U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–254 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–935 

NOMINATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

FRANK G. LOWENSTEIN, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, opening statement ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Kaufman, Hon. Edward E., U.S. Senator from Delaware, statement ................. 6 

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening statement ........... 4 

Munter, Cameron, nominee to be Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of 

Pakistan ................................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to questions submitted for the record by Senator Russell D. 

Feingold ......................................................................................................... 23 

(III)

(1) 

NOMINATION 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Cameron Munter, of California, to be Ambassador to the Islamic 

Republic of Pakistan 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr., 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Casey, Kaufman, Lugar, and Risch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY JR., 

U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator CASEY. Good morning. The Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on this nomination will come to order. 

And we meet today to discuss the nomination of Cameron 

Munter to be the President’s Ambassador to the Islamic Republic 

of Pakistan. 

Ambassador Munter, welcome. And I want to thank you for your 

service to the country in difficult assignments in both Serbia and, 

more recently, Iraq, among other places, which in both cases is 

good preparation for the assignment that you would undertake 

upon your confirmation. 

I would also like to extend a welcome—and we just had a moment to say hello to your parents. Your parents, Helen-Jeanne and 

Len, who have joined us here today. We thank you for being here. 

This hearing affords us an opportunity to discuss the critical importance of our relationship with Pakistan. It is an understatement 

to say that the people of Pakistan have suffered greatly in recent 

years as they confront the growing threat posed by Islamic extremism. Recent bombing attacks in Quetta and Lahore brought this 

message home in stark terms. 

I and, I know, so many Americans are appalled at the violence 

and the scale and the destruction of that violence seen in Pakistan 

in recent years. All of us, in one way or another, pray for the families of Pakistan who have made the ultimate sacrifice in this conflict, and I am confident that their loss will not be in vain. 

The Pakistani Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban, claimed responsibility 

for the recent attacks, a group that the United States has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to set off a car bomb in Times Square last May, said he 

2 

was trained by explosive experts in the so-called TTP. The TTP 

also threatens attacks against the United States and Europe. This 

is a common thread—or I should say there is a common thread to 

United States and Pakistani security, and we must do all we can 

together to confront these killers. 

Extremism is the common enemy of the United States and Pakistan, all too often manifested in the form of improvised explosive 

devices and their precursor components. These bombs have killed 

Pakistani troops and civilians, as well as scores of Americans in 

Afghanistan. It is the No. 1 killer of our troops in Afghanistan, the 

so-called IEDs. 

I have long sought to highlight this threat and support United 

States and international efforts to crack down on the proliferation 

of the precursor chemicals, the most notorious and most destructive 

being ammonium nitrate. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization, known by that long acronym, JIEDDO, has 

led an effort to combat IEDs at every step in the process. The 

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency recently commenced Project Global Shield, which is an unprecedented multilateral law enforcement operation aimed at countering 

the illicit diversion and trafficking of these precursor chemicals. 

Pakistan has made efforts to contend with ammonium nitrate in 

large part because the threat has begun to impact security in Pakistan itself. Recent coordination between Pakistani civilian and military entities on the IED issue has been very positive. The government of Pakistan formed an interagency national counter-IED 

forum. We are also beginning to see efforts at the local level, such 

as small-scale bans and regulations in the district of Malakand. 

Ambassador Anne Patterson, someone that we have all come to 

know and greatly admire her work, she has led a remarkable effort 

to engage with the Pakistani Government on this issue. I hope that 

Pakistan expeditiously approves its draft legislation to better control explosive materials in the country and makes a concerted effort 

at enforcement. I also hope that we can work with the private sector to build understanding of the threat posed by IED precursors 

and encourage better self-regulation. 

We must exercise, in my judgment, extraordinary vigilance in 

stemming the unregulated flow of ammonium nitrate in this region 

because it directly affects the security of our troops. Pennsylvania—the State I represent, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—has lost 56 servicemembers in Afghanistan, many of whom 

were killed by IEDs. 

Implementing more robust seizure and interdiction measures is 

important, but we also must do more to dismantle terrorist and 

other criminal organizations involved in making IEDs. This will involve multilateral engagement, regulatory measures, training and 

technological efforts, building border control capacity, as well as 

other means. 

The people of Pakistan have suffered from the recent devastating 

floods as well, the worst natural disaster in the history of the country. To assist the people of Pakistan during this difficult time, the 

United States has provided more than $340 million to support immediate relief and recovery efforts. The United States has provided 

3 

food, infrastructure support, and air support to transport goods and 

rescue those stranded by the floods. 

These devastating floods require a substantial international commitment of assistance. The United Nations has issued an appeal of 

$450 million, most of it remaining unfulfilled. Private contributions 

have slowed to a trickle. So I look forward, and I know many others look forward, to hearing from our nominee on the United States 

response to the floods and what we can be doing to have a more 

tangible impact in the lives of Pakistanis affected by this horrific 

tragedy, the tragedy of the flood. 

Recognizing these enormous challenges, Senator Kerry, our 

chairman, and our ranking member, Senator Lugar, have led a bipartisan effort to encourage a United States-Pakistani relationship 

that is based on more solid footing. And we know the legislation 

often by the names of those who led the fight and made sure it got 

passed—Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and, in the House, of 

course, Congressman Berman. 

The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, known more 

colloquially by the name of Kerry-Lugar-Berman, authorizes $7.5 

billion in nonmilitary assistance over 5 years. Through this investment by U.S. taxpayers, we seek to establish partnerships between 

our citizens in order to truly build a strong foundation of mutual 

trust. Development of durable Pakistani institutions and exchanges 

between teachers, businessmen and businesswomen, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and students will be the hallmark of a new relationship built on common values. 

The people of Pakistan do not want a future condemned by incessant violence. I believe our efforts will help to create an environment that successfully counters extremism. 

An essential element of putting our relationship on a more solid 

footing is how we communicate with the Pakistani people. A June 

2010 Pew research survey found that only 17 percent of Pakistanis 

held a favorable view of the United States, an opinion that has 

held constant over the past 3 years. Fifty-nine percent in that same 

survey describe the United States as an enemy. Our diplomats are 

contending with very difficult dynamics and high levels of mistrust 

in conducting public diplomacy. 

I believe we have made progress in furthering a strategic dialogue with the Pakistani Government, but what we really need is 

a strategic dialogue with the people of Pakistan. One that, in fact, 

communicates in Urdu. One that uses media that Pakistanis 

watch. And one that looks to amplify those moderate, progressive, 

and credible voices among Pakistan’s diverse population that want 

a better relationship with the United States of America. 

There is perhaps some dismay—and that might be an understatement—among the American people for what they perceive as 

ingratitude from Pakistan. But we cannot expect anything different 

if the Pakistani people do not know the extent of our investment 

and partnership. We have got to talk about what we have done 

there in a more substantial way and in a more strategic way. I look 

forward to hearing our nominee’s perspective on this issue and 

hope that we can work creatively to shift those public opinion numbers in the years ahead. 

