads on it because we are seeing this
backslide, and we do not really understand it.
I mean, you are a country of a little under 4 million
people, and it seems like there is at least a significant
movement toward embracing the Russian former government and the
Russian repression.
We just do not understand it. I mean, you got your freedom
from Russia and why the country would be drifting back that
way--we look at Georgia, and we compare it to the three
Baltics, and those are small countries, too. Two of them at 1.5
million and one at 2.5 million, and I will tell you what, those
people, they come to see us all the time.
They are united. They are firm. They are afraid. They want
our help. They do not want anything to do with Russia in any
way, shape, or form. And yet, here you have Georgia who were
visited by an invasion from Russia which took two of its
territories and promised to leave and still are not. They are
occupying the territories.
Why in the world is there--I mean, you are always going to
get a handful of nuts, but why would you have these significant
numbers of people who seem to want to drift back to the
communist and socialist way of life that Russia had?
Help us understand this.
Ms. Gigauri. Thank you for the question.
So I think that in spite of this disinformation that we
observed for years now, the majority of Georgian citizens
support Georgia's integration in the EU and NATO and these are
the official numbers.
So what happens is that--we talked here about the
particular laws, right, but before the laws are introduced
there is this very heavy disinformation campaign, and there you
see the messages that were invented by the Russians in 2012,
for instance, that these liberal groups are against the, you
know, the family values or the national interest of the
country, that all these people who are working for the NGO
community they hate everything national, right.
So, I mean, that is the--the NGOs are only promoting the
LGBT rights, and they care about the LGBT rights and all these
kind of things. So this is very heavy. They are playing with
the hearts and minds of Georgian people.
At the same time you always see in the pro-government and
anti-West media in Georgia that in the West there are problems.
There is destabilization. People live a terrible life there.
Like, in Russia, there are also some trends which are
against the family values, and they do not care about their
families, their children.
I mean, this is everything happening all the time for
years, and then people are raising--so it is not that the
government tells them that the West is bad, but with
disinformation they try to persuade them to raise the question
so whether they want to go there or not.
But again, this is not a big number of people. I would say
that the majority still supports the----
Senator Risch. I hope you are right. In today's world with
the information available to us there is always disinformation
out there, and we in America believe that if you put everything
on the table, and all the facts are there, smart people, or
even semi-smart people, will pretty quickly realize that
democracy is a whole lot better than authoritarianism.
So what you are talking about we see here that kind of
disinformation, but its effect is pretty de minimis.
Well, you give me hope when you tell me that the vast
majority want to do the right thing. I will tell you that we
will be watching the elections next month, and Senator Shaheen
and I were greatly impressed with the elections that we saw.
We were not the only observers. Obviously, there were ones
from all over the world, a lot of them from Europe that were
watching those elections.
And I have to tell you, those elections were about as
straight up as I have ever seen, and I have been in lots of
elections. I have run 36 times myself so I know what they are
like, and I was impressed. I really was impressed with the way
they were held.
If what you say is true about the Georgian people and what
they want, they are going to get an opportunity in October to
throw the rascals out and take a hold of their own future, and
we will be watching closely, praying for you. Hope it works.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen [presiding]. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and
Ranking Member Risch, for your strong comments, and thank you
to each of you for being here and for the work that you do
every day.
Ms. Gigauri, it is nice to see you again. We had the
opportunity to be part of a conversation early in August when
Congressman Turner and I visited Georgia to try and address
what was happening there and to make clear that we support the
aspirations of the Georgian people and to make that point to
the government as well.
I applaud you and all of the civil society community for
your bravery in holding the Georgian government to account, and
for your willingness to participate in trying to ensure that
there is a free and fair election on October 26.
In the meeting that we had with the prime minister we
raised the recent setback in U.S.-Georgia relations that are
reflected by the passage of the Foreign Agents Law, and we
urged him to think about ways in which we could address
Georgia's relationship with the United States, moving forward,
that would support the aspirations of the Georgian people and
ensure a free and fair election.
And I am really sad to say that the only request that he
had of us was that the United States stop funding NGOs which
are critical of the Georgian government, and as Congressman
Turner explained in a democracy we all recognize that you can
be critical if you disagree with the policies.
Now, I understand that the prime minister has questioned
our account of that meeting, but I was not the only person in
the room.
We all heard what he had to say, and I am further
disappointed that the Georgian Dream Party has taken the
position that they will not acknowledge parties, opposition
parties that disagree with them, going forward.
