[Senate Hearing 108-70]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-70
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE OVERSIGHT (PART I)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 26, 2003
__________
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
WASHINGTON : 2003
88-719 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.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
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 2
Hearing Segment I.--Near East and South Asia
Burns, Hon. William J., Assistant Secretary of State, Near
Eastern Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC........... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions for the record submitted by
Senator Biden.............................................. 74
Chamberlin, Hon. Wendy, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia
and the Near East, United States Agency for International
Development [USAID], Washington, DC............................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Response to an additional question for the record submitted
by Senator Feingold........................................ 79
Rocca, Hon. Christina B., Assistant Secretary of State, South
Asian Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC............. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Responses to additional questions for the record submitted
by:
Senator Biden.............................................. 76
Senator Bill Nelson........................................ 80
Hearing Segment II.--East Asia and Pacific
Chamberlin, Hon. Wendy, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia
and the Near East, United States Agency for International
Development [USAID], Washington, DC............................ 65
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Response to an additional question for the record submitted
by Senator Feingold........................................ 79
Kelly, Hon. James A., Assistant Secretary of State, East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC....... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Responses to additional questions for the record submitted
by:
Senator Biden.............................................. 77
Senator Feingold........................................... 79
(iii)
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE OVERSIGHT (PART I)
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
S-116, The Capitol, Hon. Richard G. Lugar (chairman of the
committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Hagel, Brownback, Chafee,
Alexander, Coleman, Boxer, and Bill Nelson.
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is called to order. We are very pleased to initiate
our hearings today in preparation for foreign assistance
authorization, and it is the pleasure of the committee to move
sector by sector so that there are opportunities for State
Department leadership to give objectives, goals and specifics
that ought to be part of our legislation. We take seriously the
authorization process, as these hearings are evidence, and we
appreciate very much your willingness to come to testify.
It is a pleasure to welcome Assistant Secretaries of State
William Burns, Christina Rocca, and James Kelly, who will all
appear in the course of this morning, as well as USAID
Assistant Administrator Wendy Chamberlin, to our committee. We
look forward to your testimony and to our discussion of the
role that U.S. foreign assistance can play in three strategic
areas of the world, the Near East, South Asia, and East Asia.
Since the mid-1980s, Congress has not fulfilled its
responsibility to pass a Foreign Assistance Authorization Act.
As I make that statement, I said Congress. From time to time
this committee has acted, sometimes the Senate as a whole,
sometimes the other body, but we have not been successful in
forwarding our efforts in conference or producing legislation
that the President would sign, and so we hope to forge a
different path this year, in 2003.
In the absence of such legislation, the job of providing
guidance on foreign assistance has fallen to the Appropriations
Committees, House and Senate. I am hopeful that our committee
will work together during the coming months to pass a
thoughtful foreign assistance authorization bill that carefully
examines existing programs and addresses emerging needs.
We appreciated very much the testimony of the Secretary of
State last month on the administration's request to fund the
Department's domestic and overseas operations. Understandably,
many questions at that hearing focused on broader United States
policy toward Iraq and North Korea. Today, we will probe
foreign assistance programs in much greater detail. In the
midst of the current conflict, we hope to learn how the
administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request will support
U.S. foreign policy interests, including a successful foreign
assistance strategy for post-war Iraq.
We also must probe how foreign assistance should support
efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan, to mitigate the threat of
weapons of mass destruction on the Korean Peninsula, to bolster
our public diplomacy, and to ensure the security of Americans
who travel overseas, including those who serve in our
embassies.
Today is the first of two hearings the committee will hold
in advance of our deliberations on reauthorizing foreign
assistance. I am very pleased that Senator Chafee has agreed to
lead the first two segments of our discussion with the very
capable ranking member, Senator Boxer, and they will listen to
you address foreign assistance for the Near East and South
Asia. As the subcommittee chairman for Near Eastern and South
Asian Affairs, Senator Chafee has the responsibility for these
two regions. Senator Brownback, our East Asian and Pacific
Affairs Subcommittee chairman, had an unavoidable conflict this
morning, so I will preside over the third panel so that we will
have continuity in our hearings this morning.
I am going to turn the meeting over to my distinguished
colleague, Senator Chafee, with first of all a wish that he has
a happy birthday. This is, in fact, for those of you who have
not already read Roll Call and other distinguished
publications, Senator Chafee's fiftieth birthday, so he is
beginning the day with very productive and wonderful labors on
behalf of the public service of this country.
And likewise, I am indebted to Senator Boxer. She is
constant in these subcommittee hearings either as chairman of
the subcommittee or as distinguished ranking member, and has a
profound and long interest in the areas that are going to be
discussed this morning.
So I turn the gavel over to you, Senator Chafee, with best
wishes, and as these two panels conclude I will return and
conduct the third part of our session. I think we will not have
rollcall votes, as I am advised, for the moment until 11:30.
The Senate is due, as I understand, to come in at 10:30, so
that is a blessed relief, at least for a couple of hours, which
we will try to use productively, and then probably during the
session that I am chairing we may be interrupted. Hopefully all
of you will understand our predicament, but we will go in
sections between votes until we can conclude our hearings.
[The opening statement of Senator Lugar follows:]
Opening Statement of Senator Richard G. Lugar
It is a pleasure to welcome Assistant Secretaries of State William
Burns, Christina Rocca, and James Kelly, as well as USAID Assistant
Administrator Wendy Chamberlin to the committee. We look forward to
your testimony and to our discussion of the role that U.S. foreign
assistance can play in three strategic regions of the world: the Near
East, South Asia, and East Asia.
Since the mid-1980s, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibility
to pass a Foreign Assistance Authorization Act. In the absence of such
legislation, the job of providing guidance on foreign assistance has
fallen to the Appropriations Committees. I am hopeful that our
committee will work together during the coming months to pass a
thoughtful Foreign Assistance Authorization bill that carefully
examines existing programs and addresses emerging needs.
We appreciated very much the testimony of the Secretary of State
last month on the administration's request to fund the Department's
domestic and overseas operations. Understandably, many questions at
that hearing focused on broader U.S. policy toward Iraq and North
Korea. Today we will probe foreign assistance programs in much greater
detail.
In the midst of the current conflict, we hope to learn how the
administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request will support U.S.
foreign policy interests, including a successful foreign assistance
strategy for post-war Iraq. We also must probe how foreign assistance
should support efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan, to mitigate the
threat of weapons of mass destruction on the Korean Peninsula, to
bolster our public diplomacy, and to ensure the security of Americans
who travel overseas, including those serving in our embassies.
Today is the first of two hearings the committee will hold in
advance of our deliberations on re-authorizing foreign assistance. I am
very pleased that Senator Chafee has agreed to lead the first two
segments of our discussion, which will address foreign assistance for
the Near East and South Asia. As the subcommittee chair for Near
Eastern and South Asian Affairs, he has responsibility for those two
regions. Senator Brownback, our East Asian and Pacific Affairs
subcommittee chairman, had an unavoidable conflict this morning, so I
will preside over the third panel.
The Chairman. I turn the chair over to my colleague.
HEARING SEGMENT I.--NEAR EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
Senator Chafee [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you holding these timely hearings. Let me welcome
our distinguished witnesses from the State Department and
USAID. Today, the Foreign Relations Committee meets to take
testimony on the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
for foreign assistance.
I will chair this hearing for the first two sets of panels,
the first focusing on the Near East region and the second on
South Asia, and as the chairman mentioned, we could have
rollcall votes later, so although there are so many issues to
cover, this one particularly is on the foreign assistance, and
we will try and stick to that just for the sake of time, I
hope, in our questioning.
There are so many issues I hope we can invite you back at
another time to cover many of the other issues that are of
importance. I do note that the commitment we are making to the
Near East is over the last 3 years fairly static, and so there
are many questions associated directly with our foreign
assistance, based on all of the challenges we have in the
region, and to see the foreign assistance over the last 3 years
remain--from $5.5 billion, $5.4 billion, $5.5 billion roughly--
you can argue very, very static, and I know you are making a
commitment to the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and we
look forward to hearing your testimony on that, so I will turn
any further statements over to Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much. This is the
second subcommittee hearing on which we held the titles of
chairman and ranking member. Outside of the fact that I would
like to see it reversed, there is nothing I love better than
working with you, and I know that we will make some progress.
Clearly, this hearing is coming at a challenging time,
and--as we finish the first week of the war in Iraq. I have
believed clearly that once the war started I wanted us to have
a much broader coalition, I wanted us to go through the United
Nations, I mean, there is no secret about that, but here we
are, so we need to show unqualified support for our troops and
also for the innocent people who have suffered over these many
years under Saddam Hussein and who will suffer because of the
wartime situation.
I hope you will touch on, although we are looking at a
broader category of issues, the humanitarian situation there;
what are we facing in terms of getting aid--I understand
Hussein's government is not making it all that easy for us, I
would like to know from you.
I know the President's supplemental does provide $2.4
billion for relief and reconstruction for Iraq, but there are
no additional funds in the fiscal year 2004 budget for Iraqi
reconstruction. I am confused about that. Do we expect that
other nations will pick up the tab for that? I have the list of
the coalition forces, and I have been asking for a long time
which of those 40 nations will be contributing hard dollars to
help us in reconstruction. I would like you to clear that up.
Do we expect to be completed, I mean, after the supplemental,
is that it, or will we need more funds, so the rebuilding of
Iraq is important. We know in the last gulf war that other
nations picked up 88 percent of the costs there, so I am
interested to see where we are going.
I want to express my support of the additional aid to
Israel and Egypt that is in the supplemental request. I support
the aid to Turkey as well, but that is in a different area of
the world than we are talking about here. I think it is
important, because I think that the war has extracted great
cost to both of those nations in terms of their tourism
business, their economy in general, and clearly the security of
Israel and what they have had to do to prepare, so also I know
we need to turn our attention to the peace process, and the
President has been very, I think, strong in terms of what the
Palestinians need to do in order for that process to move
forward. I think we are starting to see certainly some good
changes there in terms of the leadership, so I would love to
hear your perspective on that.
But again, Mr. Chairman, as I look over the countries that
we are responsible for--quote-unquote, responsible for--it is
an extraordinary challenge for us, and I think we are going to
need to work hard and stay close, and hopefully be united,
because if we can be bipartisan on this subcommittee and on the
full committee, I just think we are going to be doing the right
thing for our country, and I know if anyone can make that
happen, it is you, so thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Hagel, do
you have any statement?
Senator Hagel. No, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Chafee. Assistant Secretary Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. BURNS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE, NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON,
DC
Ambassador Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First,
happy birthday again. Second, with your permission I will
submit a longer written statement and just briefly summarize my
statement at the outset.
Senator Chafee. Without objection.
Ambassador Burns. Mr. Chairman, as we meet today, American
and coalition forces are closing in on Baghdad. The demise of
Saddam Hussein's regime will end a dark chapter in the region's
history. Iraq's liberation will bring new hope to the Iraqi
people and eliminate a significant WMD threat to the United
States and our allies, but as the Iraq regime falls we face a
new challenge, helping the Iraqi people to build a peaceful and
prosperous nation that serves its people's interests.
The $2.4 billion supplemental budget request you have just
received for Iraq reconstruction and relief is a clear signal
of the seriousness of our commitment to achieve these ambitious
goals. We will need to work in close partnership with patriotic
Iraqis, and with the assistance of Iraq's neighbors, other
friends and allies, and the wider international community.
We will also need to work with the United Nations,
nongovernmental organizations and others to provide for the
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, rebuild infrastructure,
and reestablish effective institutions of government and civil
society. No one should underestimate the complexity of these
challenges or their importance.
Even as we begin the formidable task of helping Iraqis
build a new Iraq, an array of old and new policy challenges
face us in the broader region. We have targeted and expanded
our military and economic assistance throughout the region to
bring terrorists to justice and to deny them, their financiers,
and their supporters refuge, aid, or comfort. We need to build
on this by helping our friends and allies in the region improve
their legal, regulatory and enforcement capabilities.
Working to end the tragic conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians, as Senator Boxer said, is another absolutely
critical priority. President Bush has outlined a vision for
peace based on the simple but profoundly important idea of two
states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace,
security, and dignity. That will be very hard to achieve, but
we must get started. Both sides, as well as Arab states, will
have to make difficult choices if we are going to revive hopes
for peace. The United States will have to exercise vigorous
leadership, and our assistance package is a vital element of
our approach.
Economic and military assistance to Israel helps provide
the security and economic vitality to take risks for peace. Our
support for UNRWA and our efforts to help Palestinians build a
humanitarian infrastructure have helped alleviate profound
economic hardship for Palestinians. Economic, social, and
political change are a reality in the Middle East as many
people in the region, including the authors of the
exceptionally thoughtful Arab Human Development Report have
acknowledged. Conflict, instability and terrorism are in many
ways by-products of failures to adapt and modernize.
Last year, at President Bush's direction, Secretary Powell
took the lead in organizing the U.S.-Middle East Partnership
Initiative to establish a framework for working with those in
the region who are committed to positive change. The initiative
allows us to focus our efforts around three key regional reform
priorities, economic modernization, educational opportunity,
and political participation. We will also focus on addressing
the special needs of Arab women and girls in all three areas.
We are working very closely with USAID, with the U.S. Trade
Representative and others in the U.S. Government to shape this
initiative, and we are working closely with our partners in the
region, recognizing that real and sustainable change must come
from within, not as a result of preaching or prescription from
the outside.
None of this will be easy, and results are likely to be
fitful and incremental. We have to approach these challenges
with determination, but also with a degree of humility. The
Middle East is a diverse and complex set of societies, and
there can be no one-size-fits-all solution to the region's
problems. However, in the end, our interests are best served by
aligning our policies with the goals and aspirations of the
people of the region, a Middle East that is stable, prosperous,
and open. Secretary Powell last December called it adding hope
to the U.S.-Middle East agenda. It is a sorely needed element
right now.
We have no monopoly on wisdom, Mr. Chairman, in approaching
these challenges. To be successful we will need the guidance
and support of this committee, the Congress, and many others.
As we address a profoundly important set of interconnected
policy challenges in the Middle East, I look forward to working
very closely with all of you. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. William J. Burns, Assistant Secretary of
State, Near Eastern Affairs
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to lay out our
priorities in the Middle East and North Africa at this decisive moment.
iraq
As we meet today, American and coalition forces are closing in on
Baghdad. The demise of Saddam Hussein's regime will end a dark chapter
in the region's history. Iraq's liberation will bring new hope to the
Iraqi people and eliminate a significant WMD threat to the United
States and its allies. But as the Iraqi regime falls, we face a new
challenge: helping the Iraqi people to rebuild a peaceful and
prosperous nation that serves its people's interests. The $2.44 billion
supplemental budget request you have just received for Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction is a clear signal of the seriousness of our commitment
to achieve these ambitious goals. We will also need to work in close
partnership with patriotic Iraqis, and with the assistance of Iraq's
neighboring states, other friends and allies, and the wider
international community. We will need to work with the United Nations,
NGOs and others to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi
people, rebuild infrastructure, and re-establish effective institutions
of government and civil society. No one should underestimate the
complexity of these challenges or their importance.
Even as we begin the formidable task of helping Iraqis to build a
new Iraq, an array of new and old policy challenges faces us in the
broader region. We must continue to work with our allies in the region
to win the war against terrorism; to bring about an end to violence and
realize the President's vision of two states, Israel and Palestine,
living side by side in peace, security and dignity; and to support the
efforts of peoples and leaderships in the region to promote economic
modernization, educational opportunity and political participation.
fighting terrorism
We have targeted and expanded our military and economic assistance
throughout the region to bring terrorists to justice and to deny them,
their financiers, and their supporters refuge, aid and comfort. We need
to build on this by helping our friends and allies in the region
improve their legal, regulatory and enforcement capabilities. We are
providing additional resources to strengthen key regional military and
law enforcement assets. And, in coordination with the Departments of
Justice and Treasury, are providing the training these forces need to
oversee banks, charities, and the informal hawala system to deny
terrorists the ability to solicit, hide and transfer assets.
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) directly supports the ongoing war
against terror and our operations in Iraq. While we have always
supported active programs to engage regional militaries, we have
recently paid particular attention to the maintenance--and in many
cases the expansion--of our bilateral military relationships. For
example, we have increased assistance to critical partners such as
Jordan, Bahrain and Oman--and have requested additional anti-terror and
security-related funding in the supplemental for these countries. We
have also provided more support to key Operation Enduring Freedom
coalition states like Yemen. In doing so, we support regional stability
and enhance the ability of our friends and allies to operate against
terror networks and other threats to peace.
middle east peace
Working to end the tragic conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians is another critical priority. President Bush has outlined
a vision for peace based on the simple but profoundly important idea of
two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace,
security, and dignity. That will be very hard to achieve, but the
President has expressed his readiness to move forward with the roadmap
as soon as an empowered Palestinian Prime Minister is confirmed. Both
sides, as well as the Arab states, will have to make difficult choices
if we are going to revive hopes for peace.
The United States will have to exercise vigorous leadership and our
assistance package is a vital element of our approach. Economic and
military assistance to Israel helps provide it the security and
economic vitality to take risks for peace. The supplemental request you
have just received includes $1 billion in additional FMF to help Israel
improve the readiness of defensive capabilities and systems, both in
defense and civilian security areas. The language also authorizes up to
$9 billion in loan guarantees for Israel over a three-year period
through the end of FY05. Israel will use these guarantees, which would
be provided at no additional budget cost to the United States, to
address the costs associated with its current economic difficulties,
exacerbated by the current conflict with Iraq, as well as to implement
critical budget and economic reforms.
Our ongoing assistance in the West Bank and Gaza funds programs to
help alleviate the profound economic situation the Palestinians now
face and contributes to the development and reform of credible
institutions vital for Palestinian statehood. Our recent supplemental
request included an additional $50 million to support these activities.
We also continue to play a leadership role by funding multilateral
peace activities such as the Multinational Force and Observers--a
cornerstone of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. U.S. funding has also
maintained important experts-level ``track two'' dialogue between Arab
states, Israel and the Palestinians, even as direct contacts have been
intermittent. Our multilateral priorities include environmental
protection and water resources, humanitarian assistance to more than
three million Palestinian refugees and engaging Israelis and Arabs in a
dialogue on their joint future in the region. Complementing these
efforts, the Middle East Regional Cooperation Program provides grants
based on unsolicited research project proposals from regional
universities, NGOs and government laboratories.
the middle east partnership initiative (mepi)
As we enter the 21st century, it is a hard truth that countries
that adapt to global conditions and open up and seize the economic and
political initiative will prosper; those that don't will fall farther
and farther behind. Economic, social and political change are a reality
in the Middle East, as many people in the region (including the authors
of the exceptionally thoughtful Arab Human Development Report) have
acknowledged. Conflict, instability and terrorism are in many ways by-
products of failures to adapt and modernize. Last year, at President
Bush's direction, Secretary Powell took the lead in organizing the
U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative to establish a framework for
working with those in the region who are committed to change. The
Initiative allows us to focus our efforts around three key regional
reform issues: economic reform, educational opportunity, and political
participation. We are working closely with AID and others in the U.S.
government to shape this initiative. And we are working closely with
our partners in the region, recognizing that real and sustainable
change must come from within, not as a result of preaching or
prescription from the outside.
There is some reason for hope. Many in the region understand the
challenges they face better than we ever will and have begun to speak
openly about what must be done. We have secured initial funding and,
together with our partners in the region, we are developing a set of
promising pilot projects. In addition, the Initiative establishes a
framework for organizing our bilateral assistance programs. State and
USAID are working with host governments and NGOs to ensure that our
existing regional aid programs are targeted on the kinds of reforms
that are most critical.
The MEPI initiative is an ambitious and broad-based program. The
program was funded at the level of $20 million in the FY02 supplemental
to jump-start critical pilot projects in areas such as basic education
reform, campaign skills training for women candidates, training for new
parliamentarians, micro-enterprise programs, and assistance to open
markets and eliminate trade barriers.
In the FY03 supplemental we have requested $200 million for the
Middle East Partnership Initiative and Muslim Outreach to expand our
programming in Arab countries and in the broader Muslim world. Funding
will be used to expand Middle East Partnership Initiative activities in
the Arab world and to launch similar pilot projects outside the Arab
world. For FY04, we have requested $145 million for MEPI. The FY03
supplemental money is vital to move the program forward, particularly
as there is no FY03 ESF allocation for the MEPI (as the program was
conceived after the FY03 budget was finalized). Both the FY03
supplemental money and the FY04 money will support the expansion of
economic, educational and political opportunities across the Arab
world.
For FY04, $50 million would be dedicated to promoting economic
reform, supporting those who are working to open up their economies and
expand opportunities for all their citizens. $45 million would be used
to expand access and raise the quality of education in the region. $40
million would promote greater political participation and rule of law.
And $10 million would address the special needs of Arab women and girls
across the region. We intend to use FY03 supplemental monies, if
approved by the Congress, to support the same sorts of programs.
looking ahead
None of this will be easy and results are likely to be fitful and
incremental. We have to approach these challenges with determination,
but also with a degree of humility. The Middle East is a diverse and
complex set of societies, and there can be no ``one size fits all''
solution to the region's problems. However, in the end, our interests
are best served by aligning our policies with the goals and aspirations
of the people of the region: a Middle East that is stable, prosperous
and open. Secretary Powell last December called it ``adding hope to the
U.S. Middle East agenda.'' It's a sorely needed element right now.
We have no monopoly on wisdom in approaching these challenges. To
be successful, we will need the guidance and support of this Committee,
the Congress, and many others. As we address a profoundly important set
of interconnected policy challenges in the Middle East, I look forward
to working closely with all of you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Assistant Secretary.
Assistant Administrator Chamberlin, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. WENDY CHAMBERLIN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
BUREAU FOR ASIA AND THE NEAR EAST, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT [USAID], WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Chamberlin. Thank you very much, Senator Chafee,
and happy birthday again. Senator Boxer, Senator Hagel, thank
you very much for asking me to join my friend and long-time
colleague, Bill Burns. It is our pleasure to represent USAID
here today in these hearings. Like Ambassador Burns, I would
like to submit a much longer written text and try to get to the
heart of some of the issues that we have in our assistance
programs throughout the Near East Bureau. I will even try to
pare back my oral remarks a bit in the interest of true dialog,
because that is really what we desire with your committee, is a
dialog. As you begin to develop the authorization legislation,
we want to offer to be up here often and frequently to talk to
you in the kind of partnership that I know that we all look
forward to.
Recent events have clearly demonstrated the enormous risk
posed by nations with weak institutions, high poverty, and
limited opportunity. As noted in the national security strategy
of the United States, poverty does not make poor people into
terrorists and murderers, yet poverty, weak institutions,
corruption, can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist
networks and drug cartels within their borders. For this
reason, the strategy calls for the United States to launch a
new era of global economic growth through free markets and
trade, while expanding the circle of development by opening
societies and building the infrastructure of democracy.
Two important initiatives the President has proposed to
help carry out this strategy will dramatically affect the way
USAID does business in the Asia and Near East region and,
indeed, throughout the world. The Millennium Challenge account
articulates a fresh and practical policy framework for
development built on the simple fact that our aid is most
effective when governments are democratic and accountable to
their citizens.
The Middle East Partnership Initiative, MEPI, emphasizes
democracy, trade, and economic development and education in a
region that desperately needs all of these things. USAID is
pleased that it will play an important role in both of these
initiatives, and against this backdrop I would like to discuss
USAID's efforts in the three regions throughout the morning
covered by our bureau, the Asia and Near East Bureau. I will
begin, of course, at your request with the Near East region,
and then later on in the morning we will move to the other
areas of South Asia and East Asia.
All of us are concerned today by the unfolding events in
Iraq. Like the events of September 11, the current conflict
points out the need to address the root causes of regional
instability. Across North Africa and the Middle East, economic
hopelessness and political stagnation are a breeding ground for
extremism, providing fertile ground for terrorist groups. Slow
economic growth is exacerbated by demographic conditions. With
the majority of the population in many of these countries below
the age of 25, each year, millions of young people enter the
labor market with no prospect of finding a job.
To address these challenges, the ANE Bureau is working
closely with the Department of State to make sure that all
programs in the region correspond closely with the objectives
of MEPI. USAID is fully committed to using all the resources
available to us to support this new initiative. We believe that
MEPI's focus on democracy, economic growth, and education is
exactly right, and I am pleased to report that our programs in
the Middle East largely reflect these emphases. Economic growth
and democracy are two of the three pillars which define USAID's
mission and shape our organizational structure, while education
and health care are crucial areas as well.
Indeed, the recent report commissioned by USAID's
Administrator, Andrew Natsios, ``Foreign Aid in the National
Interest,'' speaks to the importance of promoting democratic
governance and driving economic growth as key themes. Thus,
USAID's own analytical work points in precisely the same
direction as does the philosophy that underlies MEPI.
Looking beyond MEPI to the broader USAID program in the
region, following are examples of some of the challenges that
we do face and the successes that it helped achieve at the
bilateral level. In Iraq, years of highly centralized rigid
administration have left enormous development challenges and a
citizenry disempowered. One-third of all children in the south
and central regions in Iraq suffer from malnutrition and 5
million people lack access to safe water and sanitation. These
are conditions that existed because of many of the policies of
Saddam Hussein that predated the current hostilities.
Prior to the 1990s, Iraq had one of the best educational
systems in the world. Now, children do not have basic literacy
skills, and Iraq's infrastructure has suffered greatly from
years of neglect. As the fighting comes to an end, and we hope
it will soon, USAID's programs will help restore economically
critical infrastructure and the delivery of essential services
to facilitate this recovery.
USAID also plans to support essential health and education
services. Potable water sanitation services will be
reestablished to prevent disease, as will basic health care and
education services.
USAID programs will expand economic opportunity through
credits to small businesses, development of business networks,
and work force training. To improve local agricultural
production is another one of our goals.
In the area of governance, USAID will work to improve the
efficiency and accountability of government. USAID will also
work with local administrations to deliver basic services and
promote the development of civil society and decentralized
government. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to talking about these
programs in greater depth as the morning proceeds.
In Egypt, our strong bilateral relationship with Egypt
facilitates the U.S. national interest in combating terrorism,
promoting regional peace, encouraging trade and investment, and
promoting economic development. In keeping with recent U.S.
foreign policy imperatives, USAID and the U.S. State Department
are working together to adjust the program, adapting to the
changing global and Egyptian circumstances.
In 2002, the Government of Egypt undertook a number of
economic policy actions including, and I would like to note
some specific points, completing an IMF-sponsored financial
sector assessment program, second, enacting far-reaching
legislation in money laundering and intellectual property
rights, third, proposing a comprehensive macroeconomic policy
reform plan, and fourth, floating the Egyptian pound.
USAID technical and policy-based assistance helped lay the
framework for many of these initiatives, and thus made possible
these reforms. We look forward to continuing the work with
Egypt to accelerate this progress of reform in ways that
directly affects the lives of many of the Egyptian people.
Jordan plays a pivotal role in promoting Middle East
stability, combating terrorism, and serving as a model of
reform under the leadership of His Majesty King Abdullah II.
However, one-third of the population still lives at or below
the poverty level, and Jordan has been deeply affected by
prolonged economic shocks of September 11 combined with other
regional conflicts that we see today. It needs to create 46,000
new jobs in 2003 alone. To help address these challenges, USAID
works hand in hand with the Government of Jordan, local NGOs,
and the private sector to create jobs, improve education,
health care, and address the water scarcity issues.
Lebanon is still recovering from its 16-year civil war. The
United States has a strong interest in promoting a stable
democratic and economically strong Lebanon at peace with its
neighboring States. However, a political leadership often mired
in gridlock and strongly influenced by other regional players
has not been able to provide strong direction for economic
reform.
In response, USAID works to expand economic opportunities
in rural areas, promote democracy and good governance, and
build the capacities of local municipalities to manage
resources more efficiently, and we have had some important
successes, community development program, for example. Because
of it, the social and economic situation of more than 430
communities has improved significantly. More than 70 percent of
the rural population, of which 110,000 live in southern
Lebanon, have access to improved irrigation, agriculture,
roads, schools, dispensaries, water storage, sewer, and solid
waste treatment.
Morocco has made great gains in recent years, but still
faces formidable challenges, including rising poverty due to
high levels of unemployment, a labor pool unprepared for
today's job market, and a citizenry appreciative of democratic
reforms but thirsting for more.
To deal with this challenge, USAID is reorienting its
program in Morocco to make economic growth and in particular
job creation the centerpiece of our strategy. The focus of this
strategy will be on activities directly linked to job creation.
In this context, USAID, State, and USTR are working together to
help Morocco prepare for an eventual free trade agreement.
Gaza, West Bank. Escalating violence, terrorism, closures
and curfews have resulted in the virtual collapse of the
Palestinian economy, and a growing humanitarian crisis. The GDP
declined by 46 percent between 2000 and 2002 alone, and
unemployment levels have climbed to 50 percent. Acute and
chronic malnutrition have increased to epidemic proportions.
