[Senate Hearing 106-879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-879
A REVIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AT THE END OF THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-749 CC WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Albright, Hon. Madeleine K., Secretary of State, Department of
State, Washington, DC.......................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions submitted by Senator Jess
Helms...................................................... 36
Responses to additional questions submitted by Senator Gordon
Smith...................................................... 44
(iii)
A REVIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AT THE END OF THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Helms, Lugar, Hagel, Grams, Brownback,
Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, and Wellstone.
The Chairman. Good morning. At last we are able to begin
this meeting, and I understand that an objection has been filed
by someone, frivolously, on the Senate floor to object to our
meeting past 11:30, but we will see.
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, it is our pleasure to
welcome a great lady who is special to all of us, the
distinguished Secretary of State, Hon. Madeleine Albright, and
that is the good news. The bad news is this, Madam Secretary.
This is your final official appearance as Secretary of State,
unless we can get you reappointed.
I counted up over the weekend, Madam Secretary, and if I
did not miscount somewhere along the line this is your
eighteenth appearance before this committee. It has always been
a pleasure to have you here. You have always been straight with
us, and you have always prompted the committee to participate
in wide-ranging discussions on crucial issues of U.S. foreign
policy, and you have never ducked a question.
Now, we have not always agreed, but when we have not, we
have agreed to disagree agreeably. In any event, I am going to
repeat, you are a great lady, and I believe the record will
show that all together we have accomplished a very great deal.
We worked together for the expansion of NATO, to include
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, and in doing so the
scars of Yalta were erased, and that was followed by an
assurance of democratic futures for host nations. We reached
agreement on landmark legislation to reorganize and revitalize
the State Department, abolishing two of those temporary Federal
agencies that were created back in the 1950's and integrating
any of their essential functions into the State Department,
where they belong.
So Madam Secretary, together we have abolished two and we
may have something to propose about a third next year, and I am
going to ask that the balance of my statement be printed in the
record, and I call on the distinguished Ranking Member of the
committee, Mr. Biden.
[The prepared statement of Senator Helms follows:]
Opening Statement of Senator Jesse Helms
Once again, it's a pleasure to welcome a great lady who is special
to all of us, the distinguished Secretary of State, the Honorable
Madeleine Albright. That's the good news.
The bad news is that this, Madam Secretary, will be your final
official appearance as Secretary of State. I counted up over the
weekend, Madam Secretary, and if I did not miscount somewhere along the
way, this is your 18th appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
It has always been a pleasure to have you with us. You have always
been straight with us, and you have always prompted the Committee to
participate in wide-ranging discussions on crucial issues of U.S.
foreign policy.
We have not always agreed, but when we have not, we have agreed to
disagree agreeably. In any event, you are a great lady and I believe
the record will show that together we have accomplished a great deal.
We worked together for the expansion of NATO to include
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. In doing so, the scars
of Yalta were erased and that was followed by an assurance of
democratic futures for those nations.
We reached agreement on landmark legislation to reorganize
and revitalize the State Department, abolishing two of these
``temporary'' federal agencies that were created in the 1950's,
and integrating any of their essential functions into the State
Department. So, Madam Secretary, together we abolished two, and
I may have something to propose about a third, AID, next year.
We secured passage of landmark U.N. reform legislation so
that a reasonable part of our so-called UN ``arrears'' can be
paid--in exchange for sweeping reforms at the U.N. I think it
is fair to say that we have agreed at the outset of Secretary
General Kofi Annan's tenure on conditions that--if the U.N.
does its part--will result in a renewed U.S. relationship with
a reformed United Nations. But that's up to the U.N. to achieve
those reforms.
In short Madam Secretary, perhaps that's not a bad few years' work
for a lady who escaped from communism in Czechoslovakia who worked
always agreeably with a couple of Monroe boys, Bud Nance, and me.
Admiral Nance thought highly of you, and so do I and I believe both you
and I miss our friend, the Admiral.
So, Madam Secretary, we welcome your testimony here today. And I am
confident that I speak the sentiments of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle in assuring you that it has been a pleasure and a privilege
to work with you. Wherever your career takes you in the coming months
and years, you will always be remembered with affection and admiration
by all Senators of this Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin, Madam
Secretary, by saying as well as the chairman and I get along,
and we do, I am going to miss you, because I tell you what,
when you are around you make my life a lot easier with him. I
am going to miss you personally. I will not, I hope, miss your
advice, which I was always able to receive before you were in
this position, and I hope I will be able to receive it after
you leave this position.
I would like to welcome you back for what probably is going
to be your last appearance before this committee as Secretary,
but I suspect that, as I said, I will not be the only one
calling on your wisdom many times in the future. I am not being
presumptuous about my tenure, but God willing and the crick not
rising I have 2 more years.
Let me be straightforward in the very beginning. I think
despite the inevitable ups and downs of an incredibly complex
international relations, the administration's foreign policy,
led by you, has been highly successful. You would expect me to
say this, I guess, as a friend and as a Democrat, but I think
you deserve a great deal of credit.
Policy begins with policymakers, and the 1997 and 1998, on
a bipartisan basis, and in close cooperation with you, Madam
Secretary, this committee developed, and Congress approved,
what your predecessors were afraid to touch, and that is
landmark legislation to reorganize and streamline the foreign
policy agencies of the U.S. Government, led by our chairman. He
had been moving and trying to get attention on that issue for,
what, 6, 8, 10 years before, but in earnest probably the
previous 2 or 3 years.
By integrating the arms control and public diplomacy
functions into the State Department, and by giving the
Secretary of State increased authority over foreign assistance,
I think we have established a sound organizational framework
for the challenges of the new century, and your efforts Madam
Secretary, and those of Ambassador Holbrooke, again with the
great help of the chairman of the committee, have led the
committee and the Congress on a much-needed change of attitude
toward the United Nations.
If it was a perfect world, you and I would have written
Helms-Biden slightly differently, but the fact of the matter is
there is progress, significant progress, and we are I think--as
I said, the attitude--the attitude has changed.
Our relationship with Russia remains strategically, in my
view, our most important one. To whatever degree Russia's
current weakness exists, it is still the only country with
weaponry potentially available to annihilate the United States
and imposes a mortal threat to us.
All of us continue to worry about the stability of that
country, as well as other countries in the region, and under
your leadership, Madam Secretary, the United States has worked
to keep Russia's weapons technology--and the know-how of its
scientists--from being transferred to rogue states.
We have had some successes, particularly regarding Russia's
scientists, but preventing the transfer of technology of
weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems presents
a persistent challenge of the highest priority there.
Perhaps no region in the world has been more senseless
tragedy and upheaval and ethnic hatred in the past decade than
in the Balkans, and you have been, more than anyone else in the
administration, instrumental and a persuasive voice within the
administration in trying to resolve the region's century-old
and seemingly intractable problems, in the eyes of many
Americans and Europeans.
Under your leadership, we have helped implement the Dayton
Accords, returning some measure of peace and stability to that
war-torn country of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we have also moved
to stop the brutal murder and forced expulsion of millions of
Kosovar Albanians. Perhaps better than anyone else, you
understood Europe's security and stability is vital to our own,
and you realized the Balkans, and convinced others in the
administration and out, that they were part of that security.
And I think you understood the moral imperative for the
United States and its NATO allies to reverse Slobodan
Milosevic's murderous ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and hopefully,
Madam Secretary, as we discussed privately earlier with the
chairman, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of
Milosovic.
Much, of course, remains to be done, and I am eager to hear
your views, Madam Secretary, regarding Balkan policy and the
direction you think we need to take.
The Senate's passage last week of legislation granting
China permanent normal trade relations, even though the
chairman and I disagreed on that issue, I think has to be
viewed as a significant accomplishment.
As important as trade is, though, to our overall
relationship with China and to our aspirations for China,
however, we must continue to press China's leaders for strict
adherence to their commitments regarding nonproliferation and
to international human rights and labor norms. Because we now
have a trade agreement does not mean that we should cease and
desist from our criticism and our attempts to change their
policy.
The administration's patient diplomacy in North Korea I
think is also beginning to bear some fruit. I do not want to
overstate what may be the outcome, but I think any reasonable
observer, objective observer would say things today are better
than they were yesterday, a year ago, and 5 years ago, and I
give you a good deal of credit for that.
But we are relying not only on deterrence, as we continue
to do in South Korea, but also on a careful reciprocal process
of engagement between the United States and South Korea. We
have reduced the chances of war and I think begun to lure North
Korea out of its shell into a more rational position.
Madam Secretary, the world remains endlessly complex, and
our country, for better or worse, is constructively engaged in
nearly every part and every facet of it, and in such a
kaleidoscope no one directing U.S. foreign policy can come
close to batting one thousand, but I believe you have done a
remarkably good job, and again I thank the chairman for having
called this hearing, for the way you and he have gotten along,
because it is one of the--I should not say rare, but one of the
welcome areas of bipartisan cooperation that this country needs
more of, and as I said, the past 4 years has brought high hopes
all round the world.
One place I did not mention was Israel and the agreement,
potential agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. You
and your team have worked tirelessly on this matter and I am
going to ask you at an appropriate time, although I am supposed
to be at the funeral of Mrs. Mansfield, which I think I am now
missing, at this critical juncture I am going to ask you at
some point whether or not Ambassador Indyk's loss of his
security clearance will have a negative impact on that process.
But you will have time to answer that when it gets around
to my questioning, but again I thank you. You have added not
only a sense of dignity to the office, which has existed with
other Secretaries of State, but you have made--by visiting most
of our states and the way in which you have taken foreign
policy to the American people you have added a sense of
reality. You have helped the American people understand better
what we are doing, and for that we owe you a debt of gratitude.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, you may begin at long last.
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF STATE,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman and Senators, good
morning, and I am delighted to have this opportunity to appear
before you this one last time before you head home and I apply
for membership in what has heretofore been known as the
fraternity of former Secretaries of State.
You have my written presentation, which I know you will
read carefully and make part of the record, and I will keep my
remarks brief because time is short, and I want to be sure that
every Senator has a chance to say how much he or she will miss
me.
Mr. Chairman, over the past decade we have had to
reevaluate our entire approach to international affairs in
light of the geopolitical and technological changes
transforming our world, and together we have had to adapt our
institutions, adjust our thinking, and steer a course between
isolation, which is not possible, and overreaching, which is
not sustainable. Our goal has been to keep America secure and
prosperous and free, and our means have included everything
from military force to quiet diplomacy, with strong statements
from Chairman Helms and Senator Biden somewhere in between. Our
strategy has been to build from the center outward,
strengthening core alliances, engaging Russia and China,
building peace, repelling threats, and supporting democratic
transitions in key regions.
This committee has contributed mightily through its support
for NATO enlargement, the Nunn-Lugar program, the Chemical
Weapons Convention, the Freedom Support Act, the SEED program,
the Helms-Biden bill, Plan Colombia, China PNTR, and many other
initiatives. And, through your support for reorganization, I
truly do believe that you have helped shape the architecture of
the State Department for the 21st century. This committee also
includes Senators who were right from the very beginning about
the need to stand up to ethnic cleansing and intolerance in the
Balkans, and on this point I would just like to comment briefly
about Sunday's elections in Yugoslavia.
They provided a critical test of whether that country will
remain isolated and a prisoner of its own leadership or become
a part of Europe's democratic mainstream. Despite threats from
Milosevic's thugs, the opposition waged a courageous campaign
for change, and now they have won a sweeping endorsement at all
levels from the Serb people. The authorities in Belgrade used
every trick in the book to prevent a fair campaign, rig the
election, and distort the results. In so doing, they have
fooled no one.
Milosevic has been repudiated, and claims by his regime to
the contrary are laughable. Clearly now Milosevic is a figure
of the past. For too long his lawlessness has weakened
Yugoslavia, his cronies have robbed Yugoslavia, and his
mismanagement has all but bankrupted Yugoslavia. Given this
record of failure, it is no wonder that the democratic forces
have grown in unity and strength. They have earned the
encouragement of the international community.
The road ahead will not be easy, and so our message now and
in the future must be unified and clear. Yugoslavia belongs in
Europe as a free and independent state with a normal economy,
democratic institutions, and a government that neither fears
nor is feared by its people. Under Milosevic, there is nowhere
Yugoslavia can go. Under democratic leaders, there is no limit
to what the Yugoslav people may accomplish.
Mr. Chairman, whether one serves as a Cabinet Secretary or
as a Senator, we are all acutely aware that we only occupy
temporarily the chairs of responsibility in American
Government, but we know as well that America's responsibilities
are permanent. Upon taking office, we inherit from our
predecessors a mixed bag of opportunities and dangers,
unfinished business, and commitments that must be kept. During
our time, we devote all of our energies to clearing the in-box
and fixing the hardest problems, but we labor every day knowing
that when the time comes to leave, our successors will have
plenty to do. The basic continuum does not change, but most
everything else does.
Twenty years ago, when American diplomats sat down with
their counterparts overseas, the agenda was dominated by cold
war concerns, and America's interests were measured primarily
by the single yardstick of superpower rivalry. Today, our
agendas are far broader, and so are the demands we place on our
diplomats and on others. The United States is the most powerful
nation in the world, and yet when I sit down with the Foreign
Ministers of even very small countries, I often have more to
ask than to give. Will they change their behavior, will they
support us in a number of policies?
This reflects the reality that American diplomacy in the
21st century ranges across almost the full spectrum of human
activity. In the past 4 years, I spent most of my time on big-
ticket issues of security, war, and peace, but I spent some of
my time on everything, from the war against AIDS, to explaining
our position on biotechnology, to trying to crack down on the
trafficking of human beings. Our Nation's interests and
responsibilities and reach are truly global, and that problems
abroad, if left unaddressed, will all too often come home to
America.
This past week we named the State Department after
President Truman, one of our greatest international leaders,
but we cannot forget that half a century ago we backed our
leadership with resources. Today, even if you exclude the
Marshall Plan's peak year, we only invest about one-seventh as
much of our budget on foreign affairs as we did when Mr. Truman
was President.
This fall, some in Congress want to cut our budget even
further, and I hope that you will stop them, because the 21st
century is no time for America to retreat. Congress should
approve the President's full request for international affairs.
The entire amount is equal to only about 1 penny of every
dollar the Federal Government spends, but it will make an
enormous difference to the ability of the next President and
Secretary of State to ensure the security of our communities,
the prosperity of our families, and the freedom of the world.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, and Senators, I want to reiterate
the depth of my pride and the sense of honor I have had in
representing the United States of America, first at the United
Nations, and now to the world. Our country, like any other, is
composed of humans and is, therefore, flawed. We are not always
correct in our actions or judgments, but I know from the
experience of my own life the importance and rightness of our
country's ideals. I have seen first-hand the difference that
our actions have made and continue to make in the lives of men,
women, and children on every continent, and I believe
profoundly in the goodness of the American people and in the
goodness of American power, and my faith in the future is
grounded like a rock in my belief in America. This land has
given me so much, and I cannot hope to repay it, but I will
always be grateful to President Clinton and to this committee
for allowing me the opportunity these past 7 3/4 years to give
it a try.
Senators, your friendship and support has been
immeasurable, and I salute you. For your hospitality today I
truly thank you, and for the opportunity to continue to work
with you until the very last minute I want to express in
advance my heartfelt appreciation.
I will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Albright follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Madeleine K. Albright
Mr. Chairman, Senators, good morning. I am pleased to have the
opportunity to see you all again.
This late in the session, I see little value in duplicating the
rather encyclopedic statement I presented earlier in the year. Instead,
I would like to restrict myself to three main points.
First, although there are only a few days left in this Congress,
and only a few months in this Administration, there remains
considerable work to be done. The world does not stand still, even for
American elections. Between now and January, we can expect significant
developments in key regions, and we prepare constantly to deal with the
unforeseen.
During this time of transition, I ask your help in providing the
kind of bipartisan support for U.S. leadership that has characterized
our nation at its best, and that American interests constantly demand.
Second, I would like to highlight once more the importance of
obtaining adequate resources for our international operations and
programs. The next President, of whichever party, will be expected to
provide strong leadership. But it takes money to forge peace, prevent
proliferation, dismantle nuclear weapons, defeat drug cartels, counter
terrorists, promote U.S. exports, spur development, strengthen
democracy, enhance the rule of law, fight pollution, combat AIDS and
otherwise defend America's interests and values around the world.
America's capacity to lead is not a partisan issue; it's a
patriotic issue. At the moment, Congress is proposing to slash roughly
$2 billion from the President's budget requests for international
operations and programs. If these plans prevail, the next President
will take office with his foreign policy bank account depleted and his
ability to respond to changing world events gravely impaired.
