HEARING
COMMISSION ON
SECURITY & COOPERATION IN EUROPE:
U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION
ADVANCING WITH U.S. INTERESTS IN THE OSCE REGION
WITNESSES:
PHILIP H. GORDON,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
MICHAEL H. POSNER,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALEXANDER VERSHBOW,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
THE HEARING WAS HELD FROM 2:00 P.M. TO 3:30 P.M. IN THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
SVC 212/210, WASHINGTON, D.C., [SEN. BENJAMIN CARDIN (D-MD), CHAIRMAN, CSCE],
MODERATING
SEN. BENJAMIN CARDIN (D-MD): Well, the Helsinki Commission will come to order.
I want to welcome all of our guests that are here, particularly our three
panelists who are a real contact between the legislative and executive branches
of government on the Helsinki Commission and we look forward to their
testimony.
It’s good to be here with Chris Smith, the ranking Republican member of the
Helsinki Commission.
This is an important hearing for us to talk frankly about where we are with the
U.S. participation in OSCE, where our strengths are so that we can build upon
those strengths and where we can really try to correct some of the weaknesses
within the OSCE framework.
I think it’s an appropriate time to talk about that as we approach the
milestone 35th anniversary next year of the signing of the Helsinki final
accords. The ministerial meetings will be coming up in December. We’re
anxious to know the strategies moving into the ministerial meetings. This an
unusual one in that the chair in office recently changed because of the
elections in Greece as well as the first time that the chair in office next
year will be from Central Asia, which is, of course, an interesting development
within OSCE and one that adds additional opportunities, we hope, during 2010.
We also, of course, understand the importance of OSCE in that it is not only
the largest regional international organization in the world, but it’s an
organization in which both Russia and the United States has equal membership,
which is not typical in most of the regional organizations. And, of course, we
have so many open issues between the United States and Russia today giving us
we hope the opportunity to advance some of those issues through the OSCE
framework.
There’s much to celebrate within the recent accomplishments of the Helsinki
Commission. We looked back to what we did during the Soviet years with the
refuseniks and the release of Soviet Jews and we bring that to the current
problems of the Roma population through much of Europe and the work that we’re
doing developing strategies to end human trafficking.
And I want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of Congressman Chris Smith
on that effort. It started within the Helsinki Commission and has now become,
I think, the norm among all the countries in OSCE that have a game plan, not
only laws but a strategy to end human trafficking. The commission played a
very key role in that.
Today, we are still pushing very hard on election monitoring and the key field
missions. And the list goes on and on and on of positive developments within
OSCE and, of course, the three representatives in regards to the tolerance
agenda.
All these are success stories in large part due to the U.S. participation in
OSCE through the Helsinki Commission. But there’s reason to be concerned
today. There’s reason for us to take stock as to how we can do things better.
There’s been backsliding in several of the OSCE states that is very troublesome
to us all. There are frozen conflicts that are still frozen and I think many
of us had hoped that we would have been made more progress.
There’s open conflict, for example, between Georgia and Russia in which the
process did not work and it causes us to rethink as to whether we have the
right framework to deal with those types of challenges.
And, of course, we have the bureaucratic issues in Vienna and how decisions are
made within the OSCE and how the budgets are developed within OSCE and the U.S.
participation both in Vienna and in the funding on the budget requests that
come in to us through OSCE or through its different institutions including
ODIHR.
I want to just acknowledge the cooperation that we have received from the Obama
administration. I particularly want to acknowledge Secretary Clinton’s strong
interest in OSCE. She’s a former member of the Helsinki Commission. And just
recently had the opportunity to talk with her concerning the OSCE and I know
that is focused on the need for an ambassador in Vienna and we hope to have
some news on that shortly.
I look forward to the testimony. I look forward to the continued strong
relationship between the legislative and executive branch. It’s actually
seamless as it relates to the U.S. participation in OSCE.
Congressman Smith.
REP. CHRIS SMITH (R-NJ): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I do want to
thank you for convening this very important hearing. We have three very
distinguished witnesses which I’m looking forward to hearing from.
And I do want to thank you for your leadership in the commission. We’ve had a
robust schedule of hearings. We’ve, I think, been very active both within the
OSC PA and the OSCE itself and it’s due in no small measure to your leadership
so I want to commend you for that.
Mr. Chairman, human rights defenders have been profoundly disappointed – and I
say this at the outset – with the words and actions of this administration. In
only nine months, President Obama and many of his senior officials have
signaled their disinterest in fundamental human rights in countries ranging
from China to Cuba, Egypt and Burma, and to Venezuela itself as well.
And I raise this issue on human rights. I have tried, Mr. Chairman, for over
20 years, 20 years to get into Cuba to meet with dissidents there. Although
Cuba, obviously, is not part of the OSCE, I’ve been denied each and every time.
And yet there’s this now new opening that we’re seeing with this
administration vis-à-vis Cuba and human rights seem to be a distant second or
third even if they’re on the plate at all. And I will get into that much
further if any of our witnesses would like to engage in that, particularly Mr.
Posner.
Even the press that has been so supportive of the new president has noted this
dramatic demotion of human rights. Mr. Chairman, on this point I’d like to
submit for the record a report and an editorial by Fred Hiatt from the
Washington Post that ran just a couple of weeks ago. And the report was a
Washington Post report, human activists troubled by the administration’s
approach, which was done this past May of 2009.
Yet, at least within the OSCE region, the administration has not so notably
(deprioritized ?) human rights. As we’re all aware that our three witnesses
have all shown personal commitment to the promotion of human rights, Secretary
Posner has dedicated his life to defending many of the most important human
rights. Secretary Vershbow has also worked energetically in many of these
issues. We’re all grateful for him for his work on Jewish immigration from the
USSR. And I recall Secretary Gordon’s vigorous reaction to the myriad human
rights violations connected to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. So I am looking
forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say on many issues particularly
U.S. policy towards Belarus and the very important and vexing issue of
combating anti-Semitism, which appears to be getting worse.
Mr. Chairman, you and I visited Belarus this past July along with other members
of the commission. And we had, as I think most people know certainly in this
room, had a private meeting with Alexander Lukashenko.
Lukashenko was aggressive in that meeting demanding that our government revoke
certain sanctions put on his government by the Belarus Democracy Act, which
first became into law back in 2004 and was reauthorized in 2007 and major
provisions of it which were adopted into this year’s State Department
authorization bill. I know from countless meetings with the Belarusian
democratic reformers and human rights activists how these sanctions sustain
them against the dictator both materially and morally.
And we saw with our own eyes that the sanctions are a big factor in the
dictator’s thinking. He wants them removed. And so they have to say – if
they’re going to have it removed, there needs to be substantial progress in the
realm of human rights and they must treat those dissidents with respect and not
the scorn, and really much worse than scorn, with which Lukashenko and his
thugs have done so in the past.
Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. I do
believe whether it be election monitoring or human rights, the other baskets,
obviously are important, but for this commission human rights has always been
first and Mr. Posner used to – a head of an organization that was called Human
Rights First and Lawyers’ Committee before that. But I thank you again for
this hearing.
SEN. CARDIN: Thank you, Congressman Smith. Let me welcome our three
witnesses, two from State and one from Defense. Let me just make an
observation and I’m going to introduce our witnesses.
Our commission has had a very close relationship with the Department of State
and we want to thank you for that. There have been consistent briefings from
both our commission trips as well as from the State Department visits to
countries of interest and we very much appreciate that close working
relationship that exists on a day-to-day basis between our staffs and
ourselves. And I just really want to get that on the record.
Let me introduce Dr. Philip Gordon who serves as assistant secretary of state
for European and Eurasian Affairs. Prior to assuming his position, he was the
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He served as director for European
Affairs at the National Security Council under President Clinton.
Michael Posner serves as the second assistant secretary of state for Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. Prior to his current position he was the executive
director and then president of the Human Rights First. Before joining Human
Rights First, Mr. Posner practiced law in Chicago.
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow serves as assistant secretary of defense for
International Security Affairs. A career Foreign Service officer, he served as
U.S. ambassador to NATO, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea.
He’s held numerous senior level foreign policy positions principally focused on
the former Soviet Union and the Balkans.
We’ll start off with Dr. Gordon.
PHILIP GORDON: Chairman Cardin, thank you very much for having us here. Mr.
Smith. It’s nice to see you both again. I agree with the chairman that this
is an important hearing to talk frankly about where we are on these issues and
with your permission I’ll make just a short opening statement. Obviously, I’ve
submitted longer testimony for the record.