USAID's greatest challenge is meeting the immediate emergency
humanitarian needs of the Palestinians, such as medical
supplies, food, and water without losing focus on medium- to
long-term development goals, such as revitalizing the private
sector and promoting political and economic reform.
Given the continued political stalemate and the growing
humanitarian crisis, USAID has programmed approximately $35
million since April 2002 toward urgent humanitarian health,
food and water activities to meet the basic human needs of the
Palestinian people. We anticipate providing vital emergency and
humanitarian assistance for another 12 to 18 months.
And finally, in Yemen, USAID has established a new program
this year, or hopes to very shortly, to improve basic health
and education programs in tribal areas. We plan to open an
office there this summer. Already, USAID programs have made an
impact on increasing voter registration and enhancing
professionalism in the main parties leading up to the
parliamentary elections. In the coming years, USAID plans to
support education, particularly for women, and income
generation in poor and tribal areas.
Thank you very much, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Chamberlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wendy Chamberlin, Assistant Administrator,
Bureau for Asia and the Near East, U.S. Agency for International
Development
Chairman Lugar, Members of the Committee, I welcome the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss the work of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) in the Asia/Near East region, and
your interest in possible adjustments to the Foreign Assistance Act. I
am particularly pleased to appear before you in the company of
Assistant Secretaries Burns, Rocca, and Kelly. Our joint appearance
illustrates the close and ever growing coordination between the State
Department and USAID, as well as the important role that USAID plays as
a part of this Administration's foreign policy team.
Recent events have clearly demonstrated the enormous risks posed to
our nation by the existence of nations with weak institutions, high
poverty, and limited opportunity. As noted in the National Security
Strategy of the United States, ``Poverty does not make poor people into
terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and
corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and
drug cartels within their borders.''
For this reason the Strategy calls for the U.S. to launch a new era
of global economic growth through free markets and trade while
expanding the circle of development by opening societies and building
the infrastructure of democracy.
To help carry out this strategy, the President has proposed two
important new initiatives that will dramatically affect the way USAID
does business in the Asia Near East region, and indeed throughout the
world:
The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) articulates a fresh
and practical framework for development. The MCA is built on
the fact that our aid is most effective in situations where
governments are democratic and accountable to their citizens.
We will achieve more effective results in economies that are
open and corruption-free, where governments invest in their
people. The MCA offers significant aid for governments that
meet high standards of performance. By making explicit the
causal relationship between good governance and economic
growth, the President has provided an innovative formula for
more effective assistance.
The Middle East Partnership Initiative, or MEPI, emphasizes
democracy, economic reform and private sector development, and
education in a region that is desperately in need of all those
things.
These general principles--igniting a new era of global economic
growth through free markets and trade while expanding the circle of
development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of
democracy--articulated in the National Security Strategy and carried
out through (among other means) the MCA and MEPI initiatives--form a
useful backdrop against which to discuss USAID's efforts in the three
regions covered by our ANE Bureau.
near east
In the Near East, the need for robust foreign assistance has never
been more compelling. All of us are concerned today by the unfolding
events in Iraq, as U.S. forces are once again called upon to take
decisive measures to ensure the United States and international
community do not fall victim to terrorism, violence, and the spread of
weapons of mass destruction. Like the events of September 11, the
current conflict points out the need to address the root causes of
regional instability. In countries across North Africa and the Middle
East, economic hopelessness and political stagnation are providing
fertile ground for those seeking to fill the ranks of terrorist groups.
Over the last 25 years, economic performance in the Middle East has
fallen behind that of most other regions of the world. The economic
situation is exacerbated by demographics, with a majority of the
population in many of these countries below the age of 25. Each year
millions of young people enter the labor market with no prospect of
finding a job. Many of the unemployed and/or underemployed are
university graduates, often with technical degrees. Thus, there is
already a considerable level of ``human capital'' not being put to use.
Governments in the Middle East face crucial choices on issues of
economic development and policy reform. If they do not make the right
choices, the region will continue to fall farther behind, potentially
increasing the threat to stability. Economic assistance is critical to
fostering the correct choices and providing the means to implement
them. By addressing the major development problems of economic
stagnation, lack of participatory government, competition over water
resources, and poor health, we can help to create the conditions
necessary for regional peace and stability.
To accomplish these objectives, the ANE Bureau is working closely
with the Department of State to make sure that all our programs in the
region correspond closely with the objectives of the Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI) announced by Secretary of State Powell.
MEPI is an important tool to address the objectives cited in the
National Security Strategy. USAID is fully committed to using all the
resources available to us to support this important new initiative.
Based on USAID's extensive experience around the globe and in the
region, we believe that MEPI's focus on democracy, economic growth, and
education is exactly right. And I am pleased to report that our
programs in the Middle East largely reflect these emphases. Economic
growth and democracy are two of the three pillars which define USAID's
mission and shape our organizational structure, while education and
health are crucial areas of emphasis within the economic growth pillar.
The recent report commissioned by USAID's Administrator Andrew Natsios,
``Foreign Aid in the National Interest: Promoting Freedom, Security,
and Opportunity,'' speaks to the importance of promoting democratic
governance and driving economic growth as key themes. Education and
health are ends in themselves, as literacy and mortality rates are key
development indicators, and essential to support the goals of democracy
and growth. Democracy, in turn, is critical to good governance.
USAID's own analytical work points us in precisely the same
direction as does the philosophy that underlies MEPI. MEPI seeks to
``bridge the job gap'' by promoting economic growth; ``bridge the
freedom gap'' by promoting democracy; and ``bridge the knowledge gap''
by promoting greater access to higher education. USAID shares the same
objectives.
Together with our colleagues at State, we are crafting effective
approaches for advancing MEPI's goals. We must also be rigorous in
evaluating new programs to recognize and replicate successful
approaches and to quickly discard methods that do not work. We must
develop strategic priorities in each area and guard against a
proliferation of small and unrelated activities. And we must recognize
that the unique circumstances in each country require that Embassy and
USAID officials on the ground tailor the programs to local conditions.
Success will ultimately be judged by demonstrable impact and results.
I am pleased to note that a significant number of projects that
will be directly funded by MEPI this year will be implemented by USAID.
And I am equally pleased that so many of our projects support the MEPI
objectives. For example:
Our health and population programs have women and children
as their primary beneficiaries and provide immediate and
visible benefits. Programs in Egypt, Jordan and the West Bank
and Gaza are extending improved mother and child health care to
poor areas. An unhealthy population cannot contribute
effectively to economic growth or participate in civil society.
Also, unhealthy children cannot learn well in school.
In Egypt under the New Horizons project, more than 50,000
girls--some of whom are out-of-school--have received life
skills training along with their ``regular'' curriculum.
Interestingly, under Egypt's New Visions project, 1,075
Egyptian teenaged boys receive education in anger management,
health, leadership and job skills training.
In Lebanon, approximately 150,000 families, representing
about 70% of rural Lebanon and 30% of South Lebanon, benefited
from over 1,300 small-scale, environmentally-friendly, income-
generating activities in over 400 villages representing 40
economic ``clusters'' whose diverse communities and
municipalities contributed 40% of total costs. Perhaps even
more important, multi-ethnic and multi-religious communities,
previously in conflict, are beginning to work together for
common economic purposes.
Since its inception four years ago, USAID's Jordan-U.S.
Business Partnership has assisted 245 small and medium
enterprises with 550 activities, helped establish 8 new
business associations, supported the retention or creation of
1,000 new private sector jobs, helped develop 430 international
business linkages, and assisted with the generation of more
than $130 million in Jordanian exports.
In Morocco, as of October 2002, three USAID-assisted
microfinance organizations have a total of 80,000 outstanding
loans, bringing the total of loans since the program's
inception to 270,000. The majority of these were extended by
Al-Amana, a highly successful association started by USAID in
1996. Al-Amana has 81 branch offices with over 260,000 loans.
Al-Amana also has recovered all its costs since its start-up.
Rural communities have benefited extensively from the program.
About 11,000 new loans were made to rural areas in the past
year.
We expect that USAID will remain a key implementing MEPI partner in
the future.
In sum, USAID believes the Middle East Partnership Initiative is
timely and well focused on the critical issues in the region. We are
excited about the prospect of using USAID's extensive expertise and
resources to aid in the success of this important new undertaking.
Looking beyond MEPI to the broader USAID program in the region,
following are examples of some of the challenges we face, and the
successes we have helped achieve, at the bilateral level. I will start
with our newest program, our assistance to the people of Iraq as they
emerge from years of dictatorship, repression, and conflict.
iraq
USAID is committed to providing assistance to the Iraqi people to
help them realize a prosperous and just Iraq. The development
challenges are numerous. Iraq's highly centralized administration has
resulted in a disempowered citizenry and quite limited opportunities
for local initiatives. In addition, almost one-third of all children in
the south and center regions of Iraq suffer from malnutrition. Low
exclusive breastfeeding rates, high prevalence of anemia among women,
and a high incidence of low birth weight contribute to Iraq's high
child mortality rate (131 deaths among children under 5 years per 1,000
live births). Furthermore, five million people are at risk from lack of
access to safe water and sanitation. Prior to the 1990s, Iraq had one
of the best education systems in the Arab world, achieving universal
primary school enrollment and significantly reducing women's illiteracy
in the country. Primary school net enrollment, which was close to 100%
before the Gulf War is down to 76.3%, and secondary school enrollment
is at 33%. For those children completing primary school, the quality of
education is so poor and the motivation of teachers (due to low pay) so
low that many do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills. Iraq's
infrastructure, which has suffered from years of neglect, has limited
economic productivity and growth and impaired the delivery of essential
services.
USAID plans to address the following objectives:
Restoring Economically Critical Infrastructure: Assistance will
rehabilitate critical infrastructure to help maintain stability, ensure
the delivery of essential services, and facilitate economic recovery.
Iraq's roads and ports will be rehabilitated to meet the needs of
citizens and facilitate transportation of humanitarian assistance and
commercial imports. Potable water and sanitation services will be
reestablished to prevent disease. Assistance will restore power supply
to health facilities, water supply facilities, and infrastructure that
contribute to the local economy and employment generation.
Supporting Essential Health and Education Services: USAID will
restore basic health-care services to vulnerable populations, including
delivery of essential drugs, equipment, and supplies to health
facilities, and assist in health/disease surveillance. The assistance
will supply health information/education to the public, build the
management capacity of Iraqi counterparts, and help to promote
equitable access to health services. Education assistance will increase
access to primary and secondary public education for Iraqi children,
promote retention of students in the classroom, strengthen school
administration, and develop re-entry programs for out-of-school youth.
Priority will be given to ensuring that girls and women have equal
access to education.
Expanding Economic Opportunity: Assistance will promote a
competitive private sector, generate employment opportunities, and
improve agricultural productivity. Activities will extend credit to
small and micro businesses; develop local, regional and international
business networks; and provide workforce development and training.
Agricultural assistance will supply agricultural inputs for the spring
and winter planting season, and address livestock and poultry diseases.
Farmers will be empowered to use modern agricultural technologies to
enhance profitability and competitiveness. Agricultural policies and
regulations will be introduced. Assistance will help to reestablish the
Central Bank and Finance Ministry, establish a market-based
telecommunications system, and stabilize the banking sector as a
foundation for broad-based growth. Activities (implemented in
cooperation with the Department of the Treasury) will build the
capacity of the Ministry of Finance to undertake macro-economic policy
analysis and budget planning, and support an independent Central Bank's
capacity to issue and manage domestic currency, promote a competitive
financial system, establish a market-friendly legal and regulatory
environment, and develop a successful trade promotion strategy.
Improved Efficiency and Accountability of Government: USAID will
foster social and political stability by helping meet citizens' basic
needs within their communities and by providing Iraqis with an
opportunity to participate in public decision-making. Activities will
strengthen the capacities of local administrations to manage and
deliver services such as potable water, education, and health-care;
assist the development of NGOs and civil society organizations; and
support the preparation and implementation of an appropriate legal
framework for decentralized government.
egypt
U.S. national interests in Egypt hinge upon a strong bilateral
relationship to form an effective partnership to combat terrorism,
resolve regional conflicts and promote regional peace, ensure regional
security, and promote economic development. A stable and prosperous
Egypt serves U.S. regional concerns and national security interests and
provides an important economic partner for trade and investment. In
keeping with recent U.S. foreign policy imperatives, adjustments to the
program are adapting to changing global and Egyptian circumstances-
especially following September 11, 2001. In particular, the Mission's
program is being redesigned to fit the priorities of the recently
announced Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI): economic reform
and private sector development, education, strengthening civil society,
and addressing women's development issues.
In 2002, the GOE undertook a number of economic policy actions
including: (1) completing an IMF-sponsored financial sector assessment
program; (2) enacting far-reaching legislation in money laundering and
intellectual property rights; (3) proposing a comprehensive
macroeconomic policy reform plan in ``Egypt Policy Paper''; and (4)
floating the Egyptian pound. The GOE also implemented a major set of
agricultural policies such as effective water resource management,
privatization of multiplication and marketing of seeds and promotion of
transparency in decision making. The USAID funded pilot court model
that aims at reducing case delays, ensuring the timeliness and quality
of justice, and introducing modern management and appropriate
automation into Egypt's courts has been accepted by the Ministry of
Justice (MOJ) for nationwide replication. Four successful USAID/Egypt
projects helped equip more than 9,400 teachers, supervisors and
administrators with improved teaching and classroom management skills.
jordan
Jordan plays a pivotal role in promoting Middle East stability,
combating terrorism and serving as a model of reform. His Majesty King
Abdullah II is leading the Kingdom in economic and political reforms to
improve the quality of life of all Jordanians, and striving to reach
peaceful solutions to the region's many challenges. His Majesty's
Social and Economic Transformation Plan, which shares much in common
with the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), is the vision for
expanding opportunities and benefits to all Jordanians. King Abdullah
recently announced parliamentary elections for June 17, and the
government has taken initial administrative steps in this direction--an
encouraging sign. Also, the king has set aside 6 parliamentary seats
for women. While somewhat below what women's activists and groups were
campaigning for, many have welcomed it.
Jordan faces several unique challenges, which impact greatly on its
ability to reach its development and reform goals. First, prolonged
economic effects of September 11th combined with ongoing regional
conflicts have significantly shocked the economy in which one-third of
the population lives at or below the poverty line. Second, Jordan is
one of the ten most water-poor countries on earth. While the population
is expected to double by the year 2027, water resources are already
stretched to the limit. Third, this population momentum and lack of
water lead to serious economic challenges related to the need for the
economy to expand to provide 46,000 new jobs in 2003 alone. USAID works
hand-in-hand with the Government of Jordan, local NGOs and the private
sector in a focused manner targeting water, creating jobs, health and
family planning, education and civil society based on the Middle East
Partnership Initiative. All Jordanians benefit from USAID's efforts.
Assistance to improve the quality of care and facilities of the
Ministry of Health's Primary Health Clinics has resulted in improved
care for the clients of all centers and improved facilities for almost
40 clinics to date. The Watershed Management Program concluded several
assessments and provided recommendations on issues ranging from water
quality monitoring to drinking water guidelines, and operations and
maintenance plant protocols. USAID supported a national initiative to
re-draw the investment promotion and facilitation institutions. This
was accomplished in July 2002, and is currently awaiting passage into
Law. A second important achievement included the passage of a
Securities Law that meets international standards. With the passage of
the law, foreign equity investors should be able to enter the Jordanian
market with greater ease.
lebanon
Lebanon is still recovering from its sixteen-year civil war and
making slow progress toward rebuilding its civil institutions,
reestablishing the rule of law, and implementing economic reform. The
United States has a strong interest in promoting a stable, independent,
democratic, and economically strong Lebanon at peace with Israel and
its neighboring states. Lebanon is challenged by the political and
economic instability of the aftermath of September 11, 2001, as well as
the continued violence and heated emotions across the region. A
political leadership often mired in gridlock and strongly influenced by
other regional players has not been able to provide strong direction
for economic reform. USAID strategy aims at revitalizing and expanding
economic opportunities in rural areas, through small-scale
infrastructure and income-generating activities; promoting democracy
and good governance, building capacity of local municipalities to plan
and manage resources efficiently and transparently; and improving
environmental practices, particularly community-based approaches that
promote sustainable agriculture and environmental health. As a result
of the USAID community development program, the social and economic
situation of more than 430 communities has improved. More than 70% of
the rural population, of which 110,000 live in South Lebanon have
access to improved agricultural, social and environmental
infrastructure (irrigation, agricultural roads, schools, dispensaries,
water storage, sewer treatment and solid waste treatment). In FY 02,
66,000 families were reached and an additional 2,900 hectares of land--
out of a total of 27,000 hectares--were improved to yield high-value
crops and forage for cows, which resulted in about $100 per month
savings for each farmer.
morocco
Morocco has made great gains in recent years, but still faces
formidable challenges. Among the most important is the rising poverty,
due to high levels of unemployment and a labor pool largely unprepared
for today's and tomorrow's job market. Morocco's citizenry is
appreciative of democratic reforms and improved governance, but wants
more. To help Morocco address its development challenges, USAID is re-
orienting its program in Morocco to make economic growth--and, in
particular, job creation--the centerpiece of our strategy. The focus of
this new strategy will be on activities directly linked to job
creation. As we develop our new strategy for assistance in Morocco, we
will work with the Moroccan government to strengthen its economic and
educational reform programs which will enable it to benefit more fully
from the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement now being negotiated.
west bank and gaza
Escalating violence, terrorism, closures and curfews have resulted
in the virtual collapse of the Palestinian economy and a growing
humanitarian crisis. GDP has declined by 46 percent between 2000 and
2002. The number of Palestinians with incomes below the poverty line of
$2 per day is estimated at more than 70 percent of the population,
while unemployment levels have climbed from 20 percent to more than 50
percent since the start of the Intifada. Acute and chronic malnutrition
have increased to epidemic proportions, and psycho-social problems
affect large sectors of the population. The most important challenges
that USAID confronts is meeting the immediate and on-going emergency
humanitarian needs of Palestinians while not losing focus on medium to
long term development goals. Given the continued political stalemate,
and the growing humanitarian crisis, USAID anticipates providing vital
emergency and humanitarian assistance for at least another 12-18
months. USAID has programmed approximately $35 million since April 2002
towards urgent humanitarian health, food and water activities to meet
basic human needs of the Palestinian people. USAID partners are
actively providing psychological trauma support to children, while
training parents and teachers regarding counseling skills and
techniques. Medical supplies, equipment, and pharmaceuticals are being
procured to fill commodity gaps within the health system. At the same
time, USAID is pursuing a robust medium to longer term development
program focused on private sector revitalization, political and
economic reform consistent with the policy priorities of the
administration, and water infrastructure to meet this basic human need.
USAID is working with NGO partners to monitor water supplies in more
than 200 villages. Funds are available for immediate interventions when
the water supply is dangerously limited, or where simple steps could
greatly increase the safety of the water supply (e.g., supplying
chlorine disinfection tablets, providing water in bottles or tanker
trucks). Hundreds of destroyed roof-top water tanks have been replaced,
renewing household water storage. USAID is also installing or repairing
well pumps across the West Bank to increase water supplies, especially
in rural areas and in villages most isolated by the closures.
yemen
U.S. assistance to Yemen is essential for furthering U.S.
counterterrorism goals, and provides vital aid to one of the world's
poorest nations. Over the past year USAID established a new program to
improve basic health and educational programs in tribal areas in Yemen
and plans to re-open an office there by the summer. Already, USAID-
funded programs have made a significant impact on increasing voter
registration and enhancing professionalism in the main political
parties for the upcoming parliamentary elections. With ESF funding in
the coming years, USAID plans to further support improving the
educational status and health conditions of Yemenis, particularly
women, and increasing income earning opportunities of people in poor
tribal areas.
south asia
As we know from recent events in Afghanistan and along the Indo-
Pakistan border, the threats posed by terrorism, violence, and the
spread of weapons of mass destruction are very real to the people of
South Asia. Terrorism, ethnic and religious conflict, and the ever-
present risk of nuclear war present imminent dangers to the South Asian
subcontinent.
USAID's assistance programs play an important role in addressing
and preventing the many threats to U.S. interests posed by terror,
violence, weapons, disease, crime, drugs, and hate. In the words of
USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, ``this Administration has taken
development off the back burner and placed it squarely at the forefront
of our foreign policy.''
Although the countries of South Asia are not eligible for MEPI, the
Asia Near East Bureau is dedicated to applying the principles of the
MEPI and the Millennium Challenge Account to our programs in South
Asia. To be sure, not all of the governments in South Asia would meet
the MCA high standards of good governance and economic openness today.
However, it is our goal to work with governments and the people
themselves to create conditions in which all South Asian countries can
some day meet those standards.
Among our South Asian programs, Sri Lanka stands out as a nation
emerging from decades of horrific ethnic conflict with great promise
for development. There are a few troubling challenges as well. The
Maoist insurgency in Nepal has caused us to reevaluate and redirect our
program there to address the causes and impact of the conflict. In
fact, we are working closely with our Mission Directors and Ambassadors
across the region to re-evaluate whether our aid programs adequately
address today's challenges. If they do not, we must either reshape or
drop poorly performing programs. This is a continuing and evolving
process that takes on new urgency in light of transnational threats
such as terrorism.
In addition to our development assistance work, USAID's Office of
U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance is emphasizing training and
preparedness programs in South and Southeast Asia to limit the economic
and social impact of future natural disasters. Two key goals are to
enhance local response capacities and to decrease countries' reliance
on international emergency assistance.
Following is a description of some of the key programs in which we
are now engaged in South Asia, and of some of the successes we've
achieved--and the challenges we still face.
afghanistan
Afghanistan was the number one recipient of U.S. humanitarian
assistance before September 11, 2001, and America continues to lead the
international community in providing assistance to Afghanistan today.
Poverty, famine, a devastating drought, and years of war and civil
strife have created a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, which was
aggravated by years of Taliban misrule. The people of the United
States, through USA]D, have responded.
USAID is playing a leading role in meeting the Afghans' urgent need
for food, water, shelter and medicine. Since September 11, 2001, the
United States has provided nearly $900 million for Afghan relief and
reconstruction. In addition to the well-publicized schoolbook and seed
distribution programs, USAID has:
Reopened the Salang Tunnel and made preparations for keeping
it open during the winter. More than 1,000 vehicles and 8,000
people use the tunnel every day. Seventy percent of the fuel
for Kabul passes through it.
Completed demining, grading, and leveling through 51 miles
of Kabul-Kandahar-Herat Highway, and will begin asphalting
soon.
Completed over 6,100 water-related projects, including
wells, irrigation canals, karezes, dams, reservoirs, and
potable water systems.
Supported over 4,225 spot reconstruction projects such as
government buildings, schools, roads, bridges, irrigation
systems and other community projects that provide local workers
with thousands of days of labor.
Will rebuild thousands of schools, irrigation systems, and
other vital infrastructure in villages adjacent to
reconstructed highways.
Is rehabilitating 2,500 miles of road, is reconstructing 31
bridges, and has kept open an additional three mountain passes.
In addition to assisting or facilitating linkages between local,
regional and national governments with communities and NGOs in various
priority regions of Afghanistan, USAID has also been providing direct
support to the new Government of Afghanistan.
To date, USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTT) has
provided 50 small grants to over 26 different Afghanistan Government
ministries and offices, totaling an estimated $1.9 million. OTI
programs in Afghanistan are providing valuable reconstruction and media
assistance to government institutions in Kabul, but more importantly to
local communities in many areas outside the capital. The programs have
extended the reach and influence of President Karzai's government to
the rest of the country by establishing radio communications and a
government pouch system. Community Development projects also assist
local municipalities in both working with local communities to identify
priority reconstruction projects, and establishing coordination
mechanisms to communicate needs with and receive direction from the
central government.
USAID has provided additional support to the government by funding
key consultants to President Karzai's office (Public Information
Officer), the Ministry of Women's Affairs (Special Consultant to the
Minister), and the Ministry of Agriculture (through implementing
partner consultancies).
In light of all these accomplishments, I want to thank this
Committee for its support of the Afghan Freedom Support Act. Absent
this key piece of legislation, the Afghan people would face a far
different, and much less hopeful future than they do today.
pakistan
USAID opened a field mission in Pakistan in June, 2002 after 12
years of rupture following the imposition of sanctions in 1990. Our
goal is to strengthen Pakistan's capacity to combat terrorism by
encouraging just governance, investment in people, and economic
freedom. These programs are just getting off the ground now, so we
cannot gauge their full effectiveness yet. However, the leadership and
commitment of our Pakistani counterparts are very positive signs of
future success.
Education: Our highest priority is investing in the people of
Pakistan. The illiteracy rate is 53 percent, one of the highest in the
region. Nearly 40 percent of young people aged 15 to 20 are unemployed.
As seen by the dramatic increase in private schools and madrassahs, the
demand for education is strong. We need to help Pakistan meet this
need, thereby also reducing the demand for madrassahs headed by
uneducated extremists. Right now, USAID is enhancing teacher training
for both public and private primary schools. We are providing funds to
improve curricula, encouraging community involvement in the local
schools and supporting adult and youth literacy programs.
Governance: In October 2002, Pakistan held a national election
which restored civilian government with a Prime Minister and National
Assembly, but democratic institutions in Pakistan remain weak. Our
focus is on strengthening democratic institutions and political
parties, including the National Assembly and locally-elected
legislatures. We also have a tremendous opportunity to work with
communities and local, provincial and national elected officials on
local development problems.
Health: Infant mortality rates in Pakistan are 83 per 1000 live
births, which compares poorly with other countries in the region. Only
31 percent of married women seek prenatal care. In addition, Pakistan's
annual population growth rate is one of the highest in the world at 2.8
percent. To address these issues, USAID has formed a partnership with
the U.K.'s Department for International Development (DFID). Our work
will focus on maternal and child health, family planning, AIDS
prevention, and tuberculosis control at the provincial and community
levels. Meanwhile, DFID will support the Federal health ministries.
Economic Growth: 40 percent of Pakistan's 140 million people live
below the poverty line. Recent economic growth rates have been
disappointing, and low levels of foreign investment have made the
situation worse. To stimulate growth, we are implementing a two-pronged
approach. At the national level, our goal is maintain macroeconomic
stability, reduce Pakistan's foreign debt and encourage the Pakistan
Government to meet IMF goals. On a local level, USAID will promote
microenterprise to create jobs in some of Pakistan's poorest and
hardest-to-reach regions.
Overall, we have tailored the USAID program to Pakistan's primary
development issues and have used the ESF cash transfer mechanism to
address Pakistan's foreign debt. The FY 2003 transfer of $188 million
will be used to buy down $1 billion in debt. The FY 2002 transfer was
used to secure Pakistani spending in the social sector.
sri lanka
Sri Lanka is another clearly defined example of putting the
Administration's policies of accountable foreign aid to work. Until
last year, Sri Lanka was on the road to becoming a non-presence post.
In response to the promising cease fire and peace process there, we are
now moving swiftly to accelerate our investments. We have reversed
staffing reductions and requested additional resources in FY 2004 in
recognition that, at last, the country is on the right track.
In the near term, a peacefully negotiated settlement of the
conflict is essential in order to secure a healthy environment for
economic growth and promote U.S. trade interests. USAID's humanitarian
assistance and longer-term economic reforms are designed to ensure the
``peace dividend'' is distributed equitably among the peoples of Sri
Lanka. Successfully reintegrating the thousands of Internally Displaced
Persons and refugees from India into their home communities and
resettlement villages is a priority. Homes, schools and hospitals need
to be rebuilt. Water and sanitation infrastructures must be
rehabilitated, and we need to make sure people have ways to earn a
living and support their families.
USAID's FY04 program will target three main areas: increasing the
country's competitiveness in global markets, building constituencies
for peace through transition initiatives, and democracy and governance
reform. The remaining funds will be directed to humanitarian assistance
and to regional environmental activities.
nepal
Today the situation in Nepal is more hopeful than it has been in
over a year. Just last week, representatives of the Maoist rebel group
and the Government agreed to a Code of Conduct, a peaceful foundation
for future negotiations towards a longer-term political settlement to
the conflict. A few months ago, however, the future of Nepal appeared
bleaker. A Maoist insurgency practiced unspeakable brutality,
intimidation and murder, resulting in over 7,000 deaths since it began
in 1996. The insurgents control a large share of the countryside, and
have benefited from popular outrage over years of government corruption
and denial of service to the people.
The destructive effects of the Maoist insurgency, however, should
not distract attention from the gains Nepal has made over the past
fifty years. It has transformed itself from an isolated medieval
kingdom to a constitutional monarchy. Child mortality and fertility
rates have significantly decreased. Literacy and food security have
improved.