The 21st Century is no time for America to retreat. The cuts
proposed in such key areas as security for our diplomatic personnel,
nonproliferation, counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, family planning and
foreign military financing are not simply disappointing; they are
dangerous. Congress should approve the President's full requests for
international affairs. The entire amount is equal to only about one
penny for every dollar the Federal Government spends. But it makes an
enormous difference to the security of our communities, the prosperity
of our families and the freedom of our world.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to review briefly some of the
major foreign policy accomplishments that resulted from this
Administration, this Committee and this Congress working together the
past few years on behalf of America, and also to take a look at where
we are headed as the new century begins.
When President Clinton took office, our nation was beginning an
historic re-evaluation of its entire approach to international affairs
in light of the geopolitical and technological changes that were
transforming our world.
Our goal was to make the most of the opportunities opened up by the
prospects for East-West cooperation, while coping with the accompanying
disruptions and preparing to meet emerging threats.
To succeed, we had to resist both the temptation to retreat from
international affairs, and the compulsion to become involved in every
crisis and conflict. We needed to steer a steady course between
isolation, which is not possible in our era, and overreaching, which is
not sustainable.
We had to replace the Cold War foreign policy framework with a new
framework, able to meet the demands of the new century, including
effective public diplomacy, and make full use of every available
foreign policy tool.
Together, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I believe we
have made great progress.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP
Consider, for example, that eight years ago, America was viewed
widely as a drag on global economic growth, because our budget deficits
were huge and our economy sluggish. Today, those deficits are gone; our
people are prosperous; our economy is the world's most competitive; and
our international economic leadership has been fully restored.
America's strong economy and the Administration's support for
reform helped the world navigate successfully through the worst
financial crisis since the Great Depression. We have worked to make the
international financial system more effective by placing greater
emphasis on fighting corruption, creating transparency, and encouraging
investments in people. We have tried to make the global economy more
inclusive through targeted debt relief, helping developing countries
build the capacity to meet WTO commitments, and working with Congress
to enhance trade opportunities for Africa, Central America and the
Caribbean.
We have worked with American business, farming and labor
representatives to make world markets more equitable by negotiating
beneficial trade and investment agreements, supporting core worker
standards, and striving to outlaw commercial bribery and ensure the
protection of intellectual property and other legal rights.
We have negotiated dozens of Open Skies and other civil aviation
agreements that have benefited American communities, businesses and
travelers.
The result is a world economy that is strong and growing, with the
United States as its dynamic center; and an international economic
agenda aimed at broadening the benefits of growth both within and among
societies.
LEADING FOR A SAFER WORLD
In 1993, our most urgent security objective was to ensure the
control and safe handling of weapons of mass destruction in the former
Soviet Union.
Since that time, with strong support from this Committee, the
Administration has gained the removal of nuclear arms from three former
Soviet Republics; helped deactivate thousands of nuclear warheads;
strengthened the security of nuclear weapons and materials at more than
100 sites; and purchased more than 60 tons of highly-enriched uranium
that could have been used by terrorists or outlaw states to build
nuclear weapons.
We have also provided opportunities for tens of thousands of former
Soviet weapons scientists--including chemical and biological weapons
experts--to participate in peaceful commercial and research ventures at
home rather than take their expertise to potentially hostile states.
Despite these steps, the job of preventing ``loose nukes'' and
other proliferation dangers is far from complete. Russia's record on
nuclear and missile exports remains mixed, whether for lack of
capability or lack of will. That's why nonproliferation remains among
our highest priorities in dealing with Russia at every level from the
Presidential to the technical.
And it is why so much of our assistance to Russia is used for
programs that reduce the chance that weapons of mass destruction or
sensitive missile technology will fall into the wrong hands.
For example, funds from our Science Center program helped develop a
kidney dialysis capability that is being further developed and
commercialized through an Energy Department program. By providing
hundreds of jobs for former weapons scientists, this program is helping
to downsize Russia's closed nuclear cities and make Americans safer. It
is both disturbing and puzzling, therefore, that Congress is proposing
to reduce funding for the Science Centers by fifty percent.
I urge Congress to support the President's request for
nonproliferation programs in their entirety, including the Science
Centers and the nuclear safeguards system of the International Atomic
Energy Agency.
TOWARDS A EUROPE ``WHOLE AND FREE''
In 1993, skeptics were saying that the Trans-Atlantic link would
surely weaken in the post-Cold War world, and that NATO would lose
relevance in the absence of its traditional unifying rationale.
Here again, with your help, we have proven those skeptics wrong. We
have worked steadily with the European Union to broaden our
partnership, develop joint responses to global challenges and fast-
breaking crises, and support its plans for enlargement.
We have joined in strengthening the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, agreeing last November on a new Charter for
European Security.
We have encouraged integration and cooperation through such
measures as our Northern Europe Initiative and our Southeast European
Cooperative Initiative.
And we have joined other Alliance leaders in strengthening NATO
through the admission of three new members, and the adoption of a plan
to help other aspiring Allies prepare for possible entry, and have
provided military assistance to aid these countries in reaching their
accession goals.
During the 1999 Washington Summit, President Clinton and his
counterparts adopted a revised Strategic Concept, vowed to develop the
capabilities required to respond to the full spectrum of threats NATO
may face, deepened NATO's partnerships with Europe's other democracies,
and agreed to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance in a way
that bolsters both Alliance effectiveness and Trans-Atlantic ties. Now
NATO and the EU are in the process of forging an historic partnership
to just that end.
But NATO did more during the 1990's than prepare. It also acted.
When President Clinton took office, war was raging in the Balkans,
where a UN peace operation was failing, and atrocities were being
committed on a daily basis. Many argued that America should look the
other way and hope the fighting would simply burn itself out.
But history warns us that in this region there is no natural
firebreak to conflict. So when diplomatic options were exhausted, the
Administration and many Members of this Committee called for NATO
airstrikes to help end the war in Bosnia. And when Slobodan Milosevic
launched a campaign of terror in Kosovo, NATO launched a campaign to
stop him.
This was not simply a humanitarian intervention. President Clinton
was making good on a solemn pledge given by President Bush in 1992 that
America would respond if Milosevic used force to repress the people of
Kosovo.
NATO was proving it could act with unity and resolve to defend
European stability.
And together, we were reinforcing the principle that massive
violations of human rights cannot be ignored; they must be opposed.
During the past fourteen months in Kosovo, a million refugees have
returned, schools and health services have reopened, a market economy
has begun to function, civilian police are being trained and the KLA
has been demilitarized and disarmed. The process of strengthening local
autonomy will continue with the municipal elections scheduled for next
month.
We did the right thing in Kosovo, but the job is far from finished.
To talk about leaving prematurely, as some now do, is to suggest
weakness in a region where weakness still attracts vultures. Our
purpose in Kosovo is not simply to punch a time clock and move on; it
is to replace the rule of force with the rule of law. So that when we
do leave, order will be self-sustaining, democracy will have taken
hold, and our troops can not only come home, but stay home.
Kosovo is important, but it is only one piece of a much larger
puzzle.
After World War II, the Marshall Plan helped establish strong
democracies in Europe's west. After the Cold War, the SEED program
helped democracy take hold in Europe's center. Now, after years of
conflict in the Balkans, we have forged a Stability Pact with our EU
and regional partners to encourage democracy in Europe's southeast.
And we are making progress throughout the area, including the
former Yugoslavia.
In recent years, Bosnia has held fair, competitive elections at
every level. Croatia has made a national U-turn away from extremism and
towards integration with the West. Slovenia, Macedonia and Montenegro
have elected democratic leaders.
Even in Yugoslavia, democratic forces are becoming stronger.
Despite threats from Milosevic's thugs, they have waged a courageous
campaign for change, kindled hope among the Serb people, and brought
closer the day we can welcome all of Yugoslavia into the democratic
community. As this is written, we awaiting the final results of the
September 24 elections.
SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Mr. Chairman, eight years ago, there were many doubts in Asia and
the Pacific about America's willingness to continue playing a strong
regional role in the aftermath of the Cold War. These doubts have been
put to rest.
There can no longer be any question about the level of American
commitment to, or interest in, Asia. President Clinton has visited
there more often than any other President. I have visited more
frequently than any previous Secretary of State.
With our allies and partners, we have weathered the financial
crisis while encouraging financial reform. We have upgraded and
modernized our security ties with our ally Japan and developed a robust
Common Agenda for action on global issues.
We have welcomed South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's engagement
policy with North Korea, and will resume tomorrow our own discussions
with Pyongyang on issues of concern to the international community,
including nuclear programs and missiles.
Our relationship with China remains both important and complex. I
want to congratulate Members of both Houses of Congress for supporting
legislation to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to that
country. This was the right vote economically because it will enable
American farmers, ranchers and businesspeople to gain greater access to
China's market, and to do so under international rules about what is
fair. It was the right vote from a security perspective because it
encourages China's integration into the international system. And it
was the right vote for the future because it will help to open China up
to new influences and ideas.
Although the PNTR issue has garnered much attention, the other
aspects of our relationship with China have not been neglected. We have
continued to press Beijing to bring its policies and practices into
line with international nonproliferation norms. We have encouraged the
resumption of its dialogue with Taipei. We consult regularly regarding
developments on the Korean Peninsula. And we have been firm and
persistent in raising our concerns about human rights, including
religious and press freedom, and respect for the unique religious,
cultural and linguistic heritage of Tibet.
In Southeast Asia, we have developed a bilateral trade agreement
with Vietnam, pressed hard for a democratic dialogue and respect for
human rights in Burma, and assisted the UN mission in East Timor. We
have also been the largest bilateral donor to the forces of civil
society in Indonesia as that key nation struggles to build stability
and prosperity through its promising but extremely fragile democracy.
In South Asia, President Clinton's historic trip last spring, and
Prime Minister Vajpayee's recent return visit here, have helped open a
promising new chapter in our relations with India, the globe's largest
democracy. India can be an important partner on issues ranging from
world peace to global climate change, and from cooperation in exploring
the new frontiers of science to combating humanity's oldest plagues,
such as poverty and disease.
At the same time, we have not forgotten our other friends in South
Asia, including Pakistan. We are keeping open channels of communication
to Islamabad, most recently in my meeting at UN General Assembly with
Pakistan's Foreign Minister Sattar. We continue to urge Pakistan and
India to observe the ``four R's'' articulated by President Clinton in
both countries in March: restraint, respect for the Line of Control in
Kashmir, rejection of violence, and renewal of dialogue. We will keep
working, publicly and in private, to ease tensions and reduce the
nuclear threat in this vital part of the world.
THE COMMUNITY OF THE AMERICAS
In our own hemisphere, the Summit of the Americas process has
generated unprecedented level of cooperation in support of democracy,
development and law. From Argentina to Alaska, we are now pursuing a
common agenda towards more open economies, fighting poverty, improving
education, respecting human rights, and strengthening the rule of law.
We have also given close attention to our key bilateral
relationships.
For example, I was pleased last month to have the opportunity,
along with President Clinton, to meet with Mexico's President-elect
Vincente Fox. The growth of democratic pluralism in our southern
neighbor is welcome, as is the President-elect's desire to explore
fresh opportunities for cross-border cooperation.
Also in August, I had a chance to visit six countries in South
America. I conveyed a strong message of support for strengthening
democratic institutions, broadening economic opportunity, and enhancing
regional cooperation in the fight against illegal drug trafficking.
In this connection, I want to thank Members of this Committee for
supporting our supplemental request to assist President Pastrana's Plan
Colombia. Every country, not only in our hemisphere, has a stake in
this Plan's success. Obviously there are no easy answers in Colombia.
Illegal armed groups from the left and right feed off the narcotics
trade and run roughshod over the rights of civilians. It will take more
than talk to defeat the drug thugs. But at the same time, there must be
an economic plan, a peace program, a commitment to human rights and an
effort to prevent conflict from spreading across national borders.
President Clinton, Speaker Hastert, Senator Biden and I expressed
strong support for such a comprehensive approach during our visit to
Colombia last month. I hope this kind of approach will continue to find
bipartisan support in our country for years to come.
In Peru, President Fujimori's announcement that he will call new
elections and deactivate the National Intelligence Service is welcome
and provides an opportunity to strengthen Peruvian democracy. The ways
and means of achieving these goals, including the appropriate date for
elections, are for Peruvians to decide. The appropriate role for the
international community is to urge parties to return to the OAS-
sponsored dialogue on democratic reform and to cooperate in devising
electoral procedures that are open, orderly, free and fair. It is vital
that President Fujimori meet the commitments he has made to his people.
It is also important that other participants in the political process
come together in support of democratic norms, and on behalf of policies
that will unite, rather than divide, the Peruvian people.
A NEW APPROACH TO AFRICA
The Clinton-Gore Administration has devoted more time and attention
to Africa than any of its predecessors.
Our approach has been based on two overriding goals. The first is
to integrate Africa more fully into the global economy, through the
promotion of democratic reforms and the resolution of destabilizing
conflicts.
The second is to work with African leaders to combat transnational
security threats including terrorism, illegal drugs, crime and disease.
On the economic side, we have supported debt relief for the most
heavily-indebted reforming countries, requested and obtained higher
levels of development assistance, crafted an Africa. Food Security
Initiative, responded rapidly to humanitarian disasters such as the
recent floods in Mozambique, and worked with Congress in win approval
of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
Diplomatically, we have lent support to regional and United Nations
efforts to conclude a comprehensive peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea;
end fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo; achieve a viable
internal settlement in Burundi, halt the bloodshed and violations of
basic human rights in Sudan, and restore stability to Sierra Leone.
Through the Africa Crisis Response Initiative, we have sought to
enhance the region's indigenous peacekeeping capabilities. We have been
the largest donor to both ECOMOG and the OAU Conflict Management
Center.
With strong support from Members of this Committee, and personal
leadership from the President and Vice-President, we have substantially
increased our investment in what must be a multi-year, around-the-clock
campaign not only in Africa, but around the world to prevent the spread
of HIV/AIDS.
We have developed innovative counter-terrorism, counter-crime and
counter-narcotics strategies for Africa, and signed an agreement this
past summer to establish a regional law enforcement academy in
Botswana.
And as President Clinton's recent trip indicates, we have placed
special emphasis on support for the fragile democratic transition in
Nigeria, Africa's most populous country. Through our Joint Economic
Partnership Committee, we are helping Nigeria deliver a ``democracy
dividend'' to its people.
LEADING FOR PEACE
Mr. Chairman, I think Americans may be especially proud in recent
years of our role in trying to ease historic enmities and help one-time
adversaries to settle differences peacefully.
Even when these initiatives do not succeed, they put pressure on
recalcitrant parties to justify their actions, and give encouragement
to those seeking a basis for agreements in the future. Congress is a
full partner in these efforts, both through the counsel you give and
the resources you provide.
President Clinton and former Senator George Mitchell deserve
special credit for the role they played in making possible the Good
Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, where centuries of bitterness
have been supplanted by cooperation and hope.
And the President deserves praise, as well, for his indefatigable
efforts on behalf of a Middle East Peace.
As Members of this Committee are well aware, the prospects for
achieving an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians this year on
permanent status issues diminish with each passing day. But at Camp
David, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat made unprecedented
progress on matters they had not before seriously discussed. Since
then, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have explored ways to build
on these gains.
Like the last miles in a marathon, the final steps towards peace in
the Middle East are the hardest. But if we were to look back to the
beginning of the last decade, we would realize how far the parties have
come toward resolving some of the most intractable, emotional and
complex issues negotiators have ever had to untangle.
Together, Israelis and Palestinians have moved far down the road to
a settlement that would meet each other's core needs, and open the door
to a period of greater security, prosperity and cooperation than the
region has ever known. The stakes are too high for them to turn back
now, or for the United States to reduce in any way its commitment to
help the parties move further along that road.
PROMOTING DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Under President Clinton, the United States has led for prosperity,
security and peace. We have also led for democracy.
Today, the world is more free than at any prior period. For the
first time in history, more than half its people live under elected
governments. But many democratic regimes are fragile, and require both
internal reinforcement and outside help.
That is why, this past summer in Poland, more than 100 nations came
together for the first time to reaffirm democratic principles and
ensure that the democratic tide remains a rising tide around the world.
Our purpose was to initiate a global dialogue on how democratic
nations can best help each other to strengthen their institutions,
cooperate within international organizations and combat threats to
democratic development.