The OSCE remains one of the top three key European institutions with which the
U.S. engages alongside the European Union and NATO. The OSCE remains an
essential venue for dialogue, cooperation, and democracy promotion precisely
with those countries that are not yet members of or do not intend to become
members of those two other organizations.
The OSCE’s comprehensive approach to security offers a vehicle for engagement
across the political, military, economic, and human rights dimensions. That it
is a process and that such a process takes time does not lessen its importance
or the necessity for sustained United States engagement.
The Helsinki Final Act says th1at promoting democracy and respect for human
rights is fundamental to achieving sustainable security in Europe and Eurasia.
It links security among states to respect for human rights within states.
Indeed, I think that’s one of the most important features of the OSCE is that
it recognizes that security is not just about what happens between states or
beyond borders, but what happens within them.
The OSCE’s core values are among the reasons this organization has a central
role to play in advancing President Obama and Secretary Clinton’s foreign
policy strategy.
Indeed, the remarkable success of the organization during many of the past 35
years is proof of what the participating states can achieve when we implement
commitments based on shared values and objectives. Improvements in the lives
of our citizens in the OSCE area are the result of hard work, conviction and
persistence.
And I would really like to thank the Helsinki Commission members and staff for
working so closely together with us in this endeavor. We very much appreciate
the institutional knowledge on the commission and its staff and its dedication
to human rights and the energy that they bring to our joint efforts.
The Helsinki Final Act has long stood as a beacon for the silenced, the
disenfranchised and the displaced. The OSCE is among the most effective and
cost effective international organizations working on human dimension issues
today. It is well known for its election monitoring expertise, its efforts to
promote basic freedoms and human rights including religious freedom and freedom
of the media, association and assembly and for its groundbreaking work in
combating anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. The OSCE’s 18 field
operations play a key role in promoting democracy and developing sustainable
institutions.
We look forward to Secretary Clinton’s participation in the Athens’ Ministerial
in December. As the chairman said, the secretary is a very strong proponent of
the OSCE and she’s going to go to Athens in December to make our views on the
organization clear. We will to revitalize the OSCE’s contributions in each of
the three dimensions of security.
The Corfu process inaugurated by the Greek OSCE chair in office to take a fresh
look at the OSCE itself and European security more generally is at the center
of the revitalization effort. We hope OSCE participating states will not only
renew their commitment to the OSCE’s core values at Athens but also to begin to
chart its future in engaging new and old security challenges as Kazakhstan
takes over as the organization’s, as was pointed out, first ever Central Asian
chair in office.
I will just very briefly summarize a couple of points from my written testimony
in the following areas. The human dimension – the OSCE’s human dimension
activities are what help set the organization apart from other organizations.
We fully support these activities and we’ll continue to push for greater
implementation of the commitments of all participating states have made to each
other and to their citizens.
The political-military dimensions – arms control and confidence building
measures remain a foundation of the long-term security of the OSCE region.
Russia’s decision to suspend its implementation of the Treaty on Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe in December 2007 has raised serious concerns among its
CAFE partners and within the OSCE as a whole.
The OSCE plays a central role in our efforts to find peaceful solutions to the
protected conflicts within the OSCE region. The United States is a means group
co-chair working to make progress in Nagorno-Karabakh. We’re an observer in
the five plus two mechanism set up to address the Transdniestrian conflict.
And we are engaged on a constant basis in efforts to build a stable and secure
future for Georgia. I’ll also elaborate Georgia in what I hope will be our
discussion.
Economic and environmental dimension is also important. The OSCE has been a
catalyst for regional cooperation on a broad array of economic and
environmental activities including transparency, good governance, water
resource management, migration assistance, and the disposal of hazardous waste.
Afghanistan – we greatly appreciate the OSCE’s recent efforts within
Afghanistan such as the recent ODIHR election support team mission deployed for
Afghanistan’s August presidential and provincial council elections.
Kazakhstan as the OSCE chairman in office – just a brief word about that before
I conclude. I think it’s another issue we’ll want to explore in this hearing.
The United States stands ready to assists Kazakhstan in its goal of a
successful term as chair in office. It is critical that the chair of the OSCE
meet the high standards of democracy and fundamental human rights upon which
the OSCE is based. We continue to have intensive discussions with the
government of Kazakhstan to encourage authorities to implement democratic
reforms in line with their Madrid Commitments.
In conclusion, I’ll just say that the OSCE’s multidimensional approach to
security is directly relevant to the many transnational issues we face as we
work together to build a democratic, prosperous, and secure trans-Atlantic
community.
Again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, thank you so much for holding this hearing and
I will look forward to your questions and comments.
SEN. CARDIN: Thank you very much for your testimony.
Secretary Posner.
MICHAEL POSNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you both for your
long commitment to these issues and to human rights issues in particular.
Congressman Smith, you and I have worked over a number of years on issues as
diverse as Northern Ireland, Russia, China, anti-Semitism, refugee protection.
And the hearings you held over the years on Northern Ireland made a huge
difference and led us to the peace process, the Good Friday agreement which
your scrutiny really helped provoke so I thank you for that.
And Chairman Cardin, I just couldn’t be more thrilled that you’re the chair of
this body and I look forward to becoming a commissioner and working with you.
I would like my written statement just to be put into the record. And I want
to just highlight a few main points.
SEN. CARDIN: Without objection, each of your written statements will be put on
the record.
MR. POSNER: When President Obama addressed the General Assembly last month, he
reiterated a call for a new era of U.S. engagement in the world. And at HDIM
and at OSCE our engagement is guided by three principal tenets.
One is engagement. I think we’ve gone to the HDIM in Warsaw in the spirit of
engagement but also recognizing the importance of standing for our values. We
will strenuously resist efforts that undermine OSCE principles or weaken the
office of democratic institutions and human rights, the field missions or other
human dimension efforts. And those debates are underway.
The second tenet of our approach is universality. We are dedicated to
upholding consistent principles that are reflected in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, starting with ourselves and I think the president’s executive
orders, his second day in officer announcing a determination to close
Guantanamo, to end abusive interrogations and to review security detention
policies are emblematic of that commitment.
At HDIM I joined a delegation headed by Dr. Michael Haltzel in exchanging views
with states and we made every effort to respond to those concerns expressed
about the U.S. record and emphasize that we do not consider such expressions to
be interference in our internal affairs. That sends an important signal and
hopefully one that other governments will follow.
The third tenet of our approach at OSCE and elsewhere is telling the truth. We
went and had bilateral discussions with a number of governments including the
Russians, including the governments of Uzbekistan, then Kazakhstan and others,
and we had frank discussion sharing of views.
In the weeks even since the meeting more troubling developments have occurred
and those are the kinds of things we need to monitor. Independent election
monitors reported irregularities during the municipal elections that took place
in Russia, October 11th. Such irregularities undermine prospects for
accountable, democratic governance.
We’re especially concerned by the continuing pressures and violence against
members of the NGO Memorial in Russia, a group which I’ve worked with
personally for decades which has just been awarded the Sakharov Prize by the
European Parliament.
During her Moscow visit, Secretary Clinton expressed support for President
Medvedev’s statements about more open society but she also met with civil
society activists and she underscored that the United States stands with those
who work for freedom, campaign for justice and democracy and who risk their
lives to speak out for human rights. In Russia, people literally do risk their
lives to speak out for human rights.
In Uzbekistan, despite some relatively promising developments last year towards
curbing child labor in the cotton sector, the government again this year has
mobilized children to take part in this year’s harvest. That’s an issue we’re
attentive to and we need to be pushing back on.
We’re concerned about the October 20th arrests in Turkmenistan of a civil
society activist Andrey Zatoka. We urged the government of Turkmenistan to
ensure that he gets due process and human treatment. The circumstances
surrounding his arrest are troubling given the history of his 2006 arrest and
they reinforce fears in the human rights community there.
The list goes on and on. And I have more instances in my testimony.
I think we are prepared as we look – and I want to share Assistant Secretary
Gordon’s comments about Kazakhstan. We are ready to work with the government
of Kazakhstan but we’ve also called on them to show leadership by example and
to make steady progress toward meeting all of their Madrid commitments
including reducing criminal liability for defamation. We’re deeply concerned
about an appellant court decision October 20th upholding a conviction in a
four-year prison sentence against human rights advocate Evgeny Zhovtis. We
urged Kazakhstan to pursue the upcoming procedure review of his case in
accordance to Kazakhstan law and its commitment to international justice
standards.