4 

Part of improving this relationship with the Pakistani people is 

maintaining our support for a strong civilian government, as well 

as democratic institutions. The durability of democratic institutions 

will be the long-term bulwark against extremism and allow the 

Pakistani people and its vibrant civil society to express its desires 

through peaceful democratic means. We have strongly indicated 

our long-term support for development through the Enhanced Partnership Act, and I look forward to hearing the thoughts of our 

nominee about how this vehicle can be used to improve the lives 

of Pakistanis and enhance the standing of the United States in the 

country. 

So, Mr. Ambassador, I once again want to thank you for being 

here today and for putting yourself forward for continued public 

service. Your service to our country is greatly appreciated, and we 

certainly thank you for the work you have done up to now to appear before us. 

And I would now like to turn to our ranking member, Senator 

Lugar, for any opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you for your work with our chairman, Senator Kerry, to 

make this hearing possible. The importance of the continuity of 

having an Ambassador to Pakistan is very obvious, and the need 

for us to have this hearing and to move it in our business meeting 

and, hopefully, for the Senate to move rapidly during this time as 

we head toward recess is imperative. So I take the liberty of mentioning the timeliness of all of this to begin with and with congratulations to all who are trying to move ahead with the business 

of the Senate. 

But nevertheless, I would also say that American national security interests are directly linked, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, to Pakistan’s political, military, economic, and social challenges. 

Because Pakistan represents a key regional and national security 

interest for the United States, in July 2008, then-Senator Biden 

and I introduced the original Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan 

Act to broaden and strengthen the important relationship between 

the United States and Pakistan. 

American economic and military assistance for Pakistan enhances our mutual security, while helping to build a more economically and politically stable country. Economic assistance is as critical to security as strengthening the ability of the Pakistan military 

to counter terrorism, especially by improving the capacity for governance and economic growth in Pakistan. 

I have since had the pleasure to work with Senator Kerry and 

Congressman Berman and others to see this legislation enacted, 

with a 5-year authorization of $7.5 billion. I am pleased to continue 

to work with them, for example, in the introduction of the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund. This bill was passed out of our 

Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week. It should leverage 

American and Pakistani ingenuity and experience in driving business expansion in Pakistan. 

5 

In disbursing Kerry-Lugar funds, effectiveness through proper 

planning and implementation is more important than speed because the goal is sustainability and a long-term partnership. Initial 

implementation has proven uncertain, and resources should only 

follow those efforts that prove effective. Additional collaboration 

with Pakistani institutions is certainly necessary to assure 

progress. 

Rushing aid and accelerating programming could inhibit our 

goals of helping Pakistan achieve a more stable and productive economic situation. The country team should avoid spending for the 

sake of spending but make clear to the Pakistani people the planning and organization that is going on with the government at the 

federal and provincial levels. This is not a one-sided effort. Pakistan must also initiate and enable cooperation between our two 

governments to maximize the impact of these resources, as well as 

create a sustainable environment for economic development. 

As Secretary Clinton stated at the United Nations this week, and 

I quote the Secretary, ‘‘As we take these steps, we will follow Pakistan’s lead. We look to the Pakistani Government to help shape a 

strategy that reflects the needs of the Pakistani people. And we are 

encouraged by the efforts that Pakistan itself is making to institute 

the economic and tax reforms that will help pave the way toward 

self-sufficiency. The international community will support Pakistan’s efforts, yet we know it has to be a partnership.’’ 

While Pakistan’s own institutions are primarily responsible for 

providing rescue and relief during the recent floods, the United 

States has not wavered in its commitment to help them respond to 

the crisis through a commitment of over $345 million. This includes 

the rescue of 15,000 people and the delivery of helicopters and 

boats, as well as hundreds of thousands of meals for the displaced 

and the isolated. In addition to Government action, individual 

Americans have also given generously through charitable organizations. 

The floods have not changed the need for the kind of long-term 

investment in Pakistan envisioned in Kerry-Lugar-Berman. 

Humanitarian relief from other sources in response to the floods is 

appropriate and should be used to the maximum extent possible. 

Such funding is typically more responsive and properly suited to 

emergency situations. Due to the crisis environment, however, 

humanitarian assistance resources are also not as easily monitored. 

Some Kerry-Lugar-Berman resources may be appropriate for recovery from the floods, including early recovery, when there is a 

well thought-out strategy that is consistent with the goals and purposes of the legislation. In such cases, a shift in programming 

should be considered and the appropriate committees notified. Staff 

has made clear that transparency and accountability for KerryLugar-Berman funding remains an elemental part of the assistance 

package. 

We welcome the President’s nominee for Pakistan here today to 

replace our able and effective Ambassador, Anne Patterson, and we 

look forward very much to his testimony. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

6 

And again, we want to commend the great work you have done 

on Kerry-Lugar-Berman to get that aid through—that package 

through the Foreign Relations Committee and then through the 

Congress. We are grateful for that, and we want to monitor very 

closely how that legislation gets implemented. 

We are joined by Senator Kaufman. I wanted to recognize him 

for opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE 

Senator KAUFMAN. Thank you very much. 

And first, I want to thank you for your service, and frankly, even 

more, thank your family for your service. I know how tough it is 

on a family to go through this. 

And obviously, taking on Pakistan, as you listened to my two 

wonderful colleagues—Chairman Casey and Ranking Member 

Lugar—this is a very, very, very, very hard assignment that you 

have here. But as I told you when you came by the office, my 

mother used to tell me that nothing in life that is worthwhile is 

easy. And I might change that to anything that is very, very, very 

worthwhile is very, very, very hard. 

So I really want to thank you for what you are doing. I think you 

are the right person for the right time. Pakistan is incredibly important, again, as the chairman and ranking member said. 

So I want to thank you, and thank you for your service. And I 

am looking forward to your service in Pakistan. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks, Senator Kaufman. 

Mr. Ambassador, you have about 7 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CAMERON MUNTER, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 

Ambassador MUNTER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Casey, Senator Lugar, Senator Kaufman, it is a privilege 

and an honor to appear before you this morning, seeking your consent to my candidacy as America’s next Ambassador to Pakistan. 

I have many to thank for this opportunity—the President and 

Secretary Clinton for their confidence in my abilities, Senator 

Casey for making this hearing possible on short notice, Ambassador Holbrooke for his support and guidance. 

Thanks also to my parents, who are here—Helen-Jeanne and 

Len Munter, here today from California, whose wisdom has guided 

me throughout my life. 

My wife, Marilyn, is not here today, but she has been strong and 

consistent in her love and support for the last three decades of our 

marriage. And if I am confirmed, Marilyn will join me in Islamabad 

to end more than 2 years we have spent apart during my recent 

service in Baghdad and, before that, following the American evacuation of dependents from Belgrade after the attack on the embassy 

there. 

Success will come in Pakistan by building confidence in and 

working with a strong civilian government. It will be the result of 

patient efforts on our part to define and address areas of interest 

7 

that America and Pakistan share—our counterinsurgency against 

violent extremists, Pakistan’s ability to achieve its full economic 

potential, our commitment to social development. We can only 

achieve this common success with a strong partner in Pakistan’s 

democratically elected civilian government. 