Yet these development gains are unevenly distributed. Poor
governance and corruption, the forbidding mountainous terrain and lack
of basic infrastructure, like roads, have led to wide disparities
across regions and ethnic groups and between rural and urban
populations. These inequities provided a fertile ground for the
insurgency.
Our greatest challenge is to meet the immediate needs of those
communities most affected by the conflict, former combatants and
victims of torture, without losing sight of the Government's needs
through successive stages in the peace process. USAID plays an
important part in the USG's larger strategy in Nepal. Our emphasis is
on health, economic security and governance reform to combat the
poverty and disenfranchisement that facilitated the six-year
insurgency. Our task is to expand opportunities for employment and
generate growth in the private, trade, agriculture, and energy sectors.
We will reinforce that work with efforts to improve public sector
management to deter corruption and strengthen the rule of law.
bangladesh
Bangladesh is one of a handful of moderate, democratic Islamic
nations in the world today. It is also an ally in the U.S. Government's
efforts to combat terrorism. Promotion of democracy is an important
U.S. objective in Bangladesh, since achieving and sustaining economic
growth is based upon a strong democratic system of government. The need
to combat HIV/AIDS is now a high level U.S. interest because the
country appears to be on the brink of a serious HIV/AIDS outbreak.
While HIV/AIDS prevalence is low today, Bangladesh shares most of the
characteristics of high prevalence countries. Action is needed now to
avoid the politically, socially and economically destabilizing affects
of a widespread epidemic.
This year Bangladesh exceeded USAID's performance targets in
economic growth. Other donors, the business community, and the
Bangladeshi Government view USAID's small business and agribusiness
projects as leaders in innovative, business-driven approaches.
Moreover, USAID was able to respond to several opportunities during the
past year by initiating new interventions in the areas of information
and communications technology, bank supervision, a national enterprise
survey; a new trade leads facility, and a new Government investment
strategy that complements longer-term activities. The U.S. Mission
continues to work with the Government of Bangladesh to support a
decision to export Bangladesh's abundant gas. Meanwhile deregulation of
the power sector is rapidly proceeding.
Unfortunately, governance problems continue to hamper growth. For
the second year in a row, Bangladesh was ranked as the most corrupt of
102 countries surveyed in Transparency International's annual
corruption perceptions survey. Power and resources are highly
centralized, leaving local government bodies with little ability or
authority to control decisions that affect their constituencies.
Political parties need support to transform bitter rivalry into
constructive opposition. Only then can the Parliament focus on the many
complex national issues facing the Bangladeshi people. Elections will
be held in 2006; now is the time to start providing constructive
assistance to level the playing field.
With limited prospects for the Government's real assistance in this
area, USAID seeks to mobilize civil society. Our goal is to build
demand for policy reform in the areas of local governance,
parliamentary and political processes and human rights. This work has
already met with some success for better informing the public. With
three years of USAID support, Transparency International Bangladesh
(TIB) has become a regional leader, coordinating the 2002 household
corruption survey for not only Bangladesh, but also four other South
Asian countries. We are also working at the community level to improve
basic education, introduce innovative learning techniques, and
integrate family planning and promote health to reduce long-term
poverty and encourage economic growth and democracy.
india
India has the potential to be a catalyst for economic growth and
development in an unstable region, and is a key U.S. ally in the war on
terrorism. At the same time, India--the world's largest democracy of
1.1 billion people--is home to over 300 million people living in abject
poverty (more than Africa and Latin America combined).
USAID's program in India advances U.S. national interests: economic
prosperity through opening markets; global issues of population growth,
infectious diseases, and climate change; democracy concerns of
alleviating poverty, reducing malnutrition, and improving the status of
women; and enhancing India's ability to save lives, reduce suffering,
and recover faster after natural disasters.
One of our biggest successes has been in reducing CO2
emissions from the supply side. Now USAID is focusing on the demand
side of the energy equation-distribution reforms. Policy changes at the
local level, by providing consistent power for individuals and
businesses, produce immediate results and improved revenue collection.
Such reforms will also reduce state subsidies, leaving more budget room
for badly needed social sector investments.
USAID is providing high-level technical assistance to the
Government of India in the area of economic growth. At the national
level, our focus is on reforming state fiscal policies and private
pensions. At the local level, we are helping local governments finance
public infrastructure and improve policy. We are also emphasizing
technology, trade and resource-allocation initiatives.
India faces severe health challenges: over 4 million people are
infected with HIV/AIDS; polio is re-emerging in the Northern portion of
the country; and each year India has more new cases of tuberculosis
(1.9 million) than any other country. USAID has ongoing activities in
all these areas. Our work in the State of Tamil Nadu has successfully
tempered the growth of HIV/AIDS, setting a model for others in India.
east asia and the pacific
As our nation is fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, we
must continue to pay attention to terrorism and other threats to
stability in East Asia. Countries like Indonesia and the Philippines
are also front line states in the war on terrorism. By strengthening
economic reforms, democracy, education, and health, USAID programs help
address the threat of terrorism directly in East Asia and the Pacific.
We are on the front lines of the war on terrorism in Southeast
Asia. In the Philippines and Indonesia, USAID support has enabled the
governments to take a stand against terrorism within their borders.
USAID has provided viable alternatives for people who, unable to
fulfill basic social and economic needs, might otherwise be drawn into
terrorist groups, and has helped the Philippines and Indonesia to take
policy decisions and enforce regulations that directly fight terrorism.
For example, in both countries, USAID has contributed to successful
anti-money laundering legislation.
At the same time, the variety of conditions across the different
countries in East Asia means that we must tailor our response to the
needs of each country in situations as varied as East Timor, Burma,
Vietnam, and Mongolia.
In all of East Asia, USAID's programs address the conditions that
provide fertile ground for terrorism: poverty, disease, unemployment,
lack of education, economic decay, failing governments, political
disenfranchisement, disrespect for human rights, and local conflict.
USAID demonstrates to the people of East Asia that the United States is
committed to improving their lives for the long term.
Indonesia, the Philippines, and East Timor represent countries
where we are working with governments committed to a democratic path,
yet which are facing serious internal conflict issues and economic
struggles. We are providing direct support in addressing conflicts, for
democratic transition and improved governance, and for economic reforms
to stimulate trade and investment. We are also providing significant
support for improved health and for better environmental practices that
lead to better health and sustainable economic opportunities.
In mainland Southeast Asia (Burma and the Burma/Thailand border,
Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos), we are working in countries with
governments that have not shown that they are firmly committed to a
democratic future. We have therefore designed our strategies to
stimulate democratic change, working mostly through non-governmental
organizations. Our programs in mainland southeast Asia focus largely on
democratic transition, corruption and transparency, health (including
HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases), environment, education and
trafficking in persons. These are critical themes in all of the
countries.
Democracy and good governance is a common thread running through
almost all our programs in East Asia. Corruption drains East Asian
economies of millions each year. USAID helps governments to address
corruption head-on, while also helping civil society to pressure
governments to be transparent and accountable. As Cambodia, Indonesia,
Mongolia, and the Philippines move toward elections in 2003 and 2004,
the success of the incumbent governments in addressing corruption will
become increasingly important.
Because East Asia still has not completely recovered from the 1997
financial crisis and must also deal with the current world economic
downturn, its governments are having trouble staying the course on the
economic reforms that would have a lasting effect. However, given the
world economic situation, East Asia's performance, as a whole, is not
bad. USAID is helping with key economic policy decisions and
implementation, including bank restructuring in Indonesia, Philippines,
Mongolia, and East Timor. We are helping Vietnam to implement the
Bilateral Trade Agreement with the U.S. in ways that break new ground
in strengthening the rule of law and improve government transparency.
The environment is another key area for USAID in East Asia. East
Asia is home to some of the world's most endangered forests and
wildlife. Population growth, poverty and corruption are generating
unsustainable demands on natural resources in the region and
exacerbating conflict. In response, we are assisting local governments
to improve resource conservation through increased transparency,
accountability, and improved management. In the Philippines, USAID is
supporting local governments in Mindanao and surrounding conflict-
affected areas to reduce illegal logging and destructive fishing. The
coastal patrols have not only reduced illegal fishing, but also have
improved efforts to control smuggling, trafficking and terrorism. We
have also integrated the U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership into our
bilateral programs to help continue to promote public-private
partnerships to address key urban environmental issues such as air
pollution. For example, in Indonesia, USAID, working with the private
sector, will reduce air pollution through improving the public bus
system and introducing cleaner public buses. Air and water quality are
important factors in improving infant and child mortality rates.
Trafficking in persons is one of the most critical and sad areas I
would like to highlight. The amount of trafficking from and within
Southeast Asia is alarming. Burma, Cambodia and Indonesia are currently
ranked at Tier 3, the worst ranking given by the State Department's
Global Trafficking in Persons Report. USAID, in partnership with State,
is committed to preventing trafficking, protecting the victims, and
supporting efforts to prosecute offenders. We have gained experience in
this area in recent years and are establishing resourceful partners on
the ground. Just last week the prosecution of two sex traffickers in
Cambodia resulted in fifteen-year sentences and required compensation
to the victims. State Department and USAID support enabled the
Cambodian Human Rights Organization to present the case. The State
Department and USAID want to keep up the momentum and expand on such
progress.
Within this broader context, following is a description of some of
the key programs in which we are now engaged in East Asia, and of some
of the successes we've achieved--and the challenges we still face.
indonesia
Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, plays an
important role in U.S. efforts to combat terrorism and maintain
political and economic stability across Southeast Asia. Indonesia is
implementing a major transformation of its political and economic
landscape while simultaneously addressing multiple crises--from
terrorism and inter-ethnic, sectarian and separatist violence to
endemic corruption and rising poverty.
Indonesia has USAID's largest aid program in East Asia. We have
reconfigured the program significantly to respond better to the post-9/
11 needs, helping moderate Islamic groups to have a bigger voice, to
address financial crimes, and to improve basic education. We have
played a key role in Indonesia's dramatic move to democracy and
decentralized local government, and in restoring macroeconomic
stability. We have a comprehensive program improving people's lives
every day through health, environment, livelihoods, education, and
political participation. We are working in partnership with the private
sector to fight illegal logging. We have also ensured a protected
habitat for orangutans, one of the world's most endangered species.
We are deeply involved in three important developments in Indonesia
today:
Signed on December 9, 2002, Aceh's fragile Cessation of
Hostilities Agreement has been successful in greatly reducing
the armed conflict. We supported the peace dialogue that led to
the agreement and are the lead player in the monitoring.
Security throughout the province has improved dramatically and
we are working with other donors to ensure reconstruction and
responsible governance under special autonomy.
Indonesia continues to recover from the October 12, 2002
Bali bombings that killed over 200 people, including seven
Americans. The economic impact devastated tourism revenues.
USAID provided rapid emergency response that has helped the
local economy to recover, and has worked with local groups to
ensure that there are no outbreaks of tensions. Bali continues
to display a remarkable coherence and lack of conflict.
Generally, the trend line is positive if the tourist industry
continues to recover.
Preparations are underway for historic direct elections in
Indonesia in 2004, for local and national legislative
positions, President and Vice President, and the Parliament. We
are working with partners like IRI, NDI, and IFES towards
smooth, free and fair elections and full and productive
participation by all parties.
philippines
The Philippines is on the front lines of the war on terrorism in
Southeast Asia. Beginning in FY 2002, approximately 60% of our
bilateral budget has been directed to addressing social and economic
conditions in Mindanao that would make its Muslim population less
vulnerable to terrorist influence. USAID-managed assistance has already
successfully integrated 13,000 former Moro National Liberation Front
(MNLF) combatants, is training an additional 8,000 MNLF former
combatants in 2003, and will train the remaining 4,000 in 2004.
Complementary programs are helping Mindanao to put into place better
health services and educational programs, as well as improve
infrastructure and public administration in the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
In Mindanao and elsewhere in the Philippines, USAID's assistance in
health builds on the Government's devolution of its health services to
local government levels for general health care, TB and malaria
management, immunizations, micro nutrient supplementation, and family
planning. USAID also focuses on stimulating the private sector to play
a greater part in improving access to quality health services.
The Philippines' ability to address conflict in Mindanao is
undermined by its worsening economic and fiscal performance. For
example, in 2002, the public sector deficit was an alarming six percent
of GDP, due to falling tax collections. USAID's Economic Governance
program addresses the issues most fundamental to ending the
Philippines' pattern of stunted economic growth, conflict and
corruption. In 2003-04, special attention is being given to improving
tax administration, due to the overwhelming importance of fiscal
revenue to economic stability and social infrastructure as well as
widespread perception of tax administration as a sore point in
Philippine corruption. Other areas of assistance include procurement
reform, customs reform, public expenditure reform, improving in-court
and out-of-court judicial systems, implementation of Anti-Money-
Laundering legislation and protection of intellectual property rights.
Governance is also weak in the regulation of public utilities and
environmental management. USAID's program to protect natural resources
includes strengthening the ability of national and local governments to
address critical threats to marine and forest resources. USAID's work
in energy and air quality aims to 1) establish an open, competitive
market for generating and distributing electricity; 2) electrify
communities of former rebel soldiers using renewable energy in order to
promote peace and raise their standards of living; and, 3) reduce
vehicle emissions to improve public health.
east timor (timor leste)
East Timor is the world's newest nation, where USAID programs
strongly support U.S. interests of democracy, economic development, and
regional stability. We are playing a critical role in this exciting
time for East Timor. We provide direct support to the Timorese in
establishing a democratic government: in drafting and publicly vetting
a constitution, in holding free and fair elections for the Constituent
Assembly and President, in drafting and holding public hearings on
critical legislation, and in establishing an independent media and an
effective regulatory body to oversee it.
But the majority of Timorese are still very poor and live mostly in
rural areas. Today, two in five persons do not have enough food,
shelter or clothing. One in two have no access to clean drinking water,
and three in four have no electricity. USAID worked in East Timor prior
to independence, generating rural employment and raising rural incomes
for 20 percent of East Timor's coffee farmers, in a country where 43
percent of the rural population farms coffee. USAID-supported coffee
cooperatives broke the monopoly of the Indonesian military on coffee
purchasing, enabling the Timorese to find better markets. Our economic
development work is also improving food security and increasing rural
employment through agricultural diversification and microenterprise
development.
We are contributing $12 million over three years to the central
government for implementation of key elements of its national
development plan. We are the second largest bilateral donor, after
Australia. Donor coordination is good, and essential in this new
nation. We are committed to a democratic and economically prosperous
future for East Timor and will need to responsibly reassess our levels
of assistance as expected Timor Gap oil and gas revenues come on line
in future years.
In mainland Southeast Asia (Burma and Burma/Thailand border,
Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos), we are working in countries with
governments that have not shown that they are firmly committed to a
democratic future. We have designed our strategies in each country to
provide appropriate stimuli towards democratic change, working mostly
through non-governmental organizations. Our programs in mainland
Southeast Asia focus largely on democratic transition, health
(including HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases), environment,
education and trafficking in persons. These are critical themes in all
of the countries.
cambodia
Cambodia is one of the most compelling cases for development
assistance. It ranks among the poorest countries in the world, with an
annual per capita GDP of $280, low literacy rates, poor health status,
and the highest official HIV/AIDS infection rate in Asia (although
Burma's actual rate may be higher). Cambodia suffers from the legacies
of war, genocide and corrupt government. U.S. objectives in Cambodia
include promoting democratic practices, good governance, protection of
human rights, and fighting disease and poverty.
We are there as the country takes tentative steps towards a
democratic future. This year our focus is on the July 2003 national
elections. We are helping the democratic opposition's ability to
participate effectively in elections and are working to promote an
environment in which voters can make informed decisions without fear of
intimidation or reprisals. Years of USAID support have fostered the
evolution of strong, motivated NGOs, and now we are working to
strengthen their capacity to promote democratic reforms at the national
level. After the elections, our support will continue to help build the
capabilities of the parties to develop leadership and messages. USAID
will help the civil society organizations we support better identify
and expose corrupt practices and promote active engagement by the
public to monitor government activities and advocate for change,
especially in the realm of anti-corruption. USAID also supports
indigenous business associations which advocate for improvements in
governance and transparency--reforms that will be necessary for
Cambodia's accession to the WTO.
Cambodia's health services are still very weak, so we are focusing
on the provision of services. This includes rehabilitation of severely-
malnourished children, vitamin distribution, life-saving skills
training for midwives, bednet impregnation to prevent malaria,
improving the availability of treatment for tuberculosis, birth
spacing, and immunization outreach. The most significant investment is
being made to prevent HIV/AIDS and care for its victims. Cambodia is
one of USAID's rapid scale-up countries for HIV/AIDS programming. Since
2000 we have made significant progress in moderating the spread of HIV
in Cambodia.
Strong and relevant education is the key to the future of Cambodia.
USAID has begun to develop a program to improve the quality and
relevance of Cambodian education, with the aim of keeping children in
school longer, especially girls.
Consistent with appropriations legislation, we do not contribute
funds to any entity of the Royal Cambodian Government (RCG), and we
only engage directly with the Government in the areas of HIV/AIDS,
primary education, trafficking, and maternal and child health. Although
our principal partners in Cambodian development remain international
and Cambodian NGOs, this increased flexibility in recent years to work
with certain parts of the Government is enhancing our effectiveness.
vietnam
Vietnam, a country of 80 million people, is key to regional
stability in a mainland Southeast Asia that is currently more unstable
than it has been for a while. Our interests lie in helping Vietnam make
the transition to a more open and market driven economy. This is an
economy that has the potential to take off. We want Vietnam as a
friend; as a trading partner and market for U.S. goods. It also
occupies a strategic position related to China. Vietnam, at the same
time, is a very poor country with great needs for our support.
The main thrust of the USAID program is support for the
implementation of the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement. Since the
signing of the agreement in December 2001, imports from the U.S. have
grown by 26 percent and exports to the U.S. by 129 percent. Our
assistance, helping with the laws and regulations to enable smooth
international trade and investment, improves the rule of law (related
to business) and makes government more transparent. We also provide
assistance to prevent HIV/AIDS, improve and increase services to the
disabled, and protect the environment.
Despite the government's continued hold on power, the younger
generation is growing in power. More than 50 percent of the population
is too young to remember the war. They are interested in our support,
our culture, language, and our goods. They welcome USAID assistance at
the official and grassroots levels. Cooperation is positive. The
Vietnamese have recently asked for USAID assistance with developing
their new securities law and with a new groundbreaking NGO law. Our
assistance in economic governance has the potential to grow into more
positive work in the rule of law, democracy and civil society. This is
a mutually advantageous relationship we should continue to build.
burma
Burma is an authoritarian state, with serious health, economic
indicators, a drug trade, and rampant human rights abuses. U.S.
interests lie in promoting democratic practices and universal human
rights. Our Burma program is coordinated closely with the State
Department. We provide significant humanitarian assistance to displaced
Burmese on the Thai-Burmese border, and help groups to promote
democracy inside and outside Burma. Our implementing partners have
established successful education and health programs on the border;
refugees are receiving good health care, and children are getting an
education. Our assistance supports scholarships to provide higher
education to young Burmese who will help develop a future democratic
Burma. Internews has helped opposition groups get out their democratic
messages with better media products. Last year we began to address the
serious HIV/AIDS situation in Burma, where the infection rates,
estimated as high as four percent, may be the highest in all of Asia.
We hope to expand this program in FY 04.
laos
U.S. interests in Laos are largely humanitarian. Serious human
rights concerns, widespread acute poverty and disease are major
concerns. USAID has a modest program in Laos. We are contributing to
employment and economic growth in targeted provinces through a silk
production project. We are educating Lao children about unexploded
ordnance (UXO), particularly in the most affected provinces. We are
also training emergency medical personnel to deal with accidents from
unexploded ordnance. With unexploded bombs from the Vietnam war era
still on the ground in Laos, in some parts of the country a child is at
risk simply playing outdoors. Through our assistance, children are able
to identify UXO and know what to do to not get hurt and to safely
report the danger. While HIV/AIDS is not yet a severe problem in Laos,
we are working hard to make sure it doesn't become one. Maternal and
child health is a major concern we are beginning to address, especially
for Laos' most vulnerable children.
mongolia
Mongolia is a separate case. The government has made the transition
to democracy and a market economy over the past eleven years, and USAID
is instrumental in seeing that those transitions are successful and
provide equitable benefits to the Mongolian people.
We are very proud of our Mongolia program. We have helped to
rebuild the financial sector, guide responsible privatization, automate
the courts, and improve herders' livelihoods. There is still work to be
done. The majority of the population is poor, lives in remote rural
areas, and is cut off from many of the benefits of the country's
advances. The judicial sector is weak and vulnerable to corruption. The
economy is far from thriving. The political opposition is weak. Slums
outside urban areas are growing, with few employment opportunities. We
are addressing all these areas with a well-integrated, streamlined and
high-performing program.
china/tibet
USAID is involved on a limited scale in China. At the request of
the State Department, we are managing small programs in rule of law and
in Tibet (sustainable development, environmental conservation, and
cultural preservation). We are also beginning a modest amount of HIV/
AIDS prevention work in two southern provinces as a part of our Greater
Mekong HIV/AIDS regional strategy.
regional programs:
Thailand
We have no bilateral aid programs in Thailand, but there are
several regional programs operating in the country. We are opening a
new regional support office that will support our bilateral and
regional programs (HIV/AIDS, anti-trafficking, environment, and
economic growth) in mainland Southeast Asia as well as our Burma border
activities. The programs in Vietnam, Laos, and the Burma border, where
we currently have no direct hire presence, will be managed from
Bangkok. Our fast-growing HIV/AIDS assistance in the region will be
directed from this regional platform. The regional office will also be
the home for the regional Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance staff.
ASEAN
USAID is playing a key role in support of the U.S. Government's new
ASEAN Cooperation Plan. We have arranged for Information,
Communication, and Technology (ICT) assistance to the ASEAN Secretariat
and key ASEAN members to enable them to communicate effectively within
the Secretariat and among member nations via the Internet. We are also
providing assistance to the Mekong River Commission to address critical
regional environmental management issues. We aim to work with the State
Department and ASEAN to address the alarming trafficking in persons
problems in the region through a regional, intergovernmental approach.
Regional HIV/AIDS and Infectious Diseases
HIV/AIDS is an extremely serious issue for USAID in East Asia.
While HIV prevalence is still very low compared to sub-Saharan Africa,
HIV/AIDS crosses borders easily in this part of the world and has
reached adult prevalence rate of 2.7 percent in Cambodia and is
estimated to be four percent in Bunna. There are rates as high as 80%
among prostitutes, and 93% among intravenous drug users in some parts
of the region. Given these factors, and East Asia's large population,
HIV/AIDS is a time bomb. We have initiated a Greater Mekong HIV/AIDS
strategy, which includes Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Burma and two
southern provinces in China. Interventions include prevention, care and
support, voluntary counseling and testing, prevention of mother-to-
child transmission, policy and advocacy, and stigma reduction. USAID
has joined forces with USAIDS, AusAid, DID, and other donors to
advocate for HIV/AIDS at high political levels.
East Asia is also the home of seven countries with high
tuberculosis burden and countries with multi-drug resistant malaria
that is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to treat. The
regional program also addresses these diseases by strengthening
training, policy, advocacy, and surveillance systems.
us-aep
Through the U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP), USAID has
developed innovative and successful government-business partnerships to
address key environment issues and create markets for U.S. businesses.
We have integrated the most successful elements of US-AEP into our
bilateral programs and will no longer request funding as a separate
line item.
public-private partnerships
The ANE Bureau established a public-private alliance mission
incentive fund (MIF) in FY02 to encourage missions to seek out
partnerships with private sector enterprises, donors, host country
counterparts foundations, and local non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), among others. A competitive process resulted the award of $17.5
million to 12 projects in six countries with an average mobilization of
more than four alliance partner dollars to each USAID dollar. In other
words, the bureau's $17.5 million investment in these activities are
expected to yield over $70 million in outside resources being applied
to our development objectives. Examples of the types of programs
supported by the MW include:
Working with Mirant Philippines and the Philippine
Department of Energy on a solar energy project in Mindanao
which is delivering electricity to over 3,000 people in remote
areas to promote peace and prosperity;
In Morocco, over 300 girls are assured a middle school
education by providing scholarships and safe housing through a
partnership with Coca Cola and the Moroccan Ministry of
National Education;
An alliance with British Petroleum in a remote province in
Indonesia is working with civil society groups, private firms,
and local governments to put natural resources to work for the
economic and social betterment of the region while protecting a
unique environment; and
A timber alliance to combat illegal logging in Indonesia
which harnesses resources from The Nature Conservancy, the
World Wildlife Foundation, and Home Depot. The latter is
groundbreaking because it builds on the strengths and talents
of government, the private sector, and NGOs to confront the
challenges to forest conservation in Indonesia.
These FY02 alliances were so successful that the bureau is
supporting a similar exercise this year, and will endeavor to identify
funds with which to promote a third and final round next year.
usaid challenges
One of the Committee's objectives in holding these hearings is to
consider possible adjustments to our basic authorizing legislation, the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. USAID has put forward several
suggestions in this regard, and I hope that you and your staffs are
consulting with our leadership about these suggestions. The demands on
USAID to support new mandates to address global challenges--
Afghanistan, Iraq, HIV/AIDS, education, MEPI, and other pressing
priorities--have increased exponentially, as have the costs of
providing security for (and occasionally funding the evacuation of) our
personnel and their families in this part of the world. Meanwhile, our
ability to fund and staff these operations has reached its limit. The
solution will have to involve not only the identification and provision
of adequate resources, but also the need for new personnel and
procurement authorities that will streamline and create more responsive
systems. In this context, I am pleased to report that ANE is part of an
Agency-wide process to analyze what it really costs for us to do
business overseas. With this analysis in hand, we look forward to
demonstrating our capacity and resolve to implement high priority USG
programs throughout the ANE region in a cost effective and successful
manner.
conclusion
We applaud the leadership of this Committee in addressing many key
issues such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as well as your work
on promoting international religious freedom, combating the crime of
trafficked persons and preventing famine. We look forward to continued
close cooperation with you and your committee as USAID implements its
development programs based on the President's vision of foreign aid as
articulated in the Millennium Challenge Account and in Administrator
Natsios' vision for the Agency, Foreign Aid in the National Interest.
In conclusion, I would cite President Bush's words: ``we fight
against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against
poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We
fight against poverty because faith requests it and conscience demands
it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major
progress is within our reach''. We look forward to joining with you and
your committee in that fight.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Assistant Administrator, very
much. Those are sobering comments, and as you said in one
sentence here in your written testimony, ``in the Near East the
need for robust foreign assistance has never been more
compelling.'' All the reasons you gave certainly are testimony
to that.
And so, Assistant Secretary Burns, the numbers really are
not there for that robust assistance that Assistant
Administrator Chamberlin talks about. What are the reasons not
to have more of a commitment financially to all of the needs in
the region?
Ambassador Burns. Well, Senator, obviously enormous needs
in the region, and they reflect not just the sort of
traditional security concerns, but also, as both of us have
tried to highlight, the broader regional challenge of economic
and political change, and what we can do to invest in the
efforts of people in the region to open up their economies and
meet the need to create jobs.
We have tried to focus in particular on some countries
where there clearly is that sense of leadership and a
willingness to make the changes that can ensure that our
assistance moneys are going to be used well. We have also
tried, when Secretary Powell introduced the concept of a
partnership initiative, to highlight the importance of all of
these challenges and, as we seek resources from the Congress,
to demonstrate that we can use them wisely in the support of
those aims.
And that is why, not only in the request we have submitted
for 2004 did we request $145 million in new money for the
Middle East Partnership Initiative, but also in the President's
supplemental request there is a $200 million supplemental
request for the Middle East Partnership Initiative and Muslim
outreach in general. I think we have also tried to look at some
key bilateral partnerships, like Jordan, where we are looking
for significantly increased funds, especially in economic
support funds, again to provide support for, as Wendy said, a
demonstrated leadership and a willingness to make tough
decisions on economic reform and in other areas.
Senator Chafee. So as we see the flat funding in the Middle
East Partnership Initiative actually going from $200 million
down to $145 million, is that accurate?
Ambassador Burns. Well, no, sir. Let me just try and take a
step back. When the Secretary put forward the Middle East
Partnership Initiative, the 2003 budget request had already
been made. We got a very modest amount in the 2002
supplemental, $20 million for pilot projects just to show that
we could get some of these programs started. I think we have
had some modest successes there.
And then we submitted a $145 million request for 2004,
regular budget request, and now we have come back to try and
take into account the fact that we did not make any request in
the 2003 budget request with a supplemental request, so you get
to see all of it as a package designed to meet what I think is
a profoundly important set of challenges for us and for the
people of the region.
Senator Chafee. And you mentioned earlier that the
detriment to more increased funding is the ability to use it
wisely. Is that the main reason, that we want to make sure that
our investments are, as you said, being most helpful to the
populations they are directed at? Is that the key reason we do
not see more robust funding, as Assistant Administrator
Chamberlin mentioned? The need is there for more robust
funding, yet we do not see it in the numbers.
