[Senate Hearing 107-300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-300
HOW DO WE PROMOTE DEMOCRATIZATION, POVERTY ALLEVIATION, AND HUMAN
RIGHTS TO BUILD A MORE SECURE FUTURE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2002
__________
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
77-983 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA BOXER, California LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
Virginia
Edwin K. Hall, Staff Director
Patricia A. McNerney, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Albright, Hon. Madeleine K., former Secretary of State; chairman,
National Democratic Institute, Washington, DC.................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator fron Delaware, prepared
statement...................................................... 2
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, prepared
statement...................................................... 22
Perle, Hon. Richard N., former Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security; resident fellow, American Enterprise
Institute, Washington, DC...................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 38
(iii)
HOW DO WE PROMOTE DEMOCRATIZATION, POVERTY ALLEVIATION, AND HUMAN
RIGHTS TO BUILD A MORE SECURE FUTURE?
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Biden,
Jr. (chairman of the committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Biden, Feingold, Bill Nelson, Helms,
Lugar, Chafee and Brownback.
The Chairman. The meeting will come to order. We thank our
witnesses for their indulgence in starting late. We had a very
important, very close vote--I don't know what the outcome even
was, but a close vote that was originally scheduled at 9:30,
which was pushed back until 10:05, and, even at that, got off
to a slow start. So we apologize to everyone for the late
start.
We have two very distinguished witnesses today, and we're
going to begin with the former Secretary of State and a good
friend of this committee's. I'll make a very brief statement
and then turn it over to Senator Helms and then Senator Lugar,
if he wishes to make a statement, and then we'll get on with
the business of the hearing.
In the past few hearings, we've looked at the strategic
nuclear framework, the war on terrorism, the spread of HIV/
AIDS. And this is a part of a series of hearings we're going to
be having in conjunction with Chairman Helms on securing the
future of America. Over the coming months, we'll examine the
threat of chemical, biological, and radiological terrorism and
consider what would be required to bring Iraq back into the
community of nations once Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
But today we want to explore some very difficult issues
regarding terrorism around the world. On September 11, all of
us asked, in one way or another, who would do such a thing, and
why could this possibly happen? Was it from some deep-seated
religious belief that caused this to happen? Was it a
consequence of a perversion of a view of Islam? What was the
cause?
And we hear people say the cause is poverty, the cause is
inhumanity, the cause is lack of democratization. Well, the
truth of the matter is--I may be the only one who thinks this,
but I don't think anyone knows for certain what the cause is,
and I don't think we've spent very much time trying to
determine what spawns this kind of terrorist activity?
And so what we want to do today is explore this matter,
with two very knowledgeable people. Our second witness will be
Richard Perle, a man well-known to all of us and extremely
well-regarded in foreign policy and defense circles. And I
would like to figure out whether or not there is any emerging
consensus on what is the source of the problem, because until
we figure that out, it's very hard to figure out a
prescription.
For example, there's an intense and excruciating poverty in
Brazil. Why are there not terrorist cells--or are there
terrorist cells we should worry about, coming out of Brazil.
Why does it happen in one part of the world and not another? Is
it because there is a democracy in Brazil? I just picked Brazil
off the top of my head as a country with extreme pockets of
poverty.
And so I find it difficult to reach an easy conclusion that
the cause of this terrorist activity, and particularly what
happened on September 11--these were middle and upper-middle
class, well-educated people who planned this undertaking and
were very successful.
We've already seen what poverty, instability, corruption
and repression can do in other countries around the world, but
is that the reason why this terrorism has become such an
endemic problem for the world and for the United States?
As the New York Times journalist, Tom Friedman, has
written, ``If you don't visit a bad neighborhood, it will visit
you.'' Well, should our major thrust be in dealing, not only
with the immediate effort of finishing the job with bin Laden
and with al-Qaeda, but what should we be doing beyond this?
I read this morning--and I'll cease with this--but USA
Today, today's edition, Wednesday, February 27, says, ``In a
poll, the Islamic world said Arabs not involved in 9-11.'' And
then it says, ``Attacks condemned, but some say justified.
Nine-nation results,'' and it gives them nation-by-nation in
this poll. I can't vouch for the poll. I assume it was done by
the Gallup organization.
It says Islamic view, ``Sixty-one percent of Muslims polled
say Arabs were not involved in the September 11 attack.''
Kuwait, the country that we saved--89 percent of the people in
Kuwait say, ``Arabs not involved.'' Pakistan, 86 percent.
Indonesia, 74. Iran, 59. Lebanon, 58. And Turkey, 43.
Why? Why? Why is this? And there's further breakdown. And
what do we, from a policy point of view, do about it?
I will ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my
statement be placed in the record, and I would now yield to
Senator Helms.
[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Good morning. Today continues our series of hearings on Securing
America's Future.
Past hearings have looked at the strategic nuclear framework, the
war on terrorism, and the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Over the coming months, we will examine the threat of chemical,
biological, and radiological terrorism, and consider what would be
required to bring Iraq back into the community of nations once Saddam
Hussein is removed from power.
But today we want to explore some difficult issues regarding
terrorism around the world.
On September 11, all of us asked, in one way or another, who would
do such a thing and why? Was it for a belief? Was it for a cause?
Was it for one man like Osama bin Laden or are the underlying
problems more systemic? Was it out of frustration or anger? How large a
role, respectively, do economic, social, and political circumstances
play in creating fertile grounds for terrorism? And what can and should
we do about it?
There's no doubt that the tragic events of September 11 were a
wake-up call.
September's terrorist attacks made us realize that the world is a
smaller, more intimately connected place than we once thought.
Our stunning preliminary success in Afghanistan has put the world
on notice that we can and will do what it takes to defend our country.
But, we know that our military alone cannot guarantee our security.
Addressing the terrorist threat will require close international
cooperation between diplomats, police and intelligence officers, and
customs and immigration officials.
It will require that we work on all of these levels to track down
and destroy terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.
And it will require a deeper understanding of the effects of
religious extremism, grinding poverty, and oppressive governments on
America's national security.
Everyone agrees nothing can ever justify brutal terrorist acts. Nor
are efforts to address these conditions a magic bullet that will
eliminate terrorism.
But until we better understand what drives an otherwise
intelligent, often middle-class young man to pilot a commercial
aircraft into a skyscraper--whether it's religious intolerance taken to
its extreme, or exacerbated by abject poverty, or by theological
teachings, or by a combination of social, political, cultural, economic
conditions and religious values gone amok--we will not know what the
magic bullet is.
It is clear that we cannot ignore the plight of the world's
disaffected. If we do, we do it at our own peril.
We have already seen what poverty, instability, corruption, and
repression can do in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan, and
how conditions in such places can threaten America's national security.
As New York Times journalist Tom Friedman has written, ``if you
don't visit a bad neighborhood, it will visit you.''
But the question for us today is this: What exactly is the
connection between economic conditions, the lack of democratic
development, and the vehemence of extremist fundamentalist terrorism?
What combination of economic, social, and political factors cause
states to fail or teeter on the brink of failure?
How grave is the danger to American interests posed by such states
and what can we do about these failed and failing states?
How prepared are our institutions for engaging in these activities?
How effective have our past efforts been to stabilize conflicts in
places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor, and do these efforts
provide models we can use in the future?
President Bush recognized the critical role that democratization
and development can play in the war on terrorism when he stated to the
UN General Assembly last November that ``In our struggle against
hateful groups that exploit poverty and despair, we must offer an
alternative of opportunity and hope.''
Today, we will discuss one of our key tools for doing this:
America's foreign assistance. We will look at whether effective
targeting of such assistance promotes democratization. Does it foster
human rights? Does it address crippling poverty? Does it ensure
political stability?
While we are spending ever increasing sums to meet our military
needs, we devote only 0.1 percent of our gross domestic product to
official development assistance.
Foreign assistance alone will not guarantee our security, but our
military alone cannot do so at any funding level.
The challenge for us, therefore, is to try to determine the
appropriate balance among our critical security tasks, including the
promotion of democratization and development.
In the end, will our efforts to target such assistance, in fact,
help draw the world's poorest populations toward productive self-
sufficiency, and, in so doing, does it have an impact on addressing
underlying causes of terrorism?
We all acknowledge that addressing poverty comes with the territory
for the richest nation on earth. But, with respect to terrorism,
economic hardship is only part of a very complicated matrix of factors.
I hope we have a better understanding of these issues when these
hearings are concluded.
I am delighted to have two such prominent witnesses to discuss
these matters today. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has
been a leader of global efforts to promote democracy and human rights
around the world as UN Ambassador and Secretary of State during the
Clinton administration, and now as chair of the National Democratic
Institute.
The honorable Richard Perle is chairman of the Defense Policy Board
at the Department of Defense, and served as Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy during the Reagan
administration.
Senator Helms.
Senator Helms. I expect some of those people were talking
behind their hand or something. They know better than those
social statistics.
Mr. Chairman, I've been around this place the same amount
of time you have. We were sworn the same morning. And I've
enjoyed just about every minute I've ever spent with you. I'm
enjoying this morning because it brings and old--young--friend
back.
Two young friends, as a matter of fact. One's better
looking than the other, but he'll do alright in some circles.
The point I think we need to bear in mind, Mr. Chairman,
and I am going to boil down my statement, as well, is that I
have noted our self-proclaimed foreign-policy experts, ever
since I've been here, going out of the way to ignore a basic
truth, and that is that tyrants and bullies never make good
allies. Never. Just as they threaten and steal from their own
people and their neighbors, so do they threaten the world's
freedom-loving nations. And it's no coincidence that Saddam
Hussein's regime, for example, murdered upwards of 100,000 of
his people using gas on those Kurds. Nor is it a surprise that
hundreds, perhaps thousands of Iranians have been jailed or
murdered by Iran's theocratic dictatorship, and governments
having to test honestly their own popularity at the ballot box.
And I would ask you to point out somewhere along the line that
they don't have votes among the people who knocked down the
towers in New York and so forth.
A government capable of working within the community of
nations is not going to seek influence in any way--particularly
to influence events--by sponsoring terrorism, all with weapons
of mass destruction. The nation that respects its own people
and the rule of law is not going to be interested in
proliferating weapons of mass destruction to others. But we're
talking about human nature here. And how to change that, I
don't know.
I've got a friend--and I'll wind up with this; just with a
personal observation--I've got a friend who tonight is going to
be awarded two Grammys. His name is Bono and he's an Irishman.
And Madam Secretary, has a great interest in Africa. Have you
met with him?
Secretary Albright. I have, yes.
Senator Helms. Well, then you know how--you know the depth
of his feeling about this thing. And I'm trying to work with
him.
In any case, it's great to have you back. And I thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this meeting.
The Chairman. Thank you. This isn't usually the way we go,
but we have a small group here. Would any of my colleagues like
to make an opening statement?
Senator Lugar. It is just simply great to see you Secretary
Albright. You have been such a good friend to this committee.
Institutionally, the work you did as Secretary of State with
our committee exemplifies the checks and balances, and the
consultation features the Constitution provides. I appreciate
your great service and simply want to say it's great to have
you here.
And, likewise, Richard Perle is a tremendously important
voice in American foreign policy. I recollect that he was with
Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson at the Intelligence Committee, back
when that committee was formed, after the Church committee
investigations. He played an important role then, and has been
doing so subsequently.
So I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Helms, on
bringing these witnesses to another good hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you. Any of my colleagues? The floor is
yours, Madam Secretary. And one question before you begin: have
you ever sung with Bono
Secretary Albright. No.
The Chairman. OK.
Secretary Albright. However, people thought that Chairman
Helms and I were an odd couple, I think.
The Chairman. You're a great couple.
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF
STATE; CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I'm really
very glad to be back here. I always did have a great time here
and feel that I have many friends on the committee, and
bipartisanship is definitely alive and well.
The Chairman. I apologize for interrupting. Can you all
hear in the back? Is that microphone on? They can't hear, so
maybe we can click it up a little, Bertie----
Secretary Albright. OK.
The Chairman [continuing]. Because the Secretary is
speaking right into it, so it must be the mike. Thank you.
Secretary Albright. As I said, I really am very pleased to
be back here with so many good friends. But since I'm no longer
Secretary of State, I don't feel obligated to present a tour of
the horizon. Instead, I think I really do want to focus on a
single point, and it very much meshes with the statements that
both you and Senator Helms have made.
The point is that the strategic map of the world has
changed, and it now encompasses the entire globe. And where it
once was easier to categorize countries by their importance, we
are not able to do that with any degree of confidence today.
During the Clinton administration, we focused on the
problem of terrorism every day and put into place a number of
actions that I think that the Bush administration is now
building on. But I must say that the events of August 1998,
when our embassies were blown up in Kenya and Tanzania, really
focused us even more. And at that point, I asked for a review
of other U.S. diplomatic outposts where al-Qaeda was active.
And when the list came back, there were 38 missions on it, from
Riyadh to Manila and from Addis Ababa to Berlin. And so we
really worked very hard to try to secure the posts there, and
it showed to us the pervasiveness of the terrorist threat.
And then September 11 happened, which clearly was the
deadliest assault ever. And it came, not from a nuclear
superpower, but from a scattered stateless group using cell
phones and based in one of the poorest and most remote nations
in the world.
And the lesson is that the safety of our citizens can be
imperiled by events virtually anywhere. So we do have an
interest in strengthening those everywhere who support freedom,
the rule of law, broader prosperity, and wider peace.
Now, certainly, terrorists can exist in any country, but
they cannot long operate where leaders are accountable and
legal institutions are respected. And so in fighting terror,
democracies have a clear advantage because they embrace
pluralism, encourage tolerance, enable citizens to pursue
change in a peaceful and lawful way. And democracy also has the
best record of fostering peace, stability, and development.
Governments that are publicly answerable rarely start wars,
while societies are more likely to prosper if their people are
free to express their ideas, market their labor and pursue a
better life.
Now, democracy is no panacea, and it can be frustrating and
contentious, and it requires an incredible amount of hard work.
And sometimes the wrong people get elected. But on the whole,
promoting democracy is both right and smart. The question is,
what is the smart and right way to go about doing it?
Now, this morning, I would offer four suggestions. First, I
think we really have to make full use of the tools that we
have. The regional institutions, such as the EU or the OSCE and
the OAS and the African Union, have real legitimacy and an
ever-growing commitment to spread democratic values. The
movement toward a community of democracies, launched 2 years
ago in Warsaw, I think can become an important defender of
democratic norms. We should back what they're doing very
vigorously as they prepare to reconvene in Seoul this fall.