The Enhanced Partnership Act with Pakistan of 2009, which we 

refer to as Kerry-Lugar-Berman, has demonstrated that Congress 

supports this approach, providing generously for our efforts to build 

a long-term partnership between the people of the United States 

and Pakistan. But the floodwaters that struck Pakistan have made 

the challenge more difficult. 

As Senator Kerry pointed out after his recent trip, the devastation created by the floods is gut-wrenching. Seventeen hundred 

Pakistanis have died. Twenty million have been affected. America 

can be proud that it was the ‘‘first and the most’’ in responding to 

this crisis, providing, as you noted, more than $345 million with relief and recovery efforts so far, not to mention 50 million dollars’ 

worth of in-kind assistance from the U.S. military, including evacuating more than 15,000 people, delivering more than 7 million 

pounds of relief supplies. 

International partners and the U.S. private sector have also 

given generously. We have provided relief and will continue to 

assist in the longer term recovery and reconstruction because it is 

the right thing to do. Pakistan needs our support to overcome this 

terrible tragedy, and the United States will be a source of support 

in the years to come. 

This last key point is key. We are in this for the long haul, as 

all of you have emphasized. Not only will we supply immediate 

humanitarian help, we will help Pakistani institutions so they will 

serve Pakistan well in the years to come. We will do all we can to 

increase transparency of the relief and recovery effort. 

The Pakistani Government can serve its people in a time of need 

now, tomorrow, and the day after. And we have shown we will be 

there to help. We and the international community cannot do this 

alone, however. Pakistan must raise its revenues internally to pay 

for the needs of its people. 

The task ahead requires our firm commitment, and that is why 

even before the floods struck in July, the administration created 

and began to implement an ambitious agenda under the strategic 

dialogue of Pakistan and the United States. The dialogue gets to 

the heart of our mutual interests by engaging the leadership of our 

countries in key areas, such as health, agriculture, and economic 

reform, which, in the aftermath of the floods, will be priorities for 

us all. 

In addition, the strategic dialogue addresses energy issues, defense, and counterterrorism cooperation, nonproliferation, water 

management, and more. The strategic dialogue is comprehensive 

and provides the framework for a lasting relationship. 

And of course, this partnership has a crucial security element. 

Pakistan’s security is vital for us and for the region. A secure and 

stable Pakistan will strengthen security globally. 

In 2009, extremists had seized the Swat Valley just 100 miles 

from Islamabad. Now the Pakistani military is actively engaged 

and more effectively fighting extremists. This trend must be susVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:12 Mar 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\HEARING FILES\111TH CONGRESS\2009-10 NOM HEARINGS READY FOR PRESS\09
8 

tained. Terrorists are still inflicting a terrible toll on Pakistanis, 

still undermining our efforts in Afghanistan, and still planning 

attacks on the American people and American cities. Simply put, 

more must be done. 

We must help Pakistan fight the terrorist elements that threaten 

its own safety and all of our long-term security. We will work 

closely with our Pakistani friends to ensure the success of democracy and prosperity in neighboring Afghanistan. We will work 

closely with our Pakistani friends to build confidence in our commitment to nonproliferation. 

If confirmed, I pledge to lead a unified team of Americans from 

across the United States Government to address difficult security 

challenges and build a lasting relationship with Pakistani counterparts based on honesty and mutual respect. We will not always 

agree with Pakistan on every priority, but we will work through 

our differences as partners, with our eyes on a vision we share of 

a strong, independent Pakistan at peace with its neighbors and 

free of terrorism. 

The administration and the Congress have thus put forth our 

vision of Pakistan in the years to come—Pakistan as a friend of 

democracy, Pakistan as a partner in regional security. This vision 

requires hard work because our policy initiatives must rest on a 

strong and confident social and economic base in Pakistan, and 

that base is not as strong and or as confident as either country 

would like. 

We must foster educational and employment opportunities for 

Pakistan’s young people, to explore markets for Pakistan’s products 

to enhance its self-reliance and prosperity. Without a strong civil 

society, economic growth and reform cannot be sustained. We will 

continue our robust assistance to the Pakistani Government and to 

the Pakistani NGO sector to strengthen public support for strong 

democratic institutions. 

These institutions defend the rule of law, protect human rights 

and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. They empower 

women. In short, they make a country great. We will support these 

institutions with determination, and we will do so humbly as well, 

with respect for the impressive traditions of Pakistan’s people, so 

that the universal values of equality and justice are pursued as the 

people of Pakistan would have them pursued. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, these are the key 

elements of the agenda for the United States in Pakistan—our 

common fight against terrorism, our common commitment to the 

stability of the region, and our common task in building the civil 

institutions in Pakistan to recover and rebuild from the floods and, 

by doing so, strengthen those institutions for many years to come. 

To do these and many other tasks, the U.S. mission to Pakistan 

must grow, and I thank Congress for recognizing the need for 

greater resources, especially in these tough times. 

If confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to ensure these resources 

are applied effectively and transparently. And as you have mentioned, public diplomacy is key. Let us be honest about this. We 

need to overcome historical skepticism among Pakistanis about 

American motives in South Asia, and this will require ceaseless engagement, energy, and outreach. It will require wisdom and the 

9 

ability to listen, and our excellent press office in Islamabad must 

do even more. Our cultural exchange programs, including the 

world’s largest Fulbright program, must be constant, confident, 

and, above all, focused on our goals. 

Because if we are to say, as I do, that Pakistanis and Americans 

are natural friends and natural partners, we must work together, 

and we must talk openly. We are both diverse cultures. We are 

both open and generous peoples. And we are young countries, 

priding ourselves on the traditions we embody. 

This diversity, this generosity, and this pride is tested at times 

like these, as Pakistan and its friend America face great challenges. But it is from great challenges that even greater friendships can be forged. 

Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your support, and 

thank you for your attention to my comments. I welcome the opportunity to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Munter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE CAMERON MUNTER

Senator Casey, Ranking Member Lugar, committee members, it’s a privilege and 

an honor to appear before you this morning, seeking your consent to my candidacy 

as America’s next Ambassador to Pakistan. I have many to thank for this opportunity: the President and Secretary Clinton for their confidence in my abilities; 

Senator Casey for making this hearing possible on such short notice and thus emphasizing our common commitment to American interests in and relations with 

Pakistan; Ambassador Holbrooke for his support and guidance. I also express my 

thanks in an even more profound way to my parents, Helen-Jeanne and Len 

Munter, who have joined us today from California, whose wisdom has guided me 

all my life. My wife Marilyn is not here today, but she has been strong and consistent in her love and support during three decades of marriage; if I am confirmed, 

Marilyn will join me in Islamabad to end more than 2 years of separation, during 

my recent service in Baghdad and before that, following the evacuation of American 

dependents from Belgrade after the attack on our Embassy there. And thanks also 

to my children, Dan and Anna, whose lives have also been shaped by the challenges 

of a Foreign Service career. 