We are now following up this Community of Democracies initiative
through discussions with our co-convening partners, deliberations at
the UN General Assembly, conversations with nongovernmental groups,
bilateral dialogues with Warsaw participants, and planning for a second
conference in Seoul in 2002.
DIPLOMACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Mr. Chairman, we have been privileged during the past decade to
witness and help engineer a dramatic restructuring in our national
security institutions to reflect dramatic changes in the world.
This Committee has contributed mightily through the FREEDOM Support
Act, the Nunn-Lugar program, the SEED Act, consent to NATO enlargement,
the reorganization legislation, the Helms-Biden bill and many other
initiatives.
You have also been participants in a process of shifting and
expanding the focus of American foreign policy.
Twenty years ago, when American diplomats sat down with our
counterparts overseas, the agenda was dominated by Cold War concerns.
And America's interests were measured primarily by the single yardstick
of the superpower rivalry.
Today, our agendas are far broader and so are the demands we place
on our diplomats and on others. The United States is the most powerful
nation in the world. And yet, when I sit down with the Foreign
Ministers of even very small countries, I often have far more to ask
than to give.
My interlocutor may seek a larger USAID program, debt relief or
technical assistance to help respond to one problem or another. But I
may ask for cooperation and help on a long list of issues, from
countering terror and interdicting drugs to economic reform and human
rights.
This reflects the reality that, in our era, foreign policy is no
longer comparable to a game of chess. Now, it's more like a game of
pool, with each action setting off a chain reaction that rearranges
every ball on the table. We are more mobile, but so are weapons,
criminals, viruses and pollutants. In the West, populations are older,
but almost everywhere else they are younger, and pressures for
migration will accumulate if those in less-advantaged countries cannot
build decent futures at home. Today, everything is connected. A society
weakened by disease will find it harder to resist the predations of
international criminals or to cope with environmental stress.
Because of our global interests, responsibilities and reach, no
country has a greater stake than America in an international system of
institutions and laws that works to improve the lives of people
everywhere.
That is why we have been right to devote so much energy to
reforming and improving international organizations, including the
United Nations. And why we should come together now and in the future
to support their vital work by meeting our obligations and striving
with others to strengthen their capabilities.
In this way, we can help to blaze new trails of cooperation on what
are commonly referred to as global issues. And thereby respond to
opportunities and threats in a manner essential to America's long-term
security and prosperity.
These challenges include protecting our planet by limiting
greenhouse gas emissions; securing safe water supplies; halting
desertification; promoting biodiversity; and negotiating a ban on the
world's most persistent and toxic pollutants.
Equally vital is the challenge of protecting people by caring for
refugees, advancing the status of women and girls, preventing the
exploitation of children, saving lives through family planning and
reproductive health care services, and helping law-abiding people
everywhere to be more secure.
A good example of this last imperative is our strong backing for
the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former
Yugoslavia, and our support for special judicial mechanisms to achieve
accountability for atrocities in places such as Cambodia and Sierra
Leone. We have also been working with others to collect all the
evidence we can to support a possible future prosecution of Saddam
Hussein. The world will be a better, safer and more just place if those
who violate international humanitarian law are required to answer for
their crimes.
The world will also benefit if nations close ranks against the
threat posed by international criminal organizations. To this end, the
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime was finalized last
July with strong U.S. support. The Convention would require
participating countries to criminalize such activities as money
laundering, corruption of public officials and obstruction of justice.
Next month in Vienna, negotiators will meet to complete three
protocols related to this Convention, on migrant smuggling, trafficking
in persons, and the illicit manufacturing and sale of firearms. If
adopted, these instruments can provide powerful new tools in the fight
against organized crime.
We can also help by approving strong and smart domestic
legislation, such as that developed by Senators Brownback and
Wellstone, against trafficking in human beings.
On the surface, the many issues and accomplishments discussed above
may appear to comprise a very disparate list. But in our era,
democracy, prosperity and security are intimately related. The
connecting thread is our goal of encouraging nations everywhere to come
together around basic principles of political freedom, economic
opportunity and the rule of law.
In this process, there are no final victories. Most of our efforts
remain works in progress. Protecting America's interests is a 24 hour/7
day a week/365 day a year mission that has no completion date.
But our interests are served with every successful democratic
transition, every conflict resolved without violence, every advance
toward a more open and transparent world economy, every example of
justice served, and every increase in respect for basic human rights.
I cannot conclude without repeating a request I have made every
time I have appeared before this Committee. Please approve the
Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. If
you're thinking about a goodbye present, Mr. Chairman, this would do
fine.
The Senate also has before it two protocols negotiated earlier this
year in Geneva, one on child soldiers and the other on the sexual
exploitation of children. I urge the Senate to give its advice and
consent to these treaties before going home for the year.
I also want to make a plea for passage of legislation to re-
authorize the Visa Waiver program, which has been approved by the House
and is now held up in the Senate. This program is essential to
literally millions of American and foreign travelers, to our
transportation and tourist industries, and to our relations with key
allies and friends.
PARTING THOUGHTS
Mr. Chairman, and Senators, it has been a great privilege and--more
often than not--a real pleasure to have worked with you these past
seven and a half years. I cannot tell what the future may hold. But I
leave you with these thoughts.
First, I believe very genuinely in the importance of bipartisanship
in foreign policy. This is not simply because, as I have said, that
upon joining the State Department I had my own partisan instincts
surgically removed. It is because our role in the world is just too
vital--to us, to our many allies and friends, and to our children--to
be compromised for short-term political gain.
Second, there must be a true spirit of partnership between the
Executive Branch and Capitol Hill. It is a tribute to Members of this
Committee that on most issues, most of the time, we have had that. When
we have disagreed, we have done so agreeably. And when we have acted
together, we have usually prevailed. The beneficial results of our
partnership provide much of the substance of my testimony today.
Third, I hope this Committee shares my pride in the people--Foreign
Service Officers, Civil Service and Foreign Service Nationals--who work
every day, often under very difficult and dangerous conditions, to
protect our interests and tell America's story around the world. I have
never been associated with a more talented, professional or dedicated
group of people. We need a first-class military, and we have one. We
also need first-class diplomacy, and we should give those who represent
our nation abroad all the support and respect they deserve.
This means that we simply must make a far greater commitment of
resources to our international operations and programs. At this point
in the Administration, I hope you recognize that this is not special
pleading. There are only a few days left in this Congress, and I
recognize there are limits to what even the Members of this prestigious
Committee can accomplish.
But I urge you to use your influence and eloquence to help give
this Administration and the next the kind of support they will need to
exercise strong American leadership around the globe.
Finally, I want to reiterate to you the depth of my pride and the
sense of honor I have had in representing America first to the United
Nations and now to the world.
Our country, like any other, is composed of humans and therefore
flawed. We are not always correct in our actions or judgments. But I
know from the experience of my own life the importance and rightness of
our nation's ideals. I have seen first-hand the difference that our
actions have made and continue to make in the lives of men, women and
children on every continent. I believe profoundly in the goodness of
the American people. And my faith in the future is grounded like a rock
in my belief in America.
This country has given me so much; I cannot hope to repay it. But I
will always be grateful to President Clinton and to this Committee for
allowing me the opportunity these past seven and a half years to try.
Senators, for your friendship and support, I salute you. For your
hospitality today, I thank you. And for the opportunity to continue
working with you in the weeks immediately to come, I want to express in
advance my heartfelt appreciation.
And now, I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might
have.
The Chairman. Fifteen minutes. We are going to do the best
we can. Five minutes per Senator, and I think we will just
continue to ask questions after 11:30, if it meets the approval
of all the Senators. I do not like playing games with whether
committees can meet and how long they can meet.
Madam Secretary, since the Russian President Putin assumed
the top post in Russia, basic human rights and democracy have
suffered there, the Kremlin's indiscriminate and brutal war
against the Chechnyan people continues today, press freedoms
have been curtailed. Compounding matters, this month the Moscow
Times documented extensive fraud in the new President's
electoral victory, including the sudden and unexplained growth
of 1.3 million registered Russian voters in the 3 months prior
to the March Presidential election.
In your view and that of your administration, did he win
that election fairly, or did he steal it?
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I believe that he won it
fairly, because nearly 70 percent of eligible voters
participated. The election showed that basic democratic
processes and institutions are taking hold in Russia, and that
the Russian citizens are comfortable making their voices heard
at the ballot box. The OSCE, which does a lot of monitoring,
called the election--and I quote--``a massive expression of the
will of the Russian people.'' It did cite some concerns, as we
have also, about unbalanced media coverage and pressure on the
independent media. I do think that there is question about the
fact that President Putin talks about the importance of an
independent media but in fact is putting a great deal of
pressure on the media.
Putin was the most popular candidate, and the reason for
that, and I think I have spoken about this here before, is that
the Russian people had a sense that there was chaos, and they
wanted order. The Russian word, poriadok, was kind of the buzz
word in Moscow. I think that the ``order'' he offered was
something appealing to the Russian people. As we observe what
is going on in Russia, I think we have to watch carefully that
it is order with a small ``o,'' and not order with a capital
``O,'' but I do believe that he was elected fairly.
The Chairman. The Chechnyan Resistance wrote you a letter
sometime back asking you to endorse their five-point peace
proposal for resolution of the conflict there. Should the
United States endorse this proposal?
Secretary Albright. Well, I think that what we have done,
in fact, is raised very many of the same points that they have.
I have said in any number of places that there has to be a
political solution to the situation in Chechnya, that it cannot
be solved militarily, that there needs to be access for the
international agencies, and I have spoken about this to my
counterpart, Foreign Minister Ivanov many times, and the
President has spoken to President Putin.
We have to make very clear that we think the kind of wanton
acts against the civilian population are unacceptable, and that
basically they need to find an interlocutor with whom they can
deal on the Chechan issue. It is coming back in a way that I
think President Putin is going to have to deal with it
politically, as the military solution does not work.
The Chairman. One of the most courageous democratic
activists in the world today suffers under house arrest in
Burma. Now, I know that the United Nations and our allies and
you have eloquently raised concerns regarding the fate of that
wonderful lady. On July 19, the Senate passed a resolution, and
so forth.
It calls for the United States to seek multilateral
support. Could you please inform the committee of efforts made
by the administration to gain concrete measures of support from
our allies in Asia and Europe, and what has been the response?
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of
the saddest cases, where 10 years after she and her party were
elected they are not allowed to take their rightful position,
and there is no dialog between her and the Burmese Government.
We have raised this issue consistently and systematically.
President Clinton raised it in his opening address to the
Millennium Summit at the United Nations. I have made it a point
in every single meeting that I attended to to try to get a
joint statement out of people in terms of support of Aung San
Suu Kyi.
What happened was that they did release her temporarily
after they had her under virtual house arrest. They have gone
back again to denying her free movement. I can assure you that
I will not let this issue drop. We are trying to make the
others move. It is not easy.
The Chairman. Good. Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Secretary, welcome. I am pleased to see you before the
committee.
As you know, I strongly share your view that we are
devoting inadequate resources to meeting our international
responsibilities, and I think it has severely handicapped the
ability to carry out a constructive American foreign policy in
the international arena.
You obviously have spoken about that a number of times, and
in fact your statement here today again emphasizes it. I think
it might be helpful if you would give us some specific examples
of where a shortage of commitment of resources has handicapped
our ability to carry through a policy that would serve our
national interests.
Secretary Albright. Yes. Thank you very much. Let me just
make clear that the budget we submitted in the first place is
bare bones in my view. We operate within an overall system, and
when we asked for $23 billion plus, it was a very careful
assessment. I personally have gone through the budget review in
the State Department for each of the sections. We were then cut
by over $2 billion, which is a reduction of nearly 11 percent
of what we asked for.
Now, since we are operating at something that already I
think is low, I have said, and you will appreciate this, that
we are not only robbing Peter to pay Paul, but we are robbing
Paul also. I think the problem here is that we have to keep
shifting in order to be able to achieve what we want. Let me
just say that if the current cuts stand, it would, for example,
mean reducing U.N. peacekeeping by more than a third and thus
threaten the success of our operations in Kosovo, East Timor,
and Africa.
Now, I hope we have more chance to talk about peacekeeping,
but I happen to think that peacekeeping, well done, is a
burden-sharing operation and allows the United States, which is
not involved in most peacekeeping operations, to deal with
serious issues. We cannot just be stuck with doing it ourselves
or doing nothing at all. Congress' proposed budget would mean a
one-third cut.
The cut would also jeopardizes essential security
improvements in U.S. diplomatic facilities. We have all been
talking about the horrors of the bombings a couple of years ago
in Kenya and Tanzania. We have been systematically trying to
upgrade our diplomatic facilities. It would also limits support
for what is happening in the Balkans, the Newly Independent
States, and the key democracies. We can talk further about
Nigeria and Indonesia, how much we have had to cut. Congress'
budget would slash our funds for nonproliferation and
antiterrorism programs, cripple our debt relief programs,
reduces funding for international banks, and weaken our
programs to boost U.S. trade.
I could go on, but those are the major problems. You cannot
cut this much out of our budget, when you are already operating
with less--with only a penny out of every Federal dollar--I
think it is very bad. I happen to believe we need a strong
defense budget. I have never argued against that. But our
diplomacy and our diplomats are the first line of defense, and
I think we underfund at our own jeopardy.
Senator Sarbanes. Well now, a lot of people emphasize
burden-sharing, and they press the point that our allies ought
to be making contributions in these various endeavors, but it
is my understanding that the inability of the United States, as
it were, to meet its share in various international
institutions or in various joint efforts is in effect resulting
in other countries not coming forward with their share, so to
speak.
So, as a consequence, the international community ends up
committing less resources than it might otherwise do, so that
if the United States were better able to act as a catalyst in
those situations, we would be able to attract contributions
from other countries as well and have an international effort
that was much more substantial in addressing some of these
problems. Do you perceive that problem?
Secretary Albright. Absolutely, Senator, because I have
seen this in various pledging conferences. We are like a
magnet, and I think they want to know how much we have given. I
think there is also a misapprehension here. We all know how
important it is to the American people and to you that we are
not the sole bearer of financial responsibility, and we are
not. As far as Kosovo is concerned, for instance, or the
Balkans, the Europeans are truly paying the lion's share of it.
We can give you some facts and figures on it. I think they do
not see that we are participating but we are, in fact,
providing the seed money for force multiplying in terms of
cash.
Let us take Plan Colombia as another example. We put money
up, but the Europeans are now pledging in donors conferences.
Spain itself has put up $100 million. We have international
responsibilities, and I think our being a part of something
creates a larger fund of money, so I believe it is essential
that we do our share in order to get more from the others.
The Chairman. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Albright, I join Chairman Helms and Senator Biden
in the comments they have made about your remarkable service
and the period of cooperation with the committee, and I
appreciate that.
I have appreciated serving with you on the National
Endowment for Democracy board, and likewise applauding your
work at the United Nations.
I am struck by the questions that Senator Sarbanes has
asked and your responses. Let me just say that for a variety of
reasons the amounts of money that have been required for
American diplomacy for the State Department, for international
relations simply have not been available.
I remember, as perhaps you do, after the re-election of
President Clinton there had been a proposal by the State
Department for its budget, obvious cuts that were publicly made
by OMB. I visited with the President and asked him personally
to reverse OMB, to go to bat for the State Department.
Obviously you endorsed that idea, and he did, and to some
extent what had been almost a straight-line secular decline of
resources, when inflation was factored in, was reversed, at
least in that year.
Now, then it resumed, and you are describing today a
situation which is a dismal one. Perhaps at this point in your
service, or in the President's service, you are really not
prepared to answer this question fully, but I would like for
you at least to begin today.
Why was the President, or his group, including yourself,
less effective than you needed to have been in alerting the
American people to what our responsibilities are, to what we
should be doing, or co-opting the Congress, persuading us?
Or, correspondingly, what failures have there been on the
part of the Congress in failing to understand America's role in
the world, as you say, our defense budget combined with strong
diplomacy, with embassies that really do have up to speed
telecommunications and are equipped really to do the job of a
competitive America for trade, quite apart from diplomacy.
This just clearly does not seem to me to be the picture,
and it is one in which there is a lot of responsibility to be
shared, but for the moment I perceive that the American public
as a whole is not alarmed about this debate over the State
Department or international affairs budget, does not really
share our particular grief about these situations, although
people around this table care and so do you.
You know, what should we do about it, and maybe in your
memoirs of the experience you will have more to say, but it
just seems to me that instructing for the next administration,
whether it be the Vice President of the United States or
Governor Bush, that they really start off on a different track
if they are to make headway in what I think is essential.