Second, we should help nations in transition. On every
continent, there are young, vulnerable democracies that are
beset by problems of crime, poverty, weak institutions, and
civil strife. Now, we can't do everything, but we can do far
more than we are now to aid deserving governments in
strengthening civil society.
Third, we shouldn't be shy about encouraging democratic
reform in nations that are not yet free. There are skeptics who
say that this is inappropriate and that our efforts are doomed
to failure. But, of course, if skeptics were policymakers,
Slobodan Milosevic would still be in power instead of on trial
for genocide. And those who argue that certain countries are
not suited for democracy I believe are wrong, because no
country is suited for dictatorship.
And with that principle in mind, a special focus is needed
on democratic development in the Middle East. Especially after
September 11, there can be no denying that terrorism thrives
where thinking is controlled, debate discouraged, and the
exchange of information viewed as a threat.
I know that at least some regional leaders understand the
need to adapt their societies to make room for competing voices
and expand the public's role, and we should do all we can to
encourage this approach while recognizing that not every
democracy will not look the same.
Finally, we must not allow our opposition to terror to
dilute our support for human rights. Mr. Chairman and Senators,
the battle against terror is not simply, or even primarily, a
military battle. It is a struggle of ideas, a conflict we
cannot win simply by smashing caves and splitting rocks. It's a
fight that we cannot win if we fight alone, and it is a
confrontation that depends on, not only our ability to define
what we are against, but also what we are for.
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush used
dramatic language to summarize what we are against, but he also
declared that America will stand firm on behalf of human
dignity and the rule of law, respect for women and religious
tolerance. And the President added that we must pay whatever it
costs to defend our country.
In this year's budget, he has proposed an increase in
military spending that is roughly twice the amount we spend on
all non-military international affairs programs and operations
worldwide. And, by contrast, the proposed increase for civilian
programs is extremely modest.
Now, I am all for a strong military, especially now. And we
have to be ready to destroy the al-Qaedas of the future, but we
must also invest in preventing future al-Qaedas from taking
root. In the President's language, we must do more than oppose
evil, we must also back the forces of good. And that requires a
much larger investment than his current budget suggests.
Now, we all know the objections to spending more on
international affairs. To some, foreign aid will always be a
four-letter word. And developing countries, we are told, are
rife with crooks; and, where there is no honesty, there is no
hope.
A couple of weeks ago, Secretary Powell testified before
this committee, and he said, ``We can no longer invest in
places where corruption is rampant, where you don't have
transparency, and where you cannot be sure the money will be
well spent.'' Now, I agree with that caution, but that caution
should not become a rationale for inaction.
Over the years, we have learned how to design international
programs that reward merit while providing incentives for the
reluctant to clean up their act. And I have seen our
investments pay off, helping to destroy nuclear warheads--
thanks a lot to Senator Lugar--and safeguard nuclear materials,
training thousands of people in counter-terrorism, intercepting
narcotics, strengthening democratic institutions, raising life
expectancy, cutting infant mortality, defeating smallpox,
saving and enriching countless lives.
The time has come to replace the old myth with truth. Our
international assistance programs are one of the wisest
investments we make. They are not money down a rathole. They
are poison down the snakehole of terrorism helping to choke off
hatred, ignorance, and desperation upon which terrorism feeds.
Now, there should be no excuses. After all, we are at war.
But still we hear the excuses. We are told we can't afford to
increase significantly our investment in overseas education and
family planning and battling AIDS and vaccinating children. We
are told we can't afford to increase our support for
international peacekeeping or for securing Russia's nuclear
arsenal and that promoting democracy must take a back seat to
other worthy goals. To all this, I would reply with a
diplomatic term of art, ``balderdash.''
Today, on a per capita basis, Americans contribute only
about $29 per year through official channels to developing free
societies and defeating the plagues that undermine them. This
puts us dead last among industrialized countries.
In January, the Bush administration blocked a European
initiative to pledge increased help to poor nations. And it's
sad, but not surprising--and I base some facts on a recent
survey by the Pew Research Center. It found that our country is
almost as much resented as admired overseas. And the reason is
not the extent of our power, the pervasiveness of our culture,
or the tilt of our policies in the Middle East. We are resented
because much of the world believes that we are rich and don't
share, and because they believe that we are intent on widening
the gap between the haves and the have-nots across the globe.
So in these perilous times, we can't afford to allow the
wrong perception to take hold, and we have to do a better job
telling our story. And we have to do the best that we can to
have a good story.
During World War II and the Cold war, great American
Presidents, with bipartisan support from Congress, outlined
bold and generous initiatives to complement our security goal.
These included the Marshall Plan, the Point Four program, Atoms
for Peace, and the Peace Corps. And, more recently, with
leadership from this committee, we have sustained that
tradition through the National Endowment for Democracy, the
SEED program, the Freedom Support Act, Nunn-Lugar and the
African Growth and Opportunity Act.
And we now need to be bold in developing and financing a
new generation of initiatives, with democracy-building as a
priority, to correct the misapprehension and win the battle of
ideas. By so doing, I think that we can remove all doubt that
America stands on the side of the people everywhere who yearn
to walk in freedom, whether or not they are free today, who
believe in tolerance and respect for the rights of others, and
who want to live in dignity and build a better life for
themselves and for their children.
And that is how I think we can create a strategic map that
is favorable to our own citizens and to those across the globe
who oppose terror and cherish liberty and love peace.
So thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here with you
again and happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Albright follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Madeleine K. Albright, former Secretary of
State; Chairman, National Democratic Institute
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman, Senators, good morning, and thank
you for the warm welcome. This Committee is one of the few on Capitol
Hill that was bipartisan before bipartisanship was cool, so I have
friends all around the dais and look forward to our discussion.
Since I am no longer Secretary of State, I no longer feel obliged
to present a tour of the horizon. Instead, I will focus on a single
point. And that point is that the strategic map of the world has
changed. It now encompasses the entire globe. Where once we could
easily categorize countries by their importance; we are not able to do
that with any degree of confidence today.
In August, 1998, two United States embassies in Africa were
attacked. The al-Qaeda terrorist network was our immediate suspect.
I asked for a review of other diplomatic outposts in countries
where al-Qaeda was active. When the list came back, there were 38
missions on it from Riyadh to Manila and from Addis Ababa to Berlin.
From that day until the day we left office, President Clinton and I
had no higher priority than to prevent further attacks. This was a
constant preoccupation, because hardly a day went by without a threat
from some distant corner of the globe.
And then, on September 11, we received the deadliest foreign
assault ever on American soil not from a nuclear superpower, but from a
scattered, stateless group using cell phones and based in one of the
poorest and most remote nations on Earth.
The lesson in this is that the safety of our citizens can be
imperiled by events virtually anywhere. So we have an interest in
strengthening those everywhere who support freedom, the rule of law,
broader prosperity, and wider peace.
Certainly, terrorists can exist in any country. But they cannot
long operate where leaders are accountable and legal institutions
respected.
In fighting terror, democracies have a clear advantage because they
embrace pluralism, encourage tolerance and enable citizens to pursue
change in a peaceful and lawful way.
Democracy also has the best record of fostering peace, stability
and development. Governments that are publicly answerable rarely start
wars, while societies are more likely to prosper if their people are
free to express their ideas, market their labor and pursue a better
life.
Democracy is no panacea. It can be frustrating and contentious. It
requires an incredible amount of hard work. And sometimes the wrong
people get elected. But on the whole, promoting democracy is both right
and smart. The question is, what is the smart and right way to go about
doing it?
There are many experts in this field, including those at the
National Endowment for Democracy and its four core institutes,--the
National Democratic Institute, which I am privileged to serve as chair,
the International Republican Institute Labor's Solidarity Center and
the Center for International Private Enterprise. These organizations
give concrete expression to our nation's values and also serve our
strategic interests by promoting political environments that are
inhospitable to extremists.
Also, in April, I will be leading a roundtable meeting in
Washington sponsored by the William Davidson Institute, which is
affiliated with the University of Michigan Business School. That
session is likely to generate ideas for helping emerging market
economies; ideas should be acted upon by governments and the private
sector, as well.
For the purposes of this hearing, however, I offer four
suggestions.
First, we must make full use of the tools we have.
Regional institutions such as the EU, the OSCE, the OAS and the
African Union have real legitimacy and an ever-growing commitment to
the spread of democratic values.
The movement toward a Community of Democracies, launched two years
ago in Warsaw, can become an important defender of democratic norms. We
should back it vigorously as it prepares to reconvene this fall in
Seoul.
Second, we should help nations in transition. On every continent,
there are young, vulnerable democracies, beset by problems of crime and
poverty, weak institutions and civil strife.
We cannot do everything, but we can do far more than we are now to
aid deserving governments and strengthen civil society.
This matters, because we are at a pivotal point. The future
direction of countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Colombia
and Ukraine are all in doubt. Their fate will do much to determine
whether the democratic tide remains a rising tide around the world.
Third, we should not be shy about encouraging democratic reform in
nations that are not yet free. There are skeptics who say this is
inappropriate and that our efforts are doomed to fail.
Of course, if skeptics were policymakers, Slobodan Milosevic would
still be in power, instead of on trial for genocide.
Those who argue that certain countries are not suited for democracy
are wrong, because no nation is suited for dictatorship.
With that principle in mind, a special focus is needed on
democratic development in the Middle East. Especially after September
11, there can be no denying that terrorism thrives where thinking is
controlled, debate discouraged and the exchange of information viewed
as a threat.
I know that at least some regional leaders understand the need to
adapt their societies to make room for competing voices and expand the
public's role. We should do all we can to encourage this approach,
while recognizing that not every democracy will look the same.
Finally, we must not allow our opposition to terror to dilute our
support for human rights. There is nothing more tempting to a dictator
than to smear opponents with the terrorist label. Nelson Mandela,
Vaclav Havel, Kim Daejung, and Aung San Suu Kyi were all jailed as
terrorists, and are now justly hailed as heroes.
In an autocracy, radicals exploit the discontent of those who feel
powerless, sparking violence that is then used to justify repression.
In this way, terrorists and dictators validate each other while
innocent people pay.
Our goal should be to break the vicious cycle by supporting those
who advocate a path between extremism and authoritarianism. This path
is divided into many singular trails, but above them all, is the
guiding star of democracy.
Mr. Chairman, Senators, the battle against terror is not simply or
even primarily a military battle. It is a struggle of ideas, a conflict
we cannot win simply by smashing caves and splitting rocks. It is a
fight we cannot win alone. And it is a confrontation that depends not
only on our ability to define what we are against, but also what we are
for.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush used dramatic
language to summarize what we are against. But he also declared that
America will stand firm on behalf of human dignity and the rule of law,
respect for women and religious tolerance.
The President added that we must pay ``whatever it costs to defend
our country.''
In this year's budget, he has proposed an increase in military
spending that is roughly twice the amount we spend on all non-military
international affairs programs and operations worldwide.
By contrast, the proposed increase for civilian programs is
extremely modest.
I am all for a strong military, especially now. We have to be ready
to destroy the al-Qaedas of the future. But we must also invest in
preventing future al-Qaedas from taking root.
In the President's language, we must do more than oppose evil; we
must also back the forces of good. That requires a much larger
investment than his current budget suggests.
Now, we all know the objections to spending more on international
affairs. To some, foreign aid will always be a four-letter word.
Developing countries, we are told, are rife with crooks, and where
there is no honesty, there is no hope.
A couple of weeks ago, Secretary Powell testified before this
Committee. He said, ``We can no longer invest in places where
corruption is rampant, where you don't have transparency, and where you
cannot be sure the money will be well spent.''
I agree with that caution, but that caution should not become a
rationale for inaction.
Over the years, we have learned how to design international
programs that reward merit, while providing incentives for the
reluctant to clean up their act.
And I have seen our investments pay off, helping to destroy nuclear
warheads and safeguard nuclear materials; training thousands of people
in counter-terrorism; intercepting narcotics; strengthening democratic
institutions; raising life expectancy; cutting infant mortality;
defeating small pox; saving and enriching countless lives.
The time has come to replace the old myth with truth. Our
international assistance programs are one of the wisest investments we
make. They are not money down a rathole. They are poison down the
snakehole of terrorism; helping to choke off the hatred, ignorance and
desperation upon which terrorism feeds.
There should be no more excuses. After all, we are at war. But
still we hear the excuses. We are told we can't afford to increase
significantly our investments in overseas education and family
planning, battling AIDS and vaccinating children.
We are told we can't afford to increase our support for
international peacekeeping or for securing Russia's nuclear arsenal;
and that promoting democracy must take a back seat to other worthy
goals.
To all this I would reply with a diplomatic term of art,
``balderdash.''
Today, on a per capita basis, Americans contribute only about $29
per year through official channels to developing free societies and
defeating the plagues that undermine them. This puts us dead last among
industrialized countries.
In January, the Bush Administration blocked a European initiative
to pledge increased help to poor nations.
It is sad, but not surprising, that a recent survey by the Pew
Research Center found that our country is almost as much resented as
admired overseas. The reason is not the extent of our power, the
pervasiveness of our culture, or the tilt of our policies in the Middle
East.
We are resented because much of the world believes we are rich and
do not share, and because they believe we are intent on widening the
gap between haves and have-nots across the globe.
In these perilous times, we cannot afford to allow the wrong
perceptions to take hold. We have to do a better job of telling our
story. And we have to have the best possible story to tell.
During World War II and the Cold War, great American Presidents,
with bipartisan support from Congress, outlined bold and generous
initiatives to complement our security goals.
These included the Marshall Plan, the Point Four program, Atoms for
Peace and the Peace Corps. More recently, with leadership from this
Committee, we have sustained that tradition through the National
Endowment for Democracy, SEED, the Freedom Support Act, Nunn-Lugar and
the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
We need to be bold now in developing and financing a new generation
of initiatives--with democracy building as a priority--to correct
misapprehensions and win the battle of ideas.
By so doing, we can remove all doubt that America stands on the
side of people everywhere who yearn to walk in freedom whether or not
they are free today; who believe in tolerance and respect for the
rights of others; and who want to live in dignity and build a better
life for themselves and for their children.
This is how to create a strategic map that is favorable to our own
citizens and to those across the globe who oppose terror, cherish
liberty and love peace.
Thank you very much. And now I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. In light of the
attendance, maybe we'll have seven-minute rounds, and then we
can maybe have a second if possible. Let me begin by focusing
on democratization in the Middle East--in the Persian Gulf, in
the Arab world. There have been arguments--in the years I've
sat here on this committee--that range between, we can't take
the risk of promoting democracy, because in some of the
countries in the region, we'll find ourselves with people who
are totally unfamiliar with the democratic processes. And that
if democratization and elections were to occur, that the most
organized would be the most radical and you'd end up with
popularly-elected but radical anti-American regimes replacing
authoritarian regimes, who, by and large, are friendly to the
United States.