I’m well aware that the job of American Ambassador in Pakistan is extraordinarily difficult, and I hope that the challenging Foreign Service career to which 

I alluded has prepared me well for it, should I be confirmed. In Baghdad, I ran the 

day-to-day operations of the largest embassy in the world in wartime, and am most 

proud of my contribution to interagency cooperation and especially to strong civilmilitary relations during a pivotal year in Iraq. In Belgrade, I tackled the issues 

of Serbia’s post-Kosovo status and aspirations, kept my people safe, and engaged 

energetically in diplomacy, public and private, to improve our standing and interests 

in the Balkans. Throughout my career I have contributed to U.S. goals in countries 

in transition to prosperity and democracy. Our Pakistani friends are sophisticated 

and experienced, and they deserve our unstinting respect and our unfailing honesty 

as we face daunting problems together; I hope that my experience presages a cooperation that rests on both idealism and realism. 

Success will come in Pakistan by building confidence in, and with, a strong civilian government. It will be the result of patient efforts on our part to define and address areas of interest that America and Pakistan share: our counterinsurgency 

against violent extremists who attack Pakistan’s civilian population and security 

forces, as well as innocents in the region and around the world; our ability to help 

Pakistanis realize the full economic potential of their large and talented nation, so 

that its prosperity improves the welfare of its people and helps build a stable peace 

in the region; our commitment to social development so that our cultural affinities 

can flourish. We can only achieve this common success with a strong partner in 

Pakistan’s democratically elected civilian government. The Enhanced Partnership 

with Pakistan Act of 2009, also known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, has demonstrated that Congress and indeed, the American people, are giving equally strong 

backing to this approach, providing generously for our efforts to build a long-term 

partnership between the people of the United States and Pakistan. 

10 

But the floodwaters that struck Pakistan just weeks ago, and are only subsiding 

now, have made the challenges much more difficult. As Senator Kerry pointed out 

after his recent trip to view the damage wrought by the flooding, the devastation 

created by the floods is gut-wrenching. Some 1,700 Pakistanis have died, and 20 

million have been affected; there is an immediate need for shelter, food, medicine, 

and there will be a long-term challenge to rebuild Pakistan’s infrastructure. America can be proud that it has been the ‘‘first with the most’’ in responding to the crisis, providing nearly $345 million dollars to assist with relief and recovery efforts, 

not to mention nearly 50 million dollars’ worth of in-kind assistance from the U.S. 

military to include halal meals, temporary bridges, and air support for rescue and 

transport, evacuating more than 15,000 people and delivering 7 million pounds of 

relief supplies. We have worked closely with international partners, and the U.S. 

private sector has also given generously. We have provided relief, and will continue 

to assist with the longer term recovery and reconstruction, because it’s the right 

thing to do. Pakistan needs our support to overcome this terrible tragedy—and the 

United States will be a source of support in the years to come. 

This last is a key point I wish to stress: we are in this for the long haul. Not 

only will we supply immediate humanitarian help. We will do all we can to help 

Pakistani institutions as they deal with this challenge, knowing that they will serve 

Pakistan well for years to come. We will do all we can to increase transparency of 

the relief and recovery effort because this transparency is in the long-term interest 

of the Pakistani people, donors from abroad, and the businesses that ultimately 

must support a more stable and secure Pakistan. Now is the time that the Pakistani 

Government can serve its people in a time of need: now and tomorrow and the day 

after, we have shown that we will be there to help. 

This will require an even closer relation to the people of Pakistan. That is why, 

even before the floods struck in late July, the administration had created and begun 

to implement an ambitious agenda under the Strategic Dialogue between Pakistan 

and the United States. The Strategic Dialogue gets to the heart of our mutual interests by engaging top leadership of both countries in key areas such as health, agriculture, and economic reform, which, in the aftermath of the floods, will be top 

priorities for us all. In addition, the Strategic Dialogue addresses energy issues, 

defense and counterterrorism cooperation, nonproliferation, and water management, 

to name just a few areas. The Strategic Dialogue is comprehensive, and creates an 

effective working environment to engage on these and other key issues in coming 

years. It is providing the framework for a lasting partnership. 

Of course this partnership has a crucial security element. Pakistan’s security is 

vital for us and for the region, and a secure and stable Pakistan will strengthen 

security globally. In 2009, extremists had seized the Swat Valley just 100 miles from 

Islamabad. Now the Pakistani military is actively engaged and more effectively 

fighting such extremists. This progress must be sustained—terrorists are still 

inflicting a terrible toll on Pakistanis, are still able to undermine our efforts in 

Afghanistan, and are planning attacks on American people and American cities. If 

confirmed, I will make sure we are doing all we can to encourage and enable Pakistan to continue and expand its efforts against militants. 

We must help Pakistan fight the terrorist elements that threaten its own safety 

and all of our long-term security. It is appropriate that we work closely with our 

Pakistani friends to ensure the success of democracy and prosperity in neighboring 

Afghanistan. It is appropriate that we work closely with our Pakistani friends to 

build confidence in our commitment to nonproliferation. On the American side, this 

will be a true expression of our unity of purpose, as the civilian and military personnel serving in Pakistan pull together to give clear and purposeful help to our 

hosts. If confirmed, I pledge to lead a unified team of Americans from across the 

U.S. Government to address these difficult security challenges as it builds a lasting 

relationship with Pakistani counterparts based on honesty and mutual respect. We 

will not always agree with Pakistan on every priority, but we will work through our 

differences as partners, with our eyes on a vision we can share of a strong, independent Pakistan at peace with its neighbors and free from terrorism. 

The administration and the Congress have thus put forth our vision of Pakistan 

in the years to come: Pakistan as a friend of democracy; Pakistan as a partner in 

regional security. This vision requires hard work, because our policy initiatives must 

rest upon a strong and confident social and economic base in Pakistan; and that 

base is not yet as strong and confident as either country would like. So we must 

help foster educational and employment opportunities for Pakistan’s large and growing population of young people, and the development of markets for Pakistan’s products to enhance its self-reliance and prosperity. Without a strong civil society, 

economic growth and reform cannot be sustained, so we will continue our robust 

assistance to the Pakistani Government and to the Pakistani NGO sector to 

11 

strengthen public support for strong democratic institutions. These institutions defend the rule of law, protect human rights and the rights of religious and ethnic 

minorities, and empower women—in short, they make a country great. Pakistan has 

a very vibrant and strong civil society that fights for the well-being of the Pakistani 

people. We will support such institutions with determination, and we will do so 

humbly as well, with respect for the impressive traditions of Pakistan’s people, so 

that the universal values of equality and justice are pursued as the people of Pakistan would have them pursued. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, these are the key elements of the 

agenda of the United States in Pakistan: Our common fight against terrorism; our 

common commitment to stability in the region; our common task of building civil 

institutions in Pakistan to recover and rebuild from the floods and by doing so, 

strengthen those institutions for years to come. To do these and many other tasks, 

the U.S. Mission to Pakistan will increase its staffing, and I thank the Congress 

for recognizing the need for greater resources, especially in these very tough times. 

If confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to ensure that these resources are applied 

effectively and transparently; that Americans serving in Pakistan, from AID or the 

military, consuls to analysts, will all be part of a unified team providing a clear 

message. Effective communication with the people of Pakistan, Pakistani institutions, and indeed the people back home, is not just the task of State Department 

officials or ambassadors, but rather, it is the task of everyone on the team. Let’s 

be honest about this: we need to overcome historical skepticism among Pakistanis 

about American motives in South Asia, and this will require ceaseless engagement, 

energy, and outreach; it will also require wisdom and the ability to listen. Our excellent press office in Islamabad must do even more, our cultural exchange programs, 

including the world’s largest Fulbright scholar exchange, must be constant, confident, and most of all, focused on the goals we seek to achieve. 

Because if we are to say, as I do, that Pakistanis and Americans are natural 

friends and natural partners, we must back our words with deeds. We are both diverse cultures; we are both open and generous peoples; we are both young countries 

priding ourselves on traditions we embody. This diversity, this generosity, this pride 

is tested at times like these, as Pakistan and its friend America face great challenges. But it is from great challenges that even greater friendships are forged. 

Thank you for your commitment to the task ahead, and thank you for your attention to my comments. I welcome the opportunity to take your questions. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

And you may have set a record by staying just a few minutes 

over the time limit. That is—usually, we have folks that go minutes over, and we have to figure out a way to get them back and 

within their time. We are grateful for that. 

I wanted to start with this question, and it is a question that you 

and I spoke about when you visited my office. And I know you have 

been deluged with this same question or a related set of concerns 

throughout this process of preparing for your nomination hearing. 

And it is this question of communication. That is one way to describe it, and kind of an image problem in terms of how both 

sides—the people of both countries view each other. I cited those 

polling numbers. I hate to read those because they are not encouraging. But it is important to start from some factual basis. That 

as a people, we are not very popular in Pakistan. 

And maybe they differentiate between the U.S. Government and 

the people of the United States. I hope they do. That always helps. 

But I think we also have on this side of the discussion a lot of 

Americans who see Congress moving forward with Kerry-LugarBerman and providing $7.5 billion of taxpayer money, and they 

expect to have some measure of gratitude extended. 

So there is a good bit of distrust or frustration or however you 

want to describe it on both sides of this. What do we do about that? 

What do you think has worked in the past to be effective in having 

a better communication strategy? And what would you do, upon 

12 

confirmation, to make sure that we get that—get a better strategy 

in place to communicate better? 

Because it is vital. We can’t have the kind of dialogue, strategic 

dialogue, and get the results from that unless we have better understanding and more mutual trust, which can only come with a 

lot of engagement. 

Ambassador MUNTER. Senator, that is a key issue, and it is at 

the core of what I hope to achieve, if confirmed and am able to go 

out to post. The ground that has been laid by Kerry-Lugar-Berman 

and by our other efforts has changed, in a sense, the opportunity 

for us inasmuch as we know there is a good story to tell. 

And the story to tell is that which you have and your colleagues 

have emphasized, which is at one of the cores of the narratives in 

Pakistan about America’s staying power and long-term commitment. The fact that you have authorized $1.5 billion not just now, 

but over the next 5 years, and that this is seen as something that 

will lead to even closer ties in business, in culture, et cetera, I 

think is one of the substantive things that we can then communicate. 

So, to begin with, I think what you have allowed us is to have 

the proper message, and now the mechanisms of how we deal with 

that message and the mechanisms of how we work with the Pakistanis to communicate are things we must work on very carefully. 

I propose, should I be confirmed, to take a team out to the Embassy that would mirror what has happened at some of our other 

posts where we go beyond the excellent work that our traditional 

public affairs officers have done to a broader, integrated strategic 

messaging program. 

And this means that everyone, not just the Ambassador or the 

public affairs officer, everyone is an Ambassador. Everyone is dealing with the public, from our military to our consuls, to our people 

at our consulates in Lahore and Karachi. In other words, making 

sure that there is a broad effort to communicate a set of messages 

that we are not only aimed at having them, in a kind of a crude 

sense, to appreciate us, but to understand us better. 

To do that, I think we have to do better at coming up with less 

aggregate data, these numbers that you and I have read about the 

17 percent or, conversely, the 64 percent of the people in this country who would like to have a better relationship with us. I think 

we need to do better to understand—to break down, to understand 

what are the differences. What do different elements of the society—youth, different ethnic groups, women, different political constituencies—what are their priorities? 

Because we may have made the mistake in the past of having 

messages that were, for lack of a better term, one-size-fits-all. A 

press release from the embassy that talks about something that we 

are doing. It is a very good thing that we are doing, but somehow 

it doesn’t resonate with certain groups in the country. 

This takes a little homework from us—not that we don’t know 

these people, but we have to have a dialogue with different groups 

in a very diverse country to make sure that, as you have mentioned, the media that we use are the correct media. Just to focus 

on the print media is important, but not sufficient. Many people 

get their information in this country from radio. 

13 

So that we would have to understand our audience better, have 

a greater dialogue on what the narrative that they use and their 

understanding of what we are doing is clear, that we keep very 

good track of all of the things that we are doing under the assistance and the engagement that you have allowed. 

This allows us to deal with the American public in a more coherent way. That is to say that we understand there is not a Pakistan. 

There are many Pakistanis. There are many interest groups there. 

We are engaging with all of them, thanks to the resources you have 

given us, and that this rather complex picture breaks down the 

stereotype that there are the Pakistanis who have an opinion, but 

rather there is a diverse and very—a potentially very powerful and 

successful country with which we can engage on a more nuanced 

level. 

So I can only repeat that, if confirmed, I plan to make this a top 

priority to bring resources to bear, both so that we can learn more, 

because public diplomacy is about listening as well as talking, and 

that we can use that knowledge, both with these various constituencies in Pakistan and with the American public as a whole. 

Senator CASEY. Let me just say by way of a comment, that I 

know that in the work that Anne Patterson has done and the State 

Department itself, frankly, going back to over two administrations, 

I saw evidence of that when I was there. 

I made two visits the last couple of years, in both instances 

spending some time in Islamabad getting the briefings that members of Congress get. But also in both Islamabad and in Karachi, 

another major city that I visited, in both places, in addition to the 

usual briefings, Ambassador Patterson and others made it possible 

for us to interact with civil society, business people and public officials and others within Pakistani society. 

So I think there have been strenuous efforts made, but it is a 

particularly difficult situation. And just as our taxpayers and folks 

here in Washington do get frustrated when we think there is not 

enough gratitude, on the Pakistani side, they say to us we appreciate your help, but you guys have been short-term friends. I mean, 

I am encapsulating a larger argument. 

So the word that jumped off the page in your statement were two 

words, ‘‘long haul.’’ That we want to establish a relationship that 

will be enduring. It won’t be short term and tactical and transactional. It will be of long duration. And it will be, in fact, strategic—not just strategic in a military sense, but in a sense of building a stronger relationship. 