At HDIM I also made a special point in meeting with NGOs. This is a major
theme for President Obama and Secretary Clinton. The subject has special
resonance for me because in my years working in the NGO world. And it’s one of
the strengths of the OSCE process. But I think we need to be attentive to
efforts by a number of governments to curtail NGO activism and participation at
OSCE and fight those efforts as strenuously as we can.
I look forward to working with you. I thank you for holding this hearing and I
stand ready to answer your questions.
SEN. CARDIN: Thank you. We do look forward to you being on this side of the
table.
Secretary Vershbow.
ALEXANDER VERSHBOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s good to be here and to be
with Congressman Smith as well and to thank you very much for the opportunity
to discuss the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and its
contributions to a Europe whole, free and at peace.
With the Athens Ministerial coming up in December, this hearing is a very good
opportunity to step back and think about some of the accomplishments that the
organization has had over the past four and half decades but also what we’d
like to see in the future.
Since the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the OSCE has played an historical role in
helping Europe to transition from a period of protracted conflict to a time of
increasing prosperity, freedom and stability. It has offered objective
election observer missions across Europe including in Bosnia, Kosovo, and
Moldova. It served as a mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and it
stood, at least for a brief time, as an agent of peace and stability on
Georgia’s administrative boundary lines with Abkhazia in South Ossetia.
As someone who cares a great deal about the security and freedom of the
trans-Atlantic community, I’ve always valued the important role that the OSCE
has played in promoting the vision of its 35 founding states that was expressed
nearly 35 years ago. And I recall my first time appearing before this
commission when there was still a Soviet Union, and the world has moved on
considerably and the OSCE played an important part.
Since today I’m presenting the Department of Defense, I’ll focus on a few
concrete areas of the OSCE success in the defense and security realm before
going into some issues that we would like to see addressed as we go forward.
Like my colleagues, I have a longer statement which I’ve submitted for the
record. I’ll just touch upon some of the highlights.
Recent OSCE security sector achievements include helping states to better
control weapons of mass destruction, reducing small arms trafficking, engaging
with Mediterranean states, and taking a proactive approach to cybersecurity
threats.
First, weapons of mass destruction – WMD acquisition and use by those who mean
us harm presents an existential threat to OSCE members. The organization has
taken some pragmatic steps to help states better implement U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1540 which obliges all U.N. member states to enforce WMD
counter-proliferation measures. OSCE will be publishing a best proactive guide
on proven and effective means of implementing resolution 1540. And the United
States is cooperating with other OSCE member states on further work on 1540 to
give its implementation a stronger focus within the organization.
Second, OSCE has implemented initiatives to mitigate the threats posed by small
arms and light weapons transfers. It programs to eliminate deteriorating
liquid rocket fuel in Armenia and Georgia, to reduce small arms and ammunition
in Tajikistan and Belarus, and to decrease the number of man portable air
defense systems, or MANPADS, in Cyprus, have all contributed to regional
security and stability.
Third, I’d like to mention our dialogue with Mediterranean states on important
security issues. The OSCE’s partnership has served as a useful forum. Over
the past year, the United States has organized seminars in Vienna and in
Morocco on the threats to the Mediterranean region posed by MANPADS. And this
December’s Mediterranean Partners Conference in Cairo will address regional
conflict prevention and resolution as well as migration issues.
On cybersecurity we’ve seen in Estonia and Georgia the threats that cyber
attacks can pose to the critical infrastructure of our increasingly networked
world. The OSCE is tackling this challenge head on. At a recent cybersecurity
workshop, OSCE members and representatives from Egypt, Japan, the Arab League,
and NATO, among others, discussed ways to improve cyber defenses worldwide.
They agreed to carefully review capacities and deficiencies in national
cybersecurity efforts.
And there are also some areas where we hope to see further progress in the near
future. One of these is Afghanistan. As you know, the government of
Afghanistan requested OSCE’s assistance back in 2007. In response, the OSCE
secretariat proposed 16 projects to enhance Afghan border security, including a
welcome emphasis on building Afghan capacity. But so far only a few of these
projects have been implemented. We still need OSCE wide support on two
projects that we believe are critical and in everyone’s interest: a proposed
training facility at Sher Khan Bandar and a mentoring and monitoring project at
Afghan border crossing points. So we hope to get a full OSCE consensus on
these projects soon.
Now, as we address emerging challenges, it’s also vital that we continue to
address the threat of traditional international conflict among sovereign
states. As this committee’s co-chair stated at the time, Russia’s August,
2008, invasion of Georgia represented a violation of Georgia’s territorial
integrity and Principle Four of the Helsinki Final Act. We regret the end of
the OSCE and U.N. missions in Georgia and the lack of access to the separatist
regions, which impedes efforts to reduce tensions and prevent incidents from
spinning out of control.
The OSCE offers a particularly important forum for engagement because as last
year’s August events show, we have to make existing mechanisms more effective
in preventing conflicts. We remain ready to continue our dialogue with Russia
in the OSCE about its idea for a new European security architecture, although
we are committed to working through existing structures and mechanisms for
joint cooperation on European security rather than creating new ones.
We also look forward to continuing our close cooperation with Russia and their
other fellow Minsk Group co-chair, France, to support the leaders of Armenia
and Azerbaijan as they finalize the basic principles for settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
The most vital of the OSCE security mechanisms are the Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe Treaty, CFE, the Vienna Document, 1999, and the Open Skies
Treaty. We remain very concerned about Russia’s suspension of its legal
obligations under CFE and continue to urge that they return to full
implementation as soon as possible.
The Vienna document is a complementary confidence and security building
mechanism that remains a successful transparency mechanism. We hope all
parties will continue to maintain the transparency that remains its core
principle.
Open Skies allows each state party the right to observe any part of the
territory of other parties, a truly historic step in transparency by all 34
states parties. Significant challenges lie ahead, however, and we’ll continue
to seek agreement to preserve the benefits of this landmark treaty.
So Mr. Chairman, more than 35 years ago, the conference on security and
cooperation in Europe began negotiations to end the Cold War and create
foundations for a safe, prosperous, and free continent, with its crowning
achievement being the Helsinki Final Act. The peaceful conclusion of the Cold
War and the triumph of Helsinki principles represent a remarkable achievement
and the Helsinki process aided by this commission remains an extraordinary
example of the exercise of the collective will to prevent war and to
consolidate freedom and democracy.
OSCE member states can be proud of their achievements, but we haven’t fully
secured the foundations of piece and security in Europe, nor have we fully
realized our vision of transparency, openness and predictability in military
affairs.
So we look forward to working with the OSCE and with this commission to realize
the full potential of this organization and to achieve the goal of a Europe
whole free and at peace. Thank you very much.
SEN. CARDIN: Thank you for your testimony.
Let me acknowledge Dr. Mike Haltzel who is here, from a very successful head of
our mission to the human dimensions implementation meetings in Warsaw. We got
a report back and we know that you were very active and we thank you very much
for your leadership in that regard.
We are joined by Sen. Brownback, the senior Republican on the commission from
the Senate and one of the leading advocates for human rights in the United
States Senate. Sen. Brownback – make an opening statement?
SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS): Thank you very much, Sen. Cardin, but I don’t have
one. I am pleased to join the hearing and to hear the testimony. I’ve got a
few questions. It seems to be a pretty propitious time right now for us in
Europe and how we engage. So I’ve got some questions on that line.
SEN. CARDIN: Let me just first start off by saying that we were – the
commission was recently in Athens and met with Prime Minister Papandreou. And
he was – he had heard from Secretary Clinton and was very excited that
Secretary Clinton will be attending the ministerial meetings in Athens in
December.
Let me follow up on one point. Look, I think this administration is focused on
human rights. I think it’s focused on all three of the baskets in OSCE – the
security basket, the economic environmental front, where were going to be
dealing with global climate change, also within OSCE; and the human rights
front. And I must tell you, the announcement by the Obama administration to
close Guantanamo Bay and the changing of the interrogation procedures was
extremely well received internationally and was certainly the right way to
proceed.
I just want to underscore, though, that in the highly visible international
visits, human rights has not been in the spotlight. And I think that’s an
issue that needs to be corrected and addressed. I mention that as a (friend
?).
Let me just give you one potential opportunity. We’ve all talked about
Kazakhstan taking on the chair in office in December. They’ve been working
very closely with our commission. They’ve been working very closely with our
government to try to be as prepared as possible to take on the challenges.