And the counter-argument is that if, in fact, we do not
participate in the effort to promote democratization in these
countries, that there is no reasonable outlet--as my
grandmother used to talk about a pressure cooker--you know,
those old-fashioned things where they made pot roasts, and
literally the steam--it gets so hot the steam would come out
instead of the lid blowing off. And the argument is the same--
the functional equivalent of that is democracy allows an outlet
for people who feel aggrieved or disadvantaged. And absent it,
they find other ways--usually violent ways--to express their
discontent.
Talk to us a little bit about, delicate as it may be,
democratization in Saudi Arabia, democratization in the
Emirates. Talk to us about that. What are the things we balance
when we embark on that course? What are the down sides? What
are the up sides?
Secretary Albright. Well, first of all, I think we have to
understand that democratization is a long-term process. And I
think we always--even in this country, democracy is not an
event. It is a process that goes on that is complicated and
that has to have a variety of sources to it and changes all the
time.
I happen to believe that we actually are all created equal
throughout the world and that everybody wants to be able to
have a chance to run his or her own life at some level.
Now, on democratization in the Middle East, there are
processes that are taking place. And I'm now chairman of the
board of the National Democratic Institute, and we have
programs in Yemen and Bahrain that basically are complementary
and requested by the governments that are there who want to try
to institute some kind of change.
I think the question always comes down to how rapidly this
change takes place, and it is that process that is hard to
manage. But you can't do it if you don't begin it. And in
conversations that I had with the Saudis and with many of the
other leaders, they were aware of the pressure-cooker aspects
within their societies, and I think we just have to begin down
that road and not decide that stability is the best thing.
Because ultimately those regimes are unstable. And so I agree
with the latter point that you made about moving on
democratization. And I think it has to be slightly different
everywhere. There isn't just the American model. But it's based
on the premise that people want to run their lives.
The Chairman. I was recently in Bahrain, and the current
prince was kind enough to put together a luncheon for me with
military leaders as well as--and the CNO, Chief of Naval
Operations of the United States, was there, as well, and even
some religious leaders. And he laid out his--he's a young man,
in relative terms--and he laid out his conviction that there is
a need for increased democratization in his country and around
the world, but in the Middle East in particular. And he
indicated they were undertaking the first tentative steps
toward that by some local elections that they were endorsing.
The first question I asked--I said, ``What do the folks on
the other side of the bridge think about this?--because, you
know, literally there was a bridge that connects the two. A
significant portion of Bahrain's income comes from wells that
the Saudis have, in effect, bequeathed to them. And he said
that there is an unease, but he believed that the more
enlightened leaders there realize it was necessary in order to
preserve their countries in the long-term.
What do you hear from other leaders? Is there a
realization? Is there a notion? Is there a view held among the
present leadership, that they have to do something, or do you
believe the consensus is that the status quo will work just
fine if we just get oil prices up high enough.
Secretary Albright. Well, I think--and I've had very
extensive discussions with large numbers of them--that
ultimately at some point during a conversation they will agree
that something has to be done.
What I find very interesting is this group of younger
leaders--many of whom have been trained in Western countries--
who talk to each other all the time and understand the need for
change. The question is one of pacing.
And the other part of this that is not only true in the
Middle East, but that we have learned about democratization in
the last decade is, there is something that I call post-
euphoria democracy, where there is not enough of a democracy
dividend for ordinary people in terms of economic prosperity,
and that is a part that we have to deal with simultaneously in
all societies, because unless there is a sense that people are
sharing in the wealth of a country, they will not be satisfied.
And that is part of the radicalism.
So our programs, not alone, but with other democracies,
help provide the economic as well as the political aspect of
democratization. And the information revolution is helping us.
So I think the younger leadership and the need for change
in some kind of paced way is the only direction to go. And the
United States ought to be supporting it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Madame Secretary. Senator Helms.
Senator Helms. Sure is good to see you again.
Secretary Albright. Good to see you, sir.
Senator Helms. We had a lot of fun with you, and you always
are a very cooperative lady, and we like you a lot.
Secretary Albright. Thank you.
Senator Helms. You're one of the few people who, upon her
departure--I will say to these young folks in the back--in her
last appearance here, we gave her a standing ovation, and
that's almost never done in the Senate.
I have a growing problem about what is the sensible thing
to do. This past Wednesday, I had lunch over in Georgetown with
about 1,500 other people whom Franklin Graham had assembled,
and he had the first lady of Uganda there. And they are doing
well there, in terms of bringing that country forward, in terms
of looking after the people and making sure that the people
understand that they've got to look after themselves, as well.
She was talking about the AIDS situation. It was terrible
there when her husband was elected. And she decided, since
there were no functions for the first lady to perform, that she
would see what she could do about it. And so she started a
program of education and all the rest of it. And the number of
new cases of AIDS has diminished 50 percent since her effort
there.
And I run into all sorts of problems. And Franklin Graham--
and I'm not going to make a long speech about him--but he's
very much interested in the people all over the world. He had
built hospitals in Sudan. And the corrupt leaders of Sudan have
blown them up, bombed them. And he's built them back, and they
bombed them again. Now, I would sort of get a message if I had
been building hospitals for Sudan and that happened. But
Franklin, he is worried about the people. Sudan's Government is
not worried about the people. And that, Madam Secretary, is the
problem.
Now, I guess what I'm saying is that I am ashamed of
myself, because I haven't known how to do more about the AIDS
situation in Africa. When I was chairman of this committee, we
talked about it, and I wanted to do something, but I didn't
know exactly how to begin, and I still don't. And I hope this
new chairman will lead us toward a solution of that problem,
because it's going to ruin that whole continent. I can't
believe it--it's a nightmare to me. I can't believe what's
happening.
And I just wonder--when we talk about foreign aid--are you
absolutely certain it's doing anything like what we say it's
doing for the people over there, or is it being confiscated by
corrupt leadership and spent for other purposes? What do you
think about that?
Secretary Albright. Well, I think that, on the whole, it is
used properly. And I think that obviously there are cases that
are very troublesome that need to be investigated, but that is
a method whereby the United States and other democracies can
help--or industrialized countries can help countries move
forward.
Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad to hear you say what you said
about HIV/AIDS, because one of the things that we did was to
decide that HIV/AIDS was a security problem in addition to
being a health problem. And I think if we think of foreign aid,
those two words--I wish we could never use them, because they
don't go together. People hate saying anything about
``foreigners'' or about ``aid,'' and when you put them together
it is a disaster.
We need to talk about what we do to assist other countries
in terms of our national interests. And if it requires talking
about health problems as security problems, then I think we
should do that.
And I have testified before, and you all have heard this,
is we give one penny out of every Federal dollar for
assistance. I would like to propose something really radical,
is that we give a penny and a half. It would make a huge
difference. And if we see issues, like health issues and
women's issues and--because women are more than half the
populations of these countries and provide economic strength--
we should see that as a security issue. And I think that will
help.
Senator Helms. Well, OK, let's say that we increase what we
now call foreign aid--by whatever name you call it in the
future. What would you suggest that our government do about
rules concerning how the money is used in those countries?
While you were Secretary of State, how many instances, if
any, did you have where you knew that the foreign aid money, as
we call it, had been seized by the corrupt leadership and not
used for the purposes that it was intended?
Secretary Albright. I have no particular accounting of
that, but I do think we did something, you and I together, in
terms of trying to tie the budget of USAID more closely to some
of the policies and issues that we were interested in, in terms
of trying to make sure that it did what it was supposed to do.
And I think what is required here is accountability and
that those programs need to be--we need to be able to tell
where they're going, which is not as difficult or as costly as
cutting them off. And that is what troubles me, is that we
would take the hatchet approach and decide that they simply
don't work, when, in fact, in many countries they do. And that
is not to say there are not problems. There are definitely
problems but they need to be worked at and reformed and we can
create the mechanism to make sure that there's accountability.
Senator Helms. I've talked about this thing to your
successor, the present distinguished Secretary of State, and
it's a problem. It's a problem. Because it's so enormous, in
terms of its implications and the cost of it and the
distribution of it, that mistakes are bound to be made, and
they will be made until it is tightened up, and I don't know
how to tighten it up.
Secretary Albright. I think one of the other things that's
important to think about are public-private partnerships where
in fact NGOs can also be very helpful, various companies,
American corporations, that, in many ways, through their
efforts to have some social responsibility, are being very
helpful also.
And if I might say, I also am affiliated with the Davidson
Institute at the University of Michigan Business School, and we
are going to be doing a seminar up here to try to get a
combination of getting corporations, government officials,
NGOs, and academics together in order to talk about how to help
emerging economies deal with the issues that is specific to
them, and also how American assistance can be given in a more
accountable way.
Senator Helms. Well, one final question. Excuse me for
running over.
The Chairman. Please, go right ahead.
Senator Helms. What do you think about the government
utilizing the talents and the knowledge of people like Franklin
Graham? And there are a number of people who are doing great
work overseas with limited funds. Is there any way you can use
the Franklin Graham kind of a person?
Secretary Albright. I know that when I was Secretary you
and I talked about this. And, as I'm no longer a government
official myself, I believe that one should use people that are
outside the government in order to strengthen our positions and
broaden our reach, because people, I think, that are on the
ground as Franklin Graham is have a great deal of knowledge.
And so I think that we should use everything and everybody that
we can.
Senator Helms. Well, I led you into that answer by asking a
question, and I thank you for it
Secretary Albright. Thank you.
Senator Helms. Thank you, ma'am.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I would defer to Senator
Lugar. But I certainly am curious to know the answers to the
questions that you have put forth about why would these polls
reveal that so many in those countries in Central Asia and the
Middle East would not believe what, in fact, was the reality of
the attacks.
Secretary Albright. I think that clearly the issue of
information at the moment is very important, and we need to do
more about public diplomacy and to tell the real story.
When I was Secretary, we tried very hard, I think, to
achieve a better understanding of Islam. I believe that we
really are ignorant about it. And so I still have a copy of a
brochure that we were going to put out on Islam. It is
somewhere at the State Department at the moment. But what it
basically does is give a primer, because I'm just stunned at
our lack of information.
I have done an outreach program. We had dinners at the
State Department with American Muslim leaders. And I think that
is part of the issue, that there is a whole question now about
how information is used. And it is a battle of ideas, and it's
hard--I read the poll this morning. It's also in the Financial
Times. It's stunning.
And I think it just proves our lack of information and the
wrong use of information and that we are in a battle--a major
battle of ideas, which is why I make the point that I support
what we're doing militarily, but it's too unidimensional. We
have to have a much larger program about how to deal with
problems of perception like that.
And it won't change overnight. I think that's where we have
to decide, that battle is as long--is as much a part of the
long term battle as the military part.
Senator Nelson. And that's where I think that the present
administration was so wise when they started the effort in
Afghanistan, that they had a diplomatic component as well as a
military component and a humanitarian component. And the first
day that we were dropping bombs, we were dropping food. Could
you comment on the fact that--in your opinion, if it is fact--
that in North Korea, we have a hostile government, yet we have
clearly gotten through to the hearts and minds of the people
that are starving, because they know the food has come from the
United States. And does that effort tell us something about
perhaps some of our success in Afghanistan and what we ought to
be doing elsewhere in that part of the world.
Secretary Albright. Well, the issue of food is always
difficult, in terms of whether we use it as a political tool. I
think that we usually give food to the World Food Program for
humanitarian reasons, and it's labeled as coming from the
United States on those cases. And I think that we need to be
known as the generous country that we are. And I think it was
very wise to drop the food at the same time as we were bombing.
But what I am more concerned about is that we are letting
that part of the program be done by others. The way that it is
described, if I might say so, is that everything but military
work is women's work, which is I think it's important, that
basically I do not agree that nation building or whatever word
you want to use, if people don't like that word anymore--
creating--trying to take up the vacuum is the most important
work that work that needs to be done now. Our military activity
has to be followed up by diplomatic and humanitarian work,
otherwise, it has been wasted. And it can't be done by others.
It has to be done by the United States, in cooperation with
others. And so I disagree with somebody that I'm sometimes
known to be friends with, Margaret Thatcher, who basically
said, ``Let somebody else do it.'' We cannot. We need to be a
part of the rebuilding of Afghanistan and, thereby, maybe
change some of that perception that is in these polls.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I didn't mean to take all
this time, because I really do want to give it to Senator
Lugar, who is one of the world's experts in this area. But I
just want to say that when I went over there during the
Christmas break, in a delegation led by Senator Lieberman and
Senator McCain, I was just stunned. Every one of those heads of
countries in that region of Central Asia, the first thing out
of their mouth was, ``Thank you, United States, for helping us
rid ourselves of terrorists.'' And the second thing out of
their mouth was, ``Please don't leave.'' It was extraordinary.
Secretary Albright. A great event. We need to stay. We need
to finish the job, just as we needed to in the Balkans. We have
to have a sustained effort that is not just a quick fix.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I'm going back over the
Easter break, assuming you give permission for me to go----
The Chairman. You have permission.
Senator Nelson [continuing]. I'm going back to Afghanistan
and again to Pakistan. And this time I'm going to India,
because I want to understand something of extraordinary
interest of the United States, the potential clash and helping
to avoid that clash. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Is the world's leading
expert--
I share that view, I might add. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. I thank you all. Secretary Albright, I
wanted to ask a difficult question. It's difficult because, in
spite of the fact that you are no longer Secretary of State,
your words are measured and analyzed carefully abroad. I was
intrigued by an article that Tom Friedman wrote in the New York
Times this morning about Saudi Arabia. Now, a lot of our
discussion of democracy has surrounded countries in the Middle
East. Prominent among those, with whom we have worked closely
for many years, has been Saudi Arabia. But Tom Friedman's view
is bleak. He suggested that Saudi Arabia might follow the path
of the former Soviet Union or China.
If they follow the Soviet pattern, he suggested Saudi
Arabia would have a theocracy or a group of religious people
that enforced the laws--but with what he termed a corrupt civil
government--namely, a king and 50,000-some princes. This group
will have benefited from the system and formed sort of a cadre,
as he suggested the Communist party did in the Soviet Union.
Now, if they go that route, Friedman's prediction was that,
at some point, model is likely to crack open. This will be due
to the fact that communications are opening up in the world,
plus a war going on in the area in our fight against terrorism.
The result of the fall of the system are not clear. Maybe
democracy but maybe not.