So, as Senator Risch said, the United States has been a
partner of Georgia for 30 years now, supporting its democracy,
its self-determination, its security, and it is a relationship
that has been based on shared values, and the fact that the
Georgian Dream government is willing to throw that away to
continue to curry favor with Russia is really hard to
understand, especially given that 20 percent of the Georgian
territory is still occupied by the country of Russia.
But I wonder if you could give us a little update on what
is happening with the Foreign Agents Law. My understanding is
that very few civil society groups have registered because it
is a very onerous, very difficult process.
And have you also seen the government go after those
organizations, and are you anticipating that that will happen
for those groups that do not register?
Ms. Gigauri. Thank you for the question.
So in Georgia, as you have mentioned, many civil society
organizations have not complied with the law.
So we do not use this as it happened in many other
countries like the badge of honor. We think that this should
not be used like this. We think that we are not the agents or
spy undermining the interests of Georgia.
We are the patriots of our country, and whatever we do this
is for the better future of our country and the people of our
country.
So that is why majority--I would say 95 percent, have not
registered, and the government has several weeks now to start
the monitoring, and then we expect the heavy fines like it is
in the law.
However, we are ready to resist. So many organizations who
have not registered, they are also involved in monitoring of
the elections. We have different backup plans. We are
mobilizing. We are uniting our resources by saying this is the
civic activist groups at the NGOs.
So just recently we have created huge coalition of NGOs
which will be monitoring the elections in Georgia, and we will
make sure that the votes of Georgian voters will be safe, and
we will defend their votes during the elections. This is for
sure.
Senator Shaheen. And do you think the majority of the
Georgian people believe that that will happen? That it will be
a free and fair election and that they will participate?
Ms. Gigauri. I think, of course, there are many questions
about the fairness of the upcoming elections because now even
we already observed the abuse of administrative resources,
attacks on the opposition.
And yes, definitely this law creates the obstacles for the
observer organizations to monitor the elections, right.
But at the same time I think that for majority of Georgians
these are very crucial elections, and this is, as I said, the
referendum between the membership of the EU and to become the
country which is under the influence of Russia.
So I think that many people will participate in the
elections. They know that there might be some obstacles, but
what we do at this moment is that we try to inform them how to
vote, how to avoid the violations, how to react on the
violations.
And the most important thing here is how to believe in the
victory. They should participate in the elections because every
vote matters, and I think that this is the common understanding
amongst the Georgians now.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. That is an important
message for us in the United States and for everywhere that
there are elections between now and the end of the year.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you so much, Senator Shaheen, Ranking
Member Risch. Thank you for your work together and with
Chairman Cardin to promote democracy and free elections, to
protect NGOs and civil society and those who are advocates for
free speech, for freedom, for organizing, and for the rights of
individuals around the world.
As the founder and co-chair of the Human Rights Caucus in
the Senate I have been engaged in these issues a long time and
gravely concerned to continue to hear about the steady loss of
freedom around the world.
Freedom House has been year after year documenting broader,
deeper attacks on civil society, increased restrictions on your
ability to receive funding and to operate, that I think all
Senators of both parties should be more engaged in and
concerned about, and I am grateful that this is a bipartisan
hearing today.
And as the chair of the committee that funds State
Department and USAID, Mr. Rutzen, I take directly your
suggestions that we need to provide more support for personnel,
for operations, for outreach to support the Human Rights
Defenders Fund, to provide cybersecurity support for targeted
individuals, to condition assistance in countries like Georgia
where there is legitimate concern about their drift toward
authoritarianism.
Ms. Gigauri, thank you for your testimony today and for
your courage. I am grateful that Senators Shaheen and Risch are
leading on the Georgia legislation that I hope we will move
forward soon, and I would be interested in your view of what
Russia's aggression in Ukraine does to send a broader signal.
You said one of your core challenges is to convince people
that free and fair elections are still possible, that free
speech is still valuable.
My concern is that when we fail to defend democracy and
elections in our own country or in other countries when there
are acts of open aggression in the region, in Georgia, in
Moldova, in Ukraine, that it sends a chilling signal that
strongmen and authoritarian regimes are on the march.
What more can we do together to make sure that there is a
broader global push to fight corruption and to promote
democracy?
Ms. Gigauri. Thank you for the question.
So the short answer is for our part of the world is to make
Russia small and weak, and I really mean it. It is very
difficult for a country to build a democracy if you are
neighboring Russia, and it was extremely hard for us to do
this, but still years ago we showed the good example to
everyone that it is possible.