Ambassador Burns. Well, sir, I am a great advocate of
robust funding. I have seen it myself in my own experiences as
Ambassador in Jordan, what can be done with increased
assistance flows. It is true that without that sense of
political will and leadership in the region you are not going
to get very far, but I think it is extremely important for us
to provide positive reinforcement where we see that kind of
leadership, and also, and this is one of the ideas embedded in
the partnership initiative, to make sure we are coordinating
across the whole range of policy instruments we have, so not
just the assistance programs USAID manages so well, but also
what USTR can do in trade agreements, whether formal free trade
agreements, trade investment framework agreements, those kinds
of things, to make sure we are harnessing all of the resources
we have in support of positive efforts at change from the
region itself.
Senator Chafee. OK, just to switch a little bit--what role
do you see our foreign assistance playing in the road map
process?
Ambassador Burns. Sir, I think our assistance program both
for the Palestinians, the $75 million that we have requested in
2004, as well as the contributions we make to UNRWA, as well as
the $50 million supplemental request which was just submitted
are extremely important to help to address many of the very
deep humanitarian needs the Palestinians face right now in a
city like Nablus, one of the largest towns on the West Bank,
you have nearly 80 percent unemployment amongst Palestinian
males. In a circumstance like that it is difficult for people
to look easily at political compromises and reconciliation. You
have to inject a sense of economic hope, and we coordinate our
own efforts very closely with those of other donors in terms of
dealing with the Palestinians, so I think it is an extremely
important part of that effort to use the road map as a starting
point to move seriously in the direction of the two-state
vision that President Bush has laid out.
The Israel program it seems to me, as I said in my opening
comments, is also extremely important, given our enduring
commitment to Israel's security and its well-being and to
ensure that Israelis feel secure and a sense of economic well-
being that can help provide the space within which risks for
peace can be taken as well, risks which are in the interests of
both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Senator Chafee. And as we go forward with the ``road map''
and the desire for a Palestinian state, certainly it is, you
might argue, getting more difficult to envision that state as
the settlements expand. Is there going to be any linkage from
the administration to the funding, the advance of the
settlements, or the taking down of settlements? Is the
administration going to make any request for a linkage?
Ambassador Burns. Well, sir, I would make two comments.
First, and as you said, the administration has been very clear
in its opposition to continued settlement activity. It has been
a prominent feature of what the President and Secretary Powell
have said publicly. It is also a prominent feature of the first
phase of the ``road map,'' and that is because this
administration, like its predecessors, has seen continued
settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza and the Occupied
Territories as wholly inconsistent with the two-state vision
that President Bush has laid out.
In the past, when previous administrations looked at the
issue of loan guarantees, we had worked to ensure that there
was some form of conditionality in the use of those funds, and
we have worked with the Congress on that a decade ago in the
early 1990s, and that is exactly the kind of thing that we are
looking at right now.
Senator Chafee. Looking at, or can you say there will be
some kind of recommendations to----
Ambassador Burns. I am certain that we are going to pursue
that, and the exact terms are something that obviously will
have to be worked out.
Senator Chafee. Very good. Thank you very much.
Do you have questions, Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I thank you both. I
found your comments very important. I want to focus in just for
a minute on the current situation in getting humanitarian
assistance to the Iraqis. Now, we know that a lot of our
nonprofits, USAID also, is not going to go in there while there
are still hostilities, so it falls to the military, and I saw
some shots of the British military handing out meals to some of
the civilian people. Is that a plan for our military, do you
know, at this point, to do that?
Ambassador Chamberlin. Yes, Senator, it is. Our military
has civilian affairs troops that will be going in, are in now,
and that is their responsibility. That is their mission, is to
provide immediate food, water, health assistance to affected
civilians in the conflict period. As soon as we can move to a
post-conflict period, USAID will deploy its DART team. I think
you have read about it in the paper. We have a DART team that
is over 60 members. It includes participants from the
Department of State and other agencies, and they will go in two
steps behind the civil affairs troops to begin to also make
assessments of humanitarian requirements.
Senator Boxer. Well, I have absolutely no question that as
soon as possible we will get everything going. I want to get a
picture of the condition now, because a lot of the Iraqis
counted on the food from the Oil for Food program which, of
course, is disrupted at the present time, and with the mining
by Hussein of some of the harbors there, what can you tell us
about the current circumstances? How long can the Iraqi people
hold out?
I mean, there is some talk that this war is right exactly
where they wanted it, there is some talk that it may be longer
than they anticipated. I do not know which is correct because I
am not a military expert, but the point I am concerned about it
is the scale of the humanitarian problems. Clearly, if our
people are worried about their back, that comes first, so where
are we in terms of getting food to people, and how long can
they hold out, and do we have a contingency plan if we cannot
do the massive type of humanitarian aid within the next couple
of weeks?
Ambassador Chamberlin. Modest estimates are that the Iraqi
people have 1 month of food supplies within their families. The
Saddam regime actually distributed their food provisions,
doubled up their food provisions over the last several months,
so our estimates are that the households have from 1 to 2
months' food supplies within their families. Water is the
issue. Water is the issue, and it is one that does concern us.
Senator Boxer. But at this point, water is OK as far as we
know?
Ambassador Chamberlin. Yesterday the reports were that the
water systems in Basra presented a severe threat to the people.
Fortunately, the International Red Cross were able to get into
Basra and to restore water to 40 percent of the population
within the city. Today, I understand from the press that Basra,
perhaps other humanitarian agencies and our own people can get
into Basra now and have access to it.
Senator Boxer. OK, so the food, you are giving us an answer
they can last a month to 2 months. What about, the budget in
2004 has nothing for rebuilding Iraq. I mean, we are kind of
facing with this budget, that it did not have the cost of the
war, so we are taking up a supplemental. We are going to have
some money in a supplemental.
Ambassador Burns. $2.4 billion.
Senator Boxer. What other countries are helping us with
hard cash to rebuild Iraq, and why isn't there anything in
there for 2004, and do you anticipate a 2004 supplemental?
Ambassador Burns. I cannot answer the last question,
Senator Boxer, I just do not know, and I am sorry. Wendy can
add to this as well, but I think the supplemental request for
Iraqi reconstruction and relief is the administration's best
estimate at this point of the costs that are going to be
required. Obviously, we want to try and share the burden as you
look at the enormous task of helping Iraqis rebuild their
country, and the expense of that is going to be quite
significant over time.
Senator Boxer. What countries have offered to give us hard
cash in this effort?
Ambassador Burns. We are still in the process of consulting
with a range of those countries that you see who have
identified themselves publicly with this coalition effort. One
of the points that countries who are willing to contribute have
expressed--at least a preliminary willingness to contribute
have made to us is that they are very much interested in what
is the post-war structure going to be for supporting the
efforts of Iraqis to put themselves back on their feet. What is
the U.N. role going to be, how are we going to open things up,
and so I think those two issues are very closely connected.
We obviously want to share the burden. There are obviously
a lot of countries around the world and international
institutions which have a stake in a stable Iraq emerging, and
that is one of the reasons that it is so important, I think,
for us to follow through on what the President and Prime
Minister Blair talked publicly about in their Azores statement,
which is to find an appropriate U.N. role so that we can build
a structure which attracts those kinds of contributions.
Senator Boxer. I could not agree more. I want to have more
of a U.N. role right now, but as I look over the coalition,
most of them receive aid from America, so I do not know how
much we are going to get from this coalition, but I have been
asking for a real long time for a list of what each country
will be contributing to the war effort and to the post-war
effort. If it is possible to have that, I would ask unanimous
consent that the record be kept open. Is that all right with
you, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Chafee. Without objection.
[The following information was subsequently supplied.]
Other Donor and International Organization Assistance*
(As of July 3, 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donor US $ (Millions) Date (2003) Assistance Snapshot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia $64.9 April 29 U.N. agencies, ICRC, and NGOs
Austria $1.1 April 1 UNICEF
Bangladesh $2 April 4 Food Assistance
Belgium $4.4 April 29 ICRC, UNICEF
Canada $74.6 March 26 WFP, UNICEF, UNHCR, OCHA, ICRC, NGOs
China N/A March 27 Tents
Czech Republic $41 May 22 UNHCR, WFP, and assistance for refugees,
health, education, and reconstruction
activities
Croatia $2.8 May 2 Blankets, sleeping bags, flour, sugar,
water purification disinfectants
Denmark $54 March 8 Various
European Commission $117.7 April 22 U.N. agencies, IOs, and NGOs
Finland $5.13 March 25 ICRC, UN, OCHA, WFP
France $10.7 ................ UNICEF, WFP, NGOs
Germany $50 May 5 UNHCR, WFP, ICRC
Greece $4.6 May 5 UNHCR, ICRC, NGOs
Iceland $3.75 April 8 ICRC, NGOs, UNHCR, WFP
India $20 April 4 WFP and U.N. Consolidated Appeal
Ireland $5.1 March 31 U.N. agencies and NGOs for humanitarian
assistance
Italy $16.3 April 29 Field Hospital
Japan $212 May 1 U.N. agencies, NGOs, Bilateral Assistance
Jordan $10 May 5 Various
Korea $10 April 3 U.N. agencies and Korean NGOs
Kuwait $40 March 14 UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF, ICRC, Water and
Sanitation, Health
Netherlands $20.5 April 2 U.N. Consolidated Appeal and ICRC
New Zealand $2.3 April 22 U.N. agencies including WFP, IOs, and NGOs
Saudi Arabia $13.3 April 12 Medical Assistance
Spain $56.7 April 22 U.N. agencies, bilateral refugee
assistance, and NGOs
Sweden $38 April 11 OCHA, UNICEF, ICRC, IFRC
Switzerland $21.9 April 16 ICRC, UNHCR, IOM, IFRC, OCHA
Taiwan $4.3 March 27 Refugee assistance--food, medicine,
nonfood items
U.A.E. N/A April 22 Medical Assistance
United Kingdom $382 April 29 U.N. agencies including WFP, IOs, and
NGOs--food, health kits, water units,
winter supply kits, primary health, IDP
assistance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Donor Contributions to Date**............... $1,289 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This compilation was drawn from Department of State tracking of donor
government pledged or committed funding. The list may not be
comprehensive.
** This total is approximate as the value of donated commodities is not
available in some cases.
Senator Boxer. Basically, that is where my focus is right
now.
In terms of the lack of funding in 2004, it is very
perplexing to me. We have a lot of goals here. I mean, I have
read that the administration wants to have, you know, health
care for every Iraqi, education for every kid. I would like to
see them do that in this country. That is another domestic
argument, it is a different argument, but surely at the
minimum, with those goals in Iraq, we just need to see a little
bit more, Mr. Chairman, of where these resources are coming
from, so I will be very delighted if we could have in writing
what these countries are going to give us to help us with this
burden.
And also I would say that--I am going to call you
Ambassador Chamberlin----
Ambassador Chamberlin. Please. Call me Wendy.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Because you have done a
fantastic job for your country. Both of you have. But I
really--I am very worried about this humanitarian situation,
and I would just like to say, as the ranking Democrat working
with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you see
things coming down that are alarming, that you feel we need to
help, please come to us with that so that we can be supportive.
Thank you.
Ambassador Chamberlin. Thank you very much for that
invitation.
Senator Chafee. Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Welcome. We
appreciate your efforts and good work and your leadership at a
difficult time.
Picking up a bit on what Senator Boxer was talking about,
the role of the United Nations, what can you tell us about Dr.
Rice's conversation with Secretary General Annan yesterday, the
role of the United Nations? Is there a role? What will that
role be? Where are we? I presume Prime Minister Blair will be
talking to the President about that. Can you expand on that as
much as you can?
Ambassador Burns. Yes, sir, I will try to. First, I cannot
comment a lot on the details of Dr. Rice's conversation. Let me
take this in steps.
First, there is an immediate focus, and it picks up on
Senator Boxer's question, on the oil for food program and how
the Security Council responds to the Secretary General's
request that he get the authority to ensure that goods that are
already in the pipeline and Iraqi resources are used to support
some of the immediate humanitarian concerns that you raised. We
are working hard today, even as we speak, in the Security
Council to try and work out a mechanism and language in order
to do that in response to what the Secretary General has said,
and that is a very important starting point, I think, for the
U.N. role.
More broadly, as the President and Prime Minister Blair and
Prime Minister Aznar said in the Azores recently, we do support
a role for the U.N. in managing the enormous challenge of post-
war Iraq. That can take a number of different forms. You look
at the role the U.N. has played in different crises around the
world in recent years, I do not think there is any perfect
model for the unique set of circumstances that faces us in
Iraq, but I think for all sorts of reasons, in particular,
burden-sharing, I think the administration recognizes that we
are going to need to seek to work as closely as we can with the
United Nations, and that is notwithstanding all the
difficulties that are obvious to all of us in recent weeks as
the President moved to the decision to go to war as a last
resort, to head up the coalition.
So we are still working through the problem, Senator Hagel,
but it is very much with a sense of purpose, and the sense of
purpose is to try and work out a cooperative role with the
United Nations, one which can serve not just to coordinate all
of the work of the U.N. specialized agencies in Iraq in a post-
war setting, which can be enormously important, but also see if
there are other kinds of roles that the U.N. can play which
would support our interest in a stable situation emerging,
meeting basic reconstruction goals, as well as ensuring as much
burden-sharing as we can, so we are still working that through.
Senator Hagel. Realizing that this is an imperfect process
and we are dealing with many uncontrollables and unknowables,
how much time did this administration put into this, thinking
it through? Are we just now starting figuring this out with the
role of the United Nations, or are we starting from a plan, or
where are we starting from? We have been told in many hearings,
as we ask some of these same questions, as you know, how do we
intend to move forward? We have been talking about this for
months, and some of us have been concerned that the
administration has not put the kind of planning into it.
I am a little puzzled that this seems to be something
fairly new, at least as it is being projected here, when we
were told by the administration that, don't worry about it,
Senator, we know what we are doing, we have got it essentially
figured out.
Ambassador Burns. Let me start, Senator Hagel, and then
Wendy might want to add to this, just on the U.N. role. We have
worked hard at this for some months, as a matter of prudent
planning to sort of think through the kind of challenges that
we as an administration and a country would face if we went to
war as a last resort, thinking through not just how we would
work with the international community, in particular the United
Nations, but also how it would work with Iraqis.
For a year and a half, as you know, Senator, the State
Department took the lead in putting together Future of Iraq
Working Groups, looking at each sector of Iraqi society, and
what Iraqi specialists themselves think in terms of rebuilding
that society. In part, though, it does depend on the kind of
situation that we walk into and that we find as hostilities
end. That is true in terms of how we go about trying to support
the creation of an interim authority for Iraqis.
It is also true, in part, in terms of the U.N.'s role,
because as I said, there are a lot of different models out
there, and it is a question of trying to harness the best
experiences to the situation we face, but we have tried to look
very carefully in recent months at the different roles that the
U.N. has played in the past, and what might be the best mix to
fit the particular circumstances of Iraq, but again, it does
depend in part upon the kind of situation on the ground that we
face afterwards, so we have tried to think through a kind of
range of options that we have and have begun to coordinate
closely with the British and with other partners to think those
options through, and it is going to be a large part, I think,
of the conversation Prime Minister Blair and the President have
tonight and tomorrow.
Senator Hagel. You mentioned the State Department took the
lead in putting these groups together. It is my understanding
the Defense Department has the lead in reconstruction. Is that
correct or not correct? What is the role of the State
Department here? Who is leading that effort? Who is organizing
it?
Ambassador Burns. Well, it is an interagency effort. The
NSC staff, as is properly the case, has helped to organize.
When I mentioned the State Department's role in putting
together the Future of Iraq Working Groups, that goes back more
than a year, and what we have tried to do is to plug that work
in, some very good work that was done, into the efforts of the
group that retired General Garner now heads, based in the
Pentagon but a true interagency effort reflecting contribution
from the State Department and from other parts of the
administration, so the lead in terms of immediate
reconstruction challenges is with that group.
What we are trying to do is plug the work that we have done
over more than a year into those efforts to make sure that this
reflects the best efforts of the whole administration.
Ambassador Chamberlin. Let me just add, because I think my
comments will fit in nicely with Bill's comments, Bill has
really addressed the types of planning we have been doing on an
interagency basis for reconstruction with a ``large R.''
USAID has been involved for many months, since about
September, on issues of reconstruction. I call it
reconstruction with a ``small r,'' issues like those Senator
Boxer was addressing, health, water, electricity, food,
telecommunications, rebuilding bridges, getting the education
system up, working on local governance, building their
capacity, economic governance. We have developed very extensive
plans in each of these sectors for reconstruction with a
``small r.''
We have done it in an interagency group chaired by the NSC
and OMB. Robyn Cleveland, perhaps you know her, has led this
group for some months, prepared extensive planning in this,
all-perspective, all-contingency. We really have not been in
Iraq for sometime. NGOs for the most part have not been there.
There have been three NGOs in the south. We do not have a whole
lot of information, but we used information that we were able
to get from the Future of Iraq Working Group, from our
intelligence services, from those NGOs and from Iraqis in the
exile community, what are conditions there and what should we
plan for.
In each of these sectors, USAID set benchmarks. Some of the
benchmarks you, Senator Boxer, noted as goals, ambitious goals,
yes. Every child in Iraq ought to have access to education.
That does not mean that from U.S. resources alone we are going
to provide education at an American standard level for every
child in Iraq, but it is a benchmark that is out there that we
would hope we would aspire to, the Iraqis themselves could
aspire to, other donors could aspire to.
What we are trying to do in this supplemental request for
reconstruction is to jump start, to get into a wide variety of
areas that we think need work, desperately need work right
away, provide immediate punch to it in a 1-year timeframe. We
want to bring those sectors up to a level perhaps as good as
they were 10 years ago before Saddam Hussein really started to
run it into the ground.
Senator Hagel. Madam Ambassador, I do not doubt the
nobility of the purpose here. That is not the point. Let me,
because I do not have a lot of time, and we have other
colleagues, so I am going to not be offensive here, but see if
I can cut to a couple of other questions. So General Garner
reports to OMB?
Ambassador Chamberlin. No.
Senator Hagel. General Garner reports to OMB, or who does
he report to? Powell?
Ambassador Chamberlin. DOD.
Ambassador Burns. No, no, he reports up through the DOD
channel.
Senator Hagel. He reports to DOD? That gets back to my
question, so what is the role of the State Department? I know
you talked about the purpose, but is State Department, what, a
junior partner here, or what?
Ambassador Burns. No. We have contributed personnel. As I
said, we tried to contribute the work of this Future of Iraq
Working Group to those efforts, but it is an interagency effort
headed by General Garner, the Pentagon----
Senator Hagel. Garner reports to the Pentagon.
Ambassador Burns. Yes, sir.
Senator Hagel. And OMB is what? What do they do? What is
OMB's role?
Ambassador Chamberlin. Well, OMB established the
Interagency Working Group that provides guidance.
Senator Hagel. Do they have management control over this?
Ambassador Chamberlin. No.
Senator Hagel. Are they part of the reporting process?
Ambassador Chamberlin. No.
Senator Hagel. So they are out of it now? They were part of
organizing the----
Ambassador Chamberlin. They will manage the supplemental
funds.
Senator Hagel. The financial part that OMB normally does,
but as far as the rest of it, they do not have anything to do
with it--and the reason I asked that, too, is the millennium,
the grant process, which I think is wrong, and we are not
finished with that issue, is having OMB being one of the three
board members on there. I mean, OMB is the court of last resort
for everything, but we are not here to talk about OMB.
If I might, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a couple of
questions on the Middle East. Can you clear up some of the
misunderstanding of the President's speech the other day about
the ``road map,'' and we will welcome new comments to the
``road map.'' What did he mean by that? Are we opening that up
now for new negotiations or not, or what exactly did he mean?
Ambassador Burns. Sure, sir, well, first I think what the
President said a couple of weeks ago is very important. He
reaffirmed his commitment to a two-state position. He
reaffirmed his personal commitment to the process. It is going
to be a very difficult one to start moving in that direction
finally, and he reaffirmed his commitment to the ``road map''
as the way to get started in that process.
And our view is, reflecting what the President said, that
the ``road map'' is the starting point. It is a basis for
getting the two parties to engage one another. It is not a take
it or leave it edict. It is a basis for them to engage, to roll
up their sleeves, with our help, because it will not happen
without vigorous leadership from the United States, to begin to
change the atmosphere on the ground, and it is our best
judgment about how to get started, and what kind of framework
is going to lead us, and lead the two peoples and leaderships
from the place they are in now to the two-state vision that the
President has laid out.
So our view is very much that the point here is not
renegotiation of text, it is using it as a starting point and
taking advantage of some of the modest, positive steps which
have occurred on the Palestinian side, in the financial sector,
with the creation of the position of Prime Minister, the
appointment of a credible personality who is now trying to put
together a new cabinet, and see, as the President said, if we
cannot take advantage of that opportunity and get started and
again, use the ``road map'' as a starting point.
Senator Hagel. So his language was not meant to open up a
negotiation of new points in the language. Let be more specific
in the question. It has come to my attention that Prime
Minister Sharon has a list of new points that he wants
included. I understand that list may include as many as 150
points. Is that true or not true? Is it open to negotiation or
not open to negotiation?
Ambassador Burns. I think it is obvious that both parties
are going to have to make contributions if we are going to take
the ``road map'' as a starting point and get anywhere with it.
Those contributions, those comments are obviously going to have
to come in, and we would like to focus them on implementation,
in other words, how you take that starting point and make
something of it, because it is seven pages. It is a framework.
It is a starting point, and obviously many of the specifics in
terms of implementation are going to have to be fleshed out,
and that is only going to happen if we work with the two
parties.
Senator Hagel. But what we have on the table now, what has
been agreed to, that is not open for negotiation. We will start
from that, as you say, and then the implementation of those
points needs be worked out. Is that what you are saying?
Ambassador Burns. Just as Secretary Powell said yesterday,
Senator, that is exactly our point, is we want to use it as a
starting point and see it in that context. To implement it,
both sides are going to have to make contributions, make
comments and come up with ideas----
Senator Hagel. So we are not going back and renegotiating
all the points in the framework?
Ambassador Burns. No, sir. We want to use that as a
starting point.
Senator Hagel. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. I have a general question. Just help me
understand the concept of a moderate Islamic democracy and how
we would define one. Would we recognize one if we saw one? How
can we encourage that? I mean, it is fairly likely that a
moderate Islamic democracy might not look anything like our
democracy. It might not have separation of church and state,
probably would not, might not have equal opportunity in the way
we think about it, in the case of women, for example. It might
not have many of the freedoms that we want to encourage, and if
it were a democracy, it might not agree with us on our foreign
policy objectives. It might be on the other side. It also might
take a long time to get to where we could even call it a
democracy at all, so how do we think about this? I mean, what
is the concept of a moderate Islamic democracy? What should be
our guidelines as we think about it?
Ambassador Burns. Well, Senator, let me just offer a couple
of comments because it is a very good question.
First is, you are right, there is no one-size-fits-all
solution here, and it is not a question of models, which have
worked so well for us in this society, a Jeffersonian democracy
emerging full-blown in the parts of the region at least for
which I am responsible.
Second, it is very clear that there are a lot of pressures
and trends within the region itself to which leaderships are
going to have to respond, people who want to have more
participation, more say in how they are governed, and that is
just a reality which leaderships are not going to be able to
ignore, and the Arab Human Development Report, as I mentioned
in my opening remarks, I think very eloquently highlighted the
way in which Arabs themselves see those kinds of challenges.
You are also right, sir, it is going to take time, and
progress in the direction of creating durable political
institutions. Opening up greater participation is not going to
happen overnight. It is going to have to be driven from within.
There are things we can do to help. There are forms of
assistance that we can provide, many of which are included in
the partnership initiative that can be used, I think, very
constructively in support of efforts from within the region
itself.
And finally, sir, you are also right that broader political
participation, greater openness in those societies is not
necessarily going to make for more positive views of American
policy. There is a deep frustration, anger and bitterness in
parts of the Arab world right now with regard to aspects of
American policy, and more open political systems are not going
to make those go away and in some respects it is going to give
greater voice to them.
But I think the reality is, in terms of American interests
at least as I see them, that is ground that has to be covered,
because stability is not a static phenomenon, and societies in
that part of the world are going to have to evolve. They are
going to have to take into account the pressures for greater
political participation that come from their own people. How
that evolution is going to work is going to depend largely on
decisions they make. It can depend in part on assistance we
offer, and that is why we want to target it, you know, where
leaderships are making constructive changes.
Senator Alexander. But how far should we go in making it
our business to instruct moderate Muslim democracies as to what
they should look like? I mean, we should insist--if we insist
too quickly that they make their own decisions, then they end
up on the other side from us. If we insist that they look like
us, maybe they would say to us, well, you should look like us
instead of us looking like you.
Ambassador Burns. I think, Senator, that instruct is a verb
we need to avoid, because I think that the more this appears to
be instruction or a prescription or preaching from the outside,
the more hostile oftentimes people in those societies become to
the whole idea, and there is a real sensitivity to the sense of
this being imposed from the outside.
What is encouraging to me are the voices coming from within
the region who highlight the problems those societies face, who
do not underestimate the difficulty of those challenges, but
recognize that changes have to be made, and it seems to me that
we need to respond to those voices and provide what assistance
we can, but it is not a function of instruction or dictation
from the outside, I do not believe, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Senator Coleman.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions.
Senator Chafee. I just note, Senator Coleman, I note the
second panel is here, so we are trying to make our questions
and answers as succinct as possible.
Senator Coleman. Two quick questions, one in terms of
coordination between military and state, the question was
raised to me about, as we are proceeding to military action,
funding for broadcasting into Iraq, is that going on? Is that
funding flowing? Are we doing that at the same time? Is there
any issue about that, about broadcasting into Iraq?
Ambassador Burns. I do not think so, Senator. We have set
aside funding for the INC's broadcasting, TV broadcasting into
Iraq as just one example, but I do not think there is any
problem. I will be glad to look into it for you.
[The following information was subsequently supplied.]
The Iraqi National Congress has received continuous funding for
Liberty TV since 2001. The INC decided to cease broadcasting in June
2002 and although additional funding was approved as recently as
February, the INC has failed to get Liberty TV or any other broadcast
capacity back on the air. INC members the Kurdish parties maintain on-
going broadcast capacity from northern Iraq without direct U.S.
Government support.
Senator Coleman. And a second question, Mr. Chairman, in
regard--shifting over to Israel and the Middle East--the Middle
Eastern Partnership Initiative, the education, one of the
principles there is the education initiatives. Can you just
give me a little bit more, kind of the detail of that? Are we
in a position to be supporting educational institutions, other
than the madrassahs school system that is not promoting a
generational hate, and--long-term perspective for education is
the key. What are we doing about that?
Ambassador Burns. It is going to depend society to society,
and Ambassador Chamberlin can add to this better than I can,
but just very quickly, we are trying to look at some programs,
for example, in Morocco, which USAID has run, which look at how
you help keep girls in middle school in school and provide
scholarships. This has been a big problem in Moroccan society,
as in many societies in the region, so we can help there.
We have done the same thing in Alexandria in Egypt, again
in support of local leaders who really want to make curricula
changes and can use our assistance widely. We have even had
conversations with the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia
about how we can help quietly in support of curricular reform
and changes there that are useful. I think English language
teaching is another area where there is an enormous thirst in
the region, and we can do more.
Senator Coleman. I would just note, Mr. Chairman, that if
we are to make a long-term change, that this is a very, very
important area of concern.
Ambassador Chamberlin. It is certainly, Senator. We
certainly agree with trying to shift much of our programs with
a greater emphasis on education, not just in the NEA area but
also in Pakistan and Indonesia, other Muslim countries around
the world.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is $1
billion here for Turkey. Tell us about that, was that as a
result of a quid pro quo that they would let us come in on the
overflights?
Ambassador Burns. Well, Senator, blessedly in some respects
Turkey falls outside of my area of responsibility in the Near
East Bureau, and one of my colleagues will be here later. I am
sure he would be glad to address that, but I think it is a
reflection, sir, in the supplemental request of the economic
consequences that could befall Turkey as well as some other
neighbors in the region, and that is what it is largely in
recognition of.
Senator Nelson. Let us see if I can get within your area. I
know I can ask Wendy about Pakistan. There is $175 million
here. One of your big deals was to get education at the local
level. Is this going to accomplish that?
Ambassador Chamberlin. We certainly hope so. It is a start.
Of course, we would always like to have more, but we anticipate
a $100 million commitment over the next 5 years for education
alone in Pakistan, and it is in many of the areas Bill has just
mentioned. It is in teacher training, it is in girls'
education, it is in basic education--we are targeting basic
education--and in local reforms.
Senator Nelson. All right. There is only $650 million for
Afghanistan. This is significantly less than what we authorized
last year. Tell us about that.