Now, in the Chinese model, he suggests that the Chinese
leadership has accommodated capitalism, trade, foreign
investment. It is a big country, people are able to get some
steam out of their systems without repression from time to
time, but nevertheless a very diffuse situation. Such a system
doesn't build up to a crescendo, and is broad enough that it
doesn't split apart.
But in both cases, the Russian and the Chinese model, the
system is based on controlling group plotting to stay in
complete control.
Now, in the midst of this scenario, we're discussing how we
move toward democracy. And thank goodness there are cases that
are less difficult than the one that Tom Friedman has
suggested. Saudi Arabia is an important case. Because of the
support that went to al-Qaeda and various other enterprises.
Saudi Arabia is not going to be very congenial with the United
States or democracy.
What is the prescription for Saudi Arabia? How do we work
with people that all of us know, that we are still working with
diplomatically, but we can see tremendous challenges
approaching? Regardless of whether Friedman's ideas are correct
or not, it presents two scenarios on the future of the U.S.-
Saudi relationship over the course of time.
So I ask you, as a long-time advocate of democracy and a
Secretary of State on top of that, what do we do? How do we
make a difference? And is it possible for us to do so?
Secretary Albright. Well, first of all, I thought Tom
Friedman's article was very interesting, and he said, ``Come
back to me in five years,'' because he didn't have an answer.
But I also believe the following--first of all, that our
relationships with Saudi Arabia are among the most complex that
we have, and that obviously the country is important to us for
its strategic location and its resources. And at the same time,
having it completely--and democracy is importance to us, but
having it completely disintegrate and fall apart is not in our
interests.
I also believe this--and this is from my own experience--
that often the public statements of the Saudis are not quite
what the private ones are, that they are actually quite helpful
in a series of issues. And so I have great respect for Crown
Prince Abdullah and also for an understanding that they are
beginning to have about the fragility of the situation that
they do have.
And either model, frankly, is, if you think about it--and I
say this with the highest respect for you. You are part of what
we did with the Soviet Union and Russia, which was to--after
the sclerotic situation it was in, to help the devolution of an
empire. We have never--that has never been done before,
especially when the empire is your adversary. And we figured
out how to work with various groups in Russia and dealt with
some of the problems and managed, though it wasn't always an
upward trend, to try to figure out how to deal with that. We
have that opportunity again.
With China, I always have believed and testified to this,
that while I disagree with their Communist system totally, that
we need to be engaged with them and keep raising the issues
that we always raise with them on human rights and religious
tolerance. And so even if you agree that those two models are
the models, it doesn't preclude American action.
And basically we need to understand that Saudi Arabia is
important to us, complicated, and that we don't want it to fall
apart totally, and that we're in for the long haul, and that
they need to also understand the changes. And some of those
younger princes were students of mine, frankly, and I think
that many of them are different--we need to work on the younger
generation, is my sense.
Senator Lugar. I appreciate your response. I think you are
right to be optimistic and hopeful. I think there are real
possibilities in staying engaged--obviously in Russia and in
China. I appreciate your drawing from your own personal
experience with Saudi Arabian leadership, because it's crucial
that we think about this.
The disturbing thing about the Friedman article is the
concluding line, ``Come back in five years,'' because that was
the period of time he thought that the Russian model for the
Saudis might disintegrated. I'm not really clear what would
happened if the Chinese model applied.
But both of these models are changing ones. As you point
out, these are works in process, we won't be major forces of
influence, but we can be. And I agree with your thought that
our impetus toward working toward democracy is crucial, in
terms of paying the cost of this, in terms of the expense of
diplomacy, of the ways we might engage in creative ways. So I
appreciate your testimony. I thank you for your responses.
Secretary Albright. Thank you. Senator Lugar, I feel very
strongly that in this very difficult time we have to be
optimistic. This is a difficult time for our country, and we
need to ask questions, and we need to be optimistic, because
otherwise we're not going to get through this. And by viewing
the processes of developing one in which we can play a positive
role, I think, is where we ought to be headed.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see
you again, Ms. Secretary.
Secretary Albright. Nice to see you, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Feingold.
Senator Feingold. Madam Secretary, we had a chance to work
together on a lot of issues, including issues concerning
Africa. And I now have the chance to chair the African Affairs
Subcommittee, and I'm trying to hold a series of hearings. We
did one already on Somalia--but the theme of the hearings is to
consider what might be called manifestations of failed states
in Africa--problems posed by piracy, illicit air transport
networks, trafficking in gems, drugs, people, arms. These are
attributes that make a lot of the regions of Africa attractive
to terrorists and other criminals, but we find similar
weaknesses and problems in places throughout the world.
Given the leading role that you've played in addressing
these kinds of threats in the past, how serious do you think
the dangers are today? And how would you compare these, perhaps
you could call them, shadow threats to the more open threats
that we have today? And what can we do to, sort of, more
consistently address this phenomenon of failed or potentially
failing states?
Secretary Albright. Well, first of all, I would like to
thank you for all the leadership that you've taken on issues on
Africa and your visiting there and really dealing with these
issues on a consistent basis.
I think that, first of all, I would also hope that you talk
about the good-news stories in Africa, because there are quite
a few of them, and I think we always have a tendency to see
everything as going downhill there, when, in fact, there are
some good-news stories in Botswana and Mali and various places.
I think that these shadow threats are very real, because what
they do is undermine the fabric of society and are the kind
that need to be dealt with through a consistent effort by the
international community. The issues of trafficking and the
blood diamonds and issues of various ethnic disputes that then
become riled up in terms of poverty in addition are all the
issues that we need to pay attention to.
The failed states, to a great extent--and we talked about
Somalia in that way--had to do with the fact that there was no
institutional structure. And I think that we need to pay more
attention to trying to assist in filling vacuums in political
structure. That's the hard part. That's--you know, frankly,
that is where we were accused of nation building, which is not
a term we actually use, but it is a--I think we have to help in
the institutions. And that is one of the reasons that I think
that the Endowment for Democracy is so important in terms of
developing judicial systems and understanding that it's a long,
sustained process--and the rule of law that needs to go into
these places.
But it's mostly an institutional structure issue, and then
poverty on top of it. And all those are issues which require
sustained attention. I think we unfortunately have the tendency
to try to have quick fixes, and they simply don't work in a lot
of the situations that you're talking about.
Senator Feingold. I appreciate the point about the nation
building, because I think one of the confusions that's going on
is--you know, President Bush, when he was campaigning--I heard
him say that he had concerns about nation--the use of the
military for nation building. But that somehow is being
transferred to the idea that we shouldn't help in so many other
ways with nation building, and I don't think that those two
things are logically connected.
Somalia is a great example, where, you know, I, along with
others, thought that this was not, obviously, a good place for
us to be militarily anymore. But according to what we heard at
our hearing, we just, you know--
Secretary Albright. We left.
Senator Feingold. Everybody just pulled out of there
completely. And we've reaped some of the consequences of that.
And I'm glad you said what you did about the success
stories in Africa. They remember your visit there very well,
very fondly. And, in fact, I was in Mozambique a few days ago--
obviously not a hundred-percent-success story, but even with
the flooding that occurred--and, of course, we have helped on
that--they have managed to get themselves in a very positive
economic-growth direction and solve many of their problems. So
I appreciate those comments. We have to keep that balance in
mind.
Let me ask you a different question about our human rights
policy. It's similar to a question I asked Secretary Powell.
The State Department is supposed to be releasing its annual
human rights report now, and this is, of course, an important
annual event. It provides an opportunity to consider how we
should respond to some of the delicate diplomatic dilemmas that
are often raised by these reports. But it's particularly
difficult now because of the reality that we are having to work
with a number of countries that are helping us with our fight
against terrorism. But at the same time, we can't completely
ignore or stop referring to some of the human-rights problems
that those same countries still have.
How difficult will it be, in your opinion, to engage in a
constructive dialogue over human-rights practices with some of
our new partners, particularly in Central and Southeast Asia
and the Middle East, without somehow destabilizing our
coalition against terrorism or undermining the seriousness of
our human-rights concerns?
Secretary Albright. I think you have raised an absolutely
valid question as we go forward here, because we cannot back
down on our principles. When we were talking about the
importance of democratization in these countries, human rights
obviously is a major component. And I hope that these reports
are put out and that no punches are pulled and that we are
able, at one and the same time, to deal with the countries
because we have to and should, for pragmatic reasons. But I
think they would be shocked if we simply stopped talking about
our human-rights concerns, and I am very glad that, as I
understand it, President Bush did raise issues like that when
he was in China.
And I think we have to be true to ourselves, because it
isn't just enough to have military victories. We have to
understand the kind of world that Americans are most
comfortable in, where our national interests are served by
countries that respect their citizens. Because if they don't
respect their citizens, they don't respect anybody else.
Chairman Helms talked about the Iraqis gassing their own
people. And so I think we need to stick with the program on
human rights. It's a basic U.S. realpolitik national interest
issue.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And finally,
the trial of Milosevic has been attracting a lot of attention.
I'm sure it's caught your attention, because he's suggested
that you should be called as a witness.
But seriously, the Milosevic trial could be an important
mechanism for spotlighting the crimes against humanity that
were committed in that part of the world. And many have also
noted, and I tend to agree, that this is being watched by many
around the world as we struggle to bring tyrants, and even
terrorists like Osama bin Laden, to justice for their crimes.
Now, last week I got a wonderful opportunity to visit the
other international tribunal in Arusha, the Rwandan tribunal,
and I was pleased to see that the Rwandan tribunal, despite
having some serious challenges, is making great strides in
holding some of the greatest criminals of the last century
accountable for their crimes. And we also see, of course, that
the special court in Sierra Leon is coming into existence,
which is another precedent for accountability in the African
Continent.
I think, so far, we can say that these mechanisms are
proving to be pretty credible and effective. But how can we
also make sure that they're instructive--in other words, that
they send a real message to those who would commit these kinds
of crimes?
Secretary Albright. Well, I must say, one of the first
votes that I took at the U.N. was to create the war crimes
tribunals, and I'm very proud of that. And people thought
they'd never work. I mean, they thought we'd never get the
judges, that we'd never get the prosecutors, that we'd never
get the indictments, that there would be no sentences. And all
of that has been proven wrong. And so I think it was one of the
major initiatives that we took that I think works.
I think what has to happen--and you're absolutely right,
it's the instructive part of it now that we have to focus on--
is to talk more about the positive aspects of the deterrent, if
it's possible, to begin to draw some lessons, and to understand
that ultimately the only way that our interests are served is
when the rule of law is abided by in a variety of countries and
in the international sphere which, frankly, is why I hope very
much that we continue to honor treaties and understand that the
United States is most protected by being part of an
international system where there are countries that do things
in the same way that we do.
So the rule of law lessons out of the war crimes tribunals,
I think, are very important, and we need to make that--give
that message out loud and clear.
Senator Feingold. My time's up, but I am grateful for your
leadership in this area. And all I can tell you is--you know
this better than I do--it's a lot harder to make it work in
Arusha, Tanzania, than in The Hague, so I was very impressed
with what----
Secretary Albright. And we had a lot of problems there. We
really did. But we stayed with the program. And I think that is
the lesson here, is that you might not have an immediate
success on these variety of issues--it's different from
bombing; you don't get immediate success--but in the long run,
the payoff is really important.
Senator Feingold. Well said. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Russell D. Feingold
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing. I am
particularly grateful for the opportunity this hearing provides to
discuss some of the specific diplomatic and humanitarian efforts that
will be necessary to build a more secure and prosperous future. And I
appreciate your leadership in recognizing that a secure future will
ultimately depend on our ability to promote respect for human rights
and democratic governance in states across the globe. But as we begin
what must clearly be the first of many such dialogues on this topic, I
think we should also pause to consider some of the larger implications
of our efforts to promote human rights and democratic governance.
To begin, it is important to recognize that we do not have the
capacity, nor the financial resources, to act militarily against all
bad actors around the globe. As a result, we will need to make tough
choices about our diplomatic, humanitarian and military priorities in
the coming months and years. But we should also recognize, within the
context of such difficult security decisions, that an increased
commitment to global health, economic development, human rights, and
democratic governance clearly represents a sound long-term investment
in our own national security, costing less in both financial and
humanitarian terms than a crisis driven response to some future
humanitarian disaster, and far less than the cost of a necessary
military intervention in a dangerously failed state.
Second, we must also focus on the very real threats posed by weak
or failed states around the world, and the criminal networks within
those states that provide a safe haven for terrorist activities. As
Chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have been exploring
those risks as they are encountered on the African continent, including
manifestations of lawlessness such as piracy, illicit air transport
networks, and trafficking in arms, drugs, gems and people. The terror
that accompanies those shadow networks also accounts for many of the
most violent human rights practices across the continent. Indeed, the
simple fact of the matter is that those shadow networks in Africa and
elsewhere fuel untold suffering, inhibit legitimate economic
development and provide a breeding ground for even more dangerous
terrorist activities. Their demise must become a human rights priority.
Third, we must also find a way to make human rights matter in this
new environment. We do ourselves and our allies no favor by ignoring
human rights abuses in the interest of waging a war on terrorism. This
will demand a frank discussion with some of our new coalition partners
over their poor human rights records. Indeed, in the coming phase of
the assault on terrorism, we must demand greater attention from many of
our new partners to human rights and democratic governance as a
necessary condition for continued alignment with the United States. And
while we have clearly benefitted from the initial assistance and
strategic locations of some of these partners, we must also recognize
that we will never be able to rely on despotic regimes. In a very
meaningful sense, our current struggle to create a more secure global
environment will never be accomplished so long as any despotic regimes
suppress the rights and aspirations of their citizens, regardless of
whether they have offered us their support in the global war against
terrorism.
And in this new human rights context, we should recognize that a
coherent human rights policy must promote the right to a healthier and
more prosperous life. As so many have noted in the months following
September 11, vast pockets of poverty, sickness and despair in
developing states provide dangerous breeding grounds for anti-American
sentiment, and a fertile operational base for terrorists and criminals.
From where I sit today, I believe this threat of global poverty
provides perhaps the most overwhelming challenge to us in shaping an
effective human rights policy for our future.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, I was looking forward to
Milosevic calling me as a witness. As you recall----
Secretary Albright. It's a great honor, isn't it?
The Chairman. Yes. He did mention me. As you recall, I came
back, when your predecessor was--you were at the U.N.--I
remember you calling me, and you asked me, did I really say to
him, I think you're a G-D war criminal and you should be tried
as one. And so he hasn't called me, but I'm looking forward to
that. I'd love that opportunity.
The Chairman. Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling
this hearing. You're not shy about taking on difficult issues.