So I think the most important thing that we would look for, if 

you are confirmed—and I think you will be—once you get your feet 

on the ground and you are up and running, so to speak, if you 

could provide some way of reporting back to this committee and the 

Congress about not just general progress on this question, but even 

outlining a strategy that you can then give us feedback on. 

So I know that we could spend even more time on that. But I 

wanted to move to a second issue, and we may not get enough time 

to fully develop it. But it is this whole issue of IEDs and the ammonium nitrate that goes into the IEDs. It is a horrific problem for 

our troops. 

14 

And those who follow this know that it isn’t simply a question 

of ammonium nitrate flowing into Afghanistan to be used for IEDs 

to kill our troops. But, frankly, that is a lot of it or most of it. 

There might be other places where it is—other sources of it. But 

for whatever reason, not nearly enough progress has been made on 

convincing the Pakistani government to not only legislate—that is 

critically important—but enforce and build a strategy to prevent 

the flow of this into the country, which is killing our troops. 

And even though it is outlawed in Afghanistan, we know we need 

more of an effort by the Pakistanis. This is a problem that everyone is aware of and working on, starting with the President, his 

administration. Secretary Clinton has worked on it. General 

Petraeus is aware of it. I have spoken to him about it—General 

Jones. I mean, everyone who has anything to do with our national 

security is working on this. But we haven’t made nearly enough 

progress. 

What is your sense of that in terms of what you can do specifically, as Ambassador, to move the ball down the field on preventing 

the inflow, for lack of a more technical word, of ammonium nitrate 

into Afghanistan that finds its way into IEDs? 

Ambassador MUNTER. It is a key issue. And it is one that illustrates—and I will be frank—how difficult this job is going to be and 

how our progress will be measured in increments rather than, I 

imagine, than breakthroughs. Nonetheless, the fact that we are 

getting incremental progress is a good thing. And it will be across 

the board. 

You mentioned our international efforts that we will keep up. It 

will be primarily—that would be from the State Department 

through Global Shield to make sure there are international regiments to regulate the transfer of ammonium nitrate. We also will 

be working as part of the assistance program that we supply to 

border guards—we have already begun this—to train them to be 

able to be more effective in keeping this ammonium nitrate from 

crossing borders. 

And as you had hinted earlier, this is not just a question of 

skills. It has to be a question of motivation. We have to work with 

these people to understand these are not just explosives that kill 

Americans. These are explosives that kill Pakistanis. These are explosives that kill people throughout the region. It is a larger question than ours. It is a partnership issue. I think we can demonstrate that. 

As you mentioned, our engagement with private sector is very 

important. Inasmuch as the working with Honeywell, for example, 

about ways in which to identify or to at least make the product less 

explosive and things of that sort, if we can work with the producers 

as partners to make sure that we don’t have—that we lessen the 

danger of these products. And similarly, the producers in-country 

to make sure that we are working with them in whatever way we 

can to oversee, to control, to keep track of the ammonium nitrate. 

So that, in other words, it is not something that I see is a quick 

fix. And it is certainly what you mentioned. This is going to take 

sustained work throughout that area in which we have—hope to 

have research. It will be a question every time I talk to the legislaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:12 Mar 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\111TH CONGRESS\2009-10 NOM HEARINGS READY FOR PRESS\09
15 

tors. It will be a question what—how are they doing on this legislation. 

When we are blessed with your visits, I think legislators hearing 

from legislators makes a big difference. And that is why we welcome your engagement not only here in Washington, but at post as 

well. So that they hear not only that we are asking something. 

They understand what a threat it is to them and how in a broad 

way we can continue to address this issue. 

But it is such an illustration, again, of how we are going to 

make—we are going to grind out the yardage on this one. We will 

keep doing it, and I think it is going to take us a long time. But 

nothing could be more important. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. I know I am over time. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador, my first set of questions are with regard to accountability for United States assistance. One of the hallmarks of the 

Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act was that we stressed accountability. And 

we stressed it because it is key to ensure annual funding. We are 

going to have to appropriate money each year, even though we 

have a 5-year authorization commitment. 

And we can ill afford to continue to read reports of inadequate 

monitoring and evaluation controls, such as the June 2010 inspector general report for the 2009 program, which said that it could 

‘‘not provide reasonable assurance that the $44 million in cash 

transfer funds had actually reached 140,000 displaced families,’’ as 

intended. 

While there are acknowledged challenges to delivering assistance, there must be adequate efforts to ensure its proper use. Staff 

visits earlier this month found similar concerns exist for an $89 

million cash transfer program initiated earlier this year. My questions are: How will you address such findings as Ambassador? 

What options do you have in altering or ending programs that fail 

to live up to our expectations? 

And second, while the administration is emphasizing greater 

flows through host country institutions, how prepared are the Pakistanis to partner with us on the effective expenditure of those 

funds? While the goal of achieving such cooperation and oversight 

is laudable, shouldn’t we continue to work mostly with transparent 

aid organizations familiar with the region that they are in? 

Ambassador MUNTER. Thank you, sir. 

This gets to the heart of the difficulty of implementing the generosity of KLB. And you are right that what the inspectors have 

talked about is something that the Embassy is very aware of. And 

I pledge that if I am confirmed, I will certainly spend enormous 

amount of time with AID to make sure that we get a handle on 

how the aid is being disbursed and how we can oversee it. 

One item will be that we will continue to have an assistance 

coordinator at the Embassy. That position will remain. In my experience in Baghdad, I felt that this was something that in the embassies that have a large aid portfolio, it is crucial that we have 

someone who is coordinating and keeping track of all of the technical questions that people are following. 

16 

Similarly, I think that we will see, now that the AID mission has 

come up to full staffing and has gotten some new leadership, that 

their plans to address the questions of the weakness or perceived 

weakness of the Pakistanis in getting aid out can be addressed 

through such mechanisms as the preaward assessments, the insistence that either the institution or the ministry has proper auditing 

facilities, and, if not, that we will actually supply that auditing and 

that we will do comprehensive reviews. 

We will keep the IGs there. The State IG and the AID IGs play 

an important role in watching over these issues. And I would say 

that I am optimistic that what my predecessors, what Anne Patterson and her team have built over this last year in adjusting to the 

first wave, if you will, of Kerry-Lugar-Berman has set the stage for 

a regime for transparency that, though I don’t yet know the details, 

not being at post, but if I am confirmed, I will look into this and 

make sure that we have—we can give you confidence that these 

kinds of questions about aid are answered. 

Senator LUGAR. My second set of questions you have partially 

answered. I wanted to talk about the Embassy’s organization for 

assistance. The creation of the position of coordinator of economic 

assistance within the country team has led to a situation where the 

longstanding role of USAID as the lead on development has been 

modified. 

Now this structure has been used in war zones, such as Iraq and 

Afghanistan, as you are aware. You have already said you would 

sustain the coordinator position for Pakistan, and you also indicated, and I was going to ask, what role you envision for the mission director and the USAID mission. I would also like to ask, Who 

coordinates with the Office of the Defense Representative within 

the Embassy? 