Ambassador Chamberlin. Well, do you mean in 2004 funds?
Senator Nelson. In the President's request, the
supplemental--the wartime supplemental.
Ambassador Chamberlin. In the wartime supplemental, I can
tell you this from memory----
Senator Nelson. No, I beg your pardon. This is 2004. This
is your request for 2004, $650 million for Afghanistan.
Ambassador Chamberlin. Senator, we have already expended in
Afghanistan $800 million. Much of that, particularly initially
in 2002, happened right after 2002, was humanitarian
assistance. We had 6 million people who were threatened with
famine by Christmastime immediately following September 11, as
you know. Most of our effort was designed to feed them, to keep
them warm, to do some food-for-work projects that did build
some roads and the Salang Tunnel, but primarily it was
humanitarian.
Thankfully in 2003 the Congress in your wisdom did put some
money in there for us, and it has enabled us to begin now a
reconstruction project. These funds in 2003 that you all
provided for us in 2004, now we are going to really start the
real work in Afghanistan of building capacities, building
infrastructures. For example, that money will go to build the
ring road from Kabul to Kandahar, and we hope eventually to
Herat. It will go to building the capacities of the government
in the Human Rights Commission, the Judicial Commission, the
election which is coming up.
We are giving some money to help the Ministry of Women,
women's affairs groups, projects such as the bakery for widows,
the women's outreach centers, 17 of them throughout the
country, education, education particularly for women,
scholarships, schools, basic education, health projects,
primarily in the rural area. We do not want to build big
hospitals in Kabul, where everybody else is building big
hospitals, but in the rural areas where the people are, where
the child mortality and maternal mortality rates are so high.
Senator Nelson. Do you think this $650 million is enough?
Ambassador Chamberlin. I think there is an absorptive
problem that we do have to monitor. We have a very small staff
there. The size of our staff is limited by the number of office
space we can get, cram into that very small embassy until we
can build another one, so we are limited. I would hope that
this might grow in 2005 and 2006, but right now that is just
about what we can absorb.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, let me just take the liberty
of asking the former Ambassador to Pakistan what is the word
that you get back as to how Musharraf is able to handle the
street with us being now in Iraq and then seeing all these
pictures?
Ambassador Chamberlin. I really have been so absorbed in
the reconstruction, the ``small r'' reconstruction of Iraq,
that I have not paid an awful lot of attention to some of the
details of the security situation in Pakistan. I will leave
that to my colleague, Christina Rocca, when she comes in next,
but my understanding is the street is active, that there have
been some fairly sizable demonstrations in Rawalpindi, and as
you know, Senator, because that is where the airport is, that
is just a jog down the road from our embassy.
So far, President Musharraf has contained these. His
security is good. We are satisfied with it, but Ambassador
Powell has reduced the size of our mission yet again, and a
number of our USAID folk have come home on evacuation status.
Touch wood.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Without any further questions of this
panel, we thank you both for your testimony.
We will started with our witnesses of the second panel on
South Asia, and we welcome you. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTINA B. ROCCA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE, SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Rocca. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
thank you for inviting me here today to talk about U.S. foreign
assistance programs for South Asia, all of which support our
policy priorities and efforts in the region. South Asia remains
at the front lines of the war on terror. Support for democracy
and regional stability remain critical. We are redoubling our
efforts to resolve and prevent conflict throughout South Asia
in order to avoid instability favorable to terrorist movements
seeking to relocate or expand operations in the region.
Stability will also assist continued economic and political
progress.
The programs we are planning using fiscal year 2003
supplemental funds and fiscal year 2004 resources directly
reflect these key policy priorities. In Afghanistan, we are
helping Afghanistan to establish a lasting peace and stability,
and will require a continued commitment of U.S. and donor
resources to four interlocking objectives consistent with the
goals of the Afghan Freedom Support Act.
Afghanistan must establish internal and external security,
without which economic reconstruction and political stability
will fail. We are taking the lead among donors in helping to
establish a multiethnic and disciplined Afghan military. We are
working with President Karzai to draw the center and regions
together. Provincial reconstruction teams have been established
in three locations, with more to follow later in the spring.
A stable and effective central government is being
established according to the ``road map'' accepted at Bonn
December 2001. A constitutional Loya Jirga is scheduled for
October of this year, followed by national elections in June of
2004. We will assist those processes as well as assistance to
the women's ministry, judicial rehabilitation, human rights,
civic education, and independent media development.
Economic reconstruction and development will bolster the
Bonn process and reduce dependence on donors. Our development
programs focus on private enterprise, employment and
agriculture, as well as health and education. Economic support
funds will also continue to support infrastructure development,
including the Kabul-Kandahar-Herat ring road. Humanitarian
needs will also continue as reconstruction proceeds, including
support for refugees, IDPs, and demining.
In Pakistan, we have a very solid partnership in the war on
terror. Cooperation in Operation Enduring Freedom has been
outstanding. We have expanded the relationship greatly over the
past 18 months, including the reestablishment of the USAID
program which provides assistance in education, democracy-
building, economic development, and health. We have also
expanded our cooperation in law enforcement and have begun
restoring our military-to-military ties. We continue to work
closely with the government on counternarcotics, and have more
than a decade of successful counternarcotics collaboration with
the Pakistani Government, including in the tribal areas of the
Pak-Afghan border.
We have also strengthened our program's bilateral
cooperation aimed at dealing successfully with regional
stability and improving Pakistan's relations with its
neighbors.
In India, we have shared interests and values which link
the United States and India, the world's two largest
democracies. We have deepened our partnership and are providing
assistance on issues ranging from regional stability,
nonproliferation, science and technology, economic reform, and
global issues such as trafficking in persons. As we continue to
expand economic dialog with the India, U.S. economic and
development programs aim to assist the completion on fiscal,
trade and other reforms that will promote economic stability
and reduce poverty.
We are deeply shocked and disturbed by Sunday's terrorist
attacks south of Srinagar in Kashmir, which killed 24 innocent
civilians. This cowardly act appears aimed at disrupting the
Jammu and Kashmir State Governments' bold efforts to restore
peace and religious harmony to this troubled state, and
although the United States has no preferred solution for
Kashmir, the one thing we do know is that violence will not
provide a way forward and should cease immediately. Avoiding
conflict between India and Pakistan is perhaps the most
daunting U.S. challenge in South Asia.
We have helped to successfully walk India and Pakistan back
from the brink of war last year. However, continued terrorism
like last Sunday's attack threatens to provoke yet another
crisis in coming months. We look to Pakistan to do everything
in its power to prevent extremist groups operating from its
soil from crossing the line of control. Pakistan has taken
steps to curb infiltration, and we are asking the government to
redouble these efforts. At the same time, we will use our good
offices to continue to press both sides to take confidence-
building steps that will lead to a process of engagement,
addressing all issues that divide them, including Kashmir.
In Sri Lanka, through a Norwegian-facilitated peace
process, the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil Tigers have now
completed six rounds of talks since September 2002. They have
made significant progress, although complex issues remain that
will require time and skillful diplomacy.
Several U.S. Government agencies, including Treasury,
Commerce, Peace Corps, and the Department of Defense have sent
assessment teams to Sri Lanka to examine how we can most
effectively use our bilateral assistance and engagement in
support of the peace process. As a result, we are providing
demining support, we plan to establish new programs to
strengthen Sri Lanka's peacekeeping capability and reform its
military institutions. Our economic assistance and development
programs will facilitate post-war reconstruction, economic
recovery, and political and social reintegration and
reconciliation.
In Nepal, a recent cease-fire and agreement on the code of
conduct has raised hopes of progress with the Maoists. We
believe the parties have come this far only because the Royal
Nepalese Army was able to make an effective stand, a goal which
U.S. security assistance aims to bolster. If a political
settlement is reached, the United States should be in the
forefront of donors prepared to help Nepal conduct local and
national elections and strengthen administrative and democratic
institutions. In the near term, we will continue to support
improved governance and respect for human rights, improved
health services, rural livelihoods, and sustainable
development. Our assistance will also support efforts to
bolster government control in areas vulnerable to Maoist
influence by funding high-impact rural infrastructure and
employment projects.
Bangladesh provides a model of a strong, stable democracy.
It is in the interest of the United States to help Bangladesh's
economy and democracy prosper. A valued partner in the war on
terror and a moderate voice in regional and international fora,
Bangladesh is also the top manpower contributor to U.N.
peacekeeping missions.
Our programs seek to improve basic education, provide high-
impact economic assistance, and target improved health services
for Bangladeshi women and children. U.S. assistance programs
also seek to increase the accountability and effectiveness of
Bangladesh's democratic institutions and to promote human
rights and the rule of law.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, achieving U.S. goals in South
Asia has never been more critical to our national security or
to the stability of the region. I will close by reemphasizing
that the United States has significantly deepened its
relationships in South Asia. We are making progress in the war
on terror. We have contributed to the reduction of tensions and
supported the resolution of conflict and will continue to do
so. We have championed stronger democratic institutions,
development, and economic reform, and I want to emphasize that
the South Asia Bureau's public diplomacy efforts support these
policy goals as well.
As the war on terror continues, we are using public
diplomacy programs to counter extremist influences and
encourage moderate voices in universities, media, government,
and religious and business organizations, but there remains a
great deal to accomplish. I look forward to working together
with the Congress as we continue to pursue these very important
goals, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rocca follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christina B. Rocca, Assistant Secretary of
State, South Asian Affairs
regional policy priorities
Chairman Lugar, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
to come here today to talk about how U.S. foreign assistance programs
for South Asia support our policy priorities and efforts in the region.
Mr. Chairman, even as we advance our efforts in the Middle East,
South Asia remains at the front lines of the war on terror, and
regional stability remains critical. We must remain actively and
effectively engaged in this region where our most vital interests are
at stake. U.S. support has contributed to substantial progress over the
past year and a half. Eighteen months ago, we could not have foreseen
that Afghanistan would convoke a representative Loya Jirga, select a
transitional government to preside over reconstruction, and draft a
constitution. Afghanistan must shortly begin preparations for national
elections in June 2004. Pakistan's effective support for Operation
Enduring Freedom has been equally welcome. Pakistan's October 2002
elections re-established a civilian government, and we are providing
assistance towards a full return to democracy there.
We have experienced the close cooperation of all the countries in
the region in the war against terror, and were able to play a helpful
role last spring and summer to defuse a dangerous crisis between India
and Pakistan that could have led to a catastrophic conflict, and we are
redoubling our efforts to reduce tensions in Kashmir. Regional
stability has been served by Sri Lanka's progress towards ending a 20-
year civil conflict. However, we must assist Sri Lanka to achieve and
consolidate peace, and Nepal to avoid resumption of a Maoist insurgency
and to shore up its fragile democracy. With an eye to the future, we
will continue to transform our relationship with India, a rising global
power, and will help the moderate Muslim democracy of Bangladesh, which
faces difficult political divisions and significant economic
challenges, towards greater stability and economic growth.
assisting south asia's frontline states: afghanistan and pakistan
As we move into FY 2004 and beyond, helping Afghanistan to
establish lasting peace and stability will require a continued
commitment of U.S. and donor resources to four interlocking objectives,
consistent with the goals of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act.
Afghanistan must establish internal and external security,
without which economic reconstruction and political stability
will fail. President Bush committed the United States to take
the lead among donors in helping to establish a multi-ethnic
and disciplined Afghan military. Our security assistance will
enable us to train and help retain troops and officers. This
program has made significant strides in the last few months.
Thanks to the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, we were able to
provide $150 million under DOD drawdown authority towards a gap
in funding those efforts. With similar FY 2004 levels of U.S.
funding from all our security accounts, including drawdown
authority, we will be able to meet our goal to help establish a
strong Central Corps before the 2004 elections. Although we
must rely to some degree on local leaders and their militia to
provide interim security and stability in many parts of the
country, we are working with President Karzai to draw the
center and the regions together. We must therefore link
recruitment efforts to the broader process of Disarmament,
Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) of Afghan fighters. We
are also helping the Afghan government to combat narcotics
trafficking, fortify counter-terror and non-proliferation
export control capabilities, and train police in coordination
with European and other donors.
A stable and effective central government is being
established according to the roadmap accepted at Bonn in
December 2001. A Constitutional Loya Jirga is scheduled for
October of this year followed by national elections scheduled
for June 2004. We will assist those processes, as well as
assistance to the women's ministry, judicial rehabilitation,
human rights, civic education and independent media
development. We are providing budget assistance to help keep
the government operative while helping Afghans establish
revenue generation, while other programs support development of
an accountable, broad-based, and representative political
system. We are striving to ensure visible signs of progress by
the Central Government on key reconstruction needs, such as the
completion of the Kabul to Kandahar road segment prior to the
June 2004 elections. In order to enhance the Afghan
Transitional Authority and better link central and local
government, Provincial Reconstruct Teams (PRTs) have been
established in three locations with more to follow in late
spring. Initial indications of PRT success point to increased
stability and enhanced NGO reconstruction efforts.
Economic reconstruction and development will bolster the
Bonn process and reduce dependence on donors. In January of
2002 at Tokyo, 60 countries, the EU, the World Bank, and the
Asian and Islamic Development Banks pledged over $4.5 billion
over six years. At the Afghanistan high-level strategic forum
in Brussels in March 2003, the international donor community
reaffirmed its commitment to Afghanistan and pledged $1.5
billion for reconstruction and recurrent budget assistance in
2003. In addition to pledging over $297 million at Tokyo and
$600 million at Brussels, the United States has assisted
Afghanistan to access frozen assets and begun initiatives in
the areas of trade, commerce and finance. USAID development
programs focus on private enterprise and employment and
agriculture--the livelihood of most Afghans--as well as health
and education. Economic Support Funds will also continue to
support infrastructure rehabilitation, including the Kabul-
Kandahar-Herat ring road.
Humanitarian needs will also continue as reconstruction
proceeds. We continue to support the remaining Afghan refugees
in Pakistan and Iran, internally displaced persons (IDPs) and
returnees. U.S. demining assistance as part of a larger donor
effort will enable the return of refugees and displaced, and
will support economic reconstruction.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. relations with Pakistan have broadened
significantly over the past 18 months. Starting with our solid
partnership in the war on terror and our cooperation in Operation
Enduring Freedom, we have expanded the relationship and have
reestablished a USAID program, providing assistance in the areas of
education, democracy, economic development and health. We have expanded
our cooperation in law enforcement and we have begun restoring our
military ties. In the coming years we will strengthen our programs of
bilateral cooperation in order to deal successfully with issues of key
interest to both our nations, including: counterterrorism, Pakistan's
relations with its neighbors, regional stability, strengthening
Pakistan's democracy, helping to promote economic development, and
improving life for the people of Pakistan to help this nation continue
moving in a positive direction.
U.S.-Pakistan cooperation in the war on terror takes place on
several fronts, including coordination of intelligence and law
enforcement agencies in hunting al-Qaida and other terrorists within
Pakistan, coordination with military and law enforcement agencies along
the border with Afghanistan and efforts to strengthen Pakistan's law
enforcement and counterterrorism capabilities and institutions. We
continue to work closely with the government on counternarcotics and
have more than a decade of successful collaboration with the Pakistani
government, including in the tribal areas near the Afghan border. Since
the fall of 2001, Pakistan has apprehended close to 500 suspected al-
Qaida operatives and affiliates. It has committed its own security
forces--some of whom have lost their lives--to pursue al-Qaida in its
border areas. Just as importantly, we are encouraging Pakistan to build
positive, mutually constructive relations with neighboring Afghanistan
and support its efforts to establish a stable and secure government. We
are also assisting Pakistan to strengthen non-proliferation export
controls.
Pakistan's commitment to democracy and human rights will be central
to building a stable, positive future for its people. National
elections in October, although flawed, restored civilian government,
including a Prime Minister and a National Assembly, after a three-year
hiatus. We want to see accountable democratic institutions and
practices, including a National Assembly that plays a vigorous and
positive role in governance and an independent judiciary that promotes
the rule of law. We will support development of the independent media
and effective civil society advocates. These institutions are required
if Pakistan is to develop into a stable, moderate Islamic state.
Pakistan's progress toward political moderation and economic
modernization will require sustained economic growth. The U.S.
Government engages in a bilateral economic dialogue with Pakistan to
encourage sound economic policies. We are providing debt relief and
budgetary support, and are devoting significant resources to assist
Pakistan's economic development, particularly in the areas of education
as well as health, so that Pakistanis can develop the skills they will
need to build a modern democratic state that can compete successfully
in the global economy.
promoting regional stability: indo-pak tensions, sri lanka and nepal
We are redoubling our efforts to resolve and prevent conflict
throughout South Asia in order to avoid instability favorable to
terrorist movements seeking to relocate or expand operations in the
region. Stability will also assist continued economic and political
progress.
We were deeply shocked and disturbed by Sunday's terrorist attack
south of Srinagar, which killed 24 innocent civilians, including two
young children. This cowardly act appears aimed at disrupting the Jammu
and Kashmir state government's bold efforts to restore peace and
religious harmony to this troubled state. Although the U.S. has no
preferred solutions for Kashmir; one thing we do know is that violence
will not provide a way forward, and should cease immediately. The
Kashmiri people have demonstrated a desire to move forward with a
peaceful, political solution, and their efforts should be supported by
all sides.
Avoiding conflict between Pakistan and India is perhaps the most
daunting U.S. challenge in South Asia. We helped to successfully walk
India and Pakistan back from the brink of war last year. However,
continued terrorism like Sunday's attack threaten to provoke yet
another crisis in the coming months. We look to Pakistan to do
everything in its power to prevent extremist groups operating from its
soil from crossing the Line of Control. Pakistan has taken steps to
curb infiltration but we are asking the government to redouble its
efforts. At the same time, we will use our good offices to continue to
press both sides to take confidence building steps that will lead to a
process of engagement addressing all issues that divide them, including
Kashmir.
We were encouraged by the results of last fall's state elections in
Kashmir and view them as the first step in a broader process that can
promote peace. The new state government has adopted a 31-point common
minimum program aimed at promoting dialogue, reconciliation, human
rights, and economic development in Kashmir. Resources required for
this effort are primarily diplomatic. We are also examining ways in
which modest U.S. assistance might bolster some of these positive
developments and help build up constituencies for peace.
Through a Norwegian-facilitated peace process, the Sri Lankan
government elected in December 2001 moved rapidly towards peace
negotiations with the separatist Tamil Tiger guerrillas--designated a
Foreign Terrorist Organzation in 1997. Five rounds of talks have
followed the initial round that began in September 2002, and the talks
have made significant progress, although complex issues remain that
will require time and skillful diplomacy to resolve. Several U.S.
agencies, including Treasury, Commerce, and DOD, sent assessment teams
to Sri Lanka last year to examine how we can most effectively use our
bilateral assistance and engagement in support of the peace process. As
a result, we are providing demining support, and we plan to establish
new programs to strengthen Sri Lanka's peacekeeping capability and
reform its military institutions. Our economic assistance and
development programs will facilitate post war reconstruction, economic
recovery, and political and social reconciliation and reintegration.
In Nepal, a recent cease-fire and agreement on a code of conduct
have raised hopes of progress with the Maoists. We believe the parties
have come this far only because the Royal Nepal Army was able to make
an effective stand--a goal which U.S. security assistance aims to
bolster. In coordination with Great Britain, India and other partners,
our security assistance will provide direly needed small arms,
equipment and training to enable the RNA to counter the Maoist military
threat. If a political settlement has been reached, the United States
should be in the forefront of donors prepared to help Nepal conduct
local and national elections and strengthen administrative and
democratic institutions. In the near term, we will continue to support
improved governance and respect for basic human rights, improved health
services and rural livelihoods, and sustainable development. Our
assistance will also support efforts to bolster government control in
areas vulnerable to Maoist influence by funding high-impact rural
infrastructure and employment projects.
transforming the u.s.-india relationship
Shared interests and values link the United States and India, the
world's two largest democracies. We are deepening our partnership and
are providing assistance on issues ranging from regional stability,
non-proliferation and combating terror, to science and technology,
economic reform, human rights and global issues. We are expanding our
security cooperation through a bilateral Defense Planning Group, joint
exercises and military exchanges. U.S. security assistance aims to
promote cooperation and interoperability, and we are helping to upgrade
India's export-control system to meet international non-proliferation
standards.
As we continue an expanded economic dialogue with India, U.S.
economic and development programs aim to assist the completion of
fiscal, trade and other reforms that will promote economic stability
and by extension, reduce poverty. Our programs will also enable
vulnerable groups to have better and quicker access to justice, and
will address human rights concerns. Our health programs aim to increase
the use of reproductive health services, prevent HIV/AIDS and other
diseases, promote child survival, and improve access to and
availability of TB treatment. A number of these services are delivered
in conjunction with NGOs and the GOI using the platform of our food
assistance, which we expect will continue, although with some degree of
modification.
supporting a moderate bangladesh
Bangladesh provides a model of a strong, stable democracy. It is in
the interest of the United States to help Bangladesh's economy prosper.
A valued partner in the war on terror as well as a moderate voice in
regional and international fora, Bangladesh is the eighth most populous
country in the world and the top manpower contributor to UN
peacekeeping missions. Bangladesh has made marked progress on economic
development, health and women's rights. However, political rivalries
and corruption threaten political stability and impede economic growth,
while law and order problems must be addressed. U.S. assistance
programs in Bangladesh aim to increase the accountability and
effectiveness of Bangladesh's democratic institutions and to promote
human rights. Our programs also seek to improve basic education and
provide high impact economic assistance and target improved health
services for Bangladesh's women and children.
the maldives and bhutan
The Maldives, a small Muslim country of 280,000 persons, has served
as a moderate voice in international fora, including in the
Organization of Islamic Countries. Absent a U.S. mission in the
Maldives, engagement continues through regular diplomatic exchanges
managed by the U.S. Embassy in Sri Lanka, through our International
Military Education and Training program, and through South Asia
regional programs.
We have a cordial but modest relationship with Bhutan. We welcome
efforts by the King to modernize the nation and to build a
constitutional democracy. We continue to urge Bhutan and Nepal to
resolve the long-standing plight of 100,000 refugees in Nepal. Bhutan
needs to accept back those persons who have a legitimate claim to
citizenship.
public diplomacy
The South Asia bureau's public diplomacy efforts support the
preceding policy goals. As the war on terror continues, we are using
public diplomacy programs to counter extremist influences and encourage
moderate voices in universities, media, government, religious
organizations and business organizations and associations. Getting the
message out is key. In Afghanistan, we recently installed a VOA
transmitter capable of supporting country-wide AM radio. We are engaged
in dialogue with religious leaders in Bangladesh and Pakistan, and
through our international exchange programs are giving South Asians
greater understanding of religious life and democracy in the United
States. To promote stability and development in South Asia, we are
focusing in particular on women's rights advocacy training, building
skills in conflict resolution, and improving civic education and
teacher competence. Other programs work to increase mutual
understanding, particularly by reaching out youth and women, like the
Seeds for Peace program. Finally, our public diplomacy programs will
continue to support our goals to strengthen democratic institutions,
extend universal education and support economic development.
conclusion
Achieving U.S. goals in South Asia has never been more critical to
our national security, or to the stability of the region. Mr. Chairman,
I will close by re-emphasizing that the United States has significantly
changed and deepened its relationships in South Asia. We are making
progress in the war on terrorism. We have contributed to the reduction
of tensions and supported the resolution of conflict throughout the
region. We have championed stronger democratic institutions,
development and economic reform that will lead to a better quality of
life and long term stability for all South Asians. But there remain a
great deal to accomplish. A more secure, democratic, stable and
prosperous South Asia is very much in our interest, and I look forward
to working together with the Congress as we continue to pursue those
very important goals.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have, as well as
those of committee members.
Senator Chafee. Excellent testimony, thank you very much.
Ambassador Chamberlin.
Ambassador Chamberlin. Thank you very much. In South Asia,
terror, ethnic and religious conflict and the ever-present risk
of nuclear war present imminent dangers. USAID's assistance
programs play an important role in addressing and preventing
many of these threats to U.S. interests.
Afghanistan was the No. 1 recipient of U.S. humanitarian
assistance before September 11, and America continues to lead
the international community in providing assistance to
Afghanistan today. Poverty, famine, a devastating drought, and
many years of war and civil strife created a humanitarian
crisis that was aggravated by years of Taliban misrule.
Since September 11, the U.S. Government has provided nearly
$900 million in Afghan relief and reconstruction funds. In
addition to its well-publicized school book and seed
distributions programs, USAID has reopened the Salang Tunnel,
which is used by 1,000 vehicles and 8,000 people per day. It
has completed over 6,000 water-related projects and
rehabilitated 2,500 miles of road. USAID has also funded key
advisors to President Karzai's public office, the Ministry of
Women's Affairs, and the Ministry of Agriculture.
In addition, USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives has
provided 50 small grants worth nearly $2 million to different
Afghan Government ministries and offices to provide valuable
reconstruction and media assistance both within and, more
importantly, outside of Kabul. In light of these
accomplishments, I want to take a moment to thank this
committee for its support for the Afghan Freedom Support Act.
Absent this key piece of legislation, the Afghan people would
face a far different and much less hopeful future than they do
today, and I really mean that.
In Pakistan, USAID opened a field mission in Pakistan in
June 2002, after 12 years of rupture following the imposition
of sanctions in 1990. Our objectives there directly reflect our
desire to strengthen Pakistan's capacity to combat terrorism by
encouraging just governance, investment in people, and economic
reform.
Our highest priority is investing in the people of
Pakistan. The illiteracy rate is 53 percent, one of the highest
in the region. Nearly 40 percent of young people between the
ages of 15 to 20 are unemployed. In response, USAID is
enhancing teacher training, improving curricula, encouraging
curricular involvement, and supporting literacy programs. We
are also working in the democracy and governance sector.
In 2002, Pakistan held a national election and restored
civilian government with a Prime Minister and a national
assembly, but democratic institutions are still weak. Our
programs aim to strengthen these institutions and the political
parties. Pakistan remains a poor country, where over 40 percent
of the population lives below the poverty line. To stimulate
growth, USAID's focus is on maintaining macroeconomic
stability, reducing Pakistan's foreign debt, and encouraging
the government to meet IMF goals.
On the local level, we are promoting microenterprise
development to create jobs in some of Pakistan's poorest
regions. The U.S. Government has used the ESF cash transfer
mechanisms to address Pakistan's foreign debt. In fiscal year
2003, transfer of $188 million will be used to buy down $1
billion worth of debt.
Sri Lanka is a success story. It is a clear example of
putting the administration's policies of accountable foreign
aid to work. We are moving swiftly to capitalize on recent
positive events. Successfully reintegrating the thousands of
internally displaced persons and refugees from India will
require substantial human and material resources. In response
to the promising cease-fire and peace process there, we are now
moving swiftly to accelerate our investments. We have reversed
staffing reductions and requested additional resources in
fiscal year 2004, in recognition that at last the country is on
the right track.
USAID's 2004 program will target three main areas,
increasing the country's competitiveness in global markets,
building constituencies for peace through transition
initiatives, and democracy and governance reform.
Nepal is a trouble spot. In Nepal today the situation is
more hopeful than it has been for over a year. Just last week,
the representatives of the Maoist rebel group and the
government mutually agreed on a code of conduct, a peaceful
foundation for future negotiations toward a longer-term
political settlement of the conflict.
A few months ago, however, the future of Nepal appeared
bleaker. A Maoist insurgency practiced unspeakable brutalities,
intimidation, and murder. The insurgency still controls a large
share of the countryside, and has benefited from popular
outrage over years of government corruption and denial of
service to the people.
The destructive effects of the Maoist insurgency, however,
should not distract attention from the gains Nepal has made
over the past 50 years. It has transformed itself from an
isolated medieval kingdom to a constitutional monarchy and
democracy. Child mortality and fertility rates have
significantly decreased, literacy and food security has
improved, yet these development gains are unevenly distributed.
Poor governance, corruption, forbidding mountainous terrain,
and the lack of basic infrastructure have led to wide
disparities across regions and ethnic groups. These inequities
provide fertile ground for the insurgency.
Our greatest challenge is to meet the immediate needs of
those communities most affected by the conflict through health
and employment programs. At the same time, we must maintain our
support for the government and the peace process. USAID plays a
role in the USG's larger strategy in Nepal. Our emphasis is on
health, economic security, and governance reform to combat the
poverty and disenfranchisement that facilitated the 6-year
insurgency. Our task is to expand opportunities for employment
and generate growth in the private trade, agriculture and
energy sectors. We will reinforce that work with our efforts to
improve public sector management, deter corruption, and
strengthen the rule of law.
Bangladesh is one of a handful of moderate democratic
Islamic nations of the world, but it is also an ally of the
U.S. Government's efforts to combat terrorism. Governance
problems continue to hamper growth there. For the second year
in a row, Bangladesh was ranked as the most corrupt of the 102
countries surveyed in Transparency International's annual
corruption perception survey.