And promoting democratization, poverty alleviation, and human
rights is certainly a difficult task to take on. And when I saw
the agenda, I did think of when Kofi Annan, the Secretary
General of the United Nations, accepted the Nobel Peace Prize
along with the Institution of the United Nations. He said,
``I've got only three priorities,'' when he accepted in Oslo a
few months ago, ``alleviating poverty, promoting democracy, and
preventing conflict,'' as the agenda for the United Nations.
We haven't heard too much this morning about the United
Nations, and I'm curious, Madam Secretary, about your
experience with the United Nations and your thoughts as to what
they can accomplish in this arena. I think, through the course
of the whole morning, the United Nations only came up in
Senator Feingold's questions on the war crimes tribunal.
But what role can the United Nations play? What's your
experience with dealing with them? I'd be interested in your
thoughts.
Secretary Albright. Well, thank you very much. I think that
clearly the United Nations goes through ebbs and tides, in
terms of how the United States views it and whether it can, in
fact, be useful in pursuing--dealing with problems that are the
priority issues and then pursuing a variety of issues.
I'm very glad that Senator Helms came back in, because it
is thanks to the work that Chairman Biden and Senator Helms
did, we were able to actually pay what we owed the United
Nations. And it changes the possibilities of what effect we can
have there. So that has put Ambassador Negroponte in a much
better position than Ambassador Holbrooke and I were in when we
were there. And these two gentlemen have a great deal to take
credit for, in terms of the success that we had for that.
I also must say that I think that there was some question
originally as to whether Kofi Annan would be a good Secretary
General. And then he was reelected for a second term
unanimously. So I think he is a great choice. And having the
Nobel Prize for him and the organization is a great testament
to the work that he has done.
I think that the U.N. is a very useful organization that
can help in the pursuit of our objectives. It doesn't always do
what we want. As I've said publicly, there's some people who
don't like it because it's full of foreigners, but that can't
be helped. So I think that we have to use it as an organization
that has the ability to have the voice of the international
community speaking on issues, whether they are on issues of
security and peace, on issues of humanitarian and health
issues. And then Senator Helms was talking about HIV/AIDS--I
think Kofi Annan and that group are taking a huge role in that
now. The World Health Organization is working on that whole
host of issues.
They deal on these underlying issues that we are trying to
deal with. And if we decide that the U.N. can't help us, we are
leaving out one of our most important tools, in terms of our--
the toolbox that we have for this.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. Yes, I would hope
they'd be successful. If not, retool them, or whatever, but
they're there, and they've been there since 1948. Is that
right?
The Chairman. Senator Brownback.
Senator Chafee. I have one more question.
The Chairman. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you yielded. I beg
your pardon. No, no. You have plenty of time. I beg your
pardon.
Senator Chafee. You said, that you believe firmly in
increasing our foreign aid which is the lowest of the
industrialized nations. And in the past administration--and I
don't mean this in any critical way--what kind of inroads did
we make in the effort to increasing that and not being last?
And what were the dynamics? Is it just so politically
unattractive to proceed down that road? Or what were the
impediments or roadblocks to trying to raise us above such an
embarrassing position among the industrialized nations?
Secretary Albright. I think that it--first of all, there is
a reality check, in terms of the entire budget process, and we
were operating under caps at that time, and you have to do a
lot of, kind of, horse trading, I think, in terms of where
you're putting your money. State Department wanted very much to
have a continued increase of some kind in our foreign aid.
But at the same time, we had a budget that we had to worry
about, the State Department operating budget. We had to put in
a lot more money than had ever been put in on security for our
embassies. And I kept saying that I hated the choice that I had
of either having completely secure embassies with nobody in
them doing nothing, or having embassies that were less than
perfect where people were working. And it's a Hobson's choice
that one shouldn't have to have. Our diplomats have to be
secure, but they also have to have the money to do their
programs.
But part of the problem is that I think that there is an
inequity in the budget system the way it has worked out. I wish
that we would begin to think of this more--I know this comes up
fairly frequently--but kind of a national security budget, that
we look at all these pieces together and it's not a tradeoff
between what you do on the State Department foreign assistance
side versus what you do on the military side. These need to be
done together.
But there is--it's not a simple process. And I had a
conversation with President Clinton every Christmas Eve, and he
always upped the budget. But it was very hard, and the whole
system of this is very complex. And foreign assistance is
always kind of at the last.
And then we're operating against a myth among the American
public--and I've been out there a lot. People actually think we
give, like, 25 percent of Federal budget for foreign
assistance. And then when I say it's a penny, they're kind of
surprised. So I think that we're operating against a lot of
myths and some systemic issues.
Senator Chafee. Good. Well, I do like your quote, ``It's
not money down a rathole. It's poison down a snakehole of
terrorism helping to choke off the hatred, ignorance, and
desperation upon which terrorism feeds.''
Secretary Albright. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator, you have more time.
Senator Chafee. I'll give it to Senator Brownback.
The Chairman. Alright. Well, thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Secretary, good to have you here. Sorry I didn't
get to hear your direct testimony earlier.
But I would like to focus you, if I could, on the Islamic
region of the world and the pursuit of democracy in that area.
President Bush, in his State of the Union message, got a lot of
comments regarding the ``axis of evil,'' but didn't get many on
his statement on pushing education and democracy in the Islamic
world, which, in my estimation, was a far bigger policy
statement to make in that speech than the ``axis of evil.''
I want to focus you in on that region. It seems as if
democracy has had difficulty really getting a hold in some
places. Turkey has been a longstanding democracy kind of
insured by the military, and the military will step in from
time to time. But what do you think we need to do to really
push democracy in the Islamic world? Would you think that our
efforts should focus on funding more educational efforts in
that region? Is it us being just very bold and aggressive on
human rights and religious freedom, tolerance, the things that
we've stood for everywhere around the world--that we be more
aggressive on that publicly by the President, by the Secretary
of State in that region?
My estimation is we're at a point in time where we're going
to go at this seriously. It represents a great deal of
challenge to us in that it could be destabilizing for a period
of time in that region. It could be difficult for us and could
make some allies in the region very nervous and quite
uncomfortable. Yet it's the time to do it.
I think we've supported a number of regimes in the region--
Republican and Democrat administrations--that are not
democratic, that are not respectful of human rights, and that
in some cases we're starting to harvest a resentment of the
population for us being the supporters of monarchs and
dictators, similar to a position that we got into in Central
America and South America in the 1970's where we were
sponsoring some people not democratically elected, but they
were against communism. We're against communism. So that's good
enough for us. But it wasn't good enough for the people in
Central and South America, and a great resentment built up. I
think we're building some resentment in a region of the world
that we've been very active, very invested, but we haven't
pushed our basic values.
And I'd appreciate your thoughts of what you think we
should do at this moment in time.
Secretary Albright. Let me just say that I think one of our
first issues is that we are not very knowledgeable about Islam.
And I mentioned that we had tried in the State Department to
become--to put out a primer and really get more sensitivity to
understand what Islam is. And I do think that that is an
important aspect.
Because, for me, this is--what's happened here is not so
much a clash of civilizations but a problem between what
civilization is and what isn't civilization. And I think we
just need to have a better--for starters, a better
understanding of Islam.
I do very much favor putting money into education, because
part of the problems is that some of these schools are
basically places for people to learn hatred. And we have to
begin at a very primary level, literally, in order to change
the--to help an educational system that doesn't teach hatred.
I also have not--you know, there's nothing easier than
being out office, but I have not lost the sense of the
difficulty that any Secretary of State has, in terms of
balancing issues that require a certain amount of pragmatism,
that you don't always have the exact friends that you want, and
that you have to look at the overall situation that you're
dealing with.
Pakistan is a very good example. We had a lot of sanctions
put on automatically as a result of legislation, and we had to
change a little bit and keep--but I don't think it means that
we shouldn't push Musharraf to follow through on a democratic
schedule and that we shouldn't worry about human rights. We
need to follow through on what is true to us and not pull our
punches.
Now, I also think--and you have to understand that this is
not a cookie-cutter approach. Not every country can be dealt
with exactly the same, in terms of pressing a democratic
agenda. And one has to have certain priorities and timing and I
think here, a statement that I'd like to make is that we can't
see the world again as if we were in a cold war situation. We
can't substitute terrorists for Communists and decide that they
are monolithic. We made some mistakes during the cold war by
thinking that all the Communist countries were the same and
that within each country it was the same.
So not every Muslim country is the same. The problems
within them are different. And so we can't just decide that
they're all against us and that we are not sensitive to the
various differences within them and then operate in a very
surgical way. Some countries, we're not going to be able to
push because of their strategic position at the moment, but it
doesn't mean that we never talk about it. It doesn't mean that
we don't push on the issues that are important to us. It's a
matter of timing and priorities, and we shouldn't give up who
we are, because in the end we lose.
Senator Brownback. What about post-Saddam Iraq? Wouldn't
it, in your estimation, be one of the countries most open and
able to accept democracy given its educated population? It
strikes me that there is a real chance for a strong democracy
to take hold.
Secretary Albright. Well, I feel so sorry for the people of
Iraq. They don't deserve Saddam Hussein. And we have not been
able to have enough contact with them.
I think one of the issues we need to think about in terms
of what we do about Iraq, is what's next? I mean, how are we
going to deal with the Kurds? What happens with the Shias? I
would appreciate it if we had some kind of a better view of
what the Bush administration sees for a post-Saddam Iraq.
But I think they do have an educated population. I think
there is a real question, given the propaganda that Saddam
Hussein has engaged in for the last 20 years, is that basically
he--there is a lot of--going to be a lot of anti-American
feeling, and we have to figure out how to deal with that.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one quick
follow-on here?
Is the Turkish model a good model for the Islamic
countries? We have a strong military basically trying to ensure
and press forward for democracy. Is that a type of----
Secretary Albright. Well, I think the Turkish model is a
very important and interesting one. The role of the military
has shifted back and forth at various times, and it's very
important to have civilian control over the military. But the--
you know, the Ataturk revolution and the modernity that Turkey
has been able to accept, I think, is very important, which is
one reason that I think we need to work more with Turkey
generally. You know, we--one of the reasons that it's important
to resolve the Turkish-Greek issues and get Turkey more
involved in the EU and various organizations. Turkey is a very
interesting model. Very interesting. But the military has to be
controlled by the civilians.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I'm just going to ask one question
very quickly, because Richard Perle has other commitments, as
well, and we want to get him on. I'm anxious to hear what he
has to say.
On this issue of poverty and terrorism, the root causes of
terrorism, there was an article many of you may have read on
November 17, ``Exploring the Flaws and the Notion of the Root
Cause of Terror,'' by Edward Rothstein. I'm going to make two
points that he made.
He said, ``The current invocations of injustice theory are
also seriously flawed. Consider just one supposed root cause of
Islamic terrorism: poverty. The implication that to help stop
terror, poverty must be ameliorated. There are, of course, very
good reasons to allay poverty. Yet while some poverty-stricken
people may engage in terror, there may be no essential
relationship. Poverty can exist without terror. Think of the
American Depression. And terror can easily exist without
poverty.''
And then the concluding paragraph, ``Contemporary Islamic
terror can be considered a variety of totalitarian terror. It
becomes clear just how limited the injustice theory and the
question of root causes are. No doubt, injustices in policy can
be argued over, but not as root causes of terror.
Totalitarianism stands above such niceties. No injustice,
separately or together, necessarily leads to totalitarianism.
And no mitigation of injustice, however defined, will eliminate
the unwavering beliefs, absolutist control, and unbounded
ambitions. Claims of root causes are distractions from the real
work at hand.''
And the bulk of the article deals with how fundamentalism
is really this century's version of totalitarianism written
about earlier. What is your sense of that?
Secretary Albright. Well, I think that it's too simplistic
in some ways. I mean, I think that what you have are
extremists. And there always are extremists who have some beef
about what the general system is. And totalitarianism is--the
terrorists do not control the whole system. They are outside of
it in many ways. It's an--I mean, I'd have to read it more
carefully----
The Chairman. Well, what I----
Secretary Albright [continuing]. But I think that the
problem here is that we are going to have a hard time figuring
out what the root causes are, and I think there are different
causes for different parts of this.
You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that the people that were
involved in September 11 were educated. Their problem was that
they were dissatisfied with the system within which they
operated, where they were not a part of whatever was happening
in their countries. They had good educations, but they were not
able to exert political and economic power. So their problem is
dissatisfaction with their system.
Then there are those who become available to be recruited
by this band of fanatics, and they do come out of places that
nurture--that hatred comes out of poverty or jealousy or lack
of education.
So I think--to me, I think we've got to be very careful not
to label this all as one thing. It is much more complicated
than that. And so that would be the point that I would make.
The Chairman. I think that--for me, that's the essential
point. I think poverty plays a role, but I think our national
debate tends to fall into two schools. If you just take care of
poverty--just like when I got here--no crime in America. If you
just take care of poverty worldwide, no terrorism. And I think
poverty contributes to the recruiting pool. I'm not at all
sure--I think it's more this notion of irrational ambitions and
these religious passions that play a significant role, as well,
in this process. But I appreciate your answer. I'll send you
the article.
In the interest of time, does anyone else have a concluding
question for the Secretary? Madam Secretary, thank you, as
usual.
Secretary Albright. Thank you all very much.
The Chairman. We appreciate it an awful lot.
Secretary Albright. I enjoyed it. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Secretary Albright. Good to see you all.
The Chairman. Our next witness is Richard Perle, who is a
resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute now. He is
also chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Department of
Defense; chairman and chief executive officer of Hollinger
Digital, Inc.; director of the Jerusalem Post and he has played
many other roles. He is a published author. He has published
many, many articles and he, in my view, is quite frankly the
most listened to and most respected foreign policy/defense
analyst on the center right and it is a pleasure to have him
here. I am sorry you had to wait so long and would you please
begin with whatever testimony you would like to give us.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD PERLE, RESIDENT FELLOW, AMERICAN
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Perle. I appreciate your invitation to participate in
this hearing which poses the question, ``How do we promote
democratization, poverty alleviation, and human rights to build
a more secure world?'' These three ideas--poverty, democracy,
and human rights--are often linked as we try to think our way
through the vexing problems of national and international
security.
The phrase, ``a more secure world'' is almost certainly
prompted by the discovery on September 11 of how insecure we
turned out to be on that day. In any case, hardly any
discussion takes place these days that is not somehow related
to terrorism and the war against it. And for my part this
morning, it will be no exception.
Let me say at the outset that the idea that poverty is a
cause of terrorism, although widely believed and frequently
argued, remains essentially unproven. That poverty is not
merely a cause, but a ``root cause,'' which implies that it is
an essential source of terrorist violence, is an almost
certainly false and even a dangerous idea often invoked to
absolve terrorists of responsibility or mitigate their
culpability. It is a liberal conceit which, if needed, may
channel the war against terror into the cul de sac of grand
development schemes in the third world and the elevation of do-
good/feel-good NGO's to a role they cannot and should not play.