Ambassador MUNTER. I believe that the person who should pull 

this together on all assistance, the strategic view of assistance and 

the transparency and implementation, should be the strategic— 

should be the assistance coordinator. That means there would be 

a team, a cross-cutting team under her direction that would include 

the people from the ODRC, from the military, that would include 

the AID team. 

This is not meant to clip the wings of AID. And my experience 

in Baghdad and my experience talking with Mr. Shah at AID, we 

want to make that very clear. AID has extraordinarily important 

role, has skills that no one else in the embassy does. The point here 

is not to tell them what to do. The point is to make sure that everyone understands and everyone consistently follows the strategic 

guidelines that are not only applied to those specific AID tasks, but 

throughout the mission. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, we are counting on you from your experience with such situations in other countries to understand how this 

country team has to have a very special organizational structure 

for the crisis situation that we face in Pakistan. I think you have 

outlined a very reasonable approach to this, but I raised the question simply because this committee, obviously, will be tremendously 

interested in how all of this works and your subsequent reports as 

to how the country team incorporated each of these elements. 

17 

Now I would also like to inquire with regard to post-flood assistance. Humanitarian assistance is responsive and has proven effective in delivering needed relief to crisis zones. Development assistance is the key foreign policy tool designed to have a greater degree 

of scrutiny and far-reaching impact. 

How does the administration and how will you as Ambassador 

consider the Kerry-Lugar-Berman resources in light of the competing humanitarian and recovery needs that face Pakistan this 

year? What priorities and what purposes do you see as you review 

some of the existing programs and plans? 

Second, the United States response to the 2005 Pakistan earthquake was through humanitarian resources. Are the short-term 

public-relations gains of the 2005 earthquake response sufficient to 

warrant the use of development funds for humanitarian purposes? 

And finally, crisis response zones make it increasingly difficult to 

monitor the use of assistance. How will strict oversight parameters 

outlined in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation be maintained in 

this post-flood environment? In other words, describe the current 

situation, the flood and that which precedes, but likewise, interrelationship with the development cost, the thing we have just discussed with the country team and the coordinator monitoring. 

Ambassador MUNTER. It is a complex task. And if I am confirmed, it will be something that—I will be honest with you—I will 

have a great deal to learn from the experts who are there. But 

what we have in mind is to be rigorous in our understanding of the 

three phases that we are facing—the relief phase, the recovery, and 

then the reconstruction. 

Obviously, we never want to lose sight of the fact that KerryLugar-Berman funds, the intent of the authors—and I don’t mean 

to tell the authors what their intent was—but that the intent, obviously, is long term. That is to say these are not band-aids. 

In this first phase, the AID funding generally and the funds that 

we use for humanitarian work have generally been sufficient. We 

have generally out of the kind of the funds that we have cited in, 

I think, all of our prepared remarks—that has been OTI, other 

kinds of AID funding—that has been very effective. 

Inasmuch as there is a use for Kerry-Lugar-Berman funds that 

would address the floods, it would be my guidance to the team that 

I have described to you that that use would be only in preparing, 

in addressing the needs of the flood to prepare for more effective 

use of the long-term projects. 

To give an example, if we have a project that involves making 

irrigation ditches more effective and if, as we know, the irrigation 

ditches about which we spoke maybe 6 months ago are gone, we 

have some choices in the immediate relief and in the reconstruction 

and in recovery to address how we deal with bringing things back 

to status quo ante. 

And if we do it in a way that leads to more effective use in the 

long runs of irrigation projects, I would consider that legitimate to 

have a discussion about using Kerry-Lugar-Berman funding, because it is not just replacing something. It is building a recovery 

that has a long-term perspective. So that kind of strategic guidance 

is what I would have in mind there. 

18 

Now, the priorities—we have a very ambitious strategic dialogue 

that goes into so many areas and uses that applies the funds that 

Kerry-Lugar-Berman have given us, 13 areas of strategic dialogue, 

all of which are important. 

I think that we are going to have to do some prioritizing, and I 

think that the reason for that is that things like health, things like 

agriculture, things like infrastructure repair are going to be things 

we need to do quickly. We have to have impact. And this, to me, 

circles back again to our public diplomacy question. 

What are those things that will be most recognized by the Pakistanis so that if, for example, we are rebuilding the bridges that 

have been swept out of the Swat Valley, that those bridges are 

there quickly and that those bridges are recognized as something 

America has done for the country? 

That is to say, it is all part of an attempt to build, and through 

the relief and perhaps through the use of Kerry-Lugar-Berman 

funds, for the long-term goal of meeting the needs of the Pakistani 

people, but also meeting the needs of understanding in the public 

sphere what we are doing. So that is how some of the priorities 

might change somewhat from where they were 6 months ago. 

And as for the oversight, once again, I am hoping that in our 

assessment of how the assistance coordinator and AID work with 

me, but also work with our military colleagues, who are also engaged in some of these questions, that it is consistent and clear to 

you, and better be clear to me. 

Thank you. 

Senator LUGAR. I thank you for that comprehensive answer. My 

time has expired, but I will add one footnote. 

Dr. Peter Armacost, who is the president of Lahore Christian 

College, is a personal friend. He was formerly president of Eckerd 

College in Florida and courageously headed out to Lahore, where 

he has been now for 6 years. A lot of my insight as to what is 

occurring there has come through Dr. Armacost. 

But I mentioned that university because it does seem to me to 

offer a potential business plan for progress in higher education in 

which Muslim students, Christian students, others, from across the 

entire country, have gathered together, I believe, with a student 

body of 4,000 or 5,000 students and had an impact. I would just 

draw that to your attention, to that effective platform, as an area 

of potential where I know that there is some work with the Embassy now. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador MUNTER. And thank you. And believe me, in the notion of outreach, we certainly don’t want to limit that simply to 

government, though that is important. But that these institutions, 

and especially institutions of higher learning, this is a potential 

area for great cooperation for us to learn and for us to implement 

what you have laid out in Kerry-Lugar-Berman with really good 

partners who know their way around. So, thank you. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

We are joined by our ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

19 

Mr. Munter, can you help enlighten me about America’s reputation in Pakistan, what they think of us, what kind of an appreciation they have? I have read the polling materials, which really 

aren’t very encouraging, to say the least. 

Do they have even a modicum of understanding that what we are 

doing for them, whether it be building bridges in the Swat Valley 

or what have you, that we are encumbering our kids’ and our 

grandkids’ future, that we don’t have any money anymore? This 

Government is going to borrow 41 cents out of every dollar it 

spends this year. 

And I mean this is a real sacrifice Americans are making, and 

they are sacrificing their children’s and grandchildren’s future in 

order to build infrastructure in Pakistan. Do they have even a modicum of appreciation for what Americans are doing for them? 

Ambassador MUNTER. I think this, as we noted earlier, is a vital 

question because, in general terms—and I am speaking of someone 

who has not yet come to post and, if confirmed, I will try to verify 

this—I don’t think it is a question that they don’t know what we 

are doing. The question is the skepticism of why we are doing it 

and what our goals are and what our relationship is. 