Secretary Albright. I think, Senator, you have asked a key
question about how we operate, and I will give you some
thoughts, but I will actually do more thinking about it and do
something about it after this.
First of all, I would like to say that the President is my
best friend on this. I have now made a Christmas Eve call a
number of times and it has brought forth more funds. I think
his support of the State Department budget has been really
unbelievable, and I am very grateful to him. The problem I
think is that the American people got accustomed to a State
Department budget when we were fighting communism and its goal
was very clear. Our assistance programs were designed to get
countries to be our friends versus our being their friends, so
that when the world was divided into red, and red, white, and
blue it was easier.
I think the issues--and I know people get sick of hearing
this--are complicated and do not seem as threatening to people
at this time, and we are dealing with a whole host of new
issues. You, sir, have understood the fact that threat
reduction in the former Soviet Union is essential to our
security. That takes money, and the bulk of the money that goes
to Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan has been for that.
I think our real problem is we have got to stop calling it
foreign aid. Those are two words that do not go together, and
the American people do not like them. This is not assistance to
other countries. This is the way that the United States
maintains its prosperity. Our prosperity today is dependent on
other countries also rising and having functional economic
systems and functional governments. This is not foreign
assistance. It is assistance to America, and I think we need to
see it that way, and not see what we do as a give-away program
or supporting people that we are not interested in. We have
managed to keep America at peace and prosperous and it takes
assistance to America to make that happen.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
The Chairman. I have just been advised by the majority
leader that the opposition to all committees continuing their
hearings this morning stands, so without objection, as chairman
I am going to suggest that we are now meeting as a public
meeting, instead of a hearing. I do not know what the
distinction is, but one is legal and one is not.
Senator Wellstone. Mr Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Senator Wellstone. I understand what you are doing, but
could I make it clear to the Secretary that I am in--just to
support--this is Senator Levin's request, I think, because he
has not been able to get judges through for years, and I am
going to have to excuse myself from the hearing out of respect
for him, even though I understand what you are doing.
The Chairman. Very well.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you. I apologize.
The Chairman. We will miss you.
Senator Dodd. I gather there is no official record of this.
Is that what we are doing, that is the distinction?
The Chairman. Well, no. I intend that--and I think we would
be remiss if we do not have a record for everything that the
Secretary says. Now, if there is objection to that, we could
just have a friendly get-together.
Senator Dodd. No, I do not want to object to that. I am
very interested in having the Secretary here, but there is a
process and procedure which we respect here, and I have been
victimized by it in the past, and I know that we respect each
other's right to do so, and I do not want to undercut a process
here that has been----
The Chairman. Well, I am not going to debate the Senator
about it. I think he knows and I know what is going on on the
floor. There is a concerted effort to confuse and delay and all
the rest of it.
What is the will of the remaining Senators? Shall we
proceed on a hearing?
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed, but
I think Senator Dodd makes the point. We attempted this the
other day in the Agriculture Committee. We had the Secretary
present, and we continued to have a very interesting dialog but
without a court reporter, so that there really was no inference
that it was an official thing, but we did have, as you say, a
meeting and a continuing dialog.
The Chairman. Well, all right. The chair will make another
suggestion, then. Provided that C-SPAN continues its coverage
of what was a hearing, we could transcribe from a tape from C-
SPAN the remainder of what is said and done here. So do you
wish to ask a question?
Senator Dodd. Well, under those circumstances, Mr.
Chairman, obviously we do not have any control over C-SPAN.
They can cover any meeting they want to, but I just in terms of
maintaining a purity of process that we have had for years and
years here----
The Chairman. Well, C-SPAN has been very cooperative with
us, and I trust if they decide not to be I will have a
secretary sitting by the TV set taking down every word that the
Senator----
Senator Dodd. I am sure she will be delighted, or he will
be delighted to hear that.
The Chairman. Seriously, you may proceed, Senator.
Senator Dodd. Fine, and you are----
The Chairman. Wait.
Senator Dodd. Yes, but the court reporter would no longer
transcribe it.
The Chairman. That is right.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll have a
statement for C-SPAN. I will deliver it to them and they can
include it, but let me just briefly say to you, Madam
Secretary, that in so many areas, but going back to the NAFTA
issue I guess in 1993, it was President Bush that negotiated
the agreement, but it would not have been passed had it not
been for the effectiveness of this administration.
That was before your tenure, but nonetheless an example, I
guess, of some wise policy decisions, but certainly under your
tenure the Middle East, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Korea,
the demonstration the other day in Sidney of the two Koreas
marching in together, while we certainly have not resolved the
issue here, it is certainly an indication of the direction that
some of our very creative foreign policy has brought us to. It
certainly did not go unnoticed by the world, so I think there
is much to commend you and the Clinton administration for
during your tenure as Secretary of State.
I do not know whether in 5 minutes I will have time to
really discuss all of these issues, but let me just raise a few
of them if I can with you. First of all, Colombia. You have
raised it already by inference to Plan Colombia. I was
supportive of the plan. I have great respect for what the
Colombian people have been through now for years and years, but
I am worried a bit about this.
The reports are not good on the human rights front. There
are now a couple of battalions that have received some warning
here, two vetted units, 24th Brigade and the 12th, that have
been suspended from receiving training and aid as a result
apparently of some human rights violations, the issue of how
effective these dollars are in terms of dealing with the coca
production.
If the Plan Colombia is going to work it has got to be a
sustained plan, in my view. It has got to be one that we are
willing to stick to for maybe as long as a decade or beyond if
it is going to work. At least it seems to me the
narcotraffickers and others have to have a clear understanding
that we are committed to this over the long haul. I am worried
that some of the reports we are getting out of this early on
are going to undermine this effort, and the September vote in
Latin America.
Now, some of that has been changed, I gather, but there is
a lot of hesitancy among our Latin American allies. I know
there is some hesitancy in Europe about this.
But I would like you to give me some idea of where you
think we ought to be going with Plan Colombia as a new
administration comes in next year. I would like to review to
what extent we can build stronger regional support for this
than presently exists, particularly among the Andean nations,
so that it is not just a U.S.-Colombian effort here, but one
that really does involve and enjoys the support of our allies
and friends throughout the hemisphere. Short of that, I am very
concerned that this plan will not be sustainable.
Secretary Albright. Well, I do think the following. I think
we have done the right thing in having a Plan Colombia that is
based on what the Colombians came up with. It is a plan by
President Pastrana which we are supporting.
I believe it has the right components, and your concerns
about human rights are our concerns and President Pastrana's as
well. We have just been down there. President Clinton paid a
visit and I have gone a number of times. Under Secretary
Pickering has made it very clear that human rights are an
essential aspect of the plan, and the Colombians know it, and
they will pursue this.
But to answer your larger question, I do believe that this
has to be sustained, because it is a complex issue, and let me
focus on the region a little bit, as you have. I took a
regional trip. I know how nervous they are about the fact that
there will be spillover from it and that those countries need
to also have a plan for trying to deal with the problem, and
part of Plan Colombia does, in fact, give money to some of the
countries in theregion. Ecuador, for instance, is very
concerned about its northern border and spillover there, so I
think we have to see this as not only a way of working with
Colombia but its neighboring countries.
I think there is some misunderstanding about how the region
feels about it. I think they are not eager to give money to
Plan Colombia themselves, but are supportive of it. At the
summit in Brasilia they actually came out in support of Plan
Colombia, and I think they need to see the value of it not only
for Colombia but for themselves.
The plan needs its component parts. It has to continue to
have a central anti-narcotrafficking aspect to it, a human
rights aspect, a peace process, and an alternative economic
development plan to it. I think it is a carefully constructed
plan, but it cannot bring results immediately. If we give up on
it and do not see it as a longer term program, I think it will
undermine the region. We have to continue to see it as a
regional issue.
Senator Dodd. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Madam Secretary,
welcome. I did not anticipate having coffee and Danish with you
this morning in our discussion format, but it is OK.
First, let me echo those who have gone before me in
expressing my thanks to you and your team, under the able
leadership of Assistant Secretary Larkin, for their courtesies
and good work over the last few years. We are grateful. You
have been an engaged, competent, honest, and faithful public
servant, and to me that is the highest compliment, so thank
you.
I know you would not want to be put in the position to give
advice to your successor or to the next administration.
Secretary Albright. It depends.
Senator Hagel. Well then, that gives me considerable
license and flexibility with the question.
The world, as you know as well as anyone, is
interconnected, and you have expressed that thought succinctly
this morning in your statement regarding America's role in the
21st century. We should not abandon our leadership history, and
future generations will judge us harshly if we should do such a
thing. You have talked a little bit about budget inadequacies
and a couple of other specific areas.
But I would be very interested in your thoughts,
understanding that there is not one issue, I suspect, that is
all overriding or all-consuming, but a number, if you could
frame for this committee what the next administration in your
opinion should be focusing on in this large, interconnected,
overhanging big-picture world, that would give this committee,
or at least this Senator, some direction as to where the next
administration is going to have to focus some resources, some
leadership, and some attention.
Thank you.
Secretary Albright. Well, let me say I think we always have
to remember what foreign policy is about, and why we have a
foreign policy. It is to protect our territory, our people, and
our way of life. The reason that it is complex is that our
territory is still between two oceans, but we have porous
borders to the north and south, and must deal with issues that
range from top and bottom, so to speak. Therefore we have to be
concerned about such matters as terrorism, nuclear
proliferation and the environment.
Americans travel everywhere now and they need to be
protected everywhere. We need to work on the rule of law in
countries so that they can invest properly and on a whole host
of economic issues that promote prosperity. The American people
will benefit from this as they travel abroad. Protecting our
way of life is everything that our foreign policy is all about.
So, we have to worry about narcotrafficking, and HIV/AIDS and
various things that know no borders. Those are the larger
issues that are the new global transnational issues that affect
foreign policy as never before.
At the same time, the United States will never be able to
not focus on our relationships with Russia and China. We also
have to continue to keep our alliances strong. We have to deal
with all parts of the world. I think that is where the
situation is different today. There can be no forgotten
continents.
The hardest part about being Secretary of State is to
prioritize, and I have tried to do that, not always
successfully, because problems come in from various places. I
do think that the next Secretary of State has to understand
that the future is integration of the global system. Our
prosperity depends on that kind of integration, and our
resources need to go to make sure that we can follow through on
programs, that we have the right people in the right places,
and that our diplomats are at secure facilities.
It is a very large agenda, but we are a very large and
powerful country, and the world depends on us. I know that.
Every day that I sit somewhere behind a sign that says, The
United States, I do it not only with pride, but with the
realization that unless the United States is involved there
will not be a difference. We can make that difference, and
asking for funds for that is not too much. A penny in every
Federal dollar is not too much for the most powerful country in
the world.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Grams.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Secretary, always a pleasure to see you. Thank you very much
for being here today.
A couple of questions. I will start out with one that has
direct ties to Minnesota, an incident in Kenya recently. Also I
have some questions on policy and then some housekeeping
questions.
But first of all, dealing with Kenya, back on August 23
Father John Kaiser was murdered in Kenya. He was a native of
Minnesota but he had spent 36 years serving a mission in Kenya,
strongly advocating the human rights of Kenyans, and he was
against government corruption.
Now, documents were found on Father Kaiser's body that he
had intended to hand over to a commission investigating the
1992 through 1997 tribal clashes of the Great Rift Valley.
Given the dismal record of the Kenyan security forces outlined
in the State Department's human rights record and report, I am
concerned about the integrity of the investigation by the
Government of Kenya.
Do you believe that it is probable that a timely and
thorough investigation of Father Kaiser's murder will be
completed by the Government of Kenya, or should an independent
investigation be started as well?
Secretary Albright. First, let me say that we were shocked
and saddened by this violent death. Father Kaiser, a courageous
and tireless advocate of human rights in Kenya, with be greatly
missed. Massive attendance at Father Kaiser's memorial services
and an outpouring of public eulogies and letters demonstrate
the high regard in which he was held.
Immediately after learning of Father Kaiser's death, U.S.
Ambassador to Kenya, Johnnie Carson, met with high-level
representatives of the government of Kenya, to demostrate our
concern and to urge the government to conduct a complete,
transparent and credible investigation.
Days later, three FBI agents arrived in Kenya, at the
Kenyan Government's invitation, to assist the Kenyan
authorities with the investigation. The FBI continues to work
on the investigation today.
We are monitoring the case of Father Kaiser closely. To
date, the FBI reports that cooperation between the FBI and
Kenyan officials has been excellent, and the investigation is
being conducted in a professional manner. We will keep you
appraised of the investigation's outcome.
Senator Grams. OK. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Dealing with a question on the Middle East and the peace
process, there was a report in the September 22 Jerusalem Post
that the United States is going to propose ending Israel's
sovereignty of the whole of Jerusalem by handing the Temple
Mount over to the U.N.
Now, the question I would have, Madam Secretary, is this
true, because as the Jerusalem Post article notes, this is a
serious break from the past U.S. position that the city's
status was to be determined through negotiations by the two
sides, and not something, I believe, that was to be imposed or
suggested by the United States, so do you have a comment?
Secretary Albright. Well, first of all there is nothing
that can be imposed by the United States. We have spent years,
months, weeks, and hours trying to get the parties to deal with
each other. We assist in that way and do what we can to help
move the process forward.
The reason, we have been saying that there are gaps between
the positions and that the hard decisions have to be made by
the leaders themselves, is because the United States cannot
make existential decisions for either of these parties. So
whatever is agreed to will be agreed to by the parties. There
cannot be an American imposition of an agreement. There can be
American assistance, American suggestions, but I can assure you
that the only way there will be a comprehensive agreement is if
both the parties agree to it.
Senator Grams. So, but are we talking formally or
informally? Could this be a U.S. idea that is informally put on
the table, or are we not involving ourselves in at least
leading the debate?
Secretary Albright. We are very much involved in helping. I
can tell you, from having spent more time on this than
practically any other issue, is that ideas come from a variety
of places. They are suggested by one of the parties or the
other of the parties, or outsiders, or other countries. I have
just spent a lot of time in New York. There are lots of ideas
out there.
We are, I have to say, the country that can make a
difference on this. We have been told that even by countries
that would like to have a leading role. We are the ones that
have the ability, to bring the parties together when they make
the tough decisions.
Senator Grams. So is President Clinton prepared to do this
informally, to make this suggestion specifically, of turning
over the Temple Mount? Is he prepared to make that proposal
informally?
Secretary Albright. The President is looking, with the
parties, for a variety of ways to resolve all the issues, and I
think it is only fair to say there are many ideas out there. At
this stage there is no American proposal on the table. We are
looking at ways that we can be of assistance.
Senator Grams. All right. I have another line of
questioning but my time is nearly up. I will wait for another
round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
the committee. We are delighted to have you here again, and do
a superb job, as usual. It has been a pleasure to be here on
the committee and working with you, Madam Secretary.
I want to turn your attention to Iraq, if I could, and some
serious violations of the sanctions regime that has taken place
just in the last 2 weeks. Russia has permitted three direct
commercial flights to Baghdad, and France has permitted one and
is about to permit a second. Jordan is reportedly contemplating
a sanctions-busting flight as well.
Although the United Nations was informed of the flights,
only one of the Russian flights had explicit permission to
travel to Iraq. The others had none. I would like to know a
couple of things. First, do you view these flights as sanction
violations and then, under the terms of the Foreign Operations
Appropriation Act 2000, no assistance can be provided to
countries not in compliance with the U.N. sanctions on Iraq.
Obviously, France does not receive too much foreign aid
from the United States, but Russia and Jordan are another
matter, and in light of this section in the Foreign Operations
Act, section 534, does the Clinton administration intend to
proceed, given these sanctions violations?
Secretary Albright. First of all, I do believe that we need
to remember that the sanctions regime has been in effect longer
than any other. Having worked on it for a long time myself, I
can assure you that we will remain firm. But it is complicated
because as you have pointed out, there are a number of
countries that disagree with us on various parts of the
sanctions regime. But interestingly enough, all of them have
said that they will abide by Resolution 1284, the most recent
resolution on Iraq.
We are concerned about these flights that have taken place.
I did mention while I was in New York both to the French and
the Russians that we did not think these flights should take
place. There is a dispute about whether flights that do not
carry cargo are sanctions-busting or not. The U.N. has not
ruled on this. But we have made our point that these flights
need approval, and we will continue to press the Russians and
French on it. I think that absent any new kind of consensus,
the Sanction Committee will continue to operate under the
practices of the last 10 years that these flights require
approval, not just notification.
