[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12755-12756]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY GIVEN BY LORNE CRANER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, July 1, 2010

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit excerpts from the testimony of 
Lorne Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, IRI, 
speaking before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on June 10.
  Mr. Craner spoke with great clarity about a number of important 
issues regarding the promotion of human rights and democracy in the 
context of U.S. foreign policy.
  He opened with reflections on President Reagan's conviction that 
freedom is a birthright--one that ought to be enjoyed by all peoples. 
Mr. Craner testified:
  ``President Reagan said `We must be staunch in our conviction that 
freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable 
and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . .'
  ``But Reagan went beyond simply noting the importance of freedom in 
the speech. He laid out a strategy to achieve it, stating that `If the 
rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and 
democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for 
democracy. While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, 
we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take 
concrete actions to move towards them.'
  ``Further, he enunciated a method to help achieve the strategy, 
saying `the objective I propose is quite simple . . . to foster the 
infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, 
political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their 
own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their differences 
through peaceful means.'
  ``Reagan counseled patience, noting that `the task I've set forth 
will long outlive our generation.' He would be characteristically 
modest about his role, but within eight years, the number of `free 
countries' in Freedom House's survey had risen to 76, compared to 51 at 
the time of his inaugural, `partly free countries' had risen to 65 from 
51, and `not free' countries had declined from 60 to 42. Most 
dramatically, the Soviet bloc had disintegrated. While many West 
Europeans now claim it was engagement--exemplified by `Ostpolitik'--
that ended the Cold War, those who lived under Soviet domination 
instead give much credit to Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and 
Ronald Reagan . . .''
  Later in his testimony Mr. Craner remarked on the critical role that 
Congress plays in pressing the State Department to elevate these issues 
of human rights and religious freedom . . . issues which often are 
downplayed in the name of bilateral relations. Craner noted:
  ``Indeed, for more than 30 years, beyond the inception of NED, 
Congress has truly been at the forefront on issues of human rights. For 
example, the State Department Bureau I headed, for Democracy, Human 
Rights and Labor, was also founded by an act of Congress. On many 
occasions the Congress has actually led on human rights and democracy 
policy. The annual State Department Country Reports on Human Rights 
were established over the objections of the then-administration. I 
referred earlier to Congressional action on human rights early in the 
Reagan administration. In the 1990s and this decade, a number of the 
entities within the State Department intended to advance human rights--
the Office of International Religious Freedom, the Office to Monitor 
and Combat Trafficking in Persons, and the Special Envoy to Monitor and 
Combat Anti-Semitism--were also established over administration 
opposition. The recent Advance Democracy Act was opposed by the then-
administration. Legislative action regarding human rights in various 
countries, from China to El Salvador to South Africa, has been taken by 
Congress despite the administration's wishes. It is especially 
important to note that passage of such legislation was undertaken by 
Congresses with Democratic or Republican majorities during both 
Democratic and Republican administrations.''
  Lastly, he spoke compellingly of the need for ``Strong, consistent, 
leadership on democracy and human rights from the top of the 
administration . . .'' He gave several reasons:
  ``First, much attention is paid to the administration's funding 
levels for democracy programming. This is substantively important, 
given what democratic foreign leaders point to as the results of 
America's democracy programming over the past quarter century, from 
Chile to the Philippines to Poland, Mongolia, Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, 
and many others. Here in Washington, it is also seen as a symbolic 
measure of U.S. support for democracy in countries in remaining 
repressive countries such as Cuba, Belarus, Iran, and Burma. In 
instances such as these, Congress can exert its influence by earmarking 
funds certain countries. The implementation of such earmarks can be 
greatly influenced by the second reason for strong presidential/
administration support: the message sent within the bureaucracy.
  ``Too often it is easy for the career bureaucracy to minimize 
democracy and human rights because these elements complicate other 
bilateral issues, such as economic or trade or security relationships. 
Skilled diplomats know that it is possible to achieve both. But clear 
statements by the President and Secretary of State on democracy and 
human rights contribute to the degree to which efforts will be made by 
U.S. Country Teams to implement programs and seek to garner 
international support for those seeking to better their conditions 
under authoritarian regimes. Under President Clinton and Secretary 
Albright and President Bush and Secretaries Powell and Rice, for 
example, U.S. diplomats understood that human rights and democracy were 
strong emphases of U.S. foreign policy.
  ``Third, and perhaps most important, the degree of administration 
support for democracy and human rights is watched closely by autocratic 
and totalitarian foreign leaders. They are trying to discern how to 
manage relations with the world's most powerful country. When American 
leaders diminish our emphasis and consistency on democracy and human 
rights, foreign leaders understand that they don't have to do as much 
on those issues to maintain good relations with Washington.''
  Mr. Craner closed by noting that the Obama administration has gotten 
off to a weak start on these issues, and that this has not gone 
unnoticed by those to whom U.S. policy in this regard matters most . . 
. ``democrats and dissidents.''
  Craner remarked, ``Commenting on President Obama's delayed meeting 
with the Dalai Lama, former Czech President Vaclav Havel said of 
Beijing `they respect it when someone is standing his ground, when 
someone is not afraid of them. When someone soils his pants 
prematurely, then they do not respect you more for it.'
  ``Cyberdissident Ahed Al-Hendi stated that previously, in Syria `when 
a single dissident was arrested . . . at the very least the White House 
would condemn it. Under the Obama administration, nothing.'
  ``Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim said `Our concern is that the Obama 
administration is perceived to be softening on human rights . . . once 
you give a perception that you are softening on human rights, then you 
are strengthening the hands of autocrats to punish dissidents 
throughout the world.'

[[Page 12756]]

  ``According to Egypt's Saad Eddin Ibrahim, `George W. Bush is missed 
by activists in Cairo and elsewhere who--despite possible misgivings 
about his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan--benefited from his firm 
stance on democratic progress. During the time he kept up pressure on 
dictators, there were openings for a democratic opposition to flourish. 
The current Obama policy seems weak and inconsistent by contrast.'''
  I share Mr. Craner's concerns and echo his charge to Congress to 
stand in the gap even in the face of an administration that is 
struggling to find its voice on matters which ought to be central in 
American foreign policy.

                          ____________________