Secretary Gordon, you mentioned the fact that they must use the high standards
of OSCE. We expect that from them. They have done some good things, but there
are some issues that are outstanding that at this point we thought would have
been addressed by now and have not been addressed. And we’ve been very open
about talking about it.
They are talking about the possibility of having a summit of OSCE. I would
hope the position of the Obama administration would be that there should be no
summit just for taking photographs, but that if we can use the U.S.
participation to advance the OSCE agenda on all three baskets, but particularly
focused on the human rights issues with Kazakhstan as chair in office, that
presents an opportunity that I think could really underscore the priorities of
our nation and our participation within the OSCE.
So I mention that to you as I think we need to focus this better and I say as a
person who really wants to work with the administration in that regard.
MR. GORDON: Could I, Mr. Chairman, respond on a couple of those important
issues? First, on highlighting human rights and what the administration does
and Assistant Secretary Posner may want to weigh in. Let me just say in this
part of the world that I deal with, of course, we can always do more and we
should, but on the recent visits to Russia I think both the president and the
secretary did put human rights and democracy front and center. The president
spoke about it not just privately in these meetings with all of the top Russian
leaders, but publicly in his speech at the New Economic School and in his very
visible meetings with human rights groups, NGOs, and opposition figure, and in
his interview with Novaya Gazeta, one of the more prominent liberal voices.
And the secretary did the same thing, meeting at Spaso House with civil society
and NGO and human rights activists, doing an interview on Ekho Moskvi, again
underscoring the importance of independent media. And I’d like you to quote
from what she said, which I think really is at the core of what the
administration feels on this issue.
Secretary Clinton in Moscow said that a society cannot be truly open when those
who stand up and speak out are murdered and people cannot trust the rule of law
when killers act with impunity. She made that very clear, again, both publicly
and privately and she told those who speak out that the United States stands
firmly by their side. And I wanted that to be underscored.
As for Kazakhstan, we couldn’t agree more. As I noted in my testimony, the
agreement to allow Kazakhstan to hold the chairmanship came with certain
responsibilities and certain agreements on their part. And they are now in the
international spotlight. And I encourage you, as you suggested you would, to
keep this spotlight on them and insist that they uphold their agreements. That
was part of the logic of doing this, is to encourage them to make those
commitments and now we need to see that they’re upheld. And the world will be
watching and just as you will hole them to that standard, so will we.
And then finally, on the issue of a summit, if I might, I would say I think you
hit the nail on the head. It’s about substance. If a summit can accomplish
something, including in the core areas of the OSCE, including human rights,
then there should be a summit. But we’re not interested in having a summit
just to allow somebody to have a summit or to go and waste anybody’s time. So
again, the process is linked to the substance. If there’s something that can
be achieved in the important areas of the OSCE, let’s do it. And if not, we
won’t do it.
SEN. CARDIN: Thank you.
Secretary Posner?
MR. POSNER: Yes, I would just add to that. I think we need to be in the case
of Kazakhstan particularly attentive to the restrictions they place on
advocates, on the use of the criminal liability for defamation. The case I
mentioned, the Zhovtis, case I think is emblematic of that problem. The fact
that weeks after the HDIM – the appellate court upheld the conviction, I think
is not a good sign and we need to be pushing back. Congress and this
commission ought to do it and we in the administration, we do.
We met with them in Warsaw. We were very clear about our concerns about that.
I think it is exactly when we say uphold the Madrid commitments is what we’re
talking about. So I think we have an opportunity now in Athens and then going
forward to say we really – you know, a notion of having a summit is really
dependent on making sure that you live up to the expectations as a leader in
this process.
SEN. CARDIN: Thank you.
Secretary Vershbow, I was representing the OSCE parliamentary assembly at the
meetings in Corfu, where Russia had brought forward the prospects of a new
security arrangement for Europe. There was, I think, almost the total
consensus, maybe minus one, Russia, that strengthening the existing
organizations, including OSCE was the preferred way to proceed.
Has there been any follow-up since the Corfu meetings on the specific
suggestions brought forward by Russia? Has the United States taken any
position with our allies in order to further the discussions that took place in
Corfu?
MR. VERSHBOW: Secretary Gordon can comment on this, too. There have been some
discussions in the OSCE at the permanent representative level in Vienna, but I
think we’re still at a very early stage of this dialogue. But I do think the
consensus among, as you said, all but perhaps one or maybe one or two of the
member states, that the focus should be on improving the existing network of
institutions, rather than trying to invent new ones is the way to go.
And I think that we remain still a little unclear as to what precisely the
Russians are driving at. I think they clearly feel that the institutions have
not necessarily given Russia the voice, the influence that it wants on European
security. But of course we can point to the Russian departure from some of the
Helsinki principles as having led to some of the problems, not least the
conflict in Georgia.
So we certainly want to work with them because we certainly want to find a
better way to prevent conflict, to deescalate tensions in still volatile
regions like the Caucasus. There are still problems in the Balkans where OSCE
I think can contribute. So we approached this with a constructive spirit, but
the sense that in terms of the structures themselves, if it ain’t broke, don’t
fix it.
SEN. CARDIN: Secretary Gordon?
MR. GORDON: If I could just add, Mr. Chairman, as you witnessed in Corfu we
were quite clear what we thought about this idea of European security treaty,
which is we are always happy to engage with the Russians or any other partners
on European security and to talk about ways in which things could be improved.
Sure things can be improved. We just had a war in the summer of 2008. So we
don’t want to shut off dialogue and we remain open to discussion.
As for whether we need new principles and institutions, we are, as we made
clear in Corfu, quite skeptical. Indeed, one of the ironies of the Russian
proposal is that it draws attention to the utility of the OSCE because it is an
organization that’s comprehensive. It has 56 members. Everyone in Europe and
Eurasia is a part of it. And it’s based on some pretty sound principles –
those in the Helsinki Final Act. And that’s what we have consistently said to
the Russians. Why don’t we work on strengthening this organization that we
have, which is very good, and why don’t we work on implementing the principles
that we have agreed to, which are very important, rather than talking about
setting up new institutions and new principles or a new treaty that would be
very difficult in any case to enforce.
So that has been our consistent line. We’ve continued to engage with them in
the OSCE and in the Corfu process. We remain always ready to look at other
ideas to strengthen European security. As for their insistence that more be
done on hard security, we have two responses. One is let us not overlook
so-called soft security and the human dimension, which we don’t want to get
away from, and that’s why we want to come back to the OSCE. And as for hard
security, and we can talk more about it, there is the CFE treaty already, which
they have suspended and we would encourage them to come back into compliance in
cooperation.
SEN. CARDIN: Thank you.
Congressman Smith.
REP. SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think we’re talking
to the choir here, three individuals who care deeply about human rights and
democracy. But I would just – and echo what the Chairman said, then I said in
my statement as well. There is concern among many of us who – I’ve been in
Congress now 29 years. My first trip on behalf of human rights was with the
National Conference of Soviet Jewry and Mark Levin – I believe is here. He
usually is here. Maybe not. There he is. For10 days, stayed in Moscow and
Leningrad pushing for refuseniks. And the concern is that – and Mr. Posner,
your post was left painfully unfulfilled – unfilled I should say – for far too
many months. The ambassador or the director of the Global Anti-Semitism Review
Act, the office that was created by that – and I would note parenthetically, I
was the prime House sponsor of that and offered the amendment to make it
permanent and to have a person in that position to promote or to combat
anti-Semitism to the best of his or her ability. That remains unfilled. The
ambassador at large for religious freedom, to the best of knowledge, still
remains unfulfilled. The distinguished senator, Mr. Brownback from Kansas and
I and Frank Wolf worked a decade ago to establish that.
And so it sends a message to many of us that human rights are a talking point,
but not central and fully integrated and certainly is not first in the
dialogue.
I had a meeting. And I say this and I hope you’ll bring this back. Harry Wu
is one of my closest dissident friends. I meet with him all the time. When he
was being held, after going back into China – actually he held a hearing to
call for his release, I did everything I possibly could. It was joined by a
whole lot of other people, doing the same thing.