Now, to answer your larger question, we give assistance to
Russia because it is in our national interest. That assistance
is for threat reduction--the Nunn-Lugar program--and various
local government and nongovernmental organizations because we
want to promote democracy. So I think we always have to
remember with our assistance programs why we are doing them. In
suggesting that we remove assistance from x country or y
country, we must remember why we are providing it in the first
place and that it is in our national interest, otherwise we
would not be doing it.
Senator Brownback. Have you had discussions with Jordan on
their proposed flights to Baghdad?
Secretary Albright. We have, yes.
Senator Brownback. And what has been the outcome of those
discussions?
Secretary Albright. Well, those are ongoing. We are very
concerned about them. We are concerned about the fact that
people cannot seem to get the facts straight on Iraq. I know
that there is a great deal of compassion for the Iraqi people.
The administration has compassion. Saddam Hussein does not have
compassion for his people, and there is a way that he can get
out from under the sanctions--by following through on what the
U.N. requirements are.
He is now selling more oil for food and medicine than ever
before, and we allowed that because we wanted the Iraqi people
to have what they needed. But I find the misrepresentation of
facts about the sanctions regime--not by you, but generally--
misplaced in terms of saying that we are the ones keeping the
Iraqi people from having food and medicine. There never has
been an embargo on food and medicine. The only thing that has
been lacking was the money for Saddam Hussein to allow that,
and the pumping of oil has now allowed that.
Senator Brownback. Madam Secretary, my time is almost up. I
would note to you that we are conferencing hopefully as Members
this afternoon on the sex trafficking bill that we have worked
on, and I talked to Under Secretary Loy about this, and I would
be happy to have the State Department's support.
We really need to get at that dark side of the new
globalization of the trafficking in human beings, and I am very
hopeful, with strong administration support I hope we will
have, we will be able to get this though and to the President
shortly.
Secretary Albright. I think it is a very important issue. I
raise it whenever I can in bilateral meetings, and I am very
proud of the lead that we have all taken on this. It is a
horrible crime, and we need to deal with it.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
The Chairman. I suggest that we have a quick 3-minute
round, and then I am going to throw it open to you at the end,
and things that you wanted to say that were not asked, I want
you to have this wind-up time.
I want to ask about NATO. In the couple of years, a little
more than, we added Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, we
have not only improved the security of those countries, we have
revitalized NATO, I think, and we worked together on that very
well.
Is there any reason why, in 2002, the next administration
should not extend invitations to other Central European
democracies if they are qualified?
Secretary Albright. Well, first of all, as I said in my
remarks, I think one of the best things we did together was
NATO enlargement. I think that it revitalized the alliance, as
you have said, and showed its relevance for the 21st century. I
know the benefits of it already, because those countries are
side-by-side with us in the Balkans and have contributed in a
variety of ways and have improved their own defense
capabilities, and understand the responsibilities that come
with membership.
I believe that enlargement should be an open, ongoing
process if the countries are ready. It is not a gift. NATO
membership is not a gift. It is a responsibility. We now have
the membership action plan which enables countries to get
ready.
The Chairman. Last week, we had before this committee two
young Cuban doctors, one of them a lady, one of them a
gentleman, who defected in Zimbabwe back in May, and who had
been kidnaped by Cuban officials who tried unsuccessfully to
force them back to Havana.
I was stunned to discover that before they were kidnaped
they had visited the U.S. Embassy in Zimbabwe on two separate
occasions pleading for asylum, even telling the U.S. consular
office that they were being harassed by Cuban authorities. Both
times, they were turned away because the embassy refused to
help them until they were interviewed by the United Nations
refugee office. Now, these were not just another couple of
refugees. They were defectors from one of the world's last
Stalinist regimes.
Now, what I want to know, Madam Secretary, is, can the
State Department do anything to ensure that such people get the
urgent sanctuary they need and, when such defectors finally
reach the United States, what can the State Department do to
help get visas to their families so that they can join them in
this country?
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I think you know that my
record on Cuba is clear, and I have utilized every option we
have to get the Government of Cuba to reunite families and to
allow the people to emigrate freely. The issue here, however,
is that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees in the host country has the responsibility to protect
the people seeking protected status around the world. We cannot
provide protective status to anyone outside our borders.
In the case of these Cuban doctors, after they had
approached both the Canadian and U.S. Embassies, according to
standard procedure, they were, as you said, referred to the
U.N. High Commissioner. Once it was determined that they were
in need of third country resettlement, officers of the
Immigration and Naturalization Services traveled to Zimbabwe
and interviewed these two people. They were, however, placed in
detention by the Government of Zimbabwe, and we pressed the
Government of Zimbabwe for their release, both publicly and
privately.
Now, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner continued to
work with the Government of Zimbabwe to authorize their release
from detention and departure from Zimbabwe. The Government of
Zimbabwe, insisted as a condition of their departure that they
not be resettled directly in the United States. The Government
of Sweden agreed to receive the two of them and, once in
Sweden, the two approached the U.S. Embassy and their
processing for resettlement in the United States was completed.
Now, a complicating factor is that, as it turns out,
publicity on these two cases proved to be counterproductive,
and so we generally are declining comment in the interest of
those who are seeking asylum. These situations end up being
highly complicated, and I think that the problem here is that
it ultimately got resolved. I think, nonetheless, that we need
to be very careful in how we discuss this.
The Chairman. Do you think the embassy personnel in
Zimbabwe handled it right?
Secretary Albright. Excuse me?
The Chairman. Do you think the embassy personnel handled it
properly?
Secretary Albright. I do believe so, because it was their
responsibility to turn it over to the U.N. High Commissioner.
The Chairman. Well, fine.
Senator.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 3
minutes is not a lot of time, so I am going to run down a
couple of quick issues, and if you do not get a chance to
respond to them in the time left, maybe at the end of the----
[Due to technical difficulties, a portion of the taped
record was lost at this point. The Committee regrets the
omission.]
The report is a compromise report, and it is working its
way through parliament. On this issue, obviously, we have great
respect for our ally, Great Britain, and what they are trying
to do here, but it is very, very important, it seems, to many
people who are closely watching the events in Northern Ireland
that there be full implementation if we are going to be
successful in attracting both communities to the policing
forces in Northern Ireland, and the present arrangement, the
reason for the Patton report, was to try and figure out ways to
break down those barriers, and so I would be very interested in
whether or not there is something more the administration can
be doing, or what it is doing with regard to that.
On Peru, Madam Secretary, back in 1996 Senator Leahy and I
wrote a letter to the Central Intelligence Agency about our
concerns over Mr. Montessino, and what our relationship was
with him 5 years ago. We obviously supported, along with the
Organization of American States, putting some pressure on
Panama to accept him, and I wonder if you might, if time
permits here, to go into that a little bit, and then whether or
not you think there is going to be successful negotiations
between Mr. Fujimori and the opposition parties about a new
round of elections.
Last, with regard to Mexico, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
and I have introduced legislation to postpone for 1 year the
certification process on the drug issue to allow for President-
elect Vincente Fox and our government to try and work on a
better relationship here in terms of dealing with the drug
issue.
As you know, I have for years thought we ought to come up
with a new process here. The certification process has been
counterproductive, in my view, on the drug issue, but I would
be interested to know, No. 1, whether or not the administration
would support the legislation Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and
I have introduced, and some broader thoughts possibly on the
certification process for the incoming administration.
I apologize for racing here, but we are only going to have
a few minutes left, so it is sort of a shopping center. You
have got a little bit of time if you want to respond to a
couple of these, and I will wait around for your response to
the others.
Secretary Albright. Yes. Definitely a warning to Colombia,
and we made that very clear.
On the Northern Ireland issue, I think we continue to think
that the Good Friday agreement really offers the best chance
for some solution to this. We also believe that there are
realistic prospects for putting all the paramilitary weapons
beyond use within the context of that, and the Patton
Commission offers the possibilities. We have been talking about
this, and we urge the parties to engage with the de Chastelain
Commission and agree with each other on a variety of these
important goals. I can tell you that when we were in New York
we did talk to the parties involved, and I can assure you that
we continue to work on that.
On Peru, I think the Montessino case is one in which it was
very important from talking to our Latin American friends that
he not be involved in the Peruvian situation at the moment. It
is very fragile and there were genuine risks that greater
instability might be created. We supported his going to Panama,
but we are not supporting impunity, so that he is not free of
the charges against him.
I do believe that it is important to support the next round
of elections. We will do everything we can through the OAS
mechanism, which I think, in fact, had a role in moving
Fujimori forward to take this decision. I think our best hope
here is to work with our OAS friends--and the Canadians have
taken a role in this. They have a representative now in Lima,
and we should continue to work through them.
I hope very much that we can ultimately move to some kind
of an international mechanism on certification. I think that is
the way to go, and I hope that this is not overreaching, but I
think that such a mechanism should be named after Senator
Coverdell.
The Chairman. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Biden has returned. He went to express the sympathy
of all of us to former Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who lost
his wife. We thank you for doing that, and we are in the midst
of a second round, but we had one round of 5 minutes, and this
one is----
Senator Biden. I will not take 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, this is a second round of 3 minutes.
You go ahead.
Senator Biden. I will just ask one question, if I may. With
regard to the Middle East, can you please let me know, let us
know, Madam Secretary, the status of where we are right now,
and the consequence, if any, of Ambassador Indyk no longer
being a part of that process.
Secretary Albright. First of all, let me indicate where we
are--we are clearly in the end stretch here. I do believe, and
this goes back to a question that Senator Grams asked, that
President Clinton has a unique role in terms of having the
confidence of the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the
ability to bring the parties together as best we can through a
variety of methods. These include getting them to understand
where the gaps are and where and how they can come together. As
was evident from the papers, Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister
Barak had dinner together last night. Negotiators are coming
here in order for us to continue our work. We are giving it the
full court press, and I hope very much that we succeed. But as
I said before, unless the leaders themselves make the hard
decisions, we cannot do that for them.
You asked previously about Ambassador Indyk, and let me say
that I have found this a very difficult situation. The
professionals within the Department of State made a
recommendation that Ambassador Indyk's security clearance be
suspended pending the outcome of an investigation of suspected
violations of the Department of State's security procedures.
I would just like to say for the record that there has been
no indication that any intelligence information was compromised
at this time. This is a question of security procedures that
have not been followed. Ambassador Indyk is cooperating fully
with the diplomatic security and FBI investigators, and has
stated that he will continue to do so. I have asked the
Diplomatic Security Bureau to conduct this investigation in an
expedited manner.
Now, I did have the opportunity to overturn this and it was
very difficult. Ambassador Indyk is a good friend, and I
respect his work very highly. I also believe, however, that it
is essential that government-wide security procedures, which we
are following in the State Department, need to be abided by. I
also believe that it is important to get this investigation
concluded quickly.
Obviously, he will be missed within the peace process. He
was a very important player, but there are others involved as
well. Ambassador Ross I think is well-known to you and has
everybody's respect, and has been the lead in this and will
continue to be. Nonetheless, I hope very much that this is
resolved quickly, and let me just say that, contrary to some
newspaper headlines, the Ambassador's security clearance has
been suspended, but his title and position have not. However,
as this deals with the Privacy Act I think that that is as far
as I should go.
Senator Biden. Well, at 4:30 today, as I understand, Mr.
Chairman, we are--if my schedule is correct. I was not sure if
it was today or tomorrow, but 4:30 today I think we are
receiving a briefing on this matter----
Secretary Albright. Correct, yes.
Senator Biden [continuing]. In a secure setting.
Secretary Albright. Correct.
Senator Biden. So I look forward to hearing that at the
time. I appreciate your response, Madam Secretary, and I thank
the chairman for his time.
Secretary Albright. Put very simply, Senator, I think that
you know what is already a difficult task has not been made any
easier as a result of this.
The Chairman. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Albright,
as you touched upon this in your statement, just scarcely over
a year ago American Armed Forces and NATO allies were involved
in substantial military action in Yugoslavia.
Now, just a year later, what seems to have been totally
unexpected then has happened. Namely, an election has occurred
in the country, although the official returns, unless something
has occurred while we have been here, have not been made known.
It is reported that President Milosevic's wife, his
supporters have been in conference for a long time, that the
count has been suspended, or at least announcements of it, and
it has all the elements that would seem obvious of a regime
trying to decide what to do, given an election that had an
unexpected turnout, perhaps an unexpected result.
Now, while they are conferring, what I would hope you might
describe to us, if it is not confidential, is what we are doing
in terms of conference. Are we in touch with our major NATO
allies, and in addition, neighboring states, Hungary, for
example, the Bulgarians, the Romanians, who will have a fall-
out from a situation that can become volatile.
You and others have described this as a fateful moment,
when you finally come to the end of a regime which may not want
to go, and the violence that could occur could affect other
states, including our Armed Forces who are in Kosovo, so I
believe this is a very, very tense moment.
It is on the front pages of the paper, but I do not think
the American people have the sense of urgency about this that
they may need to have, given steps that you may need to take.
Can you give us any indication of what you are doing?
Secretary Albright. Well, first of all, I do think that
there have been a lot of nay-sayers about the importance of the
Balkans to the United States, about what we have been doing,
was this worth it, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, the story is not over, as I said in my remarks, but I
have believed that the Balkans and their integration into a
free Europe is essential for American peace and prosperity. It
is the missing piece of a Europe that is whole and free.
Therefore, while it may have taken a little longer than some
people would have liked, I think we have done the right thing.
Of the various things I am very proud of--having taken a little
bit of flack on this subject--I do think that our role in the
Balkans is a very important step forward.
Believe me, we have been in very close consultation. All
along--and at some stage I will write about this--the
consultations with our major allies, within the stability pact,
and with the neighboring states on the Balkans have been the
closest that I think have ever existed on a real-time basis.
We have and are continuing to be concerned about Montenegro
and have made quite clear that that is of concern to us. I
cannot go into detail, but I can honestly tell you that we have
looked at this very, very carefully and in very close
consultation. We are just hoping very much that the will of the
Serbian people, who have come out in record numbers, is
respected by Milosevic, and that we will be in a position to
welcome a free Serbia, Yugoslavia, into the community of
nations, and be able to render them assistance once Milosevic
is gone, and sanctions are lifted.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Amen.
All right, Mr. Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Madam Secretary, I know national missile defense is not in
your portfolio exactly, but I would be very interested in
getting your perspective on national missile defense, from the
perspective of viewing it through your lens on our geopolitical
strategic relationships in the world. What yet needs to be done
in order to implement a national missile defense system? What
worked with our allies?
Within your portfolio, your general assignment
responsibilities, and your grasp of the world, we would be
interested in hearing your thoughts.
Secretary Albright. When President Clinton made his
decision, he did say that it was a system that needed to
continue to be looked at, and that it was something that was
worth having for American defense but that it was not
technically ready, and I think that is the basis.
From the work that the State Department did, I think we
have to look at our defense. We obviously have to do everything
we can to protect the United States within an overall framework
of what does not undermine what we already have. I believe that
the ABM treaty is important, that there is a way that it can be
adjusted that would allow for a national missile defense
program to go forward.
Our allies were not persuaded, and the Russians were not
persuaded, and I think that what needs to happen is that the
next administration should work very closely with our allies,
based on the work that we have already done. They should
explain our position to the Russians and the Chinese and the
others. I think that the groundwork laid by this administration
has been very important and very useful. I hope that the next
administration looks into all of this in an appropriate way. We
cannot do this completely alone.
Senator Hagel. You mentioned you believe that the ABM
treaty could be adjusted in order to implement a national
missile defense treaty. Could you explain that?
Secretary Albright. I think in the past there have been
amendments to the ABM treaty. It can be done, so that the ABM
treaty is vibrant and useful, and the Russians and the United
States have to work on that.
Senator Hagel. Any specific thought you have on that
adjustment?
Secretary Albright. I would prefer not to go into that.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Grams.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, to followup on Senator Biden's concerns
about Ambassador Indyk, during my ongoing dialog with the State
Department officials over the Department's security procedures
over the last several months, the Ambassador's situation was
never brought to the committee's attention. It required an
anonymous caller to a committee staffer to alert us to this
case.
Now, understanding all the confidentiality surrounding
this, I believe it would be better for the Department to alert
the committee to such sensitive ongoing investigations so that
we are not caught by surprise, as I was over the weekend, so
should we not reach some kind of an agreement by which you
would provide periodic updates to the committee on these types
of sensitive but important matters?