Since progress in USAID's government-focused anticorruption
initiatives is slow, we are also mobilizing civil society to
fill the demand for policy reform. With 3 years of USAID
support, Transparency International Bangladesh has become a
regional leader not only for Bangladesh but for the other four
South Asian countries as well.
Looking forward, Bangladesh elections will be held in 2006.
Now is the time to start providing constructive assistance.
Despite governance issues, Bangladesh has met USAID's
performance targets in the economic sector. In fact, other
donors in the business community and the Bangladeshi Government
view our small business and agribusiness projects as leaders,
due their innovative and business-driven approaches.
India, well-known to all, is a key ally and has a
tremendous potential to be a catalyst for growth and
development in an unstable region. India, the world's largest
democracy of 1.1 billion people, enjoys vast economic growth,
but India is also the home of 30 million people living in
abject poverty, more than Africa and Latin America combined.
India faces severe health challenges. Over 4 million people are
infected with HIV/AIDS. Polio is reemerging in the northern
portion of the country, and tuberculosis infections continue.
USAID has activities in all of these areas. We have been
especially helpful in stemming the tide of HIV/AIDS in the
State of Tamil Nadu, and this has become a model for the rest
of the country.
India depends heavily on coal for its energy, causing
widespread pollution and serious health hazards. Having
successfully worked with Indians to reduce CO2 emissions on the
supply side, USAID is now addressing the demand side of the
equation through distribution reforms. We have a need to
continue our work in India, and our program is moving forward.
Thank you very much. I would be happy to take your
questions.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony, excellent testimony.
Assistant Secretary Rocca, you said our top concern is in
Kashmir and what is happening there in your testimony, and you
also said we were fortunate a year ago to walk back from the
brink of war. Were you part of that walk back from the brink,
and can you describe what happened then as it relates to how we
look at what is happening now?
Ms. Rocca. Yes, I would be happy to, Senator. The issue of
Kashmir and the tension between India and Pakistan, as I have
said in my testimony, is one of the biggest challenges, because
it is a very deep-rooted problem and there is no obvious
solution that we could impose, and it is one that both sides
need to work out.
A year ago, we had a situation where India and Pakistan
were facing each other with a million men across the border
eyeball to eyeball, and were essentially waiting for a trigger
to go to war, and there was a lot of diplomatic effort. I was
part of it, but I cannot take the credit because it was a major
effort and the Secretary was involved, and the Deputy Secretary
was involved as well, as was the international community. And
it was one instance where the international community all got
together very well. We all recognized the potential disaster
that could occur, and we were able to convince them that they
needed to at least demobilize, and that is where we were at the
end of the year last year, both sides demobilized, and most of
the troops are now back in the barracks.
The entire buildup was prompted by a particularly vicious
terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001, and
the problem with the situation is that a terrorist attack can
continue, can once again spark that kind of a buildup and that
kind of a threat to the region. We are working very hard in a
number of ways to try to defuse the tension. We have got a
number of initiatives underway, which we would be happy to
discuss in another forum, of sort of ideas on how to bring the
two together.
However, the fact of the matter is that the terrorism and
the violence has got to stop. That is absolutely not the
answer. Nor is dead silence between the two countries the
answer, either, so we are working very hard to try to find a
way to bring them to have a more people-to-people contact, to
have perhaps more economic contact, more economic links, and
somehow create a situation where both countries are not putting
the fate of the region in the hands of a terrorist who might
want to prompt some major terrorist attack and launch exactly
what we are trying to avoid.
Senator Chafee. From what I understand from the recent
news, Pakistani soldiers dressed as Indians emptied a village
of men, women, and children and executed them pretty much.
Those that came out of their houses were then ambushed and
executed, is that accurate--a Hindu village--and certainly
tensions have to be extraordinarily high. Do you see a
remobilization of the forces that are back in the barracks, or
is that not happening?
Ms. Rocca. Well, first let me just--one minor tweak. Yes,
that is essentially what happened, but there is no proof, or
any kind of indication that these were Pakistanis yet. We do
not know who did it. There are militants. We know that there
are extremists on the other side of the border, yet there are
attempts to cross the border, and some of them are successful,
but there is no indication that the Pakistani Government was
involved in it, so I just want to make sure that that is clear.
In fact, the Government of Pakistan stepped in immediately
and condemned it in the harshest language possible, because it
was a particularly ugly, brutal attack, where indeed people
dressed as Indian soldiers went in, took people out of their
homes, and executed essentially what amounted to half of the
village, which was a little Hindu village.
Tensions are running very high. There is a lot of
absolutely understandable anger within India, and they feel the
need to do something. The problem is that the solution, what it
is that one does is not a clear-cut answer, and therefore we
are working with both sides. We are asking Pakistan to redouble
its efforts to prevent any terrorists from crossing the border.
That remains a key, as I mentioned earlier.
Senator Chafee. Are the forces remobilizing?
Ms. Rocca. Not yet, sir. Not yet.
Senator Chafee. Very good. I know we are going to have a
vote soon, so I will just advise you, as we go forward,
anything we can do to help in this emerging crisis, or
simmering crisis, if you will, keep us informed. We want to
provide the resources necessary--I believe I speak for my
colleagues--to prevent any escalation in this hot spot.
Ms. Rocca. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. First, I want to say you
are doing a great job. We miss you around the Senate. My staff
really enjoyed working with you, and I teamed up with Senator
Brownback on calling attention to the brutality of the Taliban
long before we knew their connection with al-Qaeda, so it was
wonderful to work with you then, and I think your explanation
of what is happening in Kashmir is very instructive.
I am glad Senator Chafee probed you on that, because
basically those terrorists do what all the terrorists do, and
that is why terrorism is our No. 1 enemy in the world. In my
opinion, the whole notion is to destroy the possibility of any
kind of reconciliation between people, and just have the world
in chaos and disorder, and just that particular example that
you have cited I think says it well.
I want to focus on Afghanistan and just ask one question
about that and then a question about Pakistan. We know in this
committee that--and thank you so much for thanking this
committee. This committee has really been a leader in the whole
area of rebuilding Afghanistan and not committing the same
error that was made before by walking away, and I think it is
very important that we focus on this, and even though with all
the other problems in the world, and God knows, there are many
that we have to focus on, we still cannot have failure in
Afghanistan. It is just not an option, and I want to reiterate
that. Dave
And that leads me to the fact that we continue to hear
about terrible abuses committed by local warlords outside the
control of President Karzai. When President Karzai was here,
several of us asked him some pretty pointed questions with the
goal of really helping him and trying to draw him out on some
of these issues.
We were on a bipartisan basis taken to the woodshed by the
President, actually, and I thought it was pretty--he was not
happy, and he felt that President Karzai was offended and so on
and so forth. I just want to say for the record that I would
not change one of the questions that any of us asked that day
of President Karzai, notwithstanding the fact that the
President--that two Presidents were unhappy with it, both
President Bush and President Karzai, because how are we going
to get to the truth if we do not ask these questions? These
questions were not meant to do any harm. It was to make the
point that we are very, very concerned.
Now, I want to say that since that meeting there are more
questions. We had some actions by Ismail Khan in Herat where
security forces for Khan had been accused of beating and
detaining a journalist working for Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, so these problems continue, and it is absurd in the
fact that the beating took place as the Herat office of the
Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission was opening, here
they are beating a journalist while the Human Rights Office is
opening across the street, so I do not think that any of us
should duck the fact that these are problems.
Now, I think it gets back to the fact that many of us on
this committee want to see the international forces get more
support and spread throughout the country. That includes
Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and others, most of us on this
committee, and so I guess I want to talk to you about that a
little bit. Is the administration still so sort of--I do not
want to use the word intransigent, but they still feel that we
should not expand these forces, given this latest incident in
Herat, given the fact that the warlords continue to do harm,
and so if you could answer that.
Also, one of the recommendations that came out of this
committee was giving aid to the Ministry of Women's Affairs.
You mentioned that, Ambassador, and I worked with others on
this committee to include an earmark of $15 million, so I
wondered whether you intend to provide this funding to the
ministry for fiscal year 2004, and again the sense of the
instability in the countryside.
Finally, I just want to pick up on Senator Nelson's
question on Pakistan, and that is, it is such a delicate
situation in Pakistan. You talk about some of what is happening
in the street. I wonder, maybe you could expand on what is
happening in the street in Pakistan, given what is going on,
and what information are the Pakistanis receiving about what is
going on in Iraq today, and the fact is, thank God we are
getting so much cooperation from them on al-Qaeda, and going
after al-Qaeda, and I am so concerned about it, and obviously
that is being lost in the shuffle.
So those are a few hard questions I hope you can answer.
Thank you.
Ms. Rocca. Senator, I do not think anyone would argue with
you that the events in Herat are unacceptable and that Ismail
Khan is a problem. It is one of those issues also of how to
deal with it. Now, there are a few things that we are working.
I will take the big picture and then go little, so I am not
avoiding the question, I just----
On the bigger scale----
Senator Boxer. If you had to avoid my question, it would
not be the first time my questions have been avoided by members
of both political parties, so do not worry about it.
Ms. Rocca. I do not want to avoid it, but I think we have a
bigger strategy of trying to deal with the warlords which gets
into our provincial reconstruction teams and trying to expand
the writ of the central government in a way that will bring
them on board.
In the case of Ismail Khan and what is going on out there,
we have a diplomat out there with the civil humanitarian
liaison unit that is out in Herat, and he is working very hard
out there not only to influence him but also to identify other
potential leaders in the region and make other contacts.
There are things going on in terms of, we have got women's
centers out there. We are working to--the Human Rights
Commission. It has opened up its office there, as you said,
ironically on the same day, but it will give an opportunity for
people to go and complain and it will give an opportunity for
the central government to learn about them, but also to start
dealing with them directly----
Senator Boxer. Yes, because President Karzai says he knows
nothing about this problem.
Ms. Rocca. Well, this is going to help inform everybody,
and so it is going to be a slow process, I do not think there
is any doubt about it, and this issue with the VOA
correspondent and the other journalist is a problem that a
number of nations are facing, including Iran, so these are
things that we are working on in a number of ways, but
obviously in terms of the immediate protection of women in the
area, the women's centers and the Human Rights Commission
should help us start dealing with that as well.
As for ISAF expansion, as you know, we do not oppose it,
but we are working very hard to find ways to bring stability to
this country, and in looking at ISAF expansion, looking at the
size of the country and the force protection requirements
involved, and the fact that the forces are not available from
other nations as well, this is not really a practical--it is
not something we oppose. If there were a way to make it happen
I think we would be happy, but I think there are a number of
nations involved there and none of them want to provide the
forces for it, and as I said, the force protection issues would
be enormous.
So the numbers--we have looked at different ways. One is
the civil humanitarian liaison groups, and now we are looking
at the provincial reconstruction teams as a way of working, and
I have to say the first three that are out, the one in Gardez,
recently we have already been able to see, it has been on the
ground for a couple of months now and there are some 50 to 60
members of the military, USAID, State Department, medical
units, engineers, reconstruction, and liaison with the central
government to help them liaise with the locals in Gardez as
well, and we have seen the security improve dramatically in
that area, and the reconstruction is going well in that area,
so we are rather optimistic that this may actually help. There
are three of them up, as I mentioned. There are five----
Senator Boxer. I do not want to take up too much time, so
could you quickly answer the other two, the $15 million to the
women's ministry, and then the last is how do you report on the
Pakistani street?
Ms. Rocca. I will start with the Pakistani street and I
will let Wendy talk about the $15 million. The street right now
is very inflamed, and the MMA is able to rally quite a fair
amount of anti-American sentiment.
Senator Boxer. MMA is?
Ms. Rocca. That is the coalition of religious parties that
managed to come into power in the western border areas of
Pakistan and actually hold not quite a quarter of the national
assembly and maybe 10 percent of the Senate, so they are a
political force. They are also a force that is opposed to
Pakistan's position with respect to the United States.
That said, they are usually able to rally a large number of
people and were trying to pull together million man marches,
and those million man marches fell very far short in a country
where this is easier to do than in other places, so the last
big demonstration was in Lahore last weekend, and there were
some 70,000 people who showed up, which is far short of a
million, so they do have influence, but they are not the
overriding sentiment in the country. Long answer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Ambassador Chamberlin. Thank you very much for your support
for women's programs in Afghanistan. They are most welcome. We
are also very enthusiastic about our programs that target women
in our Afghan programs. We have 14 women's centers that we are
putting throughout. We have given assistance to the women's
ministry both in rebuilding the building but also in some
planning and capacity building and salary support.
We have support for the women's bakery, to hire widows,
particularly in education and getting girls back into schools,
where we have made our greatest success for women. Thousands of
Afghan girls are now back in school. We are targeting at
getting women teachers back in the schools, with teacher
training, with curriculum development. All of this is with the
support of the Senate. We truly do appreciate it.
Our health programs are targeting child and maternal health
care centers in the rural areas, also another way of supporting
women in Afghanistan.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, through you, could we get some
written notes on this question for what your plans are for 2004
moneys directly to the women's ministry?
Ambassador Chamberlin. Certainly. We would be happy to
provide that.
[The following information was subsequently supplied.]
Support to Afghan Women
USAID shares your concern for supporting Afghan women. USAID's
Afghanistan program supports Afghan women through both targeted grants
and programs and by integrating sub-programs directed at women into our
larger multi-year sector programs.
In the early stage of our program, we used small grants to help
establish the Ministry of Women's Affairs, support Afghan women's NGOs,
and provide women with income generation opportunities. We also
integrated support for women into our humanitarian programs, such as
food aid. Our current work has focused on establishment of seventeen
women's centers and funding programming for those centers. Our future
work with women will address women through major, multi-year
development programs in the sectors in which we are working.
Below we provide specific activities and funding amounts for what
USAID has done so far, what we are currently doing, and what we will be
doing in FY 2004.
past activities supporting afghan women
Ministry of Women's Affairs: This was the first Afghan
Ministry to receive USAID assistance. USAID assisted in the
physical rehabilitation of the Ministry of Women's Affairs (the
auditorium and 11 offices) and provided the Minister with a
vehicle, office furniture and supplies, two computers and a
satellite phone. USAID's Gender Advisor provided extensive
assistance in helping the Ministry develop its first National
Development Budget recently. (Total activity funding: $178,718)
Women's Resource Centers: USAID built and furnished the
first Women's Resource Center. (Total activity funding:
$60,000)
Daycare Centers: Seventeen centers have been built for
Government ministries and offices to enable women to return to
work. (Total activity funding: $151,506)
Widow's Bakeries: USAID supports WFP's 121 Widow's Bakeries
in Kabul, Mazar, and Kandahar. In Kabul, the bakeries provided
5,000 children with fresh bread in school. Overall, through
employment and provision of subsidized bread, WFP reports that
200,000 urban vulnerable people benefited from this program in
CY 2002. USAID support was over half of WFP's CY 02 budget in
Afghanistan. (Total USAID food aid funding in FY 2002:
$158,600,000; Total USAID food aid funding to date in FY 2003:
$42,662,800)
Education: Trained 1,359 teachers, 907 of whom were women
and printed 15 million textbooks for 2002 school year,
contributing to an increase in girls' enrollment from 90,000
under Taliban in 2001 to 900,000 in 2002 school year. (Total
project funding including teacher training and textbook
printing: $7,709,535) Reconstructed 142 schools, daycare
centers, teacher training colleges, and vocational schools.
(Total activity funding approximately: $5.5 million) In
addition, USAID provides a food salary supplement to 50,000
teachers equal to 26% of pay. (see above for total USAID food
aid funding)
Food-for-Education Program: Through WFP, USAID is supporting
distribution of food to schoolchildren in several districts of
Dadakhshan Province, in northeastern Afghanistan. Approximately
27,000 children and 1,500 teachers and service staff in 50
schools have received a four-month ration of wheat flour, under
this program, girls receive five liters of vegetable oil every
month as an extra incentive for regular school attendance. The
program increases school attendance, reduces dropout rates, and
encourages families to send girls to school. (see above for
total USAID food aid funding)
Income Generation for Vulnerable Afghan Women
Examples include:
3,200 women, primarily widows, received approximately $30
for 15 days work, producing clothing and quilts in three
women's centers in Charikar, Taloqan, and Maimana ($2/day is
also the typical wage for male labor). In addition, the women
receive basic health education and some English training while
working in the centers. (Total project funding, of which this
activity is a part: $750,000)
The women of northwestern Afghanistan are receiving tools
and materials to generate their own income through activities
such as growing kitchen gardens, embroidering, producing cheese
and yogurt and crafting shoes. (Total activity funding:
$51,072)
400 women returnees in the Shomali, an area devastated by
the Taliban's ruin of its household poultry stock, have
received 10 breeding chickens each to generate family income.
(Total project funding, of which this activity is a part:
$2,000,000)
100 women, mostly widows, employed in raisin processing in
Kandahar. (Total project funding, of which this activity is a
part: $8,359,706)
Afghan Women's NGO Activities
Examples include:
Rehabilitation of the offices of the NGO, ARIANA so they can
provide vocational training to 1,800 women. (Total activity
funding: $12,470)
Afghan Women's Network is providing returnees with job
skills, including managerial training, and training women to
participate in the political process. (Total activity funding:
$27,352)
AINA provided support to Afghan women filmmakers to make a
film on the experience of the Afghan woman over the Taliban
period and hopes for the future. (Total activity funding:
$97,110)
Through ACBAR, USAID supports a program to encourage Afghan
women and girls to read by hosting reading classes and
improving the country's libraries. The staff of nine libraries
within eight provinces is receiving training and supplies of
books. (Total activity funding: $61,180)
Current Activities Supporting Afghan Women
Women's Centers; USAID is currently engaged in building and
providing programming for seventeen women's centers throughout
Afghanistan. Three of these are currently under design in
Jalalabad, Samangan, and Taloqan. (Total activity funding: $2.7
million) The Ministry has recently identified 14 more sites for
USAID to build and furnish centers. ($2.5 million obligated in
FY 2002 Supplemental funds) In addition, USAID will fund
programming for the centers, i.e., health education programs,
daycare, etc. ($5 million of FY 2003 funds to be obligated in
late May)
Future Activities Supporting Afghan Women
Following the overall trend in our Afghanistan programming from
humanitarian and quick impact activities toward longer term development
activities, our future work to support Afghan women will be through our
major, multi-year sectoral programs:
Health (REACH program): One of the central goals of this
three year $100 million program is to reduce Afghanistan's high
maternal mortality rate. The program will accomplish this goal
by building 400 new clinics and funding performance grants to
NGOs to provide a basic package of health services,
particularly in rural areas, where medical care is most scarce.
A major component of this program will be to increase women's
access to skilled birth attendants and essential obstetrical
services through an extensive training program. The first
obligation for REACH is expected in the first week of May.
Education (APEP program): USAID's new education program will
support accelerated learning programs for up to 60,000
children, mostly girls, that missed education under the
Taliban. USAID intends to rebuild between 1,000-1,200 schools,
benefiting 402,000 students, over three years. In addition,
USAID provides a food salary supplement to 50,000 teachers
equal to 26% of pay. (APEP budget is $60.5 million over three
years; $7.41 million has been obligated to date)
Agriculture and Rural Incomes (RAMP program): Agriculture
employs 70% of Afghanistan's labor force, and Afghan women play
a large part in agriculture, especially in raising livestock.
RAMP will improve the technical capacity of Afghans for raising
livestock. RAMP will also provide women entrepreneurs with
innovative opportunities for credit and business training. This
activity will be particularly helpful for women headed
households, which are among the most vulnerable in Afghanistan.
(The RAMP budget is $150 million over three years; first
obligation will occur in late May)
Senator Chafee. Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Christina, we extend to you our thanks as well, as we have
to Wendy and Bill Burns and Jim Kelly and others for your work
in this difficult time. I was interested in your response to
the chairman's question regarding walking back the Pakistan-
Indian conflict when we were close to the brink. I had always
thought that it was because Armitage had threatened bodily harm
to those people.
He is far too modest to take credit for that, I know.
Your testimony as well as Wendy's about the problems that
we have in that part of the world once again highlighted the
danger and I think the immediacy of this problem, and you both
have had, and still do, great responsibility in this area. Of
course, Wendy being our ambassador to Pakistan knows first-hand
of the danger.
Our ambassadors to India and Pakistan, as you know, have
been here for the last few months, and I have spent some time
with them, and they painted a pretty dark picture, as you have.
I mean, when you look at the numbers, 300 million in abject
poverty in India, and other facts that we do know of, how do we
get our arms around this, in the middle of this cauldron that
is spilling over everywhere, and then with springtime coming in
Kashmir.
Could you develop, each of you, a little more detail about
what we are doing to pay attention to this? Not that we are not
paying attention, and I understand that, but as the spring
comes and the thaw develops, and both armies are going to be
able to maneuver better, I suspect that we are preparing here
for some real problems, and what you can tell us here in an
open hearing, give us some assurance that we are not focused
just on Iraq here, we are focused on something I think far more
dangerous than Iraq, because there is no guesswork, just like
in North Korea, about who has nuclear weapons and who might
well use them.
Ms. Rocca. Senator, first of all, let me reassure you we
are very focused at the highest levels of government and, in
fact, for example, yesterday the President got engaged on this
and issued a statement as well condemning the attack in
Kashmir. There is no lack of attention on it.
The issue of how to bring about reconciliation is and will
be, we envisage will be not a short process. There are steps we
are taking on both sides, on the Pakistan side we are moving
very hard to say this is the big picture. We are moving very
hard to get Pakistan, to keep Pakistan on the road that
President Musharraf set it on in January 2001, and part of that
is dealing with the extremist elements that exist within
Pakistan, frankly exist within the region, but since we are
talking specifically here--and there needs to be an end to the
violence.
There also needs to be some path forward to have some kind
of contact in order to prevent the very kind of conflagration
that we all fear. I think in this forum that is about as far as
I can go, other than that there are calls. The Secretary, in
fact, in the last few days has spoken to the Foreign Minister
and to President Musharraf. These calls are regular calls. The
President has spoken to them regularly. We are in regular
contact and trying very hard to continue to diffuse the
situation, and there is a lot of attention focused on it.
Senator Hagel. Thank you. Wendy, would you like to add
anything?
Ambassador Chamberlin. No. I think Christina covered it.
Senator Hagel. OK. Thank you. I know we need to move on
here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you both.
Senator Chafee. Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. When we got the big fish in Pakistan that
is now giving us a lot of information, tell us something about
the cooperation of Pakistan. When Wendy was still the
Ambassador we were actually over there the night they did five
simultaneous raids in five cities and got a high level al-
Qaeda person that time, but this is a year later. Tell us about
the Pakistani Government's cooperation.
Ms. Rocca. So far we are up to close to 500 individuals
arrested and nabbed with the help of the Pakistani Government.
Their assistance in tracking down al-Qaeda and the Taliban and
bringing them to justice has been outstanding. That is really
the only way to phrase it.
Senator Nelson. Does Musharraf get a lot of heat for this
publicly?
Ms. Rocca. What he gets heat for is mainly is for the
presence of, or the--some of these raids, they are
misrepresented, and it is the FBI that did the raid alone, you
know, went in and knocked down doors. This is being done by the
Government of Pakistan. There are Pakistani officers involved,
and when that misperception is in there, then there is a lot of
opposition, but short of that, short of that it is generally
supported, probably not within the MMA, may I say, because
their rhetoric all involves going after Americans.
Senator Nelson. What is the effort, if any, in Pakistan to
lessen the influence or change the program of the madrassahs?
Ms. Rocca. President Musharraf had and still has an
education reform plan. It involves the madrassahs, but it also,
even more importantly than just focusing on the madrassahs, it
involves essentially fixing an education system that was
bankrupt and broken and practically nonexistent, and the United
States has committed over $100 million over the next 5 years to
assist him in that effort, to assist the Government of Pakistan
in rebuilding their education system and training teachers, and
providing an alternative to the madrassahs. Not all madrassahs
are bad. Not all of them only preach anti-western--or hate for
America.
Part of what he is trying to do is also to broaden the
curriculum, not just as an effort to diffuse extremism, but
also because these large numbers of Pakistani children who come
out of the madrassahs have no employment skills, so they are
trying to broaden it in order to provide them with other skills
so that they will be employable as well, which will also help,
but this is a long-term project. This is not something that can
be done overnight.
Senator Nelson. And how many troops are facing each other
on the Kashmir border today?
Ms. Rocca. Right now there are no more troops facing each
other along the international border, and we believe there are
still--I think there is still some 400,000 Indian troops on the
Indian side, but please let me come back and correct that if I
am wrong.
Senator Nelson. And that is compared to a million before?
Ms. Rocca. There were a million along the entire border,
including the international border, which is about as far away
as from each other as you and I, without the mountains in
between.
Senator Nelson. So they pulled back from that.
Ms. Rocca. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. And now there are 400,000 on India's side,
and how many over here?
Ms. Rocca. I think that the Pakistani military have all
gone back to garrison. There was always a presence of Indian
military in Kashmir and in the valley. There are some military,
but other than the usual military post, I do not think there is
a big mobilization on the Pakistani side, and on the Indian
side there are only a little bit above the normal number that
operates there.
Senator Nelson. When did that disengagement occur--just
approximately, like weeks, how many weeks after the time of the
highest tension?
Ms. Rocca. Oh, the highest tension sort of came to a peak
in May and June of last year. The mobilization did not start
until the fall--the demobilization did not start until the
fall, so there was very high tension that entire time.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. I do have a
note there is an objection to this hearing going past 12:30,
and we do have another panel on East Asia.
Senator Coleman. Good man.
Senator Coleman. Thank you. I will keep my comments very
short, because I could be here a long time. At least I want to
thank you for the work you are doing. I want to wish you well,
and highlight what a tinderbox world we live in. Just one
question. We always talk about the relationship between poverty
and terrorism, and I know you talked about Bangladesh being a
model of a strong, stable democracy. How is that happening, and
are there any lessons there for us?
Ms. Rocca. Well, Bangladesh has had three absolutely free
and fair turnovers of power. In fact, they had regional
elections just last week which were also deemed by the
international community to be free and fair. They have a system
of government which puts the governance in the hands of an
interim government in between changeover of power, which is a
very interesting model that others are actually looking at,
because it works. It is a neutral government that then comes
into power for 3 months and turns it over to the winner of the
election.
There is also a--I think just by virtue of the fact that
this democracy works so well, it also is providing more leeway
for people to express themselves, and therefore it is not an
extremist area. I will just leave it at that.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator, very much.
This part of the hearing is concluded. Thank you very much
for your patience and testimony.
[Recess.]
HEARING SEGMENT II.--EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
Senator Brownback [presiding]. We will call the hearing
back to order. I think everybody understands the circumstances
we are under. We are under a series of votes that will be
starting shortly on the floor, if they have not already, on the
budget, so we will have to pop back and forth for that. We have
asked them to notify us when there are 2 minutes left to go in
the budget. If we can, we will probably just try to keep
members rotating in and out. We will not have to recess. If we
do have to recess, we will recess.
We can only meet for another hour, I am told. There has
been an objection from the other side going past the hour of
12:30, so unfortunately your stop at the dentist this time will
only last until 12:30.
Rather than having any opening statements, if that is OK,
on this particular topic I would like to go straight to the
Assistant Secretary for your statement and testimony so we can
have as much time as possible for questions and interactions.
So Assistant Secretary Kelly, thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. KELLY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE,
EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to enter my statement here for the record.
Senator Brownback. Without objection.
Mr. Kelly. And if you do not mind, I will just pick out
some highlights from it, and I will try to be very, very brief
in what we do, because the structure of the East Asia and
Pacific Region is such that the money we seek for foreign
assistance, which is the focus of this hearing, is not in
precise balance with the, let us say, tensions associated with
the issue because obviously, the Korean Peninsula is a serious
issue, and for excellent reason, North Korea is not a recipient
of formal foreign assistance, although in many respects because
of the humanitarian aid issues North Korea has been a very
large recipient indeed.
We do focus our ESF efforts and our development assistance
efforts--I am delighted to have Ambassador Chamberlin here with
me to talk about that--in Southeast Asia and, in particular, in
the Muslim-populated countries, Indonesia especially, a
struggling new democracy, and of course, the Philippines has
some serious problems now, and our programs have been
particularly focused in that way.
Combating terrorism in the region, though, ranks at the top
of East Asia and Pacific Region's list of immediate priorities,
and this is inextricably linked to our long-term and
overarching goal of regional stability, but it also impacts
directly on each of our five top goals for the region, which
are, promoting and deepening democracy, improving sustainable
economic development, countering proliferation in weapons of
mass destruction, countering international crime in the region,
and promoting open markets. Since 9/11 combating terrorism has
had important resource implications to be factored into our
Bureau's business plan.