I didn't want to leave you in any doubt as to where I stand.
The Chairman. By the way, it may be of some surprise to
you. I'm not at all sure you're wrong. I genuinely do not know
the answer, but I know it's not just poverty.
Mr. Perle. Well, it's certainly not a one-to-one
relationship.
What we know of the September 11 terrorists suggests that
they were neither impoverished themselves, nor motivated by
concerns about the poverty of others. After all, their avowed
aim, the destruction of the United States, would, if
successful, deal a terrible blow to the growth potential of the
world economy. Actually, it would destroy the world economy.
Their devotion to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which excluded
half the Afghan work force from the economy and aimed to keep
them illiterate as well as poor, casts conclusive doubt on
their interest in alleviating poverty.
Poverty--or poverty and despair--is frequently the most
commonly adumbrated explanation for terrorism abroad--and crime
at home, frequently. Identifying poverty as a source of conduct
invariably confuses the matter. We will never know what went
through the mind of Mohammed Atta as he plotted the death of
thousands of men, women, and children--many of them Muslims, by
the way. We do know that he lived in relative comfort, as did
most, perhaps all, of the 19 terrorists--15 of them from
relatively affluent Saudi Arabia.
If we accept poverty as an explanation, we will stop
searching for a true and useful explanation. We may not notice
the poisonous extremist doctrine propagated, often with Saudi
oil money, in mosques and religious institutions around the
world.
If we attribute terrorism to poverty, we may fail to demand
that President Mubarak of Egypt silence the sermons from
mosques throughout Egypt preaching hatred of the United States.
As you authorize $2 billion a year for Egypt--and I think this
committee has that authority----
The Chairman. That's correct.
Mr. Perle [continuing]. Please remember that these same
clerics are employees of the Egyptian Government. It is not a
stretch to say that U.S. taxpayer dollars are helping to pay
for the most inflammatory anti-American ranting.
And I believe, Mr. Chairman, that if this committee were to
take appropriate action, tying assistance to Egypt, to an end
to this practice, you would see it end pretty much overnight.
So when you hear about poverty as the root cause of
terrorism, I urge you to examine the manipulation of young
Muslim men sent on suicidal missions by wealthy fanatics, like
Osama bin Laden, whose motives are religious and ideological in
nature and have nothing to do with poverty or privation.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing is about building a more secure
future, and I know it will come as no surprise if I argue that
doing that in the near term will require an effective military
establishment to take the war on terrorism to the terrorists,
to fight them over there, because they are well on the way to
achieving their murderous objectives when we are forced to
fight them over here. For once those who wish to destroy
Americans gain entry to the United States and exploit the
institutions of our open society, the likelihood that we will
stop them is greatly diminished.
This is why President Bush was right to declare on
September 11 that, and I quote, ``We will make no distinction
between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who
harbor them,'' close quote. This was not the policy of the last
Democratic administration or, for that matter, the Republican
one before it.
And I can't help but remark that Madeleine Albright's
suggestion, that the current administration is somehow
continuing the anti-terrorist policies of the previous
administration, is really quite wrong. This President broke
decisively, not only with the Clinton administration's policy,
but with the previous Bush administration's policy. There was
nothing partisan about the failure to come to grips with
international terrorism.
It is not a policy universally applauded by our allies, but
it is a right and bold and courageous policy and the only
policy that has a reasonable prospect of protecting the
American people from further terrorist acts.
Dealing effectively with the states that support or condone
terrorism against us or even remain indifferent to it is the
only way to deprive terrorists of the sanctuary from which they
operate, whether that sanctuary is in Afghanistan or North
Korea or Iran or Iraq or elsewhere. The regimes in control of
these rogue states, a term used widely before the last
administration--Madeleine Albright, in fact, substituted the
placid term ``states of concern''--pose an immediate threat to
the United States. They first priority of American policy must
be to transform or destroy rogue regimes.
And while some states will observe the destruction of the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan and decide to end their support
for terrorism rather than risk a similar fate, others will not.
It is with respect to those regimes that persist in
supporting and harboring terrorists that the question of the
role of democratization and human rights is particularly
salient. And foremost among these regimes is Saddam Hussein's
Iraq.
The transformation of Iraq from a brutal dictatorship in
which human rights are unknown to a democratic state protecting
the rights of individuals would not only make the world more
secure, it would bring immediate benefits to the people of
Iraq, all the people of Iraq except the small number of corrupt
officials who surround Saddam Hussein.
I believe this is well understood in the Congress, which
has repeatedly called on the administration to support the
Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group made up of
organizations opposed to Saddam's dictatorship. And, Senator
Biden, you've been very much involved--and, I think, in a very
helpful way, in that regard. So, of course, has Senator Helms.
The INC is pledged to institute democratic political
institutions, protect human rights and renounce weapons of mass
destruction. As we think through the best way to change the
regime in Iraq, it is precisely the proponents of democracy who
deserve our support, not the disaffected officer who simply
wishes to substitute his dictatorship for that of Saddam
Hussein's.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress, which has been
well ahead of the executive branch in recognizing this, will
succeed in persuading this administration, although it failed
to persuade the last one, that our objective in removing
Saddam's murderous regime must be its replacement by democratic
forces in Iraq. And the way to do this is to work with the
Iraqi National Congress.
Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that democracies that
respect human rights, and especially the right to speak and
publish and organize freely, are far less likely to make war or
countenance terrorism than dictatorships in which power is
concentrated in the hands of a few men whose control of the
instruments of war and violence is unopposed and often
unchecked. As a general rule, democracies do not initiate wars
or undertake campaigns of terror. Indeed, democracies are
generally loath to build the instruments of war, to finance
large military budgets, or keep large numbers of their citizens
in military establishments. Nations that embrace fundamental
human rights will not be found planning the destruction of
innocent civilians. I can't think of a single example of a
democracy planning acts of terror like those of September 11.
We could discuss at length why democratic political
institutions and the belief in the rights of individuals
militate against war and terror and violence. But the more
difficult questions have to do with how effectively we oppose
those regimes that are not democratic and deny their citizens
those fundamental human rights, the exercise of which
constitutes a major restraint on the use of force and violence.
Here, the issue is frequently one of whether we engage
them, in the hope that our engagement will lead to reform and
liberalization, or whether oppose and isolate them. I know of
no general prescription. Each case, it seems to me, must be
treated individually, because no two cases are alike.
Take the three cases of the ``axis of evil.'' In the case
of Iraq, I believe engagement is pointless. Saddam Hussein is a
murderous thug, and it makes no more sense to think of engaging
his regime than it would a mafia family.
In the case of Iran, I doubt that the goals of
democratization and human rights would be advanced by engaging
the current regime in Teheran. There is sufficient disaffection
with the mullahs, impressive in its breadth and depth, to
commend continued isolation and patience. The spontaneous
demonstrations of sympathy with the United States are brave and
moving. We owe those who have marched in sympathy with us the
support that comes from refusing to collaborate with the regime
in power. The people of Iran may well throw off the tyrannical
and ineffective dictatorship that oppresses them. We should
encourage them and give them time.
In the case of North Korea, end the policy of bribing them.
Such a policy invites blackmail, by them and others who observe
their manipulation of us, and it certainly moves them no closer
to democracy or respect for human rights. We must watch them
closely and remain ready to move against any installation that
may place weapons of mass destruction or long-range delivery
within their reach.
Mr. Chairman, I have only one recommendation for the
committee, and it is this: to support enthusiastically, and
specifically with substantially larger budgets, the National
Endowment for Democracy. On a shoestring, it has been a source
of innovative, creative programs for the building of democratic
institutions, often working in places where democracy and
respect for human rights is only a distant dream. It may well
be the most cost-effective program in the entire arsenal of
weapons in the war against terror and for a more secure world.
The Endowment, and even more, the organizations that benefit
from the Endowment's support, need and deserve all the help we
can give them.
I don't agree with Secretary Albright that we should throw
a lot of money at aid projects. I think we're just not very
good at helping lift other nations out of poverty. And
sometimes I think our programs perpetuate poverty by
interfering with organic, generic economic development. But the
National Endowment for Democracy, which uses very small amounts
of money very precisely to encourage the evolution of
democratic institutions, really deserves all the support that
Congress can give it. And, in any given year, it's likely to be
more than the executive branch requests. So I would urge you to
plus-up that budget if you get a chance to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I have so many
questions, and I know your time is short. We'll stick with
seven minutes here to get everybody through, and then if you
have a chance to stay, I'd like to ask a few questions.
Let me begin by saying I've known you for over 25 years,
and the thing that I know frightens me sometimes is I most
times agree with your premise. The times in which we disagree
is on the margins that make a difference, in terms of what the
action is.
But I'd like to talk specifically about Saddam Hussein for
a minute and steal a phrase from your testimony from a year
ago, when you and Mort Halperin were here talking about the
Iraqi National Congress and what we should be doing. And you
said, ``We may not be that far apart as Mort and I think.'' I
think Mort went on--we may not be very far apart, you and I,
not that it particularly matters, but in terms of this
discussion.
I met at length recently with Mr. Chalabi, and this is not
the first time I've done that. And as you know, neither this
administration, nor the last administration, has used all the
money that was available to promote the efforts of the Iraqi
National Congress. And you expressed, in your testimony on
March 1, 2001, and you've expressed at other times, the same
concerns that I had. And I'm going to give you a little
anecdotal evidence.
Last year, when Mr. Chalabi assembled a group of about 20
members of the coalition making up the Iraqi National Congress,
they had a meeting in New York, as you recall. And I came down,
as did a number of my Senate colleagues--I think maybe Senator
Brownback was there; I'm not sure--I may be mistaken--we had a
meeting with the representatives of the National Congress,
chaired by Mr. Chalabi, in the Mansfield Room. And my friend
may remember that we were all encouraging them to stay the
course, keep the faith, and we wanted to get aid to them.
And I did something very impolitic, which I guess won't
surprise everyone. I stood up before him--and my colleague may
remember--and I said to Mr. Chalabi--I said, ``You should all
look us in the eyes all of you sitting here, because your lives
may depend on this answer. If we support you, and if you begin
the process, whether it's in the no-fly zones, which has some
greater degree of protection--if you begin to move, and Saddam
decides to move quickly, as he did''--and I think we ruefully
did not respond to his action, as you remember at the time,
against the Kurds--you know, the Kurds were split. He had
worked them out, so he split them. I said, ``You should ask
each of us, are we willing to commit American forces to save
you?'' And I said, ``I'm going to ask for a show of hands.'' I
said, ``I raise my hand.'' My recollection of the 12 or 13
Senators who were sitting there nobody else raised their hand,
which is a reflection of your testimony too, about this notion
that if we get them going, are we willing, if they get shut
down or are under siege--because unlike the Northern Alliance,
these boys haven't been fighting. They are expatriates who I
think are noble and have agreed to some basic consensus here,
and I think they have the capacity--the capacity to govern if
Saddam is down.
And so my question--I keep coming back to it. When Mr.
Chalabi came to me this time with representatives of the
Congress representing the three major groups that make up the
opposition, and he said to me--I expected something totally
different--he said, ``We need your help.'' And I thought he was
going to say to me personally he needed my help to try to push
to free up the money. He said, ``We need your help for a
commitment from the administration to train us. Train us now,
not only in use of weapons, but in the bureaucratic
requirements to run a government.''
And in a nutshell, what he said was this, ``If we don't get
that kind of help, which we're not getting now, we will be out
of luck. You will go in, and we have no doubt you can topple
Saddam, but we will be left in the cold, because we will not
have the capacity to govern this country. We need help on how
to run the oil fields. We need help on how to set up a
government. Can you help us now?''
And that leads me to this question. You and I have attended
many conferences with our European friends. I don't think it's
an exaggeration to say I've never been reluctant to express
both publicly and privately my displeasure with the European
attitude. At the World Economic Summit in New York, I met with
half a dozen European leaders, including Mr. Verdrine, to hear
about how displeased they are.
I asked them two questions. One, if you don't like what
we're saying, do you have a better solution, other than
maintaining the status quo? And, two, what would get you to
change your mind? And what I gleaned from this, Richard, is the
following. And with this, I'm going to stop, and I'd like you
to comment on this. Their concern, beyond the usual is, what
happens after you take down Saddam? What happens then? Are you,
the United States, willing to stay the course. And the analogy
was made to me--Afghanistan, ``No doubt about the incredible
power you have and the competence of the fighting force of the
Americans that are on the ground. But your President says,
you're not going to stay to be part of any multinational force.
You're going to do the same.'' In summarizing what I got from
six major European leaders. You're going to do the same thing.
You're going to take down Saddam. OK, we're a war-fighting
machine. We did our job. Time to go home. And we're going to be
faced with the Kurds deciding whether they want a Kurdistan,
the Greeks getting all upset, the Iranis deciding to move on
the Shias in the south if they want to, where the oil wells
are, et cetera. You know the deal.
And I left with the impression--and I've been bold enough
to suggest this to the administration--I believe you could get
it all, in fact, if the President were willing to lay out his
vision for what Iraq could be after Saddam. I truly believe
that every Middle Eastern leader I've met with and every
European leader, with one exception, would be very happy if we
could surgically go in and get rid of Saddam and everything--it
would remain a whole nation and be, quote, ``relatively
stable.'' But they're afraid to make the move.
And I'm wondering whether you'd comment on two points: the
Iraqi Congress, what should we be doing with them now, beyond,
quote, ``teaching them how to shoot a gun,'' and, number two,
do you believe there's anything, or are they just intractable,
that we can do with the Europeans so they're in on the deal
after he's down, because, sure as heck, we will take him down,
and it will not be difficult.
Mr. Perle. I have reactions on both those questions,
Senator. First, with respect to the Iraqi National Congress, I
think we've lost a lot of time. I was unaware that Dr. Chalabi
said what he said to you, but it strikes me as validation of
the confidence I've had in him for a long time. When was the
last time a leader seeking to topple an autocratic regime was
already thinking about decent governance afterwards. When you
find somebody like that, you should embrace them with both
hands. And it is a disgrace, in my view, that his detractors in
the administration and in some of the agencies of our
government continue to slander him without a shred of evidence
to support their allegations against him. And I hope that one
of the things that comes out of the successful association with
the INC and the liberation of Iraq is the liberation of some
agencies of this government from the demons that have been
inflicted on them.
So I think confidence in the Iraqi National Congress is
entirely justified, and the sooner we get on with helping them
both remove Saddam and plan for democratic pluralism in the
aftermath of Saddam, the better.