Even being neighbor of Russia it is possible to build a
state and to fight corruption and to implement democratic
reforms in the country.
I think that the war in Ukraine, of course, affected us.
And I think that the whole international community should do
everything to help Ukraine to win this war, and I am sure they
will do this, and this will have the impact on Georgia as well.
In our case this was trigger for our government to take all
masks off. We would never expect the Georgian citizens that
they would not support Ukraine, that they would be involved in
the anti-Ukraine propaganda, and they will be attacking them.
So this is something that was not acceptable for us and at
that time had the--also the demonstrations in support of
Ukraine and all this. I think that this is very important.
The second one is, of course, sanctions. But please
introduce the sanction regime which is targeting individuals,
not the people of Georgia, because people of Georgia they
fought for democracy, and they proved that they are very
effective in that.
And the third one, I understand that many countries are
unique, but it is very important to have early warning system.
It is very important to cooperate and to listen to these two
different pro-democratic groups on the ground to know where the
situation is going, because sometimes reactions on time might
bring bigger results. So and, yes, so this is the--yes.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
If I might, Ms. Wang, you mentioned a special visa for
human rights defenders and those who are civil society leaders
who are under pressure.
Mr. Rutzen, you mentioned the early warning system. Could
the two of you briefly focus on what exactly you think we could
do to strengthen and expand visa options for those who are
under pressure who are human rights activists or civil society
activists, and what more we could or should do around an early
warning system and how it could improve its function?
Ms. Wang. Thank you for the question.
Freedom House has supported the passage of the Human Rights
Defenders Protection Act. We think the provisions in the act
are great, and we urge its passage.
For example, the multiyear and the multi-entry visa for
human rights defenders who are at risk inside the country is
very important, because oftentimes police who came to your
house to raid you or take you to the detention center come
very, very abruptly, and for Chinese citizens you cannot just
come to the U.S.--you know, board on a plane. You cannot do
that.
So our suggestion is for the U.S. embassy in China to
identify those human rights defenders first, and so they have
the visa first. So when they have to leave they can leave
immediately.
Also, when they are in the U.S. they can continue to work
here before they can return safely to China. Thank you.
Senator Coons. Mr. Rutzen.
Mr. Rutzen. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Briefly, if we engage once the laws are already on the
docket it is very hard to do anything about them, and so what
we need to do is identify a list of countries where we think
there might be legal threats against defenders and put in place
some preemptive and proactive support to courageous individuals
in country.
This is sort of the AID approach, a developmental approach,
where you invest early so you build resilience in the society,
and you prevent and preempt these initiatives from arising.
There will also be a category of countries where something
is just going to spark, and there is going to be a need for
rapid response. So we need to complement the early warning
system with a broader, global rapid response system to address
threats as they arise.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Helmy.
Senator Helmy. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
And I just want to applaud the bipartisan leadership that
was mentioned at the beginning of this issue. As an Egyptian
American, as an American, as a Coptic American, these issues
are incredibly important to me.
They have had an impact on my family, and I just appreciate
the leadership and the bipartisanship on this and would mention
Chairman Cardin's long lasting legacy on this issue.
Mr. Rutzen, you briefly mentioned Egypt in your testimony
and their anti-NGO policies which discourage a free and open
society.
In your view how can this Congress and future Congresses
hold the current and future Administration responsible to hold
Egypt accountable for its poor track record of human and
religious rights and freedom of liberties, particularly in
relation to Copts and other religious minorities while
supporting its capacity to nurture a public forum for religious
freedom and civil participation?
Mr. Rutzen. Thank you for your question, Senator Helmy.
I think what is important is we have engagement with local
Egyptian civil society and religious leaders to see what are
some of the needs they have in terms of support and defense of
their rights to advocate.
The change will have to come from within, as we know, so
our role is to help defend those defenders and help protect
civic space. In a public forum I probably would not get into
too many details, but if helpful I would be happy to meet with
your staff in private to discuss some specific ideas.
Senator Helmy. Yes, I would welcome that with the team and
me personally. It is a very important issue, and as I think
this Congress takes up aid for Egypt down the road it is an
important issue that should be deliberated.
And staying in that vein, if I may, Mr. Rutzen, what
strategy or framework would it be useful for us to examine and
address this challenge within the scope of U.S. strategy toward
Egypt and our regional partners?
Mr. Rutzen. Thank you.