Secretary Albright. Well, let me first of all say that I
believe we have been handling this in a most responsible way.
We have obligations to the Intelligence Committee. They were
briefed, I believe, at the appropriate time. Your staffers were
there. I think that we also have to consider the Privacy Act
and due process aspect of this. I feel comfortable that we
handled this in an appropriate way that protects the security
of the United States as well as the rights of the individual
involved.
Senator Grams. So your feeling is you will not share this
information, then, in the future under certain----
Secretary Albright. Well, I think that we have to do this
on a case-by-case basis and understand when something is ready
to be briefed. We have to think in this atmosphere a little bit
about how to protect due process.
I stand down to no one in my determination to get things
right at the State Department on security issues, and I have
worked very hard on this. The Department over many, many, many
years had a different approach to this. I have zero tolerance
for security breaches, and I have made that very clear. As I
said, this was a very hard decision, but I think that we have
to be careful as we look at this not to begin to impinge on
people's privacy and rights. We will share information as
quickly as we possibly can, and I frankly do not believe that
it took an anonymous caller. We were making decisions to do
this.
Senator Grams. Well, there appears to have been a 9-day
period between the time when the diplomatic security
recommendation that the Ambassador's security clearance would
be suspended, and when that suspension occurred, and the
briefing to the Intelligence Committee and my staff did not
occur until after the anonymous call, so would there have been
a briefing if that call had not been made?
Secretary Albright. There would have been a briefing when
we believed that we had all the facts in place. I believe that
the Secretary of State has the right to look at issues
carefully and be able to make sure that things are done right.
Let me just say, in terms of the way this was done, once the
recommendation to suspend his clearance was made, it was
expeditiously reviewed within the Department because we wanted
to do the right thing once this was completed, we took the
appropriate action to suspend and to brief.
I honestly think that we have done the right thing in this,
in terms of protecting security, recognizing the appropriate
role that Congress needs to play in this and protecting the
privacy and the rights of the individual involved in this.
Senator Grams. I take you at your word, but the timing
does--it leaves some questions. So thank you very much, Madam
Secretary.
The Chairman. Now then, I said before your return that I
made a hundred speeches, good speeches, after the speech was
delivered and I was driving home.
Senator Biden. As a matter of fact, I have withdrawn a
number of my comments I made on my way home.
The Chairman. Well, I suggested to the distinguished
Secretary of State that at the conclusion of questioning she
must have a dozen things on her mind that maybe she would like
to discuss, and we would be glad to hear from you.
Secretary Albright. Well, I thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and it is characteristic of your kindness that you
would allow this.
I believe that we have accomplished a lot in these years,
and at a time that is so transitional and changing that it has
given us huge opportunities and challenges. I believe that
together we have gotten the world ready for 21st century
foreign policy, but it is not there yet. The issues are quite
different than they ever have been, and obviously take a much
greater breadth of knowledge than either people on our side of
the table or yours have had to confront previously.
I did not ever think that I would be in a position of
discussing genetically modified corn with the Foreign Minister
of France or Italy, for instance, or that I would have to know
as much as I do about the spread of HIV/AIDS and what kinds of
medicines it takes, or about every detail of what happens in a
country in Africa that did not exist when I graduated from
college. So I think we need to widen our scope about what we
know and what we care about.
While you and I, I think, have had a remarkable
relationship and I hope that it is noted, I honestly wish we
had more bipartisanship, or nonpartisanship. I think that it
would make a big difference, and I truly do believe that when
somebody represents America, as we do, that we should try to be
as unified as we can, and that we represent the greatest
country in the world, so I would really like to see more
bipartisanship.
I agree with what Senator Lugar was saying about the
necessity to explain our foreign policy better to the American
public. It is a little hard to do, given the way the media
operates these days, and how one must get complicated issues
out very quickly. When I leave, because I am a teacher, I am
going to try very hard to make American foreign policy even
more understandable to the American people, because a democracy
cannot operate without the American people understanding. I
fully believe that the American people are the most generous
people in the world, and they do the right thing when they
understand it. We just dedicated our building to Harry Truman,
and he had ultimate faith in the American people, and I know
you do, too.
I also have the greatest faith in the people who help us
represent America. They are fine people who work very hard
within a very, very difficult context. They do not have the
money that we need to carry out our programs. Our buildings are
not as secure as they should be. As I have said, there is a
great deal of compassion for the American military, and I have
it for them also. I have the highest respect for the American
military, but I want our diplomats to be seen in the same way.
They serve America in very dangerous places, and they sacrifice
their lives and they are very, very good people. I need your
help in getting our nominees out to their posts so we are
properly represented around the world.
And to say finally, I am very grateful to you and Senator
Biden for all the time we have spent on the phone and here in
various meetings. You have been great partners, and I hope it
is not all over yet. We have a lot more to do, and I am not
going too far away. I will be always very pleased to appear
before this committee in whatever role I am in.
Thank you.
The Chairman. May I ask Senator Biden, is it in order if
all of us give her a hand?
[Applause.]
Secretary Albright. Thanks a lot. Thank you.
The Chairman. I do not believe that has ever been done
before.
Secretary Albright. I believe not.
Senator Biden. Surely no Secretary of State has ever
curtsied before.
The Chairman. Well, it has been our pleasure, and we have
got some weeks ahead, and we will be on the telephone and so
forth. But thank you for being a great friend, and a great
servant of the American people.
If there be no further business to come before the
committee, we stand in recess.
[Whereupon, the committee recessed.]
----------
Statement Submitted for the Record
Prepared Statement of Senator Russell D. Feingold
I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and to thank
Secretary Albright for being here today.
I regret that I am unable to stay at the hearing in order to ask
questions today. An objection has been made to committee meetings past
11:30 a.m., and I respect the right of my colleagues to use all
procedural tools at their disposal. I respect the rules of the Senate,
but I also respect the motive for this particular objection--the need
to respond to the refusal of the majority to allow action on the
nominations of several excellent judicial nominees who have been denied
a vote and an opportunity to be confirmed.
Secretary Albright, your tenure as Ambassador to the United
Nations, and then as Secretary of State, has coincided exactly with my
tenure as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Both of your
confirmation hearings, your subsequent excellent performance, and the
strong relationship that you have forged with the committee are among
my fondest and most satisfying memories of this committee's work.
This hearing is an ambitious one. The committee intends to examine
an eight-year record of policy toward the entire world. No doubt
members' questions will take us into the weeds of specific decisions
relating to individual countries. But I would like to take this
opportunity to make a few general remarks about the big picture--the
course of American foreign policy since I joined the Senate in 1993.
America has borne, and will continue to bear, great responsibility
as the world's sole superpower. This country, more than any other, can
affect the course of this new century, and already has affected the
shape the ``post-Cold War era'' that we examine today.
History teaches us that great powers often become the enemies of
progress, because they perceive their interests to lie in maintaining
the status quo. Great powers tend to enforce and maintain the
international order from which they profit and draw strength. I believe
that the challenge before this Administration, and before American
foreign policy in general, is one of balancing this imperative for
order and stability with another imperative, drawn from our national
character and national values, to seek justice and respect for the
basic rights of men and women around the world. History has also taught
us that order without justice will eventually rot from within. In our
own lifetimes, we have seen empires and orders crumble--from the
independence movements of the 1960s to the collapse of the Soviet
Union--because they could not contain the pressure within for greater
justice, for human rights, and for liberty. When this country has
supported corrupt orders and turned a blind eye to injustice, we have
only undermined our own interests, and betrayed our own values, in the
end.
The pursuit of a balance between justice and order, then, has been
the fundamental task before this Administration. I fear that the
Administration has sometimes been distracted from this pursuit. For
example, I have been distressed by a tendency to segregate human rights
issues from other items on the foreign policy agenda. I believe that we
must not ``de-link'' human rights from trade or security issues. We
must raise human rights consistently at the highest levels, in
bilateral talks and in multilateral fora. I believe that that the
Administration's critics are right when they insist that labor rights
should be raised in the context of global trade negotiations. I fear
that our China policy will suffer from the recent push to end the
annual Congressional review of China's human rights record. And I
believe that the influence of money in politics goes a long way toward
explaining some of this deviation from our core foreign policy goal.
That said, this Administration has shown remarkable vigor in
embracing new democracies around the globe. State accountability to
citizens and the rule of law are two of the strongest bulwarks against
oppression, and this Administration has admirably worked to increase
the number of genuine democracies in the international community. The
Administration has made progress in the Middle East, forged important
new relationships in Europe, and has engaged the countries of Africa at
higher levels than ever before. Most recently, the Administration has
devoted significant resources and high-level attention to the terrible
the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the crippling debt crisis, recognizing the
impossibility of maintaining order or justice in a world in which
poverty is a death sentence.
There is much to applaud, and much more to be done. If I had been
able to stay and ask questions, I would have touched on a number of
these unresolved and critically important issues. For example, this
past weekend, the Indonesian army has begun to confiscate weapons from
militia groups in West Timor. How credible that effort is remains to be
seen. I would have liked an opportunity to explore what the
Administration plans to do if the latest Indonesian effort does not
prove to be significant, and particularly to learn whether the
Administration willing to delay the October's international donors'
meeting for Indonesia if there is no progress on this issue.
Turning to Africa, where so many urgent needs go unmet and so many
critically important issues remain unresolved, I would have explored
the Administration's plans for monitoring the West African troops that
the U.S. is currently training for participation in UNAMSIL. Certainly
some these troops are likely to see very ugly combat; the RUF has
proven its willingness to test international forces time and again.
However, there are lines that should not be crossed, even in serious
combat situations. I hope that the Administration plans to monitor the
human rights performance of the troops we train, and to monitor the
involvement of U.S.-trained troops in illicit diamond smuggling, an
accusation recently leveled at Nigerian troops in Sierra Leone.
In addition, the war in DRC continues to exact a terrible human
cost, and the status of the Lusaka agreement remains uncertain. The DRC
conflict is very much the outcome of central Africa's recent history,
and is inextricably linked to the crises in Rwanda and Burundi, crises
which this Administration has seen unfold over its tenure. Many
observers believe that the conflict cannot be resolved as long as there
is no accountability for crimes against humanity in the region--and
therefore no imperative to distinguish between legitimate and
illegitimate activities. I hope that the Administration is working to
address the need for accountability in Congo and Burundi.
Finally, turning to a major, unresolved issue to which this
Administration admirably devoted a great deal of time and energy, I am
interested in the status of the Middle East peace process, and in the
status of Syria's position towards Israel.
My own questions and interests bear out the Secretary's opening
remarks. There is much yet to be done, and the world does not stand
still for American elections. I hope that the Administration will
continue to work toward peace and justice in the months ahead, and I
trust that Secretary Albright will continue to insist that U.S. foreign
policy reflects U.S. values throughout the remaining days of the
Administration.
----------
Additional Questions to Secretary Albright Submitted for the Record
Responses of Hon. Madeleine K. Albright to Additional Questions for the
Record Submitted by Senator Jesse Helms
EMBASSY TEMPORARY SANCTUARY
Question. In your remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee concerning the two Cuban defectors in Zimbabwe, you indicated
that American Embassies cannot provide emergency protection for
citizens of allied or enslaved states who, like the two Cuban doctors,
come to our embassies in hostile third states to seek temporary
sanctuary owing to an imminent danger of some kind.
There are well known instances in the recent past of Western
embassies providing sanctuary or other assistance to American officials
or travelers during emergencies in third countries. One such instance
reportedly occurred in 1978 when Iranian revolutionaries attacked and
seized the American Embassy in Tehran, and the Canadian Embassy
assisted a number of our citizens in their efforts to escape from Iran.
Your answer to the Committee sent a clear message to friendly
nations and peoples around the world, namely, that they may no longer
count on the American embassy for such extraordinary temporary
assistance when their officials or citizens are in distress. Logically,
American officials and travelers could pay a corresponding price.
Is this the message which you intended to convey?
Answer. That is not the message I intended to convey. Our
diplomatic and consular posts throughout the world have been instructed
that, subject to the paramount importance of the safety and security of
the mission and its personnel, temporary refuge may be provided to
individuals of any nationality in extraordinary circumstances of
imminent physical danger or imminent danger of involuntary repatriation
to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution. As
discussed in response to the second part of your question, it was the
correct judgment of our embassy in Zimbabwe (as well as the Canadian
Embassy), based on the evidence and information available at the time,
that such extraordinary circumstances were not present when the two
Cuban doctors initially approached the embassy and were properly
referred to the local Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR). In any case where asylum seekers or those
claiming refugee status walk into a U.S. diplomatic or consular post,
the assistance that can be provided is constrained by many practical
realities, including the general need to respect host country law and
the ultimate dependence of the mission and its personnel on host
government authorities for safety and security. In the Department's
experience, such cases are normally best handled by local authorities
and/or UNHCR. Moreover, publicity can be counterproductive, as was the
case in Zimbabwe. With regard to the assertion that friendly nations
and Peoples around the world might no longer be able to ``count on''
the local American embassy, I would note that the record shows just the
opposite has been true for many years. In case after case where
noncombatant evacuations have been necessary, it has been the American
embassy that has organized the friendly diplomatic and civilian
communities so that the evacuation can be carried out (normally by the
U.S. military).
Question. It is our understanding that two Cuban doctors were
turned away from our embassy in Harare recently because the State
Department did not consider them to be in imminent danger which turned
out to be a gravely mistaken judgement. In light of the extraordinary
efforts of the Castro regime to recapture these doctors, as well as
Castro's predictable response to the spate of defections by Cubans on
other humanitarian missions, what steps will you take to alert American
embassies to take special care in ensuring the security of Cubans
seeking asylum?
Finally, please provide the Legal Adviser's explanation of the
premise that the United States embassy in Harare was completely
powerless to provide any assistance whatsoever to these defectors, and
had no alternative to approaching the UNHCR.
Answer. As indicated in response to the first question, the
guidance received by our diplomatic and consular posts concerning the
handling of such cases is not based on nationality but is the same for
all individuals without regard to nationality. And the test for
temporary refuge is the same for all: are they in imminent physical
danger or in imminent danger of involuntary repatriation to a country
where they have a well-founded fear of persecution? Whether or not
temporary refuge is given, an eventual status determination by the host
government (if appropriate or in imminent danger of involuntary
repatriation to a country where they have a well-founded fear of
persecution? Whether or not temporary refuge is given, an eventual
status determination by the host government (if appropriate refugee
screening procedures are in place), or otherwise by UNHCR, is the way
to determine if the individuals concerned are in fact refugees.
My statement was not intended to leave the impression that our
embassy in Harare was ``completely powerless'' to provide assistance to
the two Cubans or that there was ``no alternative'' to approaching
UNHCR. There are substantial practical limitations on the nature and
extent of the assistance we can give, particularly in a difficult
environment such as Zimbabwe in this case. Moreover, in the absence of
imminent danger to the two Cubans, there was no good alternative to
approaching UNHCR (or referring the Cubans to UNHCR) and that doing so
was fully consistent with the standing instructions given Embassy
Harare and all other U.S. diplomatic and consular Posts. We are pleased
that UNHCR's intervention with the Government of Zimbabwe was
ultimately successful and that the two Cuban doctors were allowed to
depart safely for Sweden. As you know, they were subsequently approved
by INS for admission to the United States.
STATE DEPARTMENT RETIREES
Question. Why has the State Department decided to bar Foreign
Service and Civil Service retirees from Main State and the Annexes
unless they obtain escorts? Please list all security incidents
involving retirees. Does the State Department issue renewable
identification cards to its Foreign Service and Civil Service retirees?
How does the State Department's new policy on escorts for retirees
compare with Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency
policies for their retirees? May former Presidents or Secretaries of
State enter Main State or the Annexes at will, and without an escort?
Answer. In response to several well-publicized and unacceptable
security incidents at the Department including the bugging of a seventh
floor conference room and a missing lap-top possessing highly
classified material, a top down review of security procedures in place
at the Main State Department building was conducted. Following this
review, a stricter visitor policy to the building was put in place
wherein all visitors must be escorted while in the building. On
September 1, 2000, this policy was extended to include State Department
retirees.
The purpose of this policy was never to prohibit retirees from
entering the building but was instituted in an effort to only allow
unescorted access inside the building to individuals who have active
employment status or activities within the Department. Retirees are
welcome to visit the State Department albeit with an escort from the
office they are visiting.