Harry Wu was in my office three weeks ago and I’ve never seen this before with
Harry Wu. He’s probably the toughest guy you’ll ever meet. He had tears in
his eyes. And he said, the Obama administration got all worked up, doesn’t
care about human rights. I said, Harry, calm down. And he had tears in his
eyes. And I don’t think we should take that and just look at scans and say,
here is the man who has paid with his blood close to 20 years in the Laogai
system, actually when back and took great risk. Was rearrested at the border,
we’ll all remember. And just eats, sleeps, and breathes human rights. And
when Ms. Clinton made her trip on her way to Beijing and said, we will not
allow human rights to interfere – her words, not mine – with global climate
change. And I support the administration on global climate change, voted for
the bill in the House, so there’s no disagreement there, but not at the expense
of human rights and certainly not to sell our treasury bills to finance a debt
that is truly unsustainable.
Human rights all of a sudden becomes under the table. I know it won’t be that
way with you, Mr. Posner, Secretary Posner, because I know you believe this so
passionately, but I’m worried about the administration’s approach, especially
on the eve of a trip to China, which will have repercussions in the Caucasus
and throughout the OSCE because what happens in Beijing will be heard around
the world, not just throughout all of the PRC.
So those open positions, fill them. We need – acting are fine at religious
freedom ambassador at large, but we need a point person and we need it now.
And we need it at the anti-Semitism office as well. So please take that back.
I don’t care what administration is in. When Bush was in, when Clinton was in,
when Bush I was in, I’m the one who, with David Bonior and Dick Gephardt held
press conferences lauding President Clinton in his first year, when he linked
human rights with MFN only to find out it was a false promise and he ripped it
up. But –and then went in to complain both. But believe me. This is a
nonpartisan issue as far as I’m concerned and human rights have to be first,
first, and always first. And sadly I don’t think they are
Secondly, I’d like to raise – and if you want to comment on that in a second, I
appreciate if you would – on Belarus. Our chairman led us to Minsk. We had an
excellent meeting. We had more than a dozen members in a face-off friendly but
firm with Lukashenko. And I know, Mr. Gordon, I think on the 14th of August,
you met with Lukashenko as well. I believe that was the date, whatever date it
was.
MR. GORDON: I didn’t actually meet with Lukashenko –
REP. SMITH: Okay, but it seemed as if he wants to obviously see a reversal or
a amelioration of those sanctions. My hope is not until we have real deeds and
not promises or even minor deeds. We need some substantial deeds from this
event. And again, that’s the message we heard from our friends in the
dissident community. If you could speak to that.
Thirdly, on – if I could – today we marked up a bill on Afghanistan authored by
the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Mr. Berman and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, which I’m not sure how it’s
being looked at by the administration, but I know this frustration among both
sides of the aisle about our policies vis-à-vis Iran. And one of the things
that seems to be missing is human rights there. And Mr. Brownback has had
hearings in this commission repeatedly on Iranian human rights and democracy
building. And I’m wondering if you might want to speak, especially with
Russia’s, obviously an OSCE member, what you see we should be doing vis-à-vis
in the OSCE with regards to Iran and Russia.
I read Pravda every day. Maybe I shouldn’t admit to that. I read the People’s
Daily every day as well online of course and in English. The saber rattling
towards Ukraine and Georgia seems to be getting – growing. There’s a crescendo
there of animosity reflected in the newspapers. It’s also coming out of the
mouths of some of the politicians. If you could speak to that as well because
all of us are concerned about new eruptions, if you will, in South Ossetia
especially.
MR. POSNER: Can I lead off the points that you’ve made at the outset? If you
were frustrated by my not being in the position, I can assure you I was with
you. It was seven months from the time I had an initial conversation with
Secretary Clinton until I took office. And there was no controversy. I was
voted by consensus. And so there is something wrong with a process that takes
that long. We have somebody identified to be in the anti-Semitism position, an
excellent person who’s now going through a less onerous, but also exhausting
process. And hopefully that person will be in place in a few weeks or
certainly within a month.
REP. SMITH: (Off mike.)
MR. POSNER: No, I can just say that we’re in the process and there will be
somebody soon. I want to say to that point, though, and again, this is
something you and I have talked about. I think we were in Berlin together at
the OSCE meeting focused on anti-Semitism, which led to the creation of that
special representative. I share your commitment to this entirely. And I share
your view that the level of – my concern about the level of anti-Semitic
attacks and comments in Europe, in the Middle East, and elsewhere is something
of great, great concern. We track these things. We’re going to continue to do
that.
Two days ago, we rolled out the Religious Freedom Report, which takes a
comprehensive view. We were very hard hitting on a whole range of fronts,
including on China, including on a number of countries in the Middle East,
including on countries in Europe like Russia that still permit too much
intolerance against minority religions. This is a big problem and it’s
something that we are really committed to work on. In fact, I’m very
committed. We’ve had an office on religious freedom and we’ve had a special
envoy on anti-Semitism. My view is let’s bring everything together and really
integrate this within the State Department, take it to the regional bureaus and
say let’s make this a more central piece of the way we do foreign policy.
I think these issues are critical and I stand ready to work with you all to
make that happen.
MR. GORDON: If I might, I’ll briefly address the three main points that you
made. One the first, you asked us to take a message back and I certainly will.
I already underscored the way in which I think the president and the
secretary, at least in Moscow, drew great and important attention to the human
rights issue, but we’ll also certainly pass along the perceptions that you
raised about the need to do more. And as for these positions, as was
discussed, sometimes this process takes too long to get people in place, but
we’re absolutely committed to doing so. And those positions are important.
And they will be filled with the right people.
On Belarus, indeed I appreciated the opportunity we had to compare notes on
this after your trip and before mine. To clarify, I spent some time with the
Belarusian leaders, but didn’t meet with President Lukashenko. That could
happen at some other time, but we felt this time it was appropriate to do
business at a different level. And the business was what we discussed. And I
think we had very much the same message, which is that as the administration
has mentioned in other cases, we are open to dialogue and engagement. And we
have noticed a couple of signs, not nearly enough, but enough from Belarus to
merit talking further about this. And I went to Minsk with a very clear
message. And I was the most senior official to go to Minsk for 10 years from
the State Department. And we wanted them to notice that as well. And the
message was that if they want a better relationship with the United States and
certainly if they want any scope for lifting the sanctions that have been put
on them, then they need to go about their democracy and human rights practices
differently. And that’s the core of the issue.
There’re other things we care about, like getting our embassy fully staffed.
We welcome the fact that they released an American citizen, Mr. Zeltser, thanks
in part to your good work. We took that as a sign that they might want to
different and better relationship. And some other modest steps that they had
taken about registering NGOs and media. But I made clear to them that they
still have a very long way to go and that there was linkage between the two
things. So we’ll see what comes of that. I think it was a good thing that you
all went. I think it was appropriate for me to go and let them know the
different future that could be available if they do different things at home,
but also that there won’t be a different future if they don’t. And we’ll see
what comes of that. From our point of view, we’re going to sustain this
approach, but we will need to see results from them before there’s a
significant change in our policy.
We’re also, I should add, working very close with the Europeans on this, who I
think have a similar approach. They also have sanctions on Belarus. They also
focus on democracy and human rights. And we’re more powerful when we work on
this together because of one of us slips, then you lose the leverage of the
entire West pushing them on the issues that we care about.
Final point on Russia and the OSCE, I think we have seen – we’ve talked in
other contexts about the reset with Russia and what we’re trying to accomplish.
And I think, honestly, there have been signs of progress in areas where we
clearly need to do more and see more.
We have reached some concrete agreements in some important areas. When the
president was there in the summer, the Afghan (lethal ?) transit agreement,
which allows us to have diversified supply routes to Afghanistan and can save
us a considerable amount of money by being able to cross Russian air space.
It’s good for us. It’s good for Afghanistan and it’s the type of agreement we
can have with Russia where we have common interests and we work together. And
there are others in the Bilateral Presidential Commission, hopefully a START
agreement. We have some common interests and we’ve seen some constructive work
with Russians and we want to pursue that.
At the same time, we have made clear from the start that we have differences
and we don’t paper over the differences in order to have the successes in the
agreements. And you highlighted some of those differences. And we have
underscored them as well. And they include Ukraine and Georgia, as you
mentioned.
We’ve a fundamental difference about Georgia and its sovereignty and
territorial integrity, which we recognize and we’ll continue to recognize.
Fortunately, so does the vast majority of countries in the world. Only Russia
and two others have recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia and we, with the
united international community, don’t and won’t. We have a real difference on
that and we have a real difference on the implementation of the August, 2008,
ceasefire agreements and on access through humanitarian groups and NGOs to
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And we’re very clear with the Russians about that,
both within the OSCE and bilaterally.