Let me introduce one argument that often is not on the
table.
I am a human rights lawyer. I love human rights, but
sometimes we have got to focus on other arguments as well. And
one of the tools I think that is underutilized is trade
agreements, including bilateral investment treaties.
It is really interesting. If we look around the world
countries warmly welcome foreign investment, and in fact, we
hold companies that receive foreign direct investment as being
these glorious multinational companies.
We do not call some of our biggest companies foreign agents
just because they receive investments from people in other
countries. But yet, when it is civil society governments
restrict the free flow of capital across borders.
So one of the ideas, I think, that we might advance is
looking more closely at existing trade agreements to see the
extent it might help cover the free flow of resources and
capital across borders not only for the for profit sector but
also the nonprofit sector.
Senator Helmy. Thank you, Mr. Rutzen.
Ms. Wang, if I may. Understanding the PRC's growing and
pervasive state sponsored surveillance regime, I welcome the
opportunity to learn more about your view on the importance of
considering a reformed sanctions regime on the PRC and its
state owned enterprises and how we hold them accountable for
their unfettered access to civil society and dissidents at home
and abroad.
In your view, do you believe the current U.S. policy
overlooks key elements of the long term strategy to hold the
PRC accountable in the midst of its growing influence in the
tech space and its growing global reach?
Thank you.
Ms. Wang. I think the U.S. Government is doing better, and
there needs to be more actions and more forceful enforcement of
existing laws in terms of surveillance.
I mean, there are Chinese companies who are complicit in
China's human rights violations in Xinjiang being sanctioned by
the U.S. Government, and some are on the Entity List.
And then there are U.S. companies who the U.S. Government
has banned them from selling, you know, equipment that can be
used in human rights violations in China.
So both sides are necessary, but we--you know, as we all
heard from the news, companies are very smart in evading
sanctions. So we need to do more research and have more
personnel in the U.S. Government to crack down on companies who
are evading sanctions and punish them for doing that.
The other day I met a Uyghur activist, and she just
presented me with a bag of dates, and there were two big
Chinese characters there that say Xinjiang. Those products
should be banned by the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
But they are everywhere in the U.S. If you go to a Chinese
supermarket--I mean, I read Chinese, and I can see, you know,
the word Xinjiang there. So why they are still there? So that
means the law is not really being enforced.
Senator Helmy. Thank you.
I close again with a deep appreciation to this committee
for its bipartisan work in this space, and once again recognize
the chairman's long lasting legacy on this issue. Thank you.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for your work and your
testimony.
Sometimes we think this challenge is really limited to the
authoritarian nations of the world, but sadly, we see in
democracies with whom we ally, a significant effort to crack
down on NGOs or at least make it harder for NGOs to do their
work, and I want to just use the example of India.
India has a law called the Foreign Contribution Regulation
Act that was amended in 2010, has been amended again in 2020,
that makes it very difficult for NGOs operating in India to
receive donations from people around the world.
Organizations like Amnesty International and others have
had to dramatically limit or shutter operations in India
because they do rely on fundraising.
But India has chosen through this act to significantly
restrict the ability of organizations to operate and receive
foreign funding. The law allows the freezing of bank accounts,
investigations, et cetera.
And it is one thing, and it is an important thing, when
human rights activists and NGOs feel intimidated and cannot do
their work. But the bottom line is the real victims are those
who are the beneficiaries of the work.
There is an organization called the Sambhali Trust, which
is based in Rajasthan, whose goal is to empower women in this
part of the country, and particularly disempowered or oppressed
women.
Very much a service provision organization, very much
focused on a mission that would seem not only anodyne but
completely desirable, and yet a constituent reached out to us
because the Sambhali U.S. was having a difficult time
soliciting donations and then being able to transfer those
donations to their purpose, which was empowering women in the
Rajasthan part of India.
These statutes--and they are similar around the world but I
just want to focus on this financing--are a form of harassment
to choke off the work that is being done, and if you choke off
the work that is being done sometimes you are not only hurting
the human rights promoters and those who work with the NGO, but
you are really hurting those who could benefit from the work.
And this is really important. The U.S. is involved in some
parts of the world where, frankly, the governments are not that
necessarily a reliable partner in providing services or
development, but NGOs are.
I was a missionary in Honduras. We want to do things in the
Northern Triangle, but we have had the experience of we want to
invest, but the government is really not the partner to invest
with.
But the NGO community often has very strong NGOs that are
exactly the partners you can invest with. But if they are
choked off from receiving funds then you essentially disempower
the important causes that they represent.