The Department's records of security incidents involving the
possible compromise of classified information do not reflect the
employment status of the violator. Therefore we cannot conduct such a
search of our records. However, by definition retirees are no longer
employees of the U.S. Government and the Department would not issue a
security incident to retirees as it would to active employees. Retirees
fall into the same category as uncleared Americans visiting our
facilities. Although retirees may have held security clearances in the
past upon separation with the U.S. Government any security clearances
they may have once held are withdrawn. Allow me to reiterate that the
recent tightening of our visitor policy was not focused on any
incidents involving retirees but rather it was an attempt to adopt a
stricter, more uniform access control policy.
The Department continues to issue renewable photo retirement cards,
which identify the holder as a former Foreign Service Officer or Civil
Service employee. Before September 1, 2000, this card allowed the
bearer unescorted access inside the building. Although this
identification card continues to be issued by the Bureau of Human
Resources Office of Retirement, the card may no longer be utilized for
unescorted access within the Department's facilities.
All intelligence community agencies have retiree escort
requirements. The Department of Defense's policy for the Pentagon is
similar to the Department's policy as it requires retirees to be
escorted. Limiting unescorted access to individuals who have an active
employment status or activities with the Department is a reasonable
measure in line with access control policies in most similar
institutions.
Former Presidents or Secretaries of State would not be allowed
access to Department facilities without an escort, but the issue is a
moot one as these individuals would receive an escort as a matter of
protocol.
CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS
Question. Now that both houses of Congress have voted for PNTR for
China, how will the Administration exert effective pressure for human
rights improvements?
Answer. We believe principled, purposeful engagement with China on
human rights is the most effective way to influence China's human
rights practices over the long term.
Our long-standing policy combines vigorous external focus on the
human rights situation in China with support for internal reform trends
and continued economic development. Our strategy will not change post-
PNTR. We will continue to tell it as it is.
Our annual Human Rights Report in February documented the marked
deterioration of the human rights situation in China throughout 1999,
highlighting the sharp limits the government sets on how much freedom
it will tolerate and its failure to protect freedom of association,
assembly, expression, religion and conscience.
Our second annual Report on International Religious Freedom this
September spotlighted persecution of persons in China for peacefully
practicing religious or spiritual beliefs. The report was the basis for
the decision to continue the designation of China as a country of
particular concern for violations of religious freedom.
We also press this issue multilaterally. Last spring, we sponsored
a UN Commission on Human Rights resolution on human rights abuses in
China. Although China's ``no-action'' motion blocked passage of our
resolution, we focused international attention on this important issue.
In our bilateral contacts with Chinese leaders, we have urged
repeatedly, led by the President's personal initiatives, that China
live up to its international commitments to respect fundamental
freedoms.
We are committed to continuing to press the Chinese government to
meet its international obligations to respect fundamental human rights.
CHINA EXECUTIVE-CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION
Question. Would you favor beefing up the role of the new Executive-
Congressional Commission on China by posting staff for commission in
Beijing and Lhasa, and seeing a debate each year in Congress on the
commission's report and recommendations?
Answer. The Executive-Congressional Commission on China provides a
valuable forum for research, discussion, and analysis of the human
rights situation in China. We look forward to cooperating with the
Commission.
We do not believe it is appropriate for the Commission to post its
personnel in China.
As the Commission conducts its review function, it will have access
to the reporting from our Embassy and Consulates in China. We look
forward to working with the Commission to ensure we provide the
information the Commission needs.
Of course, we always welcome a constructive debate in Congress, but
believe that pursuing such a debate is a question for the Congress to
decide.
CHINA: U.S.-CHINA LABOR DIALOGUE
Question. Will Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman go to China this
fall to press for respect for workers' rights? She was invited by the
Chinese to visit last year, and though USTR and Commerce have sent high
level delegations on trade issues, Labor has yet to engage Beijing on
serious violations of worker rights.
Answer. The Administration remains deeply concerned about
violations of worker rights in China. Pursuant to a 1998 agreement that
established a bilateral labor dialogue with China, Secretary Herman
hosted Zhang Zuoji, China's Minister of Labor and Social Security, for
meetings in Washington in March 1999. As part of those meetings, the
issues of worker rights and compliance with fundamental principles of
the International Labor Organization were discussed at length.
Secretary Herman asked that Minister Zhang take steps to comply with
findings of the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association, including
the release of prisoners that the ILO has determined appear to be
incarcerated in China for legitimate trade union activities.
In addition, the Deputy Under Secretary of Labor, the head of the
U.S. delegation to the ILO Governing Body meetings, has repeatedly
spoken in support of the adoption of the findings and recommendations
in ILO cases that relate to incarcerations of labor leaders and the
inconsistency in the law and practice in China with regard to ILO norms
on basic labor rights. The Deputy Under Secretary also visited China
last year to continue discussions on the labor dialogue on issues
related to core labor standards.
The originally scheduled dates for Secretary Herman's visit to
China were postponed by the Chinese. Secretary Herman continues to have
under consideration the current invitation from the Chinese for such a
visit, and she continues to give high priority to such a visit,
particularly in light of the new labor elements contained in the PNTR
legislation approved by the Congress.
BURMA
Question. On July 19 the U.S. Senate passed a resolution, which
calls for sustaining current economic and political sanctions against
Burma. It also calls for the U.S. to seek multilateral support of the
U.S. sanctions policy. Please inform the committee of efforts made by
the State Department to garner concrete measures from our allies in
Asia and Europe to help the Burmese people.
Answer. We have worked hard to garner strong multilateral support
for our sanctions policy. The European Union has joined us in
implementing a variety of sanctions on the Burmese military government
including suspending the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP),
instituting an arms embargo, limiting official government-to-government
assistance to humanitarian aid only, and banning the issuance of visas
to high-level military officers and government officials. Switzerland
recently moved to freeze the assets of Burmese military officers. Japan
has suspended the bulk of its Official Development Assistance (ODA)
program. We are also working with key allies and like-minded countries
in the ILO to secure the unprecedented application of Article 33
sanctions against the Burmese regime in response to its forced labor
practices. Application of Article 33 entails an ILO recommendation that
all ILO members review their political and economic relationship with
Burma and pursue relevant sanctions as appropriate.
WEST TIMOR AND INDONESIA
Question 1. This past weekend, the Indonesian army has begun to
confiscate weapons from militia groups on the West Timor/East Timor
border, but has the effort been significant or mainly for public
relations effect?
Answer. We have made clear to the Indonesian government that
failure to take decisive action to disarm the militias could harm
Jakarta's relations with the U.S. and the rest of the International
Community. The militias remain a threat to peace and security in the
East Timor/West Timor border region and they must be disarmed to
eliminate the threat to public order and safety.
Indonesia has invited the UN Security Council to send a delegation
to Indonesia to review progress in the implementation of UNSCR 1272
(1999) and 1319 (2000).
Indonesia's plan for dealing with the militias called for a period
of voluntary arms surrender to be followed by weapons seizures. We note
that after the short period of voluntary surrender of arms, the
government has moved to an interim phase it calls ``persuasion,'' and
it is conducting sweeps to look for weapons. The Indonesian government
has indicated that 81 standard automatic weapons, 1,140 homemade
weapons, 69 grenades and 8,111 rounds of ammunition have been
surrendered. Estimates of the number of weapons still in militia
possession vary, but it is clear the process of confiscating weapons is
far from complete. We have repeatedly urged the government to continue
and intensify their activity until the militias are effectively
disarmed and arrest militia leaders suspected of crimes and human
rights abuses. We also expect the government will take steps to disband
the militias, as called for by the Security Council. To date, the
government has taken few steps to meet this requirement.
Question 2. Has there been any serious effort made by the
Indonesian authorities to arrest Eurico Guterres and other militia
leaders, either for their role in East Timor last year or on illegal
weapons charges?
Answer. The Indonesian police arrested Eurico Guterres on October 4
on charges of illegal weapons possession and for inciting his followers
to reclaim weapons handed over to the Indonesian authorities in West
Timor on September 24. We welcome his arrest as a first step in ending
militia violence in East and West Timor and hope the Indonesian
authorities will conduct a thorough investigation into his activities.
This investigation must include his possible involvement in the Atambua
attack on September 6 in which three UNHCR workers--including a U.S.
citizen--were brutally murdered. This investigation must also include
his alleged involvement in atrocities committed in East Timor following
the independence referendum in August 1999, for which the Indonesian
Attorney General's office has named him as a suspect. We will closely
follow the Indonesian investigation of Eurico Guterres, and we look for
additional investigations of militia leaders.
Question 3. What arrangement, if any, has been made for the
repatriation of refugees wishing to return to East Timor? What needs to
be done to create the necessary safe conditions for the return of UNHCR
and other relief workers?
Answer. Spontaneous, small-scale repatriation to East Timor of
refugees continues despite the evacuation of almost all expatriate
relief workers. Returnees make their own way to the border where they
are received and assisted by the UN. More organized, larger-scale
repatriation will require security in West Timor so that refugees are
free to choose to go to East Timor and so that relief agencies can be
present to assist with the movements.
The Government of Indonesia has initiated an effort to confiscate
weapons belonging to militias operating in West Timor but to date the
effort has been insufficient to ensure security and the GOI has not
established a deadline for this task to be completed. It is crucial
that disarmament and disbanding of militia succeed in order to allow
refugees in West Timor the opportunity to decide in peace where they
wish to settle, and to bring peace to the citizens of West Timor. In
addition, UNHCR workers will not be able to return to assist until
their security is assured.
The United States government has contributed over $75 million in
humanitarian assistance for victims of the conflict, including refugees
in West Timor, since the crisis in the territory began in September
1999. An additional $25 million has been provided by the United States
government for employment generation and economic support efforts in
East Timor over the last fiscal year.
Question 4. Does the U.S. support the formation of an independent
fact finding team to investigate who was responsible for the murder of
UN workers, local villagers and a militia leader on September 5th and
6th as the Indonesian Human Rights Commission has recommended?
Answer. We place great importance on a thorough investigation of
the circumstances surrounding the terrible murders of UNHCR workers and
Timorese residents in Atambua on September 5th and 6th. We strongly
support UN Security Council Resolution 1319, which calls for the
Indonesian government to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to
justice. The Indonesian government has pledged to comply with the terms
of Resolution 1319. We have repeatedly urged Indonesia's leaders to
fulfill this commitment and pursue their investigation in a vigorous,
expeditious, and credible fashion--emphasizing the need for concrete
results rather than rhetoric. We welcome the planned Security Council
mission to Indonesian--including West Timor--scheduled for November,
which will review Indonesian progress in complying with Resolution
1319. We will continue to follow closely the progress of the Indonesian
investigation, which has led to the arrest of seven suspects to date.
While we support a credible Indonesian investigation as the best way of
proceeding, we will have to consider an international mechanism if the
Indonesian-led process does not prove to be credible.
Question 5. Is the Administration engaged in discussions with other
donors and the World Bank on how best to use the international donor
meeting for Indonesia in Tokyo, Oct. 18-19, to press for concrete
progress to end human rights abuses in West Timor, Aceh, the Moluccas,
and elsewhere? Will the U.S., along with the EU. and others, try to
delay the meeting if the crisis on the West Timor border is not
satisfactorily resolved?
Answer. The USG has led efforts among major donors to discuss ways
in which the Consultative Group for Indonesia (CGI) can be used as a
forum to express the grave concerns of the international community
regarding the need for Indonesia to make real progress in implementing
USCR 1319 and resolving the problems in West Timor. We have been
successful in coordinating our CGI statements with those of most other
major donors to emphasize that continued economic support for Indonesia
will depend in part on progress in resolving the country's problems in
its provinces. The USG determined that this coordinated action at the
CGI was more practicable and acceptable to other donors than attempting
to delay the CGI.
CAMBODIA: KHMER ROUGE TRIBUNAL
Question. The negotiations between the UN and Cambodia over
creating a tribunal to bring Khmer Rouge leaders to justice appear to
be at a standstill. What can the U.S. do to help jumpstart the process,
while not compromising on the highest possible international standards
for conducting such trials? Do you expect the UN and the Cambodian
government to sign an MOU this year?
Answer. In April of this year, the UN and the Royal Government of
Cambodia (RGC) agreed in principle on the conditions necessary to
create Extraordinary Chambers of the Cambodian Court to try former
senior Khmer Rouge leaders for crimes committed during their regime
(1975-1979). In July, both sides reaffirmed their intention to create
and conduct such Extraordinary Chambers.
The next step will be for the Cambodian National Assembly to debate
and pass a law implementing the Extraordinary Chambers and permitting
international participation in the Cambodian Court for the purpose of
bringing former senior Khmer Rouge leaders to justice. We understand
that the legislative committee of the National Assembly has begun the
necessary first step of reviewing the articles of the draft law with
representatives of the Royal Government of Cambodia. The committee must
finish reviewing the legislation, then present it to the National
Assembly at large. Once the legislation has been passed, the UN and the
RGC will be able to sign a formal MOU.
Our Ambassador in Phnom Penh has been discussing the timetable for
possible presentation of the legislation to the National Assembly with
the highest levels of the Cambodian government. The RGC has assured us
that consideration of the draft legislation will resume as soon as
possible, given delays caused by recent massive flooding in Cambodia.
We have consistently urged the RGC to move forward as quickly as
possible on this matter, and will continue to do so at every
opportunity.
CAMBODIA: DEMOBILIZATION OF MILITARY
Question. Reintegration of factional armies into the Royal
Cambodian Armed forces, and demobilization of Cambodia's bloated
military, is now a priority. The U.S. is one of the funders of
Cambodia's demobilization program. What steps can be taken to insure
that military enrollment does not increase with either real or phantom
troops as the demobilization program is implemented, that weapons are
actually confiscated, and that elite forces in Phnom Penh--as well as
provincial forces and commune-level militia--are included in the
demobilization program?
Answer. The U.S. provides no assistance to Cambodia for the
demobilization effort, although the World Bank, to which the U.S.
contributes, will provide funding. The demobilization process for the
Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF) serves a twofold purpose:
demilitarization of armed forces which have swelled from thirty years
of war and civil strife, and reshaping the national budget to allocate
more resources to social needs. Demobilization remains a crucial
condition for broader and continued international financial aid and
loans.
A pilot program conducted earlier this year by the RGC demobilized
1,500 soldiers, and was undertaken to help assess the costs of
conducting larger-scale demobilization and to determine an equitable
level of compensation to be allotted to each demobilized soldier. The
pilot program has two components, (1) immediate demobilization of
soldiers with one year's compensation, and confiscation of arms, and
(2) provision of training and development of infrastructure to provide
sustainable income to the demobilized. The crucial second phase has not
yet occurred due to delayed funding from donors. The RGC has said it
will not proceed with the full demobilization until the pilot program
is complete.
The RCAF has completed a computerized registration of all soldiers
and has produced numerical targets for demobilization based on this
accounting. Currently there is no recruitment into the RCAF and donors
will closely monitor the demobilization effort and military budget.
Elite forces (e.g., body guard and special forces units) are not
targeted for demobilization under the demobilization program, nor are
provincial militias, which fall under the authority of the Ministry of
Interior, rather than the RCAF. We will continue to press the RGC to
proceed with a separate demobilization of militia and police.
VIETNAM--RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Question. The Communist Government in Vietnam continues to ban
independent religious activities and repress religious practitioners
who want to exercise their freedom of religion. Mr. Truong Van Thuc, a
Hoa Hao Buddhist, will be tried today along with: Nguyen Chau Lang,
Tran Van Be Cao, and Tran Nguyen Huon for crimes described as defaming
the government and abusing democracy.
Madam Secretary, how will you and others in the Administration
initiate strong and immediate intervention with the Government of
Vietnam on behalf of the above Hoa Hao Buddhists and urge their early
release from prison?
Answer. The State Department deplores all restrictions on religious
freedom. Department officials, along with our Embassy in Hanoi and our
Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City, frankly and frequently express to the
Vietnamese Government our concerns about religious freedom. During my
September 21 meeting with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nien, I pressed
the issue of Vietnamese Government harassment of religious adherents
who do not belong to officially-recognized religious organizations.
Former Ambassador for International Religious Freedom Seiple discussed
this issue at length with the Vietnamese during the last meeting of our
Human Rights Dialogue. Ambassador Peterson regularly raises these
issues at the highest levels of the government in Hanoi. While
immediate results may not be apparent, our engagement with the
Vietnamese Government on this issue has contributed to the release of
some persons who have been detained for religious practices. We will
continue to monitor religious freedom in Vietnam, and to urge that the
Vietnamese Government respect the basic right to freedom of religion.