And we have concerns about Ukraine as well and some of the things that had been
said recently there. We have differences on NATO enlargement and one of the
core principles of European security that we think countries and democracies in
Europe should have the right to join alliances of their choosing. And we have
differences on human rights, which I already alluded to that the president and
the secretary both made very clear in Moscow.
MR. VERSHBOW: If I could just follow on to what Secretary Gordon just said in
response to the question about saber rattling by the Russians. I think that
this is an area of concern that we watch very carefully. I was just in Ukraine
about three weeks ago and in Georgia last week. And one of my purposes was to
reassure those two countries, who are feeling a little nervous, that we do
stand by them and we support their sovereignty and territorial integrity. I
think part of our common work between the Defense Department and the State
Department is to try to help these countries strengthen their own institutions,
their political institutions, their economies, which is a key part to their
becoming more self reliant and able to strengthen their own security.
We also support their legitimate right to self defense and to choose their
security alliances. We pledged to assist them and as they pursue their NATO
aspirations. This is a process that’s going to take some years. They have a
lot of work to do, but it’s something that as a matter of principle we stand by
them on.
The focus of my visits was on strengthening our bilateral defense relation and
working on bilateral defense cooperation, helping with their defense reforms.
And there too, I think we sometimes are criticized by the Russians, but as a
matter of principle, these are sovereign countries that deserve our support and
we’re very transparent about it.
I think we also do raise these issues, as Phil Gordon just said, in our
dialogue with Russia. And I think that as we try to reset our relations with
Russia and create more of a mutual stake and cooperation, hopefully it will
give the Russians incentives to manage their differences with countries like
Ukraine and Georgia, rather than to exacerbate existing tensions.
And I think there are means within the OSCE process where we can help as well.
Part of the focus of our efforts in the Corfu process is to strengthen all
countries’ commitment to those very fundamental Helsinki principles, starting
with things like sovereignty and territorial integrity, respect for the
independence of all states and for their existing borders.
We, I think, recognize that we could do better in our conflict prevention
efforts and if we can find better mechanisms to prevent crises as occurred in
Georgia from happening again, we should certainly do that. More transparency
about military activities, confidence building measures, these are all things
that we will pursue to try to contribute to a de-escalation of tensions.
And I think encouraging Russia and its neighbors to work together on common
security projects, which is another area where the OSCE can be useful, things
like border security, fighting narcotics trafficking, dealing with
nonproliferation issues, this also can give them a mutual stake in cooperative
relations that can provide longer term solutions to these problems.
SEN. CARDIN: Sen. Brownback?
SEN. BROWNBACK: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here
and for your work.
Sec. Vershbow, just following up on that about Georgia and the Ukraine, is
there – what timeframe are you looking at to see their joining NATO because
that, as a tangible think, I would think that would be one of the most tangible
that we could stand for and push for aggressively and quickly to stand against
the saber rattling by the Russians.
MR. VERSHBOW: Well, I think it’s very hard to come up with a timetable at this
point. I mean, NATO has taken a very important decision at its Bucharest
summit last year in stating that these two countries will be members of NATO.
And there are now mechanisms that NATO has established by which both countries
have to demonstrate that they are able to meet NATO standards.
So in part, this is up to them – whether they are prepared to put their
shoulder to the wheel and do the necessary preparations, which involves not
just military things but strengthening democratic institutions.
SEN. BROWNBACK: But you could help them with the military things:
administration –
MR. VERSHBOW: We certainly – in a responsible way because we’re trying to
maintain stability as we go forward and we’re very transparent about our
defense relations. But we do stand ready to be their mentor in this process.
Even though NATO itself has the mechanisms by which they pursue their
aspirations.
SEN. BROWNBACK: So what timeframe are you –
MR. VERSHBOW: I think we’re talking about a matter of years. But I wouldn’t
want to put a number on it because a lot depends on the efforts of Ukraine and
Georgia. And also, at the end of the day, there has to be a political decision
based on consensus by all the members of NATO as to when they could be admitted.
SEN. BROWNBACK: But you would agree the sooner the better? And you’re going
to be pushing for that? The administration will?
MR. VERSHBOW: We believe that we should stand by the decisions NATO has made
and assist these countries moving as quickly as they’re prepared to go. And
then NATO will have to make its decision at the appropriate time.
SEN. BROWNBACK: Well, as I understand – I had a Ukrainian official in my
office yesterday – they’re prepared to go right now, very quickly. And I
really think some strong prodding by the administration and then tangible
support would be a key thing in standing up in this pretty aggressive Russian
atmosphere right now towards both of those countries.
MR. VERSHBOW: I think in the case of Ukraine – and this is a subject of my
defense consultations when I was there a few weeks ago – they have a lot of
work to do to stay on track for meeting the NATO standards. So their defense
budget has declined precipitously. They’ve missed opportunities this past year
to participate in Partnership for Peace exercises because their parliament
couldn’t pass the necessary legislation. So there are issues on the home front
that Ukraine has to tend to which may be easier to address after their
elections early next year.
But ultimately, the pace is really more for the candidate members to determine
rather than for us. But we, as I said, are openly ready to advise them and
assist them. We have FMF for both countries. We have other defense
cooperative activities. So we will do our part but they have the lion’s share
of the work to do themselves.
SEN. BROWNBACK: If I could submit to you, this could be one of the most
tangible positive steps that the administration could really put its shoulder
into to help out and as I said I would hope you would. Since Secretary Posner
on Iran – we’ve put forward different funds over time for democracy and civil
society building in Iran and at different times we’ve had various responses
from administrations whether or not to use those funds.
I think it’s one of the most positive things we can do, given the desire from a
lot of people in Iran to move forward, to have a bigger say in their own
governance. When we had the various revolutions taking place in Eastern
Europe, it seemed to me the ones that took root the most were those that had
some civil society platforms built into the countries already.
Ukraine was one. Georgia had done a lot. In the ’Stans, maybe a lesser
standard but Kyrgyzstan probably done more than others even though they’ve all
had some difficulties. And yet we’re hearing now that they’re pulling funds
back from – State Department’s not renewed the grant for the Iran Human Rights
Documentation Center at Yale University. And other reports that it seems like
we’re pulling back from some of these fundings. Now, I hope that’s not to try
to get concessions from the regime in Iran. But I hope it’s not taking place.
And if you could shed any light on that, I would appreciate it.
MR. POSNER: Thank you for asking that and I, in fact, I was going to come back
on Iran and also say that Congressman Smith – obviously we share your concern
about the long-term systematic repression in Iran. I testified yesterday at
the U.N. General Assembly in the Third Committee about three countries: North
Korea, Burma and Iran.
And we talked, I talked not only about the systematic repression but the
post-election violence, the use of forced confessions – there is a very serious
and very, very troubling situation. I don’t know the specific grant you
referred to. One of the things I’m looking at – I’ve been there a month – and
one of the things I’m looking at is, across the board, how we direct funds to
civil society, to NGO activists, to independent press – in particular in closed
societies.
And one of the things that’s apparent is that we don’t have an embassy in Iran.
We don’t have an embassy in North Korea. And so the process of figuring out
what to fund is usually driven by local diplomats working for the U.S. – we
don’t have that there. And I think we ought. And I’d love to work with
members of the Congress to think about setting up a fund that explicitly looks
– as we did 20 years ago at Eastern Europe in closed societies – how do we deal
with closed societies today and give that kind of support that you’re talking
about to the people that are fighting from within to try to change things?
There are issues, and again, the first response I’ve gotten from some people is
in a place like Iran, there’s certain dangers to people inside the country. We
have to be careful of how we do it. I accept that. But I think the principle
is sacrosanct. We ought to be on the side of those who are challenging these
governments from within and we ought to be looking for creative ways to open up
space for them to challenge their own societies. So I’m with you on that. I
will look into the particular –
SEN. BROWNBACK: If you would.
MR. POSNER: – grant you described.
SEN. BROWNBACK: I would appreciate that and just, it’s been a frustration for
me that for years we’ve gotten some funding for civil society and democracy
building in Iran and then a lot of times it doesn’t get spent by the
administration. And I presume they use the same sort of statement that you
have, well, it’s, kind of, hard to tell because we don’t have somebody in on
the ground but there are a number of groups working on these topics.