On terrorism, skipping over some of the material in the
formal statement, I want to point out that bilaterally we are
cooperating with our five East Asian allies and partners in
combating terrorism and also with China and other close
friends. We are also working very closely with ASEAN, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the ASEAN Regional
Forum, the region's only multilateral security forum, and APEC,
Asia Pacific Economic Coordination, in a regional and
multilateral cooperation on terrorism.
In the coming fiscal year, we look to work very strongly on
terrorism with other departments of the government and other
bureaus within the State Department. Efforts in the
counterterrorism effort have focused on training, helping
countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, to recognize that
there is a terrorism threat, that terrorists know no boundaries
and can show up and cause serious problems, as we saw with the
terrible Bali bombing of last October.
Additionally, we try to work with financial institutions on
things like financial controls to get at the root of money that
sustains terrorist issues, and on things like improving airport
security as well.
Regional stability, of course, is an overarching strategic
goal, and in fiscal year 2004 we will have both foreign
military financing [FMF] and international military education
and training [IMET] to be used as tools for expanding and
deepening U.S. regional influence with allies and friends.
We also will expand our cooperative relationships with
other key states, including China, where we will coordinate and
monitor rule-of-law programs in the fiscal year under request.
We intend to draw on and enhance the potential contributions of
the regional multilateral organizations, as I mentioned before.
In particular, we are trying to do some new work with the
ASEAN Secretariat, which is headquartered in Jakarta. Because
of the enormous diversity in the 10 countries of ASEAN, in
terms of development and democratization in particular the new
ESF funding in our fiscal year 2004 request will support
expanded U.S. engagement with ASEAN to enhance its stabilizing
role in Southeast Asia.
Democracy is, of course, a key issue, and democratic values
have spread enormously in East Asia. In the past decade, the
Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, Mongolia, and Taiwan have
consolidated relatively young democracies. Indonesia, under
authoritarian rule for 30 years, remains in a struggle for
democratic transformation. There will be the first direct
Presidential election ever in Indonesia to be held in 2004, and
we are trying to build election procedures in this enormously
spread-out country.
There are other efforts that use ESF and DA funding to
reinforce educational opportunity and the demand for honest
government. The decentralization of what was an entirely
centralized government brings on an enormous need in a place
like Indonesia to improve administrative skills, and Ambassador
Chamberlin and her USAID staff are working very hard on that.
Training of police is a significant element, and the police
were simply a poor adjunct of the Indonesian army for many
years. They have only really been independent now for about 3
years, and showed in many respects this newness. On the other
hand, in their response to the Bali bombing, in which they have
gone from one end of Indonesia to the other to track down and
identify terrorists, they seem to have gotten at least a
significant number of the people who perpetrated or were behind
that terrible crime, and trials are starting now on that crime.
Elsewhere in the region, the democratization process has
been pretty slow. We have to continue to promote more open
societies and democratic governments, for example, in Laos,
Cambodia, Vietnam. Burma itself steadfastly resists any real
suggestion of democracy, and this is a problem. We will focus
particularly on states where there is the evidence of some
progress toward these goals.
International crime and transnational issues are another
principal focus, including emphasis on narcotics trafficking
and the epidemic of infectious diseases, especially HIV/AIDS,
malaria and tuberculosis, which hit our region very hard now.
In conjunction with USAID and with other bureaus in the
Department of State we are working to address these problems
and to supplemental bilateral solutions.
The EAP regional women's issues account tries to develop a
regional approach to the problem of trafficking in persons, of
which there is now a very interesting and significant report
and evaluation moving into its third year. The objective of our
assistance is to reduce trafficking in children, to eliminate
violence against women, and to increase women's empowerment and
status through increased participation in the political
process.
Our efforts have concentrated on projects in what are
called tier 3 countries such as Cambodia and Indonesia to try
to help them improve their performance, but other countries
have problems with trafficking in persons, sometimes for sex
business purposes. It is interesting, Korea received a low
mark, started paying attention, changed its laws, saw the
development of nongovernmental organizations to provide support
for these people, and significantly, in less than a year,
enormously responded to this effort.
We have had progress, understandably slower in parts of
Southeast Asia. I will not dwell long on open market and
economic development efforts, but here, too, and in particular
in Indonesia, we try to work with the financial systems of the
country which are key to the development process in the future
and to improving corporate governance and restructuring and
promoting regulatory reform and pressing for trade and
investment liberalization.
On weapons of mass destruction, our efforts, of course,
apply to each and every country. Proliferation is a very
serious concern. This is not a matter in which we have sought
particular foreign assistance funding, but of course it remains
an extremely high priority for us. We are going to try to, in
the years to come, work closer with particularly Indonesia.
There are restrictions on our military-to-military relations
which we are not at the moment seeking to lift, but we will at
some appropriate time, because although the Indonesian army has
been guilty of terrible abuses in the past, it is an
organization that is essential to that country and that needs
to be improved. We have to find a way to work with the more
positive elements within the army, but we have not quite found
that yet.
Additionally, current legislation restricts assistance to
the central government in Cambodia, which faces elections in
the summer of this year, July 2003. The advent, if these
elections are successful and free and fair, is going to be
extremely important as an indication of whether we can and will
seek any change in the restrictions that limit our assistance
in Cambodia to nongovernmental organizations.
With that awfully quick and cursory summary, Mr. Chairman,
I will end my remarks and be ready to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of
State, East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to share with the Committee our
priorities for assistance in the East Asia and Pacific region.
u.s. interests
Combating terrorism in the region ranks at the top of EAP's list of
immediate priorities. This is inextricably linked to our long-term and
overarching goal of regional stability, but it also impacts directly on
each of our five top goals for the region: promoting and deepening
democracy; improving sustainable economic development; countering
proliferation and weapons of mass destruction; countering international
crime in the region; and promoting open markets. Since 9/11, combating
terrorism has important resource implications that must be factored
into our Bureau business plan.
Terrorism: The growth of terrorist networks in the EAP region
presents a direct threat to U.S. national security, to the welfare of
Americans overseas and to the security of U.S. allies and friends in
the region. Terrorism carries enormous potential to disrupt regional
trends toward peace, prosperity, and democracy. It adds new urgency to
our efforts to pursue non-proliferation and Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) goals in the region, and affects how the Bureau promotes open
markets and transnational crime objectives. Our preeminent goal,
therefore, must be to ensure that terrorism and its practitioners are
rooted out of every country or safe haven and that we address
conditions--financial, economic and political--that render the region
vulnerable to terrorism.
To succeed in this effort, we must secure the active cooperation of
others in the region. Bilaterally we are cooperating with our five East
Asian allies and partners committed to combating terrorism, and with
China and with other close friends. We are also working very closely
with ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and APEC to develop
regional, multilateral cooperation on terrorism. In FY 04 we will
continue to work closely with other State Bureaus, particularly S/CT
and DS, and with other USG agencies, including Treasury and DOD, and
DHS to further enhance this reinforcing web of bilateral and
multilateral relationships that foster not only a greater U.S. ability
to combat terrorism in the region, but also leverage growing intra-
regional efforts to come to grips with terrorism. Resources for this
effort must come not only from EAP but also from other counter-
terrorism funding sources available to the Department and other
agencies.
Regional Stability: Regional stability remains our overarching
strategic goal and provides the underpinning for achievement of other
key goals and objectives. Active U.S. engagement and renewed emphasis
on our alliance relationships has helped keep the East Asia and Pacific
region generally stable. Nevertheless, the Korean Peninsula and the
Taiwan Strait remain sensitive and potentially volatile. Our ability to
deter conflict is currently strengthened by several factors, including
the mutual interests of key East Asian powers in working cooperatively
to address terrorism and shared interests in keeping interstate
frictions within parameters conducive to economic recovery and growth.
Terrorism in Asia carries the potential to destabilize friendly
governments in Southeast Asia.
In FY 04, we will continue to carefully manage ties with five
regional allies--Japan, Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and
Thailand--to maintain our ability to sustain a stable and secure
environment in the region. Our strategies in this effort include the
forward deployment of military assets. In FY 04 both FMF and IMET will
be used as tools for expanding and deepening U.S. regional influence
with allies and friends. We also will expand our cooperative
relationships with other key regional states, including China, where we
will coordinate and monitor rule of law programs in FY 04. We intend to
draw on and enhance the potential contributions to regional stability
of regional multilateral organizations, including the ARF, APEC, and
ASEAN. In particular, the new ESF funding in our FY04 request will
supported expanded U.S. engagement with ASEAN to enhance its
stabilizing role in Southeast Asia.
Democracy: Stability and prosperity create good conditions for the
development of democracy. In East Asia, the generally stable
environment has created conditions in which democratic values have
gradually been incorporated into the governing structures of many
regional states. In the past decade, the Philippines, South Korea,
Thailand, Mongolia, and Taiwan have consolidated their relatively young
democracies. Indonesia, under authoritarian rule for thirty years,
remains engaged in a struggle for democratic transformation. We will
continue our efforts to foster democracy in Indonesia with ESF and DA
funding. These efforts are designed to reinforce educational
opportunity, domestic demand for honest government and greater respect
for individual human rights; they also underscore key dimensions of the
U.S. counter-terrorism effort in Indonesia.
Elsewhere in the region, the democratization process has been
slower to develop. We will continue to promote more open societies and
democratic governments in key areas, including in Laos, Cambodia and
Vietnam. We will focus particularly on states where there is evidence
of some progress toward these goals. These are critical components in
the development of a stable and enduring framework for overall regional
development.
We are watching developments closely in Burma for signs of change.
Lately, Burma has shown no signs of interest in a dialogue with the
democratic opposition that could lead to progress in that country.
International Crime and Transnational Issues: Our strong diplomatic
and military presence in the region will be key to addressing immediate
and pressing transnational challenges that arise. These, almost by
definition, will require multilateral solutions, and several of them,
the most obvious being terrorism, already pose a serious challenge to
regional stability. We will work with USAID, as well as with other
Department bureaus to keep ahead of the advancing trends that have
internationalized once-local problems. For example, narcotics
trafficking and the epidemic of infectious diseases, especially HIV/
AIDS, malaria and TB, are hitting our region harder now. In
coordination with USAID and with INL and OES Bureaus, we are working to
address these problems and seeking to supplement bilateral solutions
with multilateral approaches.
Through our EAP Regional Women's Issues Account, we are developing
a regional approach to the problem of trafficking in persons (T1P). Our
objective is to reduce trafficking of women and children, to eliminate
violence against women, and to increase women's empowerment and status
through increased participation in the political process. Our efforts
have concentrated on TIP projects in eligible Tier 3 countries, such as
Cambodia and Indonesia, to help them improve their performance. In
addition, we are providing assistance to Tier 2 countries that face the
risk of being downgraded to Tier 3. We are adjusting our foreign
assistance and technical training priorities to reduce the level of
trafficking in the region. Our FY 04 request account is for $3 million.
Open Markets/Economic Development: Although related to our goals on
terrorism, democracy and regional stability, promoting open markets and
pro-growth policies is an essential goal on its own merits. U.S. trade
with East Asia now exceeds that with Western Europe. Asia includes some
of the largest and fastest growing economies in the world. Open
economies support U.S. jobs and income, broaden the foundations on
which democratic institutions can be constructed, and create incentives
to settle problems peacefully.
Sustained economic recovery from the Asian Financial Crisis of the
late 1990's will require significant additional reform efforts. We
continue to work multilaterally and bilaterally to help restore long-
term growth prospects by strengthening Asian financial systems,
improving corporate governance and restructuring, promoting regulatory
reform, and pressing for trade and investment liberalization. Recovery
of the Japanese economy is crucial to regional recovery, and we
continue to urge the GOJ tackle deflation and implement fully its plans
for structural and financial sector reform, as well as measures to
become more open to foreign direct investment and trade. We are pleased
with the successful conclusion of negotiations on the U.S.-Singapore
Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and look forward to its implementation as an
example of advancing free trade in Asia. We closely monitor China's
compliance with its WTO obligations, which will increase the access of
the Chinese people to goods, ideas and information, encourage further
economic reform and, advance the rule of law. We work closely with U.S.
business in our effort to promote these market-oriented, pro-growth
policies in the region.
Not all countries in the region have shared in the economic growth.
Significant development needs remain throughout the region, including
in Mongolia and in the Philippines, Indonesia and several other ASEAN
states, particularly ASEAN's newer mainland Southeast Asian members. We
recognize that the immediate post 9/11 demands of the war on terrorism
have diverted resources from this region. These factors require that we
take a fresh look at our program resources and where they are focused.
While we could always spend additional resource on economic development
in the EAP region, we are effectively using our current level of
funding to meet key regional goals such as stemming the growing links
between the EAP region and the South Asia-based terrorist networks and
eliminating poverty in the region that terrorists are poised to
exploit.
Our program requests for FY 04 reflect a realistic effort to
address terrorism directly and also through programs designed to reduce
its appeal to economically and politically disadvantaged populations.
Our Philippines programs offer a good example. Supplemental and FMF
funding is addressing weaknesses in Philippine military capabilities to
combat terrorist groups, while our ESF programs, such as Livelihood
Enhancement and Peace program in Mindanao that has enabled 13,000 ex-
combatants to take up peaceful pursuits such as farming, have been
successful in developing better alternatives for populations
susceptible to terrorist recruitment. In FY 04 we must maintain ESF
funding for the Philippines at $20 million to adequately continue
momentum for social foundations for peace. In conjunction with INL, we
are also looking at ways to enhance civilian police capabilities.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological, and their means of
delivery have been a major concern in East Asia during the past decade,
but have become even more urgent since 9/11. We continue to work toward
a reduction of this threat, including through discussions with China
focused on getting the PRC to adhere fully to existing bilateral and
multilateral nonproliferation arrangements. The latter includes China's
commitments contained in the November 2000 missile nonproliferation
arrangement, as well as getting China to fully cooperate in pre-license
and post-shipment verification checks related to U.S. dual-use exports.
We are asking for China's cooperation in bringing other countries under
the discipline of multilateral arms control and nonproliferation
arrangements. We are also working to prevent, contain, and reverse the
possibility that such WMD might become available to non-state terrorist
organizations.
Modifications of Current Restrictions: EAP priorities for FY 04 are
to sustain our foreign assistance to Indonesia and the Philippines.
Existing restrictions on our ability to consider a full range of
security assistance options for Indonesia reduce the Administration's
flexibility in military-to-military relations. While conditions are not
now in place to warrant removal of restrictions, we are not seeking
that today; we are working towards the time when that will be possible.
Current legislation restricts assistance to the central government
of Cambodia. Provided that the situation in Cambodia improves,
including successful free and fair elections in July 2003, greater
flexibility in allowing closer cooperation with the central government,
might be in the U.S. national interest: Types of assistance that could
then be considered include: enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities;
promoting rule of law and justice; and developing a smaller more
professional military.
Cambodia needs training in immigration, border security, and other
areas critical to our global fight against terrorism. IMET funds could
be used to professionalize the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces through
training in human rights and rule of law as well as help officers
contribute to regional stability and play an effective role in
transnational issues (narcotics, human trafficking, border security,
and protection of land and natural resources) through additional
training in civil-military relations and military justice.
conclusion
The foregoing represents a brief overview of the EAP Bureau's top
goals and objectives, and the resources we will need to meet them. It
incorporates our best assessment of the region-wide demands and
requirements we should work to meet, but it cannot incorporate resource
requests for major, unanticipated events that could emerge without
warning in the region, including on the Korean Peninsula.
Senator Brownback. Good. Thank you very much for that
summarization.
Ambassador Chamberlin, did you have prepared testimony you
wanted to give?
STATEMENT OF HON. WENDY CHAMBERLIN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
BUREAU FOR ASIA AND THE NEAR EAST, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT [USAID], WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Chamberlin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I also have
written testimony which, with your permission, I will submit
for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ambassador Chamberlin's written testimony can be found on page
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Brownback. That will be included without objection.
Ambassador Chamberlin. I will try to even pare back a bit
my oral remarks here so that you can get to your questions.
As our Nation is fighting terrorism in Iraq and
Afghanistan, we must continue to pay attention to terrorism and
other threats to stability in East Asia. Countries like
Indonesia and the Philippines are also frontline states in the
war on terrorism, and by strengthening economic reforms,
democracy, education, and health, USAID programs help to
address the threat of terrorism directly to East Asia and the
Pacific.
Conditions across Southeast Asia vary greatly. Despite
major economic gains of the past decade, several fragile States
still threaten to become failed ones, yet it also remains a
region of great economic and democratic promise.
One of the most pressing regional issues I would like to
highlight again is trafficking in persons. I think Assistant
Secretary Kelly has amplified some of the problems and
challenges in the region, and I would like to take this
opportunity to thank you for your contributions in introducing
legislation that developed the report and reinvigorated our
effort in trafficking of persons and has had, as Assistant
Secretary Kelly has pointed out, enormous good results. Thank
you very much.
Within the broader context, let me highlight some of the
key programs we have in individual countries. In Indonesia, the
largest most populous Muslim country in the world is a critical
partner in the U.S. Government efforts to combat terrorism and
maintain stability in the region. We have drastically
reconfigured our aid program in Indonesia to respond more
effectively to post-9/11 policy priorities. USAID has
contributed directly to three of Indonesia's most important
recent developments.
Signed on December 9, 2002, Aceh's fragile Cessation of
Hostilities Agreement. It has greatly reduced the armed
conflict that was killing almost 90 civilians a month and had
wreaked havoc on local livelihoods. Not only did we support the
peace dialog, but we have also taken the lead in monitoring the
ongoing truce.
For the first time, in 2004 Indonesians will have the
opportunity to directly elect their President, Vice President,
and legislators, a major milestone for a country on its way to
becoming the world's third-largest democracy. These elections
are the direct result of U.S.-sponsored constitutional
amendment. We are following up that support with work toward
free and fair elections and strengthening the voices of
moderate Islamic groups.
In the environmental arena, our partnership with the
private sector to combat illegal logging not only leverages $4
for every USAID dollar spent to support resource management,
but it also directly contributes to higher incomes for the
rural poor.
In the Philippines, the Philippines is on the front lines
of the war on terrorism in Southeast Asia. Mindanao, the home
to an ongoing internal conflict between Muslim separatists and
the Philippine Government has received approximately 60 percent
of our bilateral budget since fiscal year 2002. USAID programs
have successfully reintegrated 13,000 former combatants into
their communities, and we are training an additional 12,000 in
2003 and 2004. This is a highly successful project, and one we
are very proud of.
In Mindanao and elsewhere in the Philippines, health
services are being devolved to the local level. This is a
challenge and an opportunity to local governments, and USAID is
helping to build their capacity to provide primary care as well
as TB and malaria management. Unfortunately, the Philippine
economic and fiscal performance is disappointing. In 2002, the
public sector deficit was an alarming 6 percent of GDP, largely
due to failing tax collections. USAID's programs are critical
to combating the pervasive corruption that undermines the
economy and political stability. At least that is our
intention.
In East Timor, the newest nation on the world stage, it is
an exciting and crucial time for our support to a blossoming
democracy and economic development. Our aid programs are
supporting the Timorese as they establish a democratic
government and an independent media. We are the second-largest
bilateral donor after Australia, as East Timor begins to take
advantage of the projected oil and gas revenues from the Timor
Gap, we will reassess our future assistance levels.
Cambodia ranks amongst the poorest countries in the world,
with an annual per capita GDP of only $280, a very low literacy
rate, and a high official HIV/AIDS infection rate in Asia.
Burma may be higher, but Cambodia's is certainly very, very
high.
Years of war, genocide, and political corruption continue
to weigh heavily on Cambodia. We are supporting Cambodia's
tentative steps toward democracy. Years of U.S. Government
support have fostered strong, motivated NGOs with whom we are
now working to combat corruption and engage the public in
monitoring government activities, particularly in light of the
upcoming July elections.
Cambodia's health services are still very weak, so our
focus there is on rehabilitation of severely malnourished
children, training of midwives, malaria prevention, and
immunization outreach. Given Cambodia's high HIV prevalence,
USAID's most significant investment is in HIV/AIDS prevention
and care.
Consistent with appropriate legislation, we do not
contribute funds to any entity of the Royal Cambodian
Government. However, the increased flexibility in recent years
to coordinate our work with certain parts of the government has
enhanced our effectiveness.
In Vietnam, a country of 80 million people occupies a
strategic position related to China. This is an economy that
has the potential to take off, but today it still remains very
poor. The main thrust of our aid program is to support the
implementation of the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement.
Since signing the agreement in December 2001, imports from the
United States have grown by 26 percent, and exports to the
United States by 129 percent.
In Burma, Burma remains an authoritarian state with serious
health and economic growth issues, a drug trade, and rampant
human rights abuses. Our work in Burma is guided by appropriate
earmarks and is focused on promoting democracy and human
rights. Last year, we began to address the serious HIV/AIDS
situation in Burma, where the infection rates, estimated as
high as 4 percent, may be the highest in all of Asia. We hope
to expand this program and request additional funding for
fiscal year 2004.
Laos faces serious human rights concerns and widespread
acute poverty and disease. Therefore, our aid in Laos is
largely humanitarian. While the program is quite modest, it
works hard to create jobs, promote targeted growth through a
silk production project, improve maternal and child health and
educate children about unexploded ordnance.
Mongolia. With USAID's assistance, the Government of
Mongolia has made the transition to democracy and a market
economy over the past 11 years. We have helped to rebuild the
financial sector, guide responsible privatization, automate the
courts, improve livelihoods. There is still much work to be
done. A majority of the population is poor, life in remote
rural areas is cutoff from many of the benefits of the
country's advances. We are addressing these challenges with
well-integrated high-performing programs.
Last, in China and Tibet, USAID is involved on a limited
scale in China. At the request of the State Department, we are
managing small programs in rule of law for both countries, and
in Tibet we have activities in sustainable development,
environmental conservation, and cultural preservation which
correspond to earmarks. We are beginning a modest amount of
HIV/AIDS prevention work in two southern provinces as part of
the Greater Mekong regional HIV/AIDS prevention strategy.
There are regional issues in environment, support for
ASEAN, support for public-private partnerships, which I amplify
greater in my written testimony and I will not get into.
One final comment on the possible changes to the Foreign
Assistance Act, which I know is of great concern to this
committee. One of the committee's objectives in holding these
hearings, as we understand it, is to consider possible
adjustments to our basic authorizing legislation, the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961. USAID has put forward several
suggestions on this subject, and I cite these in my written
testimony.
One of these involves the need to identify and fund the
real cost of doing business overseas. This is a subject of
particular interest to the ANE Bureau, given the extremely
fluid nature of the developmental challenges that we face
throughout our three Bureaus. USAID needs to obtain adequate
funding for flexibility in the use of funds devoted to the real
cost of administering development assistance.
The demands on USAID to support new mandates to address
global challenges such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, HIV/AIDS,
education, MEPI, and other pressing priorities have increased
greatly, as have the costs of providing security for our
families in these troubled parts of the world. Meanwhile, our
ability to fund and staff these operations has reached its
limit.
The solution will have to involve not only the
identification and provision of adequate resources, but also
new personnel and procurement authorities that will streamline
and create more responsive systems. The Foreign Assistance Act
could acknowledge this and signal the need for greater
flexibility and more resources and new sources to finance the
administrative cost in existing appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you as you
develop these plans. We will be happy to come up here as often
and intensely as you would like us to.
Senator Brownback. Good. Thank you very much, Ambassador
Chamberlin.
I will go up and vote and then will come back and go
through some questions at that time.
[Recess.]
Senator Brownback. The hearing will come back to order.
Hopefully we will get the budget done today. We will see.
Assistant Secretary Kelly, it is outside the purview,
really, of the hearing, but with having you here I think it
would be wrong for us not to ask you to comment on the
situation currently on North Korea-U.S. relations, and if you
could just give us the current state of play with that and what
has happened in the last couple of weeks I would appreciate
that.
Mr. Kelly. The current state, Mr. Chairman, is pretty much
as it was when I testified before the committee 2 weeks ago. We
still want multilateral dialog with North Korea. They still
publicly demand a bilateral dialog that takes the position that
the nuclear issues are solely something between North Korea and
the United States, although we have detected in some statements
possibly some softening of that position.
We are continuing to explore with countries in the region,
specifically with Japan and, of course, with South Korea and
with China, and to a slightly lesser extent Russia, the
prospects of entering into multilateral dialogs.
The North Koreans, of course, have taken many actions of
very serious concern, headlined by their withdrawal from the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on January 10. Since then,
there have been incidents at the DMZ. There was a very serious
matter of their fighter planes challenging an observation
aircraft that was over 100 miles from the nearest part of North
Korean terrain. They have not, however, begun to reprocess, to
the best of our knowledge, the 8,000 spent fuel rods that would
provide a significant quantity of plutonium that is a matter of
extraordinary concern.
The President's commitment to a diplomatic solution to this
situation continues, and we have several things coming up
shortly. The Foreign Minister of Korea arrives on his first
visit as Foreign Minister to Washington this afternoon, and he
will be in meetings over the next several days. We expect that
President Roh of South Korea will accept President Bush's
invitation to come to Washington probably within the next 2
months, and so there is going to be a number of things going
on, but there is no particular news that I have to report
today, sir.
Senator Brownback. No other provocative acts taken by the
North Koreans in the last couple of weeks, since the incident
with the observation plane?
Mr. Kelly. There are not any. There have been a lot of
noisy attacks from propaganda organs of North Korea, but none
of a directly military nature.
Senator Brownback. Any greater support from the Chinese to
stop the reprocessing and the development of nuclear weapons on
the Korean Peninsula?
Mr. Kelly. The Chinese have shown considerable signs of
support, of working with the North Koreans and we are waiting
for further reports from them about this matter. There have
apparently--and we have no first-hand information--been senior
Chinese visitors to North Korea, and other signals. China has
been even more forthright than it was in the past in objecting
to the development of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula,
and has made clear to us that that would be a threat to Chinese
interests as well as those of the U.S. and other countries in
the region, but these are just signs on the horizon, and the
completion of any such effort remains vague and unproven.
Senator Brownback. Any discussion within countries in the
region, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, of a theater missile
defense architecture to try to protect against further North
Korean development and potential provocative acts?
Mr. Kelly. Concerning the prospect of a next step of the
serious steps that North Korea might do but has not done, I
mentioned reprocessing spent fuel rods. Another step would be
testing ballistic missiles, which they last did on August 31,
1998. Japan is understandably extremely concerned about the
prospect, and we are, too, of whether there would be any such
test of a missile.
It would be possible for some kind of test, particularly of
Nodong missiles, to occur with little advanced warning. That
has not yet occurred, and if that were to happen, that would be
another serious escalation of the process.
As a result, though, of the threat it is very clear that
Japan in particular has a renewed and strengthened interest in
missile defense programs and, in fact, the government has
significantly increased the money within the Japanese budget to
pursue research and, I think, probably to move to more direct
activity in missile defense soon. It has definitely focused the
minds of the Japanese.
South Korea is less threatened by ballistic missiles and
more threatened by artillery, and we have not seen that kind of
interest there.
Senator Brownback. You mentioned that we have no formal
assistance to North Korea, but we are providing substantial
food aid into North Korea.
Mr. Kelly. Some have characterized them as our largest
recipient of assistance, because there has been almost $700
million of food aid, Mr. Chairman, provided to North Korea
since 1995, and we recently announced, as the humanitarian
effort, that some 40,000 tons would be provided against the
World Food Program's estimate of needs.
At the same time, we are very concerned at the quality of
monitoring to make sure that this food gets to the hungry
people who need it inside North Korea. The economic news that
we are able to pick up from North Korea is extremely bad, not
just in terms of food, but in terms of all kinds of movement of
that sad economy, and so you are right, Mr. Chairman, the food
aid has very much been a part of our aid and it is not directly
linked to our very serious concerns with North Korea's other
actions.
Senator Brownback. Are we continuing to have refugees from
North Korea move into China, and is China continuing to
repatriate and refoul these refugees?
Mr. Kelly. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, a matter
with which you are certainly interested, and I want to thank
you for that interest and for taking the trouble to travel
close to that border, which you did not so long ago. You have
been there more recently than I have.
The information we are getting is that yes, sir, reflecting
hunger conditions, more North Koreans are coming across that
border. Some have been returned during the fall. Quite a number
were being sent back. We have argued very strongly to the
Chinese that that not be done. There is less indication of
forced returns now, but it is something that is very hard to
monitor.
There is no question that not all of these people are
economic refugees, and that China, as a signatory to the
International Refugee Convention, should be accepting some of
these as political refugees and involving the U.N. High
Commissioner on Refugees. China has not been doing that, and
you are well aware that China's treatment of these refugees
remains a serious problem.
Senator Brownback. Is the Department looking at asking for
assistance for North Korean refugees either for refugee support
in China or resettlement outside of China, or refugee camps in
places other than China, such as Mongolia? Is that reflected in
your budget, or is that being contemplated?