So I am really interested in this, and I do want to raise,
you know, India is a great ally of ours. We often say we are
the oldest democracy in the world, and they are the largest
democracy in the world, and others may contest us in those
titles, but we view the U.S.-India relationship as a very
important one.
But when organizations on the ground who are doing good
work find their financing sources restricted or cut off, we
have to pay attention to that.
And so I just wanted to put this one on the table and
reference the Sambhali U.S. and their challenges. I believe
eventually we worked with them, State Department and others,
and were able to work through the maze to enable them to,
again, begin to forward donations to the important work that
they do.
But I think there is other NGOs including some known very
well by members of this committee that still have not been able
to find a way forward to offer the services they provide.
So this is a global problem, not just with authoritarians.
You used the phrase, Mr. Rutzen, sort of authoritarian
legalism. It is an act of parliament.
The other thing about these financial restriction laws is
they pose a grave risk of bribery and abuse because if you are
a government official and you say to this NGO, well, there is a
whole lot of money in a bank account abroad that you could get
if I give you approval, but I have the ability to turn you down
and not allow those foreign funds to come to you, these laws
often are an invitation to bribery and corruption.
So I think this is something we need to be paying more
attention to, and it is one of the reasons I was really glad
this hearing was noticed today, and I encourage you in the work
that you are doing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kaine. I appreciate those
comments.
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all
of you for your testimony here today and for your ongoing work.
Ms. Gigauri, thank you for your ongoing efforts. I have
been following the testimony on C-SPAN and want to salute you
for your determination to keep civic space open in Georgia, and
I applaud the efforts of my colleagues Senator Shaheen, Senator
Risch, and others with respect to legislation. I just wanted to
associate myself with those remarks.
Ms. Wang, I wanted to ask you a couple questions about Hong
Kong, because one area where you have anti-NGO laws and many
other forms of repression against civil society has been Hong
Kong. It has gone into overdrive.
A number of years ago I teamed up with former Senator Pat
Toomey, and we passed bipartisan legislation entitled the Hong
Kong Autonomy Act, which provides the executive branch the
authority to sanction individuals and officials, whether in
Hong Kong or in China, who are who are cracking down on that
repression.
And it is a tool that has been used but, clearly we need to
either expand the use of that tool or look for other methods
because we know that in March of this year the Hong Kong
legislature passed a new ordinance known as Article 23 that
greatly expands the definition of national security offenses as
any offense that, quote, ``endangers national security under
the law.''
So these very sweeping powers that then are abused by the
governments, and they have cut Hong Kong's democratic
institutions and eroded civil society.
So my question is in addition to the sort of targeted
sanctions against individuals and officials, are there other
tools that you think we should be using, or also do you just
think we should be making greater use of those existing
authorities with respect to sanctions, or both?
Ms. Wang. I think you can expand the list of the people who
should be subjected to sanctions, and sanctions do work,
especially for officials in Hong Kong. They usually have
foreign bank accounts. So it does make a difference.
And also it sends a message to people who are fighting for
freedom. You know, the U.S. Government is taking actions. It
inspires them to keep going.
Also, I think, you know, there are new laws that should be
enacted that--as I mentioned, Freedom House supports the
passage of the Human Rights Defenders Protection Act, which
will provide additional support and protection of activists.
Then we are also endorsing the Transnational Repression
Policy Act which will provide support to activists who are
being subjected to transnational repression in the U.S.
Just recently, a group of Hong Kong activists--Chinese and
Tibetan activists--were violently assaulted in San Francisco
because they were protesting President Xi's visit.
There were hundreds of pro-CCP groups that were there, you
know, harassing them. I know that to the U.S. Government is
investing this case and I knew there are many more similar
cases.
So we do urge the U.S. Government to strengthen the
investment in cracking down on transnational repression in the
U.S. We also urge the U.S. Government to engage more with the
Chinese diaspora community because as, you know, as a Chinese
person living in the U.S.
I do worry about the spill effect of that kind of rooting
out Chinese spies, rooting out CCP interference, the effect on
the Chinese diaspora overall.
So the U.S. Government needs to do it in a very careful way
so not to have an adverse effect on a diaspora. So how to do
that?
I think it is very important to engage with the community--
you know, actually have a dialogue to build trust with them
rather than just go there and ask do you know there are Chinese
spies in the community?
You know, go there and ask what are your worries, what are
your concerns, how can we help you?