And then, just that lack of any infrastructure of civil society – then when you
get a moment where change could actually happen, you don’t have any fertile
soil for the seeds to take root and move forward with. And so I would urge you
– you may have to take some risk in doing that. And then finally, the Congress
is close to appropriating 30 million (dollars) for Global Internet Freedom
programming. Maybe this is for you, I don’t know, maybe Gordon, but perhaps
for Assistant Secretary Posner.
During the Iran revolutionary – not the Iran revolution – but the Iran election
and the follow onto that – some very creative folks outside the system set up
ways that people could access Twitter and Facebook. You look at it and it’s
almost like with sticks and knives that they whittled this thing together. But
they did it. And it gave people a way to communicate.
I would hope that these sort of funds, with some others, could open up that
Internet. That could really be just a huge benefit in any of the closed
societies around the – particularly Iran and China but other closed societies
too. Thanks, Chairman.
MR. POSNER: We actually have a group in our Democracy, Rights and Labor Bureau
that’s looking just at this issue. And I feel very strongly that there are
lots of opportunities. I think this is the new activism. As in the ’80s,
people were trying to keep books out of the Moscow Book Fair, the Russians
were.
I think we’re now looking at a new generation of activists who use Twitter, as
they did in Iran, and who used the Internet and used new means of communication
to talk with each other and to talk with the world. It is in our interest to
open up that space and I’m delighted that Congress is supportive of that.
We’re equally interested in trying to pursue and push the limits of how to do
that.
SEN. CARDIN: We’ve been joined by Congressman Issa, nice to have you here.
I’ll give you a moment to catch your breath and then, as I understand that
we’re okay till three-thirty when your schedule – make sure I have the right –
let me talk about a couple areas specific. Let’s start with Georgia because we
did have some discussions about Georgia. But I do want to get your assessment
as to how stable things are in Georgia today without having an international
mission there, without having access to certain areas. What is the prognosis
and is there any suggestions as to how we could, perhaps, provide greater
monitoring as to what’s happening?
MR. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman for raising that issue. The situation in
Georgia is clearly unsatisfactory. I don’t think we see signs of any imminent
conflict re-emerging but it’s certainly not time to be complacent given such an
unstable situation. We regret, as you point out, that the diverse
international monitoring groups that were there are, for the most part, no
longer there.
The U.N. is no longer in Abkhazia and the OSCE is no longer in South Ossetia.
We regret that because they were performing an important role of transparency.
They were our eyes and ears on the ground. We got to a point where we could no
longer, we could not go along with the conditions that the Russians were trying
to put on their continued presence which were, in our view, would have changed
the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
We insisted all along that any U.N. mission or any OSCE mission be
status-neutral. They couldn’t agree to that and therefore, we, and the
Georgian government even more importantly, wouldn’t agree. And that led to the
department of the OSCE and the U.N. missions, which was regrettable.
Fortunately, the European Union stepped in and has provided monitors. And
right now, those are the only eyes and ears on the ground. It is far better
than nothing because they’re able to independently verify.
You sometimes get murky reports about what’s happening at checkpoints and what
different people are doing with military forces. And it’s helpful to have the
European Union monitoring mission there although it’s not in all of Georgia.
And we believe, continue to believe, there need to be independent
international, unbiased monitors throughout the whole country.
So that’s why I say it’s not a satisfactory situation nor is it satisfactory in
terms of access of humanitarian assistance and NGOs to Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. And we raised this at the highest levels and frequently with Russia
but have yet to get satisfaction in terms of getting those NGOs and
humanitarian groups in. We continue to do so. We’ll do it again at the OSCE
Ministerial in Athens.
But we’re not satisfied, we also – let me just repeat – believe that Russia
needs to fully implement the August and September cease-fires of 2008 which
would require them to bring their forces back to the positions that they held
before August 7th, 2008. And they haven’t done that. So we have a lot of work
to do. We don’t see any imminent threat of a military conflict breaking out
again. But it can’t be excluded and, therefore, we have a lot more work to do.
SEN. CARDIN: Well, I think our observations are the same here so we – it’s a
little frustrating because without having the international mission there, it’s
difficult for us to know whether there are changes taking place, getting
objective information about it. And clearly that’s needed. So I hope we’ll
continue to work on a strategy that can try to cool that circumstances down so
that we don’t have a threat of open conflict.
We’ve invested a lot in the Balkans and there’s certainly been a lot of
positive signs in the Balkans. Many of the countries are emerging much
stronger. They’re our allies in NATO; they’re our allies in many other areas.
They’re just strong democracies that are coming out of the Balkans. But
there’s one country that’s backsliding and that’s Bosnia. And I say it openly
and with regret.
We were in Bosnia not too long ago. And I think we all held out hope that we
would be much further along in regards to NATO and in regards to the EU than we
are today. And we still, obviously, that’s our goal. And we’re going to
continue to focus on that. But quite frankly, there’s been concern that the
ethnic factions within Bosnia are preventing the type of constitutional reforms
that are necessary for Bosnia to make the transition.
And troubling to us is that we’re not sure there is the will within Europe to
firmly stand behind the necessary constitutional reforms before moving to the
next step in Bosnia – particularly with the Office of High Representative. So
if you could, could I get your assessment as to where you think we are in
Bosnia?
MR. GORDON: Sure, thank you. We share much of your assessment, certainly
about backsliding in Bosnia. And that’s in contrast not only to much of Europe
overall where, broadly, over the 14 years since the Dayton Agreement we’ve made
significant progress in Central Europe, Northern Europe and parts of Eastern –
but even in parts of the Balkans. Albania and Croatia have joined NATO.
Serbia, with which we have some differences over Kosovo, has elected a
government that is pro-Western, pro-European Union, cooperative with us, the
general trend in the region is, with all the difficulties, countries gradually
reforming economically and politically and moving towards the West. Bosnia, as
you point out, on the other hand, has stagnated, at best, or slid backwards, at
worst.
So we certainly share that analysis, which is what motivated us recently to
enhance our engagement. I think in the Obama administration, there are a lot
of people who have great experience and expertise in the Balkans; we went
through that in the Clinton administration. Many senior officials including
the gentleman to my left, were very deeply engaged in it at the time, and now
are back in office and are very interested in Bosnia and committed to our
engagement there.
So in recent weeks, we recommitted and we did so, as I’m sure you followed,
together with the European Union, and this will allow be to address your point
about whether the Europeans are equally committed. We felt that was necessary
because ultimately, we can only do this together with European partners.
Bosnia’s in Europe; the greatest motivating factor for many of these countries
in the Balkans is their ultimate desire to join the European Union and join the
West, and Euro-Atlantic institutions. Indeed, one of the few things, frankly,
that all Bosnians do agree on is ultimately the desire to be a part of Europe,
visa-free travel, membership in the European Union, and the prosperity and
democracy that comes with it. So we have to do this together with the European
partners. And there I would actually say we’re very satisfied with the degree
to which we see it in the same way and are committed to doing the same things.
So Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg together with Swedish foreign
minister Carl Bildt in the rotating EU presidency have been twice together to
Sarajevo in the past several weeks to try to make clear to the Bosnians, we are
ready to help.
We’ve been frank with them, as the vice president was when he took a trip there
last spring, about their backsliding. And we have told them that if they want
this future in Europe and in Euro-Atlantic institutions, they need to get over
these ethnic and nationalist disputes. And they need, at least, to get on the
starting line towards European integration. And that requires some domestic
changes in having a functional government.
We don’t believe that there can be a massive reform of Bosnia’s’ constitution
immediately because the parties aren’t ready for it. But to make changes that
would allow them to be a candidate for European Union membership, to have a
functional government, to deal with the issue of dividing state property, we
think we put on the table a very reasonable package that would allow them to do
that.
And, again, Secretary Steinberg and Foreign Minister Bildt have presented that.
The parties are considering it. We appreciate the fact that they have all
come to these meetings and engaged even though there are differences, and we’re
going to continue to work it because ultimately, as you suggested, we’ve
already invested a lot in Bosnia over the past 15 years and more. And it is in
Europe’s interest as a whole to have a more stable Bosnia on the path towards
Europe.
SEN. CARDIN: Well, I’m glad to hear that we’re working closely with Europe.
There was some concern about that. Congressman Issa?
REP. DARRELL E. ISSA (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Posner,
President Obama made a statement or a series of statements – but one of them
was about dictators loosening the clench of their fist. And he was referring,
in many cases, to the countries in the East. That was very reminiscent of
Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. What is different in this administration?
How is that going to be accomplished vis-à-vis not just some of the remaining
nondemocratic states, but also Russia’s impact on maintaining some of these
strongmen?