Mr. Kelly. It is not reflected in our budget. Refugee
funding is handled in another pot, but I do not believe that
there is any direct money for that. It is an ongoing item of
discussion. It would probably be very difficult for us to spend
money directly with the Government of China, or directly on
that. There are nongovernmental organizations, though, that
have been working with impoverished people of Korean ancestry,
some of whom just live in northeast China, and many of whom, of
course, have come across that border.
The possibility of having these people come to the United
States is something that is, I would say, getting more
consideration than it had before. At the moment, the numbers
are such that if they can leave China, they can in every
instance go to South Korea, which has a substantive and serious
program for resettling these people, but that program may not
be enough if things continue to deteriorate in North Korea, and
we may need to seek further authorities, but we have not
requested those at this time.
Senator Brownback. I may be looking at that either on this
supplemental or in the appropriation process that we will be
starting--well, we are starting it now, to provide authority
and assistance to the Department to be able to help in the
resettlement of the North Korean refugees, or to help in the
establishment of camps or operations in or around China. As I
mentioned to you, Mongolia, I think, has offered even to host a
refugee camp for North Koreans. We will pursue those more with
the agency. We wanted to let you know we are looking at that.
Mr. Kelly. Assistant Secretary Dewey for Population and
Refugee and Migratory Affairs and I will be very happy to be in
contact, sir, with you and certainly with your staff about
these refugee issues. It is a moving train. It is a serious
problem. We appreciate your interest, and we will work with
you, sir, to come out with the best results.
Senator Brownback. Within the region, I do not know--
Ambassador Chamberlin, if you might be the better one to ask on
this, you have got in the southern part of the region in Asia,
Cambodia, Burma, Laos, Vietnam I do not know as well, but
substantial low-income populations, or just poverty-stricken
populations, substantial trafficking you identified and talked
about, and you hear about a lot of pretty horrifying stories
from people in that region. How well are we set up, or how well
is it set up in the region to try to take care of people if
they are in a very extraordinarily impoverished starvation-type
situation?
I am reflecting, I was in Thailand on the Thai-Burma
border, and there was a number of people who had basically just
been shoved out of Burma, they had to flee out of Burma, and
they were in acceptable-type refugee camp situations, but it
was pretty difficult circumstances for them, and I worry
particularly about the most vulnerable in those populations,
whether it is little children or widows.
How is that being taken care of? Tell me if you are--I know
you are not satisfied with the situation, but are you deeply
concerned with the size and scale, or is it a limited scale?
Are we taking care of the most vulnerable in those populations?
Ambassador Chamberlin. It is a heartbreaking situation,
Senator, and I certainly agree with you. We do have aid
programs inside Thailand along the Burmese-Thai border for
Burmese. We have some programs, for example, where we send
medical workers with backpacks inside Burma. That is still
going on, is it not, Jim?
Mr. Kelly. I am frankly not sure.
Ambassador Chamberlin. It was a program that we certainly
had before. It was very effective. We work with a large network
of NGO's along the Thai-Burmese border with those that are most
vulnerable, particularly the women and children.
We assist vulnerable groups in Cambodia, and will be
starting up assistance to vulnerable children in Laos shortly.
We are trying to negotiate now a child-maternal health project
in Laos. It is very small, $300,000, but inside one of its very
tropical jungle areas. I have been to some of those villages.
It breaks your heart. It is small. It is not enough. Yes, we
are concerned.
Senator Brownback. One of the things that I have talked
with some people about is a special category of refugees, call
it widows and orphans category, but allowing State Department
personnel to identify key vulnerable individuals that they may
see in a particular area--you have got people that are out, and
they are around in these regions--and allow them to be
identified by the State Department for resettlement, even into
the United States.
In looking at our refugee programs that we have had, the
numbers have been going way down, refugees that we have taken
into the United States for resettlement, and I get reasoning--
and I am not sure this is going to be very valid. They say the
numbers of refugees around the world, or the population pools
are not there.
It seems to me they are there, but be that as it may, but
that we identify this special category for State Department or
other U.S. Government workers to say, these 10 women here are
in an extraordinarily vulnerable situation, where they are in
this refugee camp, they should be resettled and out, or we have
a group of 20 orphans here in this particular village that are
being pillaged, or preyed upon by the population, they should
be identified and taken out, and just these small type of
groups to take care of those individuals and provide that not
as a category that an individual could apply for, but as a
category that State Department and other U.S. Government
personnel could identify as having a need to be pulled out of
this situation.
We are working with some groups to see if we can draft that
up and provide that authority to you. I do not know if it would
be broadly useful, but in some narrow cases it might save quite
a few lives.
Ambassador Chamberlin. We will certainly pass your concern
on to Assistant Secretary Gene Dewey.
Senator Brownback. Let me ask you, in the Philippines and
Indonesia, if you could go into a little more detail on the
programs we are working with in Indonesia, particularly with
the military, I would like to hear about it, because that is
the largest Muslim country in the world struggling for
democracy, and I hear from some sources it may be one of the
most fertile grounds for terrorism to take place as well. And
so I want to get a little more detail on what your military
assistance is, and what work you are doing in Indonesia.
Mr. Kelly. I will respond to that, Mr. Chairman. In
Indonesia there has been no assistance in terms of military
funding or, in fact, in terms of military sales for a number of
years, particularly because of the abuses involved with the
East Timor freedom plebiscite in 1998. Since then we have for
the last and current fiscal years some money for what is called
IMET. This is expanded international military education and
training, but it is limited to civilian officials only. That
limitation has been lifted in the appropriations committees,
and we do have authority now to bring suitable military
officers to the United States under IMET. It is my belief that
that is something that we need to do.
One of the problems with the Indonesian army is that we
have had almost a whole generation of younger army officers who
have matured into more senior officers who have had no exposure
whatsoever to U.S. persons or U.S. schools, or to the United
States at all, because of the abuses not necessarily of these
individuals, but within the larger service. That is not good,
in my view, and we have to try to work on it, but we are
proceeding extremely carefully so that we are not caught in a
situation in which we are giving training or sustenance or
benefits of any kind to people who have been proven human
rights abusers.
Ambassador Chamberlin mentioned the situation in Aceh. It
is significantly better. I think it is significantly better
than what we might have expected it to be some 6 months ago. We
also, of course, have had the August 31, 2002 murders of two
U.S. citizens in West Papua. The FBI has been able to go into
Indonesia, somewhat belatedly, and is trying to investigate the
murders.
These are in the other end of Indonesia, in the West Papua
area near the mining efforts that an American company is
involved in, and two American teachers were in a group of
vehicles and they were murdered a matter of extreme concern
because there have been some suggestions that this was not the
work of indigenous guerrillas, but of some elements from the
Indonesian army.
So this is an area in which we have to proceed very, very
carefully, and clearly involves crimes against America
citizens. We are not going to rest until those involved are
punished, but at the same time, we very much have an interest
in the positive development of not only the Indonesian police,
for which there is an ongoing program, but the Indonesian army
as well.
Senator Brownback. I do not know the situation in Indonesia
well enough to really comment, but I know in Pakistan, when we
started looking at this, we had discontinued military training
programs, and I think it has really hurt us over a period of
time, clearly in the relationship with the country and clearly
in the ability to move forward in their establishment and work
as a democracy, and I do not know, but it sounds like there may
be some parallel situations in Indonesia.
Mr. Kelly. I think it is parallel, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. We have a vote on, and we have to
discontinue at 12:30. Let me thank both of you for the great
work you are doing in a world full of opportunities and
challenges all over the place, but you are both doing excellent
work. We appreciate it. I would offer you our office to work
with if you have particular items that you think, you know, if
we really had the support of this, or if we had the opportunity
by change of legislation to do A, B, or C, this would really be
helpful to our people in the field, well, let us know and let
us see if we cannot work to provide that flexibility,
authority, financing to be able to accomplish the objectives we
are all after.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We really appreciate
that this committee is undertaking this review and possible
Foreign Assistance Act revisions and we are delighted to work
with you and your staff, sir.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
----------
Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record
------
Responses of Hon. William J. Burns, Assistant Secretary of State, Near
Eastern Affairs, to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted by
Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Question. According to the Congressional Budget Justification for
the FY 2004 budget proposal, ``Increased levels of funding for the Near
East reflect the requirements of individual countries and their
capacity to absorb additional training as part of their efforts to help
support global counter-terrorism efforts. Military-to-military contacts
afforded by the IMET program are particularly important in this region,
paying dividends far into the future as students rise up the military
and political ranks of their respective countries. In FY04, Bahrain,
Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Tunisia and Yemen all receive substantial
increases.''
Please provide some concrete examples of how previous IMET training
has paid dividends for the United States in the build-up to and the
execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Answer. IMET is an exceptional program, probably the best ``bang
for the buck'' with regards to promoting military engagement. While MEA
has always supported robust bilateral military engagement, recent
events in Iraq and the continuing war on terrorism highlight the
importance of maintaining and in some cases increasing regional IMET
assistance.
NEA regional IMET-funded training courses complement our regional
FMF programs. Together these programs support regional stability,
reinforce frontline states, address border security requirements, and
help secure critical sea-lanes to/from the region.
While FMF pays for the equipment and material to support these
objectives, IMET trains the individuals who implement them. IMET-funded
training translates to technical competence and doctrinal proficiency
amongst the regional officer corps. This in turn promotes
interoperability and even more important as officers move up the
ranks--mutual understanding.
Interoperability and mutual understanding are critical to the
success of many on-going activities in the region that support
Operation Iraqi Freedom. They include: liaison officers deployed to
CENTCOM Headquarters, missile defense and air defense coordination,
base access and force beddown, overflight rights and canal and overland
transit.
For NEA countries, IMET-trained officers are routinely assigned to
the most critical mid and high-level command and staff positions. For
example:
U.S. senior service school graduates command all three major
airbases in Oman.
In Jordan, the CJCS and virtually every service Chief of
Staff as well as their Assistant Chiefs of Staff are IMET
graduates. Further, King Abdullah attended several mid and
senior-level courses during his military career.
In Bahrain, home to NAVCENT and Fifth Fleet Headquarters,
both the Bahraini Naval and Air Force Commanders graduated from
the respective U.S. service staff college. Moreover, the King
is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and Staff College.
In Yemen, the mid-level officers filling the critical roles
of liaison to the CJTF-Horn of Africa and to the Yemeni MOD are
both graduates of the U.S. Army staff officer or advanced
branch training.
The Tunisian Defense Minister is proud to say that almost
all his senior officers have had a course in the United States.
Indeed, President Ben Ali was one of Tunisia's first IMET
students, attending an artillery course nearly 40 years ago.
In terms of strengthening bilateral military and political
relationships, IMET has been an unqualified success. It warrants
additional resources, given the real and significant return on
investment this funding produces in terms of U.S. interests.
Question. The FY 2004 budget proposal slates Yemen for a
significant boost in FMF assistance, from $2 million in FY 2003 to $15
million for the new fiscal year. Why is Yemen receiving such a large
boost in assistance? How will it use the expanded FMF assistance?
To what extent did the U.S. interdiction in December of the
North Korean vessel ferrying Scud missiles affect our bilateral
relationship with the Yemeni government? How have we
communicated our disapproval of Yemeni cooperation in missile
proliferation with the North Korean regime, what tangible
commitments have we received, and what is being done to ensure
that those commitments are honored?
Answer. Yemen's FMF allocation for FY 2004 reflects its partnership
with the United States in the war against terrorism. We have worked
together to uproot the al-Qaida presence in Yemen, which poses a grave
threat to us both. This cooperation has yielded a number of important
successes, some of which were highlighted by the President in his
January 28 State of the Union address. Yemeni forces have been active
in all of these operations, and have at times acted entirely
independently to eliminate al-Qaida threats.
These actions show Yemeni resolve and the tangible results of the
U.S. training that has been provided for Yemen's counterterrorism
forces. We are now seeking additional FMF funding to maintain and
upgrade further these developing capabilities. The Yemenis will use the
$15 million requested in FY 2004 FMF funding to pay for additional U.S.
military training, the purchase of HMMWVs to improve mobility and
interoperability, and the refurbishment and supply of parts for its
existing U.S. systems (C-130s, M-113 APCs). FMF funding will also
directly support the development of Yemen's Coast Guard, which is
slated to receive excess U.S. Coast Guard motor lifeboats in early
FY2004. Through this assistance, we are working to establish a
capability to finish the job against al-Qaida in Yemen, and prevent the
terrorists from returning.
Because of our strong bilateral relationship with Yemen, we were
able to effectively engage the government at the highest levels on its
military acquisitions from North Korea. We conveyed our concerns about
these acquisitions to the Yemeni government in December, and in
response, the Yemenis have explained that this shipment of Scud
missiles was contracted for by the former South Yemen in 1994. Yemen
has also assured us that these missiles will be used for strictly
defensive purposes, and also that they will not be transferred to any
third party. On the basis of these assurances, and Yemen's pledge to
cease all missile and missile-related imports from North Korea, we are
moving ahead with our vital counterterrorism and military cooperation.
We are in a continuing dialogue with the Yemen to ensure that its
commitments remain consistent with our foreign policy goals. We also
continue to monitor Yemen's activities to ensure that they remain in
compliance with its commitments.
______
Responses of Hon. Christina B. Rocca, Assistant Secretary of State for
South Asian Affairs, to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Question. Why has India's FMF allocation been cut by 90% from $50
million in the FY 03 budget request to $5 million in the FY 04 budget
request?
Answer. As indicated in the 653(a) report submitted to Congress by
the Department, the FY 2003 FMF start-up program for India is now at $5
million, so the FY 2004 request does not represent a cut in funding.
FMF has never been a major component of our military supply
relationship with India. India is well able to finance its military,
with an annual defense acquisition budget in the range of four billion
dollars. Nevertheless, as part of our continuing effort to transform
the United States' relationship with India, we plan to provide $5
million in FMF for India in each of Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 to
promote military cooperation and interoperability, particularly, in the
areas of counterterrorism and naval cooperation.
Although the FY 2003 request level was higher, the reasons for the
$5 million FY 2003 start-up level include:
The overall level of FY 2003 FMF appropriated worldwide was
below the request level, which had a disproportionate impact on
discretionary FMF.
In addition, there are continuing competing demands for FMF
from other regions, including funding for other countries
involved in the Global War on Terrorism.
Question. Please explain further the proposed and intended uses of
the $75 million in FMF funding for Pakistan in FY 2004. How will such
assistance specifically benefit Operation Enduring Freedom?
Answer. Based on current planning with the Pakistani Ministry of
Defense, FY 2004 FMF funds will be used for equipment to support
Operation Enduring Freedom efforts, including airground radios to
assist in communications and interoperability with the U.S. military,
as well as P-3C aircraft to increase surveillance capability to track
maritime smuggling of drugs and al-Qaida operatives.
Question. The FY2004 budget proposal calls for a 25% increase in
IMET funding for India and Pakistan. During the last major war on the
South Asian subcontinent in 1971, a senior Indian military commander
and his Pakistani counterpart negotiated a cease-fire during a battle,
owing in part to the fact that the two men had studied together years
earlier and thus personally knew each other.
To what extent are IMET activities involving Indian and
Pakistani soldiers tailored to promote mutual dialogue and
interaction and build closer links between the two militaries?
If not, should the Department incorporate this objective into
future IMET activities to promote a greater mutual
understanding between the two militaries and enhance future
crisis stability?
Answer. Members of the Indian and Pakistani armed forces are often
fellow students in IMET courses. Currently, both countries are
represented in the National Defense University, the Army War College,
the Naval War College, and the Air War College at the senior officer
level, and mid-level officers from both India and Pakistan are
attending service staff colleges of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The
Marine Corps University will have officers from both countries for the
first time in the class that enters in summer 2003.
In every IMET course, non-attribution is the standard, thus
encouraging frank and open discussion among all participants. Faculty
at institutions that provide IMET courses unanimously report that
Indian and Pakistani officers at the courses often form close personal
relationships. We understand that these relationships are long-lasting,
and that officers who attend IMET courses often inquire about their
course mates across the border when they encounter other graduates of
the same institution.
IMET TRAINING OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI OFFICERS IN THE SAME COURSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years in Which Indian and
Service Institution Pakistani Officers Both
Attended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Army Army War College 2001-2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command and General Staff 1948-1954, 1958-1965, 1968-
College 1971, 1974-1981, 1983-
1991, 1996-1998, 2001-
2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infantry Captain Career 2002
Course
------------------------------------------------------------------------
............................ ..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Navy Naval War College 1990, 1995-1997, 2000,
2001-2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Staff College 1990, 2002-2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Air Force Air War College 1997, 2001-2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command and Staff College 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
............................ ..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National International Fellows 1986, 2003
Defense Program
University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a partial list; in some cases, records are incomplete or not
easily accessible.
______
Responses of Hon. James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State, East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Question. The regional Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) budget is
slated to double in FY 2004 from FY 2003 spending levels. Please
describe the extent and nature of bilateral and multilateral
cooperation on counter-terrorism activities between the United States
and nations in the region.
Answer. The ASEAN countries came to the support of the U.S.
immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Malaysia, Singapore, and the
Philippines also faced an immediate internal threat (i.e., from Jemaah
Islamiya, the Abu Sayaaf Group, and others) and acted quickly to
address it. Subsequent discoveries about the extent of targeting
activity undertaken by the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiya (JI) also
galvanized the political will of these governments to act, as
investigations revealed a sophisticated, extensive and dangerous group
linked to al Qaeda.
Many other countries in the region were at first hesitant to
acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, but recognition of the
terrorist threat in Southeast Asia has increased dramatically since the
October terrorist attack in Bali. The Bali bombings energized the
region by driving home the reality of the terrorist presence and the
continued threat of terrorism to all.
With U.S. assistance, counterterrorism (CT) capabilities have been
increased, and the results of those efforts and initiatives are cause
for some optimism. Regional CT cooperative efforts are increasing, and
will become more effective as states become more accustomed to working
together to combat terrorism.
Indonesia provides a good example of the change taking place.
Before the Bali attack, many Indonesians were in denial about terrorism
in their midst. Indonesia's successful investigation of the Bali
bombing, assisted by the Australian Federal Police and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, has been impressive and gone a long way
towards changing public attitudes; successful prosecution of the
perpetrators of this crime is the next step.
We have had good cooperation with Thailand, which has responded
positively to our requests for support and assistance.
Multilaterally, the ASEAN-U.S. Joint Declaration on Combating
International Terrorism provides a chapeau for close, on the ground,
cooperation. Cooperation among the states within the region will be
even more important, and the signs are positive: Indonesia's arrest of
JI's operations chief at Singapore's request is indicative of the kind
of cooperation we hope for in the future.
Our partners and we have had considerable success, as evidenced by
the arrests of more than 150 JI operatives in Malaysia, Singapore, the
Philippines and Indonesia. With continued assistance from the U.S.,
Southeast Asian countries will become more adept in arresting and
trying terrorists, and will--cooperatively--break up terrorist cells
and organizations. A high level of effort and creativity will be
required, especially in terms of law enforcement cooperation, sharing
intelligence, and cutting off terrorist sources of funds. It is our
policy to do all we can to assist where needed and where it makes
sense, and to help coordinate the efforts and resources of regional
partners.
Our strategy is to engage bilaterally and multilaterally.
Bilaterally we engage diplomatically to build and sustain political
will in capitals, and provide national capacity building programs such
as the Terrorist Interdiction Program, Financial System Assessment
Teams, and DS/ATA courses.
Our multilateral engagement is based on the promotion of
transnational approaches to transnational CT challenges. Regional
conferences, and engagement with organizations such as the Pacific
Island Forum, ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) ARF
(ASEAN Regional Forum), and APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation)
are the foundations of our multilateral effort.
Much remains to be done. Terrorists operate between the seams of
jurisdictions and national boundaries, moving men, materiel and money
across porous national borders and exploiting weak infrastructure. As
countries increase their CT capabilities, terrorists will search out
more hospitable environments in which to seek haven and operate. The
general conditions that make parts of Southeast Asia attractive to
terrorists, including porous borders, pockets of sympathetic
populations, and weak security infrastructure, will take a long time to
correct, but we have made a strong start.
Question. The issue of IMET programs in Indonesia has sparked
concerns regarding human rights on the one hand, and, on the other
hand, regarding the ability of the United States to work effectively
with military forces in an area of concern to the war on terrorism.
What are the Administration's plans regarding military-to-military
relations in Indonesia? How will any planned activities be structured
so as to contribute to the protection of human rights, rather than
sending the message that violations of those rights will be tolerated
so long as the military joins us in fighting a greater threat?
Answer. Our military-to-military relationship with Indonesia
supports U.S. goals of assisting Indonesia with its complex transition
to democracy and simultaneously combating terrorism. Primarily due to
our concerns about human rights abuses and stalled military reforms,
U.S. interaction with the military is limited in scope and calibrated
to provide incentives for the military to take recognizably difficult
steps towards reform and accountability. Our security assistance
program emphasizes, through the provision of IMET and the absence of
many other forms of assistance, the U.S. policy of seeking
professionalization, reform, and accountability.
The authorization of unrestricted IMET will help provide education
to key Indonesian military officers in areas directly related to reform
and professionalization of the military and provides one more tool to
encourage the Government of Indonesia to reinvigorate the military
reform process. IMET may be a precursor to reform. Without knowledge
and training, there is little chance of developing sufficient numbers
of reform minded officers to make a difference in the larger
institution. We must also be realistic, IMET is a long-term program
that will require many years of continuity to achieve significant
results by annually sending a handful of officers to U.S. schools.
Military reform in Indonesia has a mixed record. The military has
accepted more changes in its status and role in the national life over
the past four years than at any other time in its history. It did not
intervene in the 1999 elections, and it resisted political pressure to
violate constitutional norms during the turbulent period of President
Wahid's impeachment and the succession to President Megawati. The
military has formally relinquished its special, parallel function in
government, accepted a sharp reduction in appointed parliamentary
seats, and agreed to the end of appointed representation in legislative
bodies by 2004. The five-year conviction on March 12, 2003 of an Army
General officer for East Timor human rights abuses represents a
tangible step on the path to accountability.
Fundamental problems remain, however. Progress on accountability
has been slow; the military has grudgingly gone along with trials for a
small number of officers for human rights abuses. Civilian control only
exists in name only and discipline remains a problem. The military
deals with inadequate central government funding through running
unofficial businesses and foundations, and engaging in illegal
activities. There are many other reasons for this lack of progress,
including lack of Government of Indonesia and public will to press the
military for reforms, institutional resistance within the military, and
budgetary constraints. Added to these problems is the fact that the
decade-long absence of IMET-trained military officers constrains our
interactions with key players in regards to both CT cooperation and
comprehensive military reform. We continue to press the Indonesians for
thoroughgoing reforms.
We have conveyed in the strongest possible terms to the Government
of Indonesia that we expect them to identify and punish all those
responsible for the August 2002 murder of Americans in Papua. Anything
short of a full accounting and punishment for those responsible for
this crime would be unacceptable and would have a negative impact on
the bilateral relationship. Indonesian Government actions in this case
would be an important factor in our evaluation of future military
assistance programs for Indonesia, along with other factors such as
U.S. national security interests, respect for human rights, civil-
military relations, political developments in Indonesia, and the
regional strategic environment.
______
Response of Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, Assistant Administrator,
Bureau for Asia and the Near East, U.S. Agency for International
Development, to an Additional Question for the Record Submitted by
Senator Russell D. Feingold
assistance to laos
Question. The President does not request any development assistance
for Laos in FY 2004. What is the reasoning behind zeroing out this
account?
Answer. Pressure to maintain strong programs in Afghanistan and
Pakistan has forced the Asia and Near East Bureau to make some hard
budget choices for the coming year, and Laos was unfortunately one of
the casualties. We do intend, however, to look for opportunities to
identify prior year funds to continue our economic growth program
there. In addition, we expect to commit $1 million in FY 2004 HIV/AIDS
funds and $350,000 in FY 2004 Child Survival and Health Program funds,
and the Leahy War Victims Fund will provide $500,000 for care for
civilian victims of war in Laos in FY 2004.
______
Responses of Hon. James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State, East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted by Senator Russell D. Feingold
Question. What is the status of our military-to-military
relationship with Indonesia? Have we linked any aspect of this
relationship to our insistence on Indonesia's full cooperation in the
investigation of the murder of American citizens in West Papua last
August? Is it your view that the Indonesian military has made
significant progress in its reform efforts over the past two years? On
what do you base your assessment?
Answer. Our military-to-military relationship with Indonesia is
limited to providing training and expertise in reform, accountability,
and professionalization. Recent authorization of unrestricted IMET
provides one more tool to help with reform and to encourage the
Government of Indonesia to reinvigorate the military reform process.
Military reform in Indonesia has a mixed record. The military has
accepted more changes in its status and role in the national life over
the past four years than at any other time in its history. It did not
intervene in the 1999 elections, and it resisted political pressure to
violate constitutional norms during the turbulent period of President
Wahid's impeachment and the succession to President Megawati. The
military has formally relinquished its special, parallel function in
government, accepted a sharp reduction in appointed parliamentary
seats, and has agreed to the end of appointed representation in
legislative bodies by 2004. The five-year conviction on March 12, 2003
of an Army General officer for East Timor human rights abuses
represents a tangible step on the path to accountability.
Fundamental problems remain, however. Progress on accountability
has been slow; the military has grudgingly gone along with trials for a
small number of officers for human rights abuses. Civilian control only
exists in name only and discipline remains a problem. The military
deals with inadequate central government funding through running
unofficial businesses and foundations, and engaging in illegal
activities. There are many other reasons for this lack of progress,
including lack of Government of Indonesia and public will to press the
military for reforms, institutional resistance within the military, and
budgetary constraints. Added to these problems is the fact that the
decade-long absence of IMET-trained military officers constrains our
interactions with key players in regards to both CT cooperation and
comprehensive military reform. We continue to press the Indonesians for
thoroughgoing reforms.
We have conveyed in the strongest possible terms to the Government
of Indonesia that we expect them to identify and punish all those
responsible for the August 2002 murder of Americans in Papua. Anything
short of a full accounting and punishment for those responsible for
this crime would be unacceptable and would have a negative impact on
the bilateral relationship. Indonesian Government actions in this case
would be an important factor in our evaluation of future military
assistance programs for Indonesia, along with other factors such as
U.S. national security interests, respect for human rights, civil-
military relations, political developments in Indonesia, and the
regional strategic environment.
Question. What steps will the United States be taking in the year
ahead to encourage greater respect for human rights in Laos?
Answer. The promotion of human rights, including religious freedom,
is an integral part of our bilateral relationship. We remain deeply
concerned about Laos' poor human rights record, and continue to raise
our concerns with the Lao government. In virtually every meeting with
Lao officials, Ambassador Hartwick and other officers at the U.S.
Embassy in Vientiane press on a range of issues including religious
freedom, minority rights, the status of political prisoners, and prison
conditions, among others.
We are encouraged to see some modest improvements on the religious
freedom front. A Prime Ministerial Decree governing religion seeks to
regularize religious practice, and local religious leaders have
responded favorably. Isolated problems remain, particularly in
Savannakhet province, but some previously closed churches have
reopened, and we have seen fewer detentions and arrests and no reports
of new church closings or forced renunciations of faith with the
exception of one localized case recently brought to our attention,
which we are currently working with government to try to resolve.
Over the next year, we will continue to press the Lao Government to
address human rights issues at every opportunity. Ambassador Hartwick
and the Embassy staff travel extensively throughout the country to
investigate allegations of human rights abuses. We will also continue
outreach efforts, both in the U.S. and in Laos, to ensure that human
rights concerns are addressed and that the Lao people gain the skills
needed to protect human rights. This includes activities such as
training journalists and bringing emerging leaders to the U.S. on
international visitor programs for promising Lao on topics of interest.
IRI concluded a successful seminar in Vientiane in February 2003, on
village elections, which we hope will expand to include other
provinces.
In addition, we plan to continue to encourage U.S. government
officials and others, including members of Congress and their staff, to
visit Laos and raise issues of concern in meetings with Lao officials.
We also encourage the Lao government to become more actively engaged
and cooperative with organizations such as the ICRC and UNHCR, who are
working on human rights issues such as prison conditions and the well-
being of refugees inside of Laos.
As one of the ten poorest countries in the world, Laos faces many
challenges to improving its human rights record and promoting both
democratic change and economic growth. We believe that granting NTR for
Laos (Rep. Crane of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee
recently called for a Request for Comment on NTR for Laos) will help
create a more cooperative atmosphere in which we can address such
issues.
______
Response of Hon. Christina B. Rocca, Assistant Secretary of State,
South Asian Affairs, to an Additional Question for the Record Submitted
by Senator Bill Nelson
Question. How many troops are facing each other on the Kashmir
border today?
Answer. Since the two sides have pulled their strike forces back
from the international border, the Kashmir region is the only place
where Indian and Pakistani forces are directly confronting each other.
Including paramilitary forces, there are at least 250,000 troops on the
Indian side of the line of control and roughly 100,000 on the Pakistani
side of the line of control.
-