[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 13, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of 
my colleagues a letter I have received from Mr. John Brademas, chairman 
of the board of directors of the National Endowment for Democracy. The 
letter is in response to an article in Harper's Magazine criticizing a 
meeting sponsored by NED in Zagreb.
  I agree with Mr. Brandemas that the Harper's article was filled with 
distortions that do not accurately reflect the purpose or the results 
of the Zagreb meeting. Those distortions and inaccuracies need to be 
addressed.
  The National Endowment for Democracy has been in the forefront of 
supporting and promoting democratic values and the democratic system 
around the world for many years. The contributions made by the work of 
the Endowment, particularly in the emerging democracies of Central and 
Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union, have gone a long way to 
consolidating the movement toward democracy in those countries.
                                                 New York, NY,

                                                     June 2, 1995.
     Mr. Lewis H. Lapham,
     Editor, Harper's Magazine,
     New York, NY.
       Dear Mr. Lapham: Your reporter's cynical account of the 
     meeting the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) recently 
     sponsored in Zagreb, Croatia (``At Play in the Fields of 
     Oppression,'' May, 1995) betrays an almost willful ignorance 
     of the meeting, its results--which were considerable--and the 
     larger work of NED.
       As Chairman of the Endowment's Board of Directors, I would 
     like to set the record straight.
       The purpose of the Zagreb meeting was to bring together 
     democratic activists from Southeastern Europe to meet with 
     one another and with Western groups interested in supporting 
     free government and human rights, but seeking more knowledge 
     of the region and its non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 
     Since fighting began in the former Yugoslavia four years ago, 
     like-minded activists living in different republics have 
     found it nearly impossible to communicate with one another. 
     Their respective societies have virtually no contact; for 
     example, the telephone lines between Zagreb and Belgrade have 
     been cut for over three years.
       The Zagreb meeting, attended by representatives of 67 NGOs 
     from the region and 34 Western aid organizations, was not the 
     idle talk portrayed in the article, but a rare opportunity 
     for friends of democracy in the war-torn Balkans to share 
     ideas and establish contacts that will lead to practical 
     assistance.
       A few facts will give the lie to the charge that NED's 
     programming is centered around meaningless conferences. The 
     Endowment, which has been active in the former Yugoslavia 
     since 1988, has provided computers, printing equipment, and 
     vital supplies to independent newspapers and radio stations 
     in Bosnia and Serbia-Montenegro. Without this timely aid, 
     these free media outlets would have had to shut down. Acting 
     through the Free Trade Union Institute, NED assists a 
     multiethnic trade-union confederation in Serbia that openly 
     challenges the anti-democratic policies of the Milosevic 
     regime. Endowment funds also help underwrite the cost of
      the Balkan Media Network, an electronic bulletin board that 
     links the region's media outlets through E-mail. These are 
     but a few of the tangible forms of assistance that 
     characterize NED-supported programs in every former 
     Yugoslav republic.
       Among the substantive results of the meeting in Zagreb are 
     the many proposals the Endowment has received from 
     participants inspired by the informal discussions and 
     workshops they attended. Although the article identifies the 
     director of an independent Bosnian radio station as a leading 
     critic of Western donors, this same man felt the meeting of 
     sufficient value to offer afterwards a project for the 
     Endowment's consideration.
       From the beginning, the Zagreb meeting was conceived as a 
     way speedily to provide practical help to worthy groups that 
     were poorly known (or completely unknown) to Western 
     organizations, and to urge more Western groups to work in the 
     region. Fortunately, Western groups never before active in 
     the region have decided to get involved. A good example is 
     NED's sister institution in Great Britain, the Westminster 
     Foundation for Democracy, which will be working in Kosovo as 
     a direct result of contacts made in Zagreb.
       Your reporter falsely interprets the activists' general 
     (and understandable) complains about the larger Western 
     failure in the Balkans as an attack on NED, and focuses 
     attention on some stray inanities uttered by a handful of the 
     Western participants. He seems to have missed hearing any of 
     the dozens of serious exchanges that took place informally. 
     Yet those exchanges represented the real work of the meeting 
     as participants developed plans for building independent 
     media organs, human rights groups and civic organizations 
     throughout the region.
       Nowhere in the article is there acknowledgement that the 
     meeting in Zagreb was an indigenous effort organized by the 
     Erasmus Guild, a well-respected Croatian NGO. The Endowment-
     supported guild has worked effectively to promote civil 
     society and ethnic harmony in a region that desperately needs 
     both. For example, the Guild has successfully convened 
     roundtable sessions that have brought together Croat, Serb 
     and Muslim democrats to discuss inter-ethnic relations and 
     the building of viable voluntary associations.
       As Dr. Vesna Pusic, the Guild's Director has pointed out, 
     ``It is absolutely essential to avoid replicating in the NGO 
     sector a monopoly similar to the one that has been created by 
     the ruling parties in most of the countries on the territory 
     of the former Yugoslavia. That can be secured only by 
     providing multiple sources of financing for different non-
     government organizations.'' This sentiment has been echoed by 
     the Open Society Fund in Serbia, financed by the 
     philanthropist George Soros, which has appealed for other 
     funders to become involved.
       The article is too loaded with inaccuracies and distortions 
     to point them all out. Let me cite only the most blatant 
     ones:
       (1) None of the Eastern European participants had to pay 
     their way to the meeting. Conversely, Western groups did.
       (2) The reference to criticism of the Endowment by 
     government accountants is based on a 1991 General Accounting 
     Office report. Its recommendations for managerial 
     improvements have long since been implemented.
       (3) The description of two grants (neither accurately 
     described) made by NED in 1984, the very first year of 
     operations, continue to be trotted out by Endowment critics 
     as proof that it ``meddles'' in the internal affairs of other 
     countries. Yet the issues raised by these grants were 
     addressed long ago: the Endowment has strict internal 
     prohibitions against involvement in political campaigns 
     (distinguished from electoral processes), and NED has a 
     policy against working in established democracies. To put 
     these two grants into perspective, I note that NED has funded 
     over two thousand projects during its existence.
       (4) The allegation that the International Republican 
     Institute (IRI) expended funds to help finance the 1990 
     Republican National Convention is false. Funds raised 
     privately were used to bring democratic activists from abroad 
     to experience a particular aspect of American democracy and 
     to be briefed by experts on campaigns, polling and elections.
       (5) The IRI did use business class travel for its pro bono 
     participants in overseas programs at a time when doing so was 
     well within government regulations. Since 1992 (before the 
     change in government regulations), IRI has permitted its 
     volunteers and staff to travel in coach class only.
       Let me close with a personal observation: After 22 years in 
     Congress and 11 as President of New York University, I agreed 
     to serve as Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy, 
     an obligation I did not assume lightly. To me, democracy is 
     serious business and, in my case, a matter of life-long 
     commitment. I wish that Harper's would have been more 
     discerning in publishing an article about a critical issue--
     encouraging free and democratic political institutions in 
     countries that do not enjoy them--rather than accepting such 
     a cynical, indeed arrogant, misrepresentation of fact.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John Brademas.
     

                          ____________________