There are others who would be quite happy simply to remove
Saddam and replace him with a ``little Saddam.'' I think that
would not be a good outcome for the United States.
One further point. The question is still a valid one: Would
we be prepared to use American military forces? And my view on
that is an unequivocal, we should be.
The Chairman. I agree.
Mr. Perle. I also think that, with the passage of time, our
ability to bring force to bear with precision and in a way that
minimizes the risk to American forces has improved enormously.
And we saw that in Afghanistan, and I believe we would see it
again in Iraq. The combination of air power and allies on the
ground is a formidable combination. And while I think it would
require some American involvement on the ground, it would be
nothing like the very large troop presence that was required,
or thought to be required, in 1991.
Now, with respect to Hubert Verdrine--and I--
The Chairman. And it's not just him
Mr. Perle. When you said ``beyond the usual,'' you meant
the usual French resentment of American prominence.
The Chairman. If I might add, it wasn't merely the French.
He is the most notable.
Mr. Perle. Well, he's been outspoken on this subject. I
think he's--let me say, I think that what is uppermost in the
minds of French policymakers is not how satisfactorily Iraq
emerges when we replace Saddam Hussein. I think the French are
interested in protecting their financial and economic interests
in Iraq, in their oil deals with Saddam Hussein. I think
they've been playing a very cozy game with Saddam for a long
time, and it should not be elevated into some grander notion of
searching for stability in the region or anything of the sort.
What would happen if we were successful in removing Saddam
and in bringing some democratic institutions to that very
talented people in the country, would be the obliteration of
the French commercial interests, and that's what I think
worries them the most, because the people of Iraq are not going
to embrace, once Saddam is gone, the governments that helped
keep Saddam in power. It's just as simple as that. And I know
that sounds harsh, but I believe fundamentally that that is the
underlying motivation for French policy.
The Europeans are nervous, to be sure. Europeans are always
nervous. Happily, this is a situation in which, while it would
be nice to have the Europeans with us, it's not essential.
We're not going to use European forces, in any event.
Politically, I don't think the Europeans will oppose us.
And when it's all over, and the Iraqi people have been
liberated from Saddam, and we hear the stories about what life
was like under Saddam, I think the Europeans, as well as others
in the region, will rush to tell us how they were with us all
along.
The Chairman. One former CENTCOM commander--general said to
me, ``Our biggest problem if we were to be part of moving in on
the ground or with air power, would be accommodating the number
of prisoners of war who were voluntarily running over to
surrender.'' This is a very thoughtful gentleman who said that.
It's not some harebrained notion. I think there's some truth to
that.
I have no doubt about the ability to take him and his
minions out, but I can't see any way, Richard, whereby there
will not be instability. No matter how well Chalabi is able to
lead this congress, which is fractionated, although now united
on the one goal. It's going to take some time. I predict it's
going to take a year or two to stabilize the country, and it's
going to require some boots on the ground and some rifles in
the hands beyond the Iraqi National Congress. I can't envision
a circumstance where we go in, get the job done, and we go home
immediately.
And so that's the dilemma that I don't think the
administration has addressed. And I think not that we need it
militarily, but in the long haul it's useful to have that
coalition to do the mopping-up part, which is costly, time
consuming, and extends our forces.
Mr. Perle. Well, I certainly would not assume that the
administration would not be willing----
The Chairman. I'm not assuming either, just haven't stated
anything.
Mr. Perle [continuing]. To play a full role. And I think
the time will come when the administration develops a detailed
policy with respect to Saddam Hussein and I hope articulates in
a convincing way.
The Chairman. Well, I look forward to that. I thank you.
Mr. Chairman, please fire away.
Senator Helms. Richard--I'm going to first-name you because
we've known each other just about ever since I hit this town,
and that was a while back--I want to apologize to you for
bringing you here this morning, because you had a message that
the media ought to have heard. There won't be syllable of what
you have said in your fine statement in the media this evening
or tomorrow. And as I listened to you, and as I listened to the
distinguished former Secretary of State, I thought how great it
would have been for that to have been a dialog between the two
of you. You're a gentleman. She's a lady. You're smart. She's
smart. And I thought about the young people who came, and they
could scarcely hear her at all. And they left, and all the
reporters have gone.
Now, I would not have brought you here if I had known it
was going to be that, because I had made clear my hope that we
would have you on a panel, the two of you. And I think that
would have been beneficial, and I think there would have been
fair coverage of it--by the media.
But, in any case, I won't ask you to come again unless we
can make arrangements that I'm certain about. But your
statement was good. You're a very patient gentleman, and I have
about two questions.
One involves Belarus and the regime of Aleksandr
Lukashenko. Now, that's about the last vestige, I think, of
totalitarianism in the heart of Europe. And opponents of that
regime are regularly jailed and simply disappear. And I
recently met with a group of the wives whose husbands have been
taken by that regime. They don't know where their husbands are.
Further reports have surfaced in the media regarding arms
shipments from Belarus to Iraq.
My question, what do you think the United States should do
to complete the goal of what we call a democratic Europe? Ms.
Annie Lee, she--if she was strong on anything, she was strong
on language--and this was a long time ago. She was my English
teacher. But she said, ``We don't have a democracy. We have a
republic.'' And yet we talk about democracy, democracy,
democracy. And I don't want to and am not going to get into
that.
But I think, Richard, that Shakespeare had it right, ``All
the world is a stage, and all the people are actors.'' But I
wonder, just for the record, what do you think the United
States should do to complete a goal of a free Europe--for a
democratic, republican Europe?
Mr. Perle. At the end of the day, Senator, while we can
exert great influence, ultimately the Europeans have to take
responsibility for Europe. And we should feel entitled--I
believe we are entitled to say to them, not simply because we
defend them and have defended them in the past and they owe
what peace and stability they now enjoy to the intervention of
the United States in cleaning two wars in this century, but I
think as a world leader, we owe it to insist that they meet a
reasonable standard in concluding the democratization in
Europe. That is why I thought we were entirely right to insist
that we take decisive action in Bosnia when the Europeans were
unwilling to do so, why I thought we should have lifted the
sanctions when the Europeans were unwilling to do so.
And every time we have backed down in deference to the
Europeans, Europe has suffered. So I think we should insist and
insist and insist. But at the end of the day, they're going to
have to take responsibility for their own continent.
Senator Helms. Well, do you think that Belarus should be
involved in our dealings with Russia?
Mr. Perle. I think if Belarus were appropriately dealt with
by the Europeans, we might see some change. Just how we have--
these are seldom simply diplomatic issues, although they are
dealt with by diplomatic institutions, so they are dealt with
at a highly formal level of the head of state, head of the
government level, when what often is involved goes much deeper
into the fabric of those societies.
There is not substitute for information. We should be
aggressively involved in throwing light on the situation. But
we should--the Europeans will have enormous influence here
because of the economic dominance of the EU of the continent,
and I think we should push them and push them farther.
Senator Helms. I thank you, my friend. I'm going to put
your statement in the record this afternoon, not that anybody
reads it, but at least it will be available, and I understand
reprints can be made and people can learn about it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Perle, Resident Fellow, American
Enterprise Institute
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your invitation to participate in the
Committee's hearing which poses the question ``How do we promote
democratization, poverty alleviation, and human rights to build a more
secure world?'' These three ideas, poverty, democracy and human rights
that are often linked as we try to think our way through the vexing
problems of national and international security.
The phrase ``a more secure world'' is almost certainly prompted by
the discovery, on September 11, of how insecure we turned out to be on
that day. In any case, hardly any discussion takes place these days
that is not somehow related to terrorism and the war against it. For my
part, this morning will be no exception.
Let me say, at the outset, that the idea that poverty is a cause of
terrorism, although widely believed and frequently argued, remains
essentially unproven. That poverty is not merely a cause, but a ``root
cause,'' which implies that it is an essential source of terrorist
violence, is an almost certainly false, and even a dangerous idea,
often invoked to absolve terrorists of responsibility or mitigate their
culpability. It is a liberal conceit which, if heeded, may channel the
war against terror into the cul de sac of grand development schemes in
the third world and the elevation of do-good/feel-good NGO's to a role
they cannot and should not play.
What we know of the September 11 terrorists suggests they were
neither impoverished themselves nor motivated by concerns about the
poverty of others. After all, their avowed aim, the destruction of the
United States, would, if successful, deal a terrible blow to the growth
potential of the world economy. Their devotion to Afghanistan's Taliban
regime, which excluded half the Afghan work force from the economy and
aimed to keep them illiterate as well as poor, casts conclusive doubt
on their interest in alleviating poverty.
Poverty--or poverty and despair--is the most commonly adumbrated
explanation for terrorism abroad--and crime at home. Identifying
poverty as a source of conduct invariably confuses the matter. We will
never know what went through the mind of Mohammed Atta as he plotted
the death of thousands of innocent men, women and children, including a
number of Moslems. We do know that he lived in relative comfort as did
most, perhaps all, of the 19 terrorists--15 of them from affluent Saudi
Arabia.
If we accept poverty as an explanation we will stop searching for a
true, and useful, explanation. We may not notice the poisonous
extremist doctrine propagated, often with Saudi oil money, in mosques
and religious institutions around the world.
If we attribute terrorism to poverty, we may fail to demand that
President Mubarak of Egypt silence the sermons, from mosques throughout
Egypt, preaching hatred of the United States. As you authorize $2
billion a year for Egypt, please remember that these same clerics are
employees of the Egyptian government. It is not a stretch to say that
U.S. taxpayer dollars are helping to pay for the most inflammatory
anti-American ranting.
So when you hear about poverty as the root cause of terrorism, I
urge you to examine the manipulation of young Muslim men sent on
suicidal missions by wealthy fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, whose
motives are religious and ideological in nature and have nothing to do
with poverty or privation.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing is about building a more secure future;
and I know it will come as no surprise if I argue that doing that in
the near term will require an effective military establishment to take
the war on terrorism to the terrorists, to fight them over there
because they are well on the way to achieving their murderous
objectives when we are forced to fight them over here. For once those
who wish to destroy Americans gain entry to the United States and
exploit the institutions of our open society, the likelihood that we
will stop them is greatly diminished.
This is why President Bush was right to declare on September 11
that ``We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed
these acts and those who harbor them.'' This was not the policy of the
last Democratic administration or the Republican one before it. It is
not a policy universally applauded by our allies. But it is a right and
bold and courageous policy and the only policy that has a reasonable
prospect of protecting the American people from further terrorist acts.
Dealing effectively with the states that support or condone
terrorism against us (or even remain indifferent to it) is the only way
to deprive terrorists of the sanctuary from which they operate, whether
that sanctuary is in Afghanistan or North Korea or Iran or Iraq or
elsewhere. The regimes in control of these ``rogue'' states--a term
used widely before the last administration substituted the flaccid term
``states of concern''--pose an immediate threat to the United States.
The first priority of American policy must be to transform or destroy
rogue regimes.
And while some states will observe the destruction of the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan and decide to end their support for terrorism
rather than risk a similar fate, others will not.
It is with respect to those regimes that persist in supporting and
harboring terrorists that the question of the role of democratization
and human rights is particularly salient. And foremost among these
regimes is Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The transformation of Iraq from a brutal dictatorship, in which
human rights are unknown, to a democratic state protecting the rights
of individuals would not only make the world more secure, it would
bring immediate benefits to all the people of Iraq (except the small
number of corrupt officials who surround Saddam Hussein).
I believe that this is well understood in the Congress, which has
repeatedly called on the administration to support the Iraqi National
Congress, an umbrella group made up of organizations opposed to
Saddam's dictatorship. The INC is pledged to institute democratic
political institutions, protect human rights and renounce weapons of
mass destruction. As we think through the best way to change the regime
in Iraq, it is precisely the proponents of democracy who deserve our
support, not the disaffected officer who simply wishes to substitute
his dictatorship for that of Saddam Hussein.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress, which has been well ahead
of the executive branch in recognizing this, will succeed in persuading
this administration, although it failed to persuade the last one, that
our objective in removing Saddam's murderous regime must be its
replacement by democratic forces in Iraq and the way to do that is work
with the Iraqi National Congress.
Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that democracies that respect
human rights, and especially the right to speak and publish and
organize freely, are far less likely to make war or countenance
terrorism than dictatorships in which power is concentrated in the
hands of a few men whose control of the instruments of war and violence
is unopposed. As a general rule, democracies do not initiate wars or
undertake campaigns of terror. Indeed, democracies are generally loath
to build the instruments of war, to finance large military budgets or
keep large numbers of their citizens in military establishments.
Nations that embrace fundamental human rights will not be found
planning the destruction of innocent civilians. I can't think of a
single example of a democracy planning acts of terror like those of
September 11.
We could discuss at length why democratic political institutions
and a belief in the rights of individuals militate against war and
terror and violence. But the more difficult questions have to do with
how effectively we oppose those regimes that are not democratic and
deny their citizens those fundamental human rights, the exercise of
which constitutes a major restraint on the use of force and violence.
Here the issue is frequently one of whether we ``engage'' them in
the hope that our engagement will lead to reform and liberalization, or
whether we oppose and isolate them. I know of no general prescription.
Each case, it seems to me, must be treated individually because no two
cases are alike. Take the three cases of the ``axis of evil.''
In the case of Iraq, I believe engagement is pointless. Saddam
Hussein is a murderous thug and it makes no more sense to think of
engaging his regime than it would a mafia family.
In the case of Iran, I doubt that the goals of democratization and
human rights would be advanced by engaging the current regime in
Teheran. There is sufficient disaffection with the mullahs, impressive
in its breadth and depth, to commend continued isolation--and patience.
The spontaneous demonstrations of sympathy with the United States are
brave and moving. We owe those who have marched in sympathy with us the
support that comes from refusing to collaborate with the regime in
power. The people of Iran may well throw off the tyrannical and
ineffective dictatorship that oppresses them. We should encourage them
and give them time.
In the case of North Korea end the policy of bribing them. Such a
policy invites blackmail, by them and others who observe their
manipulation of us--and it certainly moves them no closer to democracy
or respect for human rights. We must watch them closely and remain
ready to move against any installation that may place weapons of mass
or long-range delivery within their reach.
Mr. Chairman, I have only one recommendation for the Committee and
it is this: to support enthusiastically, and specifically with
substantially larger budgets, the National Endowment for Democracy. On
a shoestring it has been a source of innovative, creative programs for
the building of democratic institutions, often working in places where
democracy and respect for human rights is only a distant dream. It may
well be the most cost-effective program in the entire arsenal of
weapons in the war against terror and for a more secure world. The
Endowment, and even more the organizations that benefit from the
Endowment's support, need and deserve all the help we can give them.