So there are a lot of details that need to be ironed out so
the U.S. Government can crackdown on CCP interference in the
right way.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that, and I agree with all
your suggestions. My time is almost out so I am going to ask if
you could submit an answer for the record on the issue of
China's export of surveillance technologies.
We have seen this through Huawei. We have seen this through
ZTE. We even see it deployed here in the United States. China
is, obviously, using that surveillance technology for
repressive reasons--for repressive purposes in China.
But I would like in your--maybe your written response, to
comment a little bit more on what we can do to counter the use
of those surveillance technologies in many other countries,
authoritarian countries and democratic countries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
Let me thank all three of our witnesses, not just for your
testimonies but for what you do--front line on these issues.
This is a challenge, a challenge on how we are going to be
able to protect our democratic institutions, but to make it
clear that they cannot be utilized to undermine the rule of law
in our democracies, and we have foreign actors that are
interfering in our own country, and then we have backsliding
regimes that are using the so called legal procedures to move
their country away from democracy and the protection of human
rights.
So we have to be more strategic on how we go about this,
and I appreciate, Ms. Wang, your support of the legislation
that we have authored. I think Congress can do more in this
area.
I think we can do more in enforcement on our sanctions. I
think there are areas that we--and I think we can do more in
our priorities in our foreign policies and the relationships--
bilateral, multilateral relations we have with other countries.
To make it clear, we will not tolerate the type of action
we have seen in Georgia. We have made that pretty clear. I
think they understand that, and we are going to make it even
clearer when we pass legislation that Senator Risch has
authored with Senator Shaheen.
So we are going to take steps. We are going to be actively
engaged, and that is one of the reasons we look forward to this
hearing.
The record of the committee will remain open through the
close of business on Friday. If there is questions submitted by
members, we would ask that you would try to reply to those
questions as quickly as possible.
And Senator Risch, anything further?
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. With that, the committee will stand
adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Ms. Wang's Response to Senator Van Hollen
Regarding China's Export of Surveillance Technologies
The United States has a range of tools through which it can better
address the problem of the global spread of surveillance technologies,
including those exported by PRC entities. This includes sanctions on
entities and individuals, as well as steps to strengthen the regime of
export controls and multilateral coordination, as described in more
detail below. In addition to these steps, the US should continue to
support local civil society organizations and independent media that
investigate and report on human rights issues, including how Chinese
companies facilitate them. Finally, the US should continue to invest in
building up capacity to ensure there are alternatives to Chinese-made
technologies for states seeking to upgrade or expand in areas like
telecommunications infrastructure.
Regarding export controls, the US government should continue to
restrict the export of technologies of concern, including by Chinese
companies, and solicit input from civil society when considering how to
strengthen export controls to protect human rights. It should also
ensure that exported US components are not being used for prohibited
applications or by prohibited end users. The US Commerce Department's
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has taken several important steps
to these ends, including proposing a new control for facial recognition
technology (FRT) used for mass surveillance and crowd scanning. Freedom
House is supportive of this proposed rule because this particular use
of the technology negatively impacts the rights to privacy, free
expression, association, assembly, and non-discrimination. FRT produced
by Chinese entities is increasingly used around the world and this
regulation can help curb its spread.
In addition, Freedom House has urged BIS to also create a control
for ``remote biometric identification'' technologies, such as iris
scanning, that are also used by government actors in the facilitation
of human rights violations. BIS should also improve its ``Annual
Country Licensing and Trade Analysis'' reports by making certain data
available every 6 months. This report should further provide a more
nuanced presentation of information regarding the export of key
technologies, like facial recognition. If BIS reporting is strengthened
in these ways, it will be easier for civil society, media, academia,
and other actors to track where and to whom US items are exported,
which can inform research and advocacy efforts.
Finally, Congress should work with the executive branch to ensure
the US government continues to lead the international community in its
efforts to combat the abuse of digital technology. As it relates to
commercial spyware specifically, the US government should encourage
signatories to the Joint Statement on Efforts to Counter the
Proliferation and Misuse of Commercial Spyware and the Export Controls
and Human Rights Initiative to follow through on their commitments.
Congress should urge like-minded democracies in Europe and elsewhere to
follow suit, including through the Pall Mall Process led by the United
Kingdom and France, among other forums. Bold action from these
democracies would be an important step in combating surveillance
technologies used in the facilitation of human rights violations and/or
abuses by the Chinese and other authoritarian governments.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]