VIETNAM--HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP
Question. How will President Clinton's upcoming visit to Vietnam be
used to promote significant improvements in human rights and ensure
that Vietnam's progress in political reform keeps pace with economic
change?
Answer. President Clinton's upcoming visit to Vietnam will promote
U.S. policy goals as part of a strategy of engagement with Vietnam. The
President will use his meetings with Vietnam's leaders to press for the
fullest possible accounting for American POW/MIAs, freedom of
emigration, and respect for human rights and religious freedom. He will
also encourage them to continue with economic reform, to provide
increased opportunities to U.S. business, and to contribute
constructively to Asian regional stability.
VIETNAM--PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Question. What will President Clinton do both prior to and during
his visit to press for significant, realistic and tangible progress in
human rights, specifically in tenns of addressing the harassment and
silencing of government critics and restrictions on basic rights of
free expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and
freedom of the press?
Answer. As the State Department's annual human rights reports make
clear, this Administration is well aware that Vietnam has a long way to
go to meet international standards of respect for human rights. While
the White House is the most appropriate source for information about
the President's specific actions and activities, I fully expect that
the President will use his meetings with Vietnam's leaders to
underscore our concerns about Vietnam's performance in the realm of
human rights.
U.S.-VIETNAM HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE
Question. How can the U.S. beef up its bilateral human rights
``dialogue'' meetings with Vietnam, which since 1994 have led to little
or no substantial progress beyond providing a forum for exchange and
discussion?
Answer. The annual Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam, which began
in 1992, has become increasingly frank and substantive. These exchanges
have served as a vehicle for demonstrating to Vietnam that the
recognition of international human rights principles is a cornerstone
of U.S. foreign policy. While progress may be slow in coming, we are
convinced that, over time, Vietnam will see that its interests will be
best served by adhering to international standards of respect for human
rights.
VIETNAM--PRESIDENTIAL TRIP THEMES
Question. Does the President intend to apologize to Vietnam for our
involvement in the Vietnam War?
Answer. While the White House is the most appropriate source for
information about the President's specific actions and activities, we
do not expect the President to apologize to Vietnam for the United
States role in Vietnam.
MALAYSIA: IMPRISONMENT OF ANWAR IBRAHIM
Question. Does the State Department still oppose the imprisonment
of Dato Seri Anwar? Are efforts being made to bring up the treatment of
Dato Seri Anwar and other Malaysian political prisoners in bilateral
discussion? Will you instruct our Ambassador to Malaysia to do
everything possible to pressure the Malaysian government to release
Dato Seri Anwar?
Answer. We have repeatedly stated our concerns about Anwar
Ibrahim's situation, and have joined others in openly questioning, on
many occasions, the fairness of his treatment. We have made our
concerns about Anwar and other Malaysian human rights issues known to
the government of Malaysia, and will continue to do so. The strong
views we conveyed to the Malaysian government have been reflected as
well in many public statements about this matter.
Our statements have cited concerns about his detention under
Malaysia's Internal Security Act and his treatment in prison. We have
publicly criticized questionable aspects of his initial trial. On the
conclusion of his most recent trial in early August on a second set of
charges, our spokesman issued statement expressing our further outrage
over this new conviction and the heavy sentences meted out to Anwar and
his adopted brother Sukma. The statement also highlighted our concerns
over the many questionable legal procedures that arose during Anwar's
trial.
The U.S. Government considers Anwar to be a political prisoner and
has identified him as such in the Department's Human Rights Report.
MALAYSIA: DOING BUSINESS IN MALAYSIA
Question. What is the State Department doing to ensure the safety
of U.S. citizens doing business in Malaysia; and is the State
Department currently warning Americans who wish to do business in
Malaysia about the arbitrary nature of that country's judicial system?
Answer. The Department of State's annual human rights report notes
that ``Since 1988, Government action, constitutional amendments,
legislation restricting judicial review, and other factors have eroded
judtcial independence and have strengthened executive influence over
the judiciary.'' The American business community in Malaysia, of
course, is well aware of the situation with regard to the Malaysian
judiciary.
However, we have had no report of improper judicial actions against
American investors. The American Embassy works closely with the
American Chamber of Commerce in Malaysia and its members and regularly
briefs visiting American business executives. In discussions with
American firms and individuals considering investments in Malaysia and
other foreign countries, as a matter of course we urge them to review
carefully all available and pertinent information on their possible
investment destinations. We will continue to do so.
CHINA PROLIFERATION SANCTIONS, JAPAN WHALING SANCTIONS
Question. On September 13, the Clinton-Gore Administration helped
defeat a Senate amendment that would have provided for sanctions
against China for its proliferation activities around the world. On
that very day, the Administration announced that it was initiating
sanctions against Japan because Japan had resumed whaling.
So here we have the Clinton-Gore Administration refusing to
sanction an adversarial nation, China, over a critical national
security threat--nuclear proliferation, while simultaneously
sanctioning a treaty ally, Japan, over a manifestly trivial issue--
whaling.
Why should this not be viewed as an example of misplaced foreign
policy priorities?
Answer. Nonproliferation is one of the most important issues for
this Administration and is a key component in our relationship with
China. As has been pointed out many times, we have serious concerns
about the missile- and weapons of mass destruction-related export
activities of Chinese entities. We have sanctioned Chinese entities
before (1991, 1993, and 1997) for proliferation-related activities, and
we will do so again if warranted.
The question is not one of commitment, therefore, but of results.
We continue to believe that our current approach is the most effective
way to make progress with China in the nonproliferation area. Our 1997
agreement on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the accompanying
strengthening of China's nuclear related export control regime is a
case in point. We will not relent in our efforts to bring China's
policies and practices in line with international norms.
As for the response to the expanded Japanese whaling program, the
Administration does not consider this a trivial matter. Despite
international protection, Japan expanded its North Pacific lethal
``scientific'' whaling program to include two endangered or threatened
species, the sperm and Brydes whales. Commerce Secretary Mineta
certified Japan under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective
Act of 1967, a law that requires the Secretary to notify the President
whenever the Secretary determines that a country is taking actions that
undermine the effectiveness of an international fishery conservation
program--in this case, that of the International Whaling Commission
(IWC). The certification triggers a process for the President to
consider trade measures against Japan and requires him to report to
Congress within sixty days on any action taken by him pursuant to the
certification. Our goal is an outcome that protects this threatened
resource and strengthens the effectiveness of the IWC.
HONG KONG
Question. Why did the Clinton-Gore Administration deem the recent
Hong Kong elections as ``free and fair,'' when more than 50 percent of
the seats in Hong Kong's legislature were not democratically chosen and
in fact were packed with people who are loyal to the Communist Chinese
government?
Answer. The Administration's assessment that Hong Kong's elections
were ``free and fair'' referred to the conduct of the electoral
process. Most observers, including democratic parties and civic
organizations, agree that the elections were widely contested and free
of fraud or malfeasance. Restrictions on campaign spending and
regulations requiring equal airtime were rigorously and fairly
enforced. The Administration recognizes that only 24 of the 60
Legislative Council seats are fully democratic, i.e., directly elected
by Hong Kong's people. We have never endorsed the British instituted
system of ``functional constituencies'' or the ``Election Committee''
by which the other 36 seats were elected by significantly smaller
numbers of voters. However, there have been no reports that any of
those ``closed circle'' elections were characterized by fraud.
In addition to commenting on constitutional limitations on the
power of the legislature, the State Department's press statement on the
elections also noted that Hong Kong's mini-constitution, the Basic Law,
states the election of all members of the legislative council by
universal suffrage is the ``ultimate aim.'' The United States continues
to push for increased democratization in Hong Kong at a pace the people
of Hong Kong want.
______
Responses of Hon. Madeleine K. Albright to Additional Questions for the
Record Submitted by Senator Gordon Smith
NATO ENLARGEMENT
Question 1. Are there any Central European states that are prepared
today to join the Alliance?
Answer. NATO has not made any decisions on extending invitations to
any of the nine self-designated aspirant countries--Albania, Bulgaria,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
At the April 1999 Washington Summit, NATO agreed to review this process
at its next summit, which will be held no later than 2002.
The Administration, however, strongly supports an Open Door policy
on NATO enlargement. President Clinton has stated: ``NATO's door is and
will remain open to every Partner nation, and America is determined to
create the conditions under which [aspirant countries] can one day walk
through that door.'' Under the Membership Action Plan, NATO with full
U.S. participation is working with the aspirants to help them become as
strong candidates as they possibly can.
The aspirant countries are fully engaged in the MAP process in
order to enhance their candidacies for eventual membership in the
Alliance.
Question 2. As you know, Madam Secretary, at the Washington Summit,
the Alliance committed to address the issue of NATO enlargement in
2002. What, specifically, is the Clinton Administration doing to
encourage our current Allies to be more supportive of NATO enlargement
in 2002?
Answer. We remain committed to establishing a Europe that is whole
and free, and--pursuant to that policy--NATO enlargement remains a high
priority. As NATO moves toward its next summit in 2002, the U.S. and
its Allies focus on the issue in both bilateral and multilateral
contexts. For example, via NATO's Membership Action Plan, Allies
regularly meet in a structured program and review the efforts of the
nine aspirant countries to improve their candidacies for membership.
Most recently, during their meeting in Florence in May, NATO's
foreign ministers reaffirmed the Alliance commitment to remain open to
new members. Also in May, all nine foreign ministers of aspirant
countries, meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, underscored their commitment
to taking the steps needed to fully implement their MAP programs.
NATO will remain seized with this issue. Throughout the next year
and into 2002 (the next summit is not yet scheduled but should take
place the first half of that year), Allies will continue to work with
aspirants via MAP. The U.S. will also continue to offer aspirants
advice in bilateral and regional contexts.
NATO
Question. How do you assess the performance of Poland, Hungary, and
the Czech Republic as new Allies?
Answer. NATO's three newest members--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic--are effectively integrating into the Alliance. All three are
fully engaged in NATO's Defense Planning Process and are committed to
providing the forces and resources that NATO is asking of them. The
three newest members can provide military forces to NATO's Reaction
Forces and are supporting operations in the Balkans.
The defense budgets for the three countries have increased for the
last three years and, despite domestic economic challenges, each has
committed to increase or maintain at year 2000 levels its defense
expenditures for 2001. The greatest challenge the three newest members
face is the same faced by all NATO members: a lack of sufficient
financial resources to implement all of their modernization programs
and NATO Force Goals.
They continue to reform, restructure and modernize their military
structures to make them more mobile and more interoperable with other
Allies' militaries. Particular emphasis is being placed on personnel
reform issues and on the replacement or modernization of obsolete
equipment.
The three new members engaged in Operation ALLIED FORCE and
supported NATO objectives. All three nations supported the air campaign
by offering or providing the use of their airfields for the basing of
NATO aircraft and troops and by allowing the transit of NATO forces
through their territory.
Further, all three nations provided financial assistance to
Albanian refugees, accepted or agreed to take Albanian refugees from
Kosovo, and deployed military forces and aircraft to Albania in support
of humanitarian operations. Currently, each nation has military forces
deployed in support of KFOR and SFOR.
The three new members, particularly the Czech Republic, gave
support to the democratic opposition in Serbia. Additionally, the three
new members are sharing their experiences in preparing for NATO
membership and providing invaluable assistance to those nations
aspiring to join the Alliance.
Overall--in a process that will take time to fully complete--I
believe we must be pleased with the record to date on the performance
of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as our newest NATO Allies.
EUROPE
Question 1. What impact do you expect the European Union's new
defense identity to have on the process of NATO enlargement? Is the EU
focussing more on this effort, than on the further inclusion of Central
European countries in the Alliance?
Answer. ESDI/P and NATO enlargement both figure prominently on the
transatlantic security agenda. Getting ESDI right means that the
Alliance will also be stronger. NATO has not made any decisions on
extending invitations to any of the nine self-designated aspirant
countries. At the April 1999 Washington Summit, NATO agreed that the
door remains open to new members and they committed to review the
enlargement process at the next Alliance summit, to be held no later
than 2002. The May 2000 Florence Ministerial reaffirmed this commitment
as NATO Allies continue to work with aspirants via the Alliance's
Membership Action Plan.
The EU has made a commitment to the further inclusion of new EU
members in order to establish a Europe that is whole and free. The U.S.
supports development of ESDI/P. The Open Door Policy on NATO
enlargement, a successful ESDI/P as part of an Alliance framework, and
integration of transitory democracies in Central Europe are mutually
reinforcing developments.
Question 2. Would the EU headline goal, if fulfilled, substantially
increase the ability of our European NATO members to better contribute
to a high-intensity NATO military operation, such as the NATO bombing
campaign in Serbia?
Answer. The EU Headline Goal aims to establish a rapid reaction EU
force, consisting of 50,000-60,000 soldiers, capable of undertaking a
range of crisis intervention missions--the so-called Petersburg tasks.
If successfully implemented, the resulting enhanced European
capabilities will benefit NATO as well as the EU. At the Feira Summit
in June, EU member states again reaffirmed that the Headline Goal and
NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative will be mutually reinforcing.
Successful implementation of ESDI/P and DCI would give the EU
member states in the Alliance the capabilities to carry a greater share
of the burden in possible peacekeeping operations. This is why we
support ESDI/P--it will address the transatlantic gap in capabilities
while ensuring that NATO as a whole will act when its interests are at
stake.
NATO/ICTY
Question. Did NATO's review of its conduct during Operation Allied
Force in response to the investigation by the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia set a legal precedent that gives the
Tribunal or any other international organization the right to
investigate NATO activities, including those involving U.S. personnel?
Answer. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former Yugoslavia's (ICTY) is set out in UN Security Council
Resolution 827 (1993). NATO responded voluntarily to questions from the
Prosecutor of ICTY, which were part of an informal internal inquiry by
ICTY and not a formal ``investigation.'' Voluntary cooperation, by its
nature, does not create a legal precedent. The United States policy is
to cooperate fully with the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor, whether
legally required to do so or not. We and ICTY consider this matter now
closed.
RUSSIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY
Question 1. What steps has the Administration taken during the past
year to indicate U.S. concerns about Russian Government interference in
the internal affairs of the Russian Jewish Community?
Answer. The Administration continues to make religious freedom in
Russia a priority. Freedom of religion and the rights of religious
communities to conduct their internal affairs is an essential part of
Russia's democratic transition.
We have conveyed to the Russian Government in our bilateral
meetings our concern that religious communities, including the Jewish
community, be free to conduct their internal affairs without government
interference. The President, Secretary and other USG officials have
discussed religious freedom during their meetings with senior Russian
officials. Our views have also been put forward in public statements
and reports which, we know, are followed closely by the Russian
Government.
Our Embassy maintains close contacts with all segments of the
Jewish community in Russia and meets regularly with Jewish leaders to
discuss this and other issues of importance to the community.
Question 2. How confident are you of the Russian Government's
commitment and ability to safeguard the rights of Russia's Jewish
community, as well as other religious and ethnic minorities?
Answer. President Putin recently made a strong statement in support
of the Russian Jewish community, noting the importance of religious
pluralism and respect for Russia's traditional religions.
There have been statements and other actions by the Russian
Government in recent weeks, however, that raise questions about the
Russian Government's attitudes toward the Jewish Community. For
example, on October 19, the police raided the Choral Synagogue 19.
Earlier this fall, an anti-Semitic article in the press was attributed
to a member of the Presidential Administration.
We have called on the Russian Government to disavow these acts. In
response, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that the
Russian Government is committed to protecting religious freedom.
The registration of religious groups and organizations required by
Russia's Law on Religion is proceeding at a faster pace but there is
some concern that all groups will not be registered by the December 31
deadline. Many of the earlier registration problems can be traced to
confusing registration procedures or to local officials who do not
understand the process. In some instances, however, local officials
have used the process to discriminate against minority religions. In
cases where the religious denomination has filed suit, the courts have
generally ruled in their favor.
We have urged Russian Government to do more to bring local
officials and regulations in line with federal law and to give
religious organizations every opportunity to register. Russian
Government officials have offered assurances that most all
registrations will be approved by the deadline. Potentially hundreds of
groups may not be, but it is our understanding based on conversations
with Russian Government officials that those groups not registered will
not automatically lose their juridical status. Authorities must seek a
court order before that status is withdrawn. This is a different
interpretation than what religious organizations were led to believe
earlier this year, and we hope that this is evidence that the
government wishes to be responsive to religious freedom concerns.
The Department and our embassy and consulates in Russia have
actively supported religious freedom, regularly meeting with government
and religious officials and investigating reports of violations of
religious freedom.
-