Mr. Perle. Well, thank you. And thank you for your earlier
remarks, Senator. I would much have preferred that Secretary
Albright and I go back and forth on this. It wouldn't have been
exactly a clash of civilizations, but it would have been----
Senator Helms. I think she would have enjoyed it. And I
know you would have. But, you know----
Mr. Perle. But I guess she has----
Senator Helms. Another day, maybe.
Mr. Perle [continuing]. Concerns about----
The Chairman. While we're waiting for Senator Brownback, if
I could comment on that, it has been the practice, all the time
that I've been on the committee, that a former Secretary of
State, a former Secretary of Defense, a former Cabinet
Secretary, if they wish to testify alone, we accord them that.
And that's the reason it was done. It wasn't done in any way to
not get your comments out. I hope you know me well enough to
know that wasn't the purpose. But having said that, it's a
valid point, in terms of the continued coverage. But Senator
Brownback is here, and he has some questions.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. If you have the time. It's about 26 of.
Mr. Perle. Yes, I'm OK.
The Chairman. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Just a couple of questions, if I could.
And my apologies for not being able to be here earlier. I was
at another session.
On looking at post-Saddam Iraq--I don't know if you had a
chance to comment on this--what would your estimation be of the
possibilities of that being a vibrant democracy in Iraq in
post-Saddam?
Mr. Perle. I'm very optimistic about Iraq. The people of
Iraq, as it has already been noted, are enormously talented.
Scientifically and technically, they lead the Arab world, even
after the scourge of Saddam Hussein. They have a history of
serious government. They've had a parliament in the past. In
fact, Dr. Chalabi's father, I believe, was President of the
Senate of Iraq, so there's some political history there.
I also think that emerging from the dark night of Saddam's
brutal dictatorship, there will be an energy and an exuberance
that will reflect itself in a constructive reconstruction of
Iraq. There will be some of the centrifugal forces that Senator
Biden was referring to. But I also think the capacity of the
Iraqis, who see themselves as Iraqis, could pull together and
enjoy the fruits of the liberal humanitarian regime, have a
pretty good chance of producing one of the great success
stories.
I know the region will certainly be better off. Saddam's
Iraq is opposed to the peace process--sends checks to suicide
bombers. So the world will be better off, and certainly the
people of Iraq will be better off, and I think they will seize
that opportunity. It won't be perfect. And I accept Senator
Biden's point that we should be prepared to remain there to
assist that process.
I mean, the real success stories after World War II were
the countries where we stayed around long enough. We wrote the
Japanese constitution, we certainly got the Germans back on the
right track. I think it's worth sticking around to see that the
beginning of the process, the removal of Saddam, is not the end
of the process.
Senator Brownback. In the Islamic world, as I noted to
Secretary Albright while you were here, in the President's
State of the Union message, he talked about education and
democracy in the Islamic world, and that we have not--he didn't
say this; I'm saying it--we have not pushed that aggressively
to date, but we're going to start doing that now.
Take us through that major Presidential policy shift and
what does that mean for us, in your estimation, specifically in
Saudi Arabia, if you would, and potential other hot spots that
you might identify as we press that policy forward.
Mr. Perle. The issue is a little bit like changing
direction. You first have to come to a stop before you can set
off in the opposite direction. And the stop, in this case, is
the end to the funding of institutions that are propagating
hatred of the United States and the West, that are preaching
intolerance and death and destruction.
And whether the Saudis wish to acknowledge it or not, the
fact is that their money has been going to institutions that
are a major source--you talked about root causes? There's a
root cause. Young people going to the mosque on Friday and
hearing week after week after week about the evil of the United
States.
So the first thing we have to do before we can think about
positive education is stop the poisonous education, and it's
happening all over the Arab world and in countries where there
are significant Arab communities and Muslim communities. And
much of it is funded by the Saudis. So that's got to stop. And
I think we have--if they want to consider that they are friends
of the United States, then they've got to take some action to
deal with this.
If we were supporting institutions that were propagating
hatred in Saudi Arabia, I suspect they'd be in here to ask us
to stop, and we should ask them to stop. And they certainly
could do that if they chose to do so.
So in the United Kingdom and in this country, people would
be shocked at what appears in some of the textbooks. It's true
in places like the Palestinian Authority. It is scandalous that
we have been silent for so long on what is being taught to
young children in--under the aegis of the Palestinian Authority
or the Government of Syria, or the Government of Lebanon. These
textbooks are a disgrace. And they're--it continues to this
day, to this moment.
So I think that we will see real progress, Tom Friedman's
Saudi proposal notwithstanding. I don't think we'll see real
progress toward peace in the region until the practice of
poisoning young minds ends and we hear an entirely different
kind of education.
At the point of which what we've been seeing stops, then,
of course, there's a role to play in encouraging concepts of
tolerance and ethnic and religious harmony. This is a country
that is founded on it and that practices it, and that practices
it every day.
We certainly have the moral authority to talk about a
pluralist society in which people are free to pursue their own
beliefs. And that's what we should be doing. But it's important
to recognize the problem.
I listened to Madeleine Albright talk about how she tried
very hard to get us to understand the Muslim world, the primer.
You know, the institution that we fund to help us understand
the rest of the world is the Department of State. Where have
they been? And this isn't just a comment on the last
administration. It goes back a very long way.
We have, I'm sorry to say, a community of experts whom we
have asked to advise us as a Nation on how to deal with the
rest of the world, that has failed us miserably, and I'm
talking about the whole assembly, hundreds of them, thousands
probably, of former ambassadors and former DCM's and former
chiefs of station. And where were they when this was going on
under their very noses? I didn't hear the alarm bells ringing.
I didn't see the articles. I think it's in part because our
diplomatic establishment is so focused on government-to-
government relations, and it wasn't looking underneath to see
the broad social and political trends that ultimately are far
more important than what one Foreign Minister says to another.
I'm sorry to be so meandering about that, but I think
there's something desperately wrong with our appreciation of
the Muslim world, with our appreciation of the particularly
virulent forms of Islamism, the Wahabist view in particular.
And it is not unreasonable for this committee to ask why the
experts we pay to advise us on this fail to do so.
Senator Brownback It's a good point. I just would say, in
conclusion, if I could, that I want to thank you very much, Mr.
Perle, because you've brought a lot of expertise for a long
time to this country, and the country is grateful for you doing
that.
Second is that one of the things I think we're really going
to have to look at is how we diversify our energy sources,
because as we move to push democracy and education in the
Islamic world, this could well be disruptive to a region that's
been very important to us on energy supply. So our engagement
in Central Asia, our engagement with Russia on oil, regions in
South America--I mean, what I see us doing is, as we move
democracy and education forward, we had better be very
aggressive on diversifying our energy sources, including--and
we had a tough topic here on ANWR. But I think if we're going
to push democracy and education in the Islamic world, which I
think we clearly should, and now is the time, if not a little
past the time for us to do it, we'd better be diversifying
these energy sources.
Mr. Perle. I agree with that entirely, and I think Russia,
by the way, has enormous undeveloped capacity that could be
brought on stream fairly quickly. At something like $16, $17,
$18 a barrel, there are tremendous resources in Canada, which,
at those prices, are productive. That investment won't get made
unless it's clear there's a market there, and we should be
thinking seriously about the cost of energy security. It's a
public good to be free from dependence on an unstable,
turbulent part of the world.
The Chairman. Do you have a few more minutes?
Mr. Perle. I need to be at the Willard Hotel at 1:15, so if
you can get me there at----
The Chairman. Alright, we can arrange that. If the Senator
has a minute--because it seems to me one of the reasons why--at
the risk of hurting your reputation--I have disagreed with you
a lot, but also admired you a lot--is that there's a
consistency to what you say. I would posit that one of the
reasons why--if we look back in the last 29 years that I've
been here there hasn't been more of a hew and cry coming from
the professionals about what was going on is because usually
when there's a very serious fatal flaw in our failure to do
something, it's because, for different reasons, liberals and
conservatives arrive at the same spot.
I'm reminded of the George Will's comment on another
context saying, ``They obviously love capitalism more than they
hate communism.''
One of the reasons is the economic forces in this country
have not been willing, and have--even when I was publicly
critical of Saudi Arabia, I had the house come down on me,
including this administration, saying, ``Whoa, whoa, whoa,
don't do that.'' I had the Crown Prince's policy advisor in my
office within 24 hours. This is 2 months ago. Seriously. I am
not joking about this. You know I'm not kidding about this.
And then you had liberals who would say, no, no, no, all
this peace, love, brotherhood. We have to--you know, we have to
work this out--we can negotiate this. We can work it out.
I would argue, in very broad and very crude terms, that
combination has kept us from doing the things we should be
doing and is even keeping us now from doing some of the things
that are obvious, which leads me to this question.
If, in fact, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, at the Arab
Summit, proffers the plan that is being referred to as the
``Friedman Plan,'' if he proffers that for real, if he actually
goes out on a limb and says what he says, or what he may say,
how should we, in the best sense of the word, ``take
advantage'' of that? Because if, in fact--which I find hard to
believe--but if, in fact, the Arab world would, in fact, agree
to total diplomatic relations, purging their textbooks,
stopping the rhetoric, et cetera, then that may be the basis on
something where something really could be done.
You have really good instincts so my question is: What's
your instinct about whether or not the Saudis are likely to do
what's been leaked? And if so, for what reason would they do
it? Is it to buy time? What's the reason?
Mr. Perle. Well, it's a very good question. And I think,
Senator, that the Saudis understand that they're in some
difficulty, that--wars create the conditions in which things
change. And we just had a war, and it continues in other ways,
and they understand--I think they understand that change is
coming and it could be devastating to them. So it is possible
that the Saudis could get behind a real reconciliation between
Israelis and Palestinians.
My advice would be to make the standards high enough so
that it has a chance of real success. We've tended to not do
that in the past. The getting of an agreement has taken
precedence over the getting of a good agreement. So, for
example, the Oslo process was supposed to include a
renunciation of those sections of the Palestinian covenant that
call for the destruction of Israel. And instead of a simple,
straightforward ``we repeal these sections here and now,''
there was all this absurd obfuscation and remarks made in the
presence of the President that were a substitute for doing the
right thing. And so, to this day, those clauses of the covenant
have never been repealed.
If it's complete, if it's total, if it--if the Saudis are
prepared to stand up and say, ``We accept the legitimacy of a
Jewish state within whatever set of orders,'' then I think we
may actually have something, if the others are prepared to
accept it. If they renounce terrorism as an instrument for
resolving this dispute, then you may have something.
But I have to say that Camp David was never implemented. It
was violated almost from day one. So I'm skeptical about
whether even a powerful Saudi Crown Prince, over lunch with a
New York Times correspondent, can launch the sort of
fundamental cultural and psychological and political change
that would be necessary.
But set the standard high enough, because the one thing the
world doesn't need is another unfulfilled promise.
The Chairman. Last question. I'm not going to get into the
``axis of evil'' that has now become so politically charged, it
doesn't matter what you say, there's not a lot of intelligent
debate surrounding it, in my view.
Let me talk about North Korea. The point you make about
``we should stop bribing North Korea,'' the President has said
two things on his recent trip. One, he has reiterated the
rhetoric about the evil power in North Korea. Who can argue
with it? Two, he says he is fully committed to supporting the
``sunshine policy'' of Kim Dae Jung. And he's ready to meet
without any preconditions.
Now, this sends somewhat conflicting messages, because it
seems to me we're left with one of two roads here. One, we move
vigorously and set clear conditions for the North Koreans, to
which, if they don't respond, we reserve the right to
preemptively strike them, to take out the threatening
mechanisms that exist within their country. And I think it's
very difficult to do both, to actually negotiate and plan that
the other option is one you're ready to exercise.
Talk to me about what, in your view, is the best way to get
North Korea to stop the dangerous pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them? And are we only
left with the preemptive military strike as an option?
Mr. Perle. They wouldn't get close enough to completion for
that to be necessary, although we mustn't hesitate--
The Chairman. Why wouldn't that--well, that's what I mean.
In other words----
Mr. Perle. No, it's not easy.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Perle. It's not easy. And it's hard to do it in
complete secrecy, although we do not have the sort of
inspection in North Korea that would give us the confidence I
think we would require. The fact that it's technically
challenging is very helpful in this case.
I'm rather pessimistic about North Korea. I think that
place is in such terrible shape. I gather--someone was telling
me the other day that the average height of the North Korean
soldiers is something like 4 feet 10 inches--a product of years
of malnutrition and suffering.
I, frankly, don't know what the best course is with North
Korea. But at the end of the day, we have to be prepared to
destroy any installation which, if taken to completion, would--
--
The Chairman. Well, as you point out, our intelligence
community has missed the boat on almost every major development
in the last 10 years, maybe longer. And so my concern about, at
least what I consider a lack of clarity on what our position
is, can lead to a lot of misunderstanding unrelated to North
Korea. And I am concerned that, on the one hand, we say, to
make the point how dangerous the North Korean regime is, that
they're perilously close to gaining a nuclear bomb. They are
even closer to gaining the capacity to have the third stages of
a No Dong missile which could strike the United States, even
though you and I both know the ability to put a nuclear weapon
on top of that is highly unlikely at this stage because of the
throwaway problem they have. Nonetheless, they have the
potential capacity to build biological or chemical weapons and
have such a launch.
I think although many see that threat as somewhat
exaggerated--not the ultimate threat; the immediacy. And so, as
you pointed out in your statement, the Israelis did not wait
for the reactor in Iraq to have the fuel cells placed in it.
They took it out before then. And if our preemptive policy is
based upon the most rational time at which to strike these
installations, it would be hard to argue that, ``We're not in
that time frame right now.''
And so I am not sure that I'm in disagreement with--I am
sure I'm confused by what the devil the President is saying.
And maybe there are hard-baked plans and there is a clear
notion of what's going on inside the administration. But if
there is, they're not sharing it with the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee or the ranking member or many other
people that I'm aware of. And so it is a concern, and I haven't
heard how you square these two oft-uttered statements of,
``We'll sit down anytime, anywhere. We're ready to negotiate.
We agree with the sunshine policy. And by the way, we're going
to preemptively take you out if you don't watch yourself.''
Mr. Perle. Well, if we'd left the North Koreans confused as
well, that may not be such a bad thing.
The Chairman. Well, it's not so bad if we've left them
confused, but it bothers me that they left the American public
and the policy makers here confused.
But you never leave me confused. You always are clear in
your points of view, and I sincerely appreciate you being here.
We take what you say seriously.
Mr. Perle. Thanks very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.)
-