MR. POSNER: Congressman, I think the approach of this administration, which is
in the long term going to get results, is a combination of a willingness to
engage in a principled way; a determination to hold every government to a
single, universal human rights standard; and a tenacity about telling the truth.
So when I met in Warsaw with my Russian counterpart, the conversation was about
Natalia Estemirova, the memorial researcher in Chechnya, who was killed, and
the failure to investigate. It is not for us, necessarily, the only issue.
There are other issues on the agenda.
But we are going to be direct and forthright in raising the concerns about
civil society, about the ability of people within a society to challenge
government actions. And we’re going to look for results. It’s going to take
time, it’s going to take energy – it’s partly what I’m there to do – but I’m
determined to do it in a way that brings in my colleagues who work on these
issues day-to-day in each of the regions, and to do it in a principled but
practical way that really affects real people.
We’re going to struggle with some of these, I don’t have any doubt. These are
the toughest issues, in some cases, to take up with a government like Russia.
But they’ve made a commitment in the Estemirova case that they’re going to
investigate, and I think it’s critical that we hold them to that commitment.
REP. ISSA: Do you believe you’ll be holding the Syrian government to that same
standard for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri?
MR. GORDON: Absolutely. It is in our interest, again, to be honest and to
hold every government – including ourselves – to a set of standards that are
outlined in the universal declaration of human rights. That’s what this is
about. And is it easy to do it? No. But it’s the only way, I think, to get
results.
REP. ISSA: Secretary Gordon, this is not intended to be astray but it will
sound astray at first: As I look at the Eastern and Western European
situation, it seems to be Russian-centric because of Russian oil and natural
gas – no surprise – and we have here on the Hill today a large group of EU
parliamentarians who are very concerned and very involved in seeing that we
live up to a cap-and-trade agreement.
Having said that, it’s not the cap-and-trade agreement I want to talk about.
It’s if we assume for a moment that Europe dramatically reduces its dependence
on carbon-based fuels through any means, it’s probably good for their reducing
their dependency on Russian carbon products.
However, if the United States is competing for those same resources – in other
words, if, in some cases, it’s – do we get alternate energy or not – and in the
case of the Europeans, if Russia’s allowed to continue using it as a weapon
during the interim to those who need it, isn’t it, in a sense, going to simply
raise the cost of doing business but not deter the Russians from using it as a
weapon?
In short, how is it we use cap-and-trade, global warming, the reduction on
carbon fuels – how can we use it as a positive part of creating a situation in
which Russia’s weapon is less powerful?
MR. GORDON: Thank you. I think it actually would make a positive contribution
to the political side of the energy security equation. Those who are most
focused on cap-and-trade and alternative energy – and no doubt the European
parliamentarians you saw are interested in it primarily for climate change
reasons. That’s the main thing on their list. But if you’re reducing your
dependence on carbon, which, in Europe’s case means imports –
REP. ISSA: And from Russia for the most part.
MR. GORDON: Natural gas from Russia; oil from both Russia and other places –
then it would have a positive corollary in political and security terms because
you would be less dependent. We have seen that countries that are exceedingly
dependent for energy on Russia are naturally, inevitably, at least partly
dependent on them politically.
So in that sense, the focus on reducing energy imports for reasons of the
environment has a positive political corollary from which we would all benefit.
We have put great emphasis on European energy security for both of those
reasons, but including the one that we believe that countries that are
dependent on a single supplier – and this is more true of gas than oil because
oil, being fungible, can come from elsewhere –
REP. ISSA: At least in some cases, yeah.
MR. GORDON: In some cases – but if you’re dependent on a gas pipeline, you
can’t just build a new gas pipeline the next day. So we’ve been very much
focused on that and believe – I mean, there’s not one fix to this problem.
As you know, the president and secretary named Ambassador Dick Morningstar to
focus solely on this question of Eurasian energy security because it is so
important to us. We know there’s not one fix to this problem. It’s not just
going to be renewable; it’s not going to be diversification; it’s not just
going to be conservation, but all of those things together will hopefully
contribute it to the lessening of political dependence of Europeans on
Russians.
REP. ISSA: And then this last question along that line, the previous
administration was very supportive of Kazakhstan and other Caspian Sea exports
– the idea being that if they exported around Russia, it created a genuine
second path; if they exported through Russia, it actually made it more
difficult for us to have an independent relationship with some of the –’Stans,
particularly Kazakhstan.
Will this administration follow the same tact of finding ways to create those
opportunities for oil and also now natural gas to come out of that region?
MR. GORDON: Diversification is the key to this. We strongly believe in that.
It’s the corollary to the answer I gave to your first question about
dependence. And therefore, alternative sources of energy – be they Caspian,
Central Asian or other – lessen Europe’s energy dependence and therefore
political dependence on Russia.
That’s why we’ve been promoting the Southern Corridor – without committing to
any particular pipeline or another – the idea that even if the gas and oil
comes from Central Asia, if it passes through Russia, then you’re still at
least some part dependent on Russia. If you have another corridor for gas and
oil, then you have alternatives. And that, we think, has political end and
economic and energy benefits.
REP. ISSA: And then for actually any of you that feel comfortable answering
it, we who are here look at Russia-Iran, Russian-Eastern and Western Europe.
Is there a tradeoff? In fact, are we giving up – when we push hard to get
something on the Iran front, are we, in fact, selling out European, if you
will, strong pushes and vice versa? And if so, how do we maximize the ability
to do enough to deter Iran, with Russia’s help, and at the same time, not sell
out the efforts for democracy and rule of law in Eastern Europe?
MR. GORDON: I’ll make a brief comment; I don’t know if others will want to
weigh in. Obviously, there are always potential challenges and tradeoffs in
diplomacy; what I would say is that the president has made very clear –
certainly where Russia is concerned – that our desire for a better and more
constructive relationship with Russia, and even concrete agreements with
Russia, will not come at the expense of our principles or our friends.
So when we look to sign a START treaty with Russia or an Afghan lethal transit
agreement with Russia, or anything with Russia, we’re doing so because we think
we have a mutual interest in doing so with Russia. And we don’t compromise on
important principles that we have about supporting the territorial integrity
and sovereignty of our friends in Europe or their right to choose their
alliances or anything else, for that matter.
REP. ISSA: Thank you, Senator.
SEN. CARDIN: Congressman Smith?
REP. SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just – on Bosnia very
briefly – and you may want to comment or not comment, but it seems to me that
entity voting remains the reason why the parliament, the legislature in Bosnia,
is dysfunctional.
When a small group, a small clack, of people can block virtually everything the
parliament does, leaving it all to the high representative – I know that it was
a very substantive suggestion made that could have led to, I think, serious
reform. And we had our own small states/big states problem at the beginning of
this democracy, and we resolved it by having two senators and representation by
the House to reflect population.
I would hope that the idea that was put forward will be revisited. I know it’s
been largely rejected thus far but I think we have an impasse until something
along the lines of that idea, which you know very well all about, is
resurrected and promoted. And I hope our European friends would buy into it as
well. To the best of my knowledge, they have not. But we’ve got to make that
parliament functional – or at least encourage it; they’ve got to do it
themselves, of course.
On another issue, we had a hearing just a few days ago, several days ago, where
the three personal representatives from the OSCE on the anti-Christian efforts
– to combat that – the anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic – all made very cogent
presentations. Rabbi Andy Baker, who is there to combat anti-Semitism, made a
very important point that there are a large number of projects that are falling
through the cracks because of insufficient funding.
One would be the Train the Trainers program, which we initiated back during the
Berlin conference. It came in collaboration with the American Jewish Committee
here in the United States, and it is an excellent example that with a very
small amount of money, huge benefits can be realized. And I would hope that
project in particular and others that Rabbi Baker has outlined would be looked
at to see if a small amount of money – and we’re not talking big change in a
Capitol now that’s talking trillions and not even billions anymore – could make
an enormous amount of different in combating anti-Semitism and those other
forms of intolerance. So I would ask you, if you could take that back?
MR. POSNER: (Inaudible, off mike) – with Rabbi Baker and one of the other
representatives, but we agreed we were going to have a follow-up conversation.
I’ll take it up.
REP. SMITH: Thank you very much.
SEN. CARDIN: The record will remain open for written questions, and we do
appreciate your time, and thank you for your input. And we look forward to
continuing to work with you, and in Mr. Posner’s case, we look forward to you
joining us in our workload on this commission. With that, the commission will
stand adjourned.
(END)
|