I think the historical experience of America and Pakistan indicates that there have been times of mistrust. And we are—at this 

point, with our generous help to Pakistan, which we understand to 

be in the interests of both countries, we are perhaps not doing as 

well as we might in understanding the impact of that past and that 

idea in the mind of Pakistanis when we see these aggregate figures 

of popularity, 17 percent of the people positive, and skepticism 

about the American assistance. 

So the task, I think is to make sure that we are honest, open, 

and clear, as Senator Lugar has said, about the process, that it is 

understood to be a straightforward and honest process in investing 

this money and that it is understood why we are doing it, and that 

we understand and we are able to articulate to Americans that the 

reason this is taking time is because of the historical skepticism. 

Whether or not they are right, the question is there are many 

who are skeptical about our motives. And we at the Embassy have 

to explain, perhaps in better ways, or engage with our friends to 

explain for us—our friends from academia, our friends from the 

business community—to explain on our behalf why the Americans 

are being so generous, why we are taking on this task, which is a 

big burden for America, an enormous burden for America. 

That is the task of this public diplomacy to which I alluded at 

the very beginning of this session that we need to do better to engage them so that this question becomes easier for us to understand. So that they are able to say, ‘‘I get it. I see why you are 

doing this,’’ and build trust. And that trust, I think, will ultimately 

reflect itself in these public figures. 

But this is a long and very, very complex issue. And I wish I had 

an easier answer, and I understand the frustration of the American 

people and the American Congress. And yet, this is something that 

we have to solve through painstaking engagement all across Pakistani society. 

Senator RISCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Munter. 

20 

And I mean, it is human nature that people like to see some kind 

of appreciation for the sacrifices that they are making. And perhaps when you are there, in order to diminish the fear of the motives and what have you, if they have a clearer understanding of 

the sacrifice this is. I mean, this is—you know, we don’t have any 

money anymore. It is gone. We are spending our kids’ and our 

grandkids’ money. 

And certainly, they are human beings like we are, and they understand when you are encumbering your kids’ and your grandkids’ 

future, what a sacrifice that is and what level that rises to as far 

as sacrifice is concerned. So perhaps that will help, as you move 

forward, to convince them that our motivations are what they are. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador MUNTER. Thank you. 

And I don’t have a higher priority than addressing that issue because I know it is at the root of our relationship with Pakistan. 

Thank you. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

I wanted to raise a question about religious freedom. Before I do 

that, I wanted to go back for a moment to the ammonium nitrate 

question. When we passed a resolution through the Senate by consent—and as anyone who follows the Senate knows, that doesn’t 

happen very often, unless it is something that is often of not great 

significance. So to do something as significant as getting an ammonium nitrate resolution through was a great achievement, but it 

was bipartisan, a bipartisan resolution. 

And I wanted to highlight that because it is something—as I said 

before, I have raised this issue with everyone who will listen, spoken a number of times both, you know, from the chair that I sit 

on the committee, to Ambassador Holbrooke, and he has worked 

very hard on this, in addition to those—the many other administration officials, starting with the very top at the State Department, 

Secretary Clinton and others. 

But I would ask you, when you are—and I believe you will be— 

confirmed, but upon confirmation, when you are on the ground, to 

use that resolution as a guide. It is not a comprehensive list of 

strategies or methods to make progress on getting legislation 

passed on ammonium nitrate, but if you want to get a sense of 

what the Congress is most concerned about—and I believe, by extension, the American people—is that we want to take—or make, 

I should say, every effort by the State Department, by the Congress, by any means necessary to get legislation passed on ammonium nitrate so it doesn’t keep killing our soldiers, and regulation 

and enforcement. A law is no good if it won’t be enforced. So I 

would just ask you to use that resolution as a guide. 

As it relates to religious freedom, in July, Pakistan’s federal minister for minority affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, established a national 

interfaith council to promote understanding and tolerance among 

different faiths in Pakistan. Such efforts can help lead to a more 

stable Pakistan, and I think that is self-evident not only in that 

country, but in any country. 

And even more urgently needed, given the devastation caused by 

the flood, the statement issued directly after the council met urged 

increased tolerance and denounced terrorism and was signed by 

21 

Pakistan’s leading religious figures—the four principal imams, the 

heads of its principal madrassas, the leading Catholic and Protestant bishops, and the leaders of the Ahmadi, Buddhist, and Farsi 

communities. That is a pretty comprehensive list of faith leaders. 

In conversations I had with him earlier this year—I am talking 

about Mr. Bhatti—detailing how promoting interfaith understanding can help win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis and pull 

them away from extremist groups, his work with the council and 

other initiatives present a unique opportunity for the U.S. to support Pakistani initiatives that is critical to our efforts to promote 

human rights and democracy and, obviously, has national security 

implications. 

I would ask you how, if you are confirmed, you would partner 

with Mr. Bhatti and others to do everything possible to further and 

advance that important work on interfaith dialogue and interfaith 

efforts to put in place better understanding between faiths that I 

know will have good results if we are successful with advancing it? 

Ambassador MUNTER. Well, I agree absolutely with what you 

said, that this is an enormous opportunity that we have to support. 

My understanding is that the Embassy, led by Ambassador Patterson, is in close touch with Mr. Bhatti and, indeed, that when we 

have visits from senior American figures, both from the Senate, 

from the Congress, but also from the executive branch, we make 

a point of hearing his opinion and those people around him. 

Now, he is not only engaged in the interfaith dialogue, but from 

his ministry, which does focus primarily on Christian-JewishHindu areas, there are other faiths that need to be brought into 

even greater focus in our concerns, our interests. That is the question about the Ahmadis, who are the victims of violence even this 

year, the question of the Buddhists, Farsis, the others, for whom 

there is not only the question of tolerance and freedom, but the 

respect for their heritage and sites in the country that we also 

believe and supported. 

I think that inasmuch as we can support him, inasmuch as we 

can support the interfaith dialogue, and inasmuch as we—through 

this outreach that I was describing, getting more to the constituent 

parts of Pakistan—can identify even more partners not only at the 

high levels, but for our young officers as well, it has got to be a 

key element that we have. And this is where I think the diversity 

of Pakistan finds a certain resonance with the diversity of the 

United States. 

I think we can have a dialogue that gets past some of these elements that I talked about, the skepticism about the past, to find 

those kinds of similarities that we have and to find among these 

kinds of partners the commitment to interfaith reconciliation can 

only help us in our long-term cultural counterpart to the economic 

help that we are giving them as well. 

Senator CASEY. I was recalling, as you were answering, that one 

of the best moments I had in my last visit there—this would be 

August of 2009. I think it was our last—a last part of our schedule 

before we got up the next morning to leave—was an interfaith dinner with folks who had been laboring through Ramadan. 

And what a remarkable faith tradition that makes it possible for 

people to express the tenets of their faith through fasting. And we 

22 

were able to talk in a very constructive way with a cross section 

of faiths at that dinner. So it was a real highlight. And something 

that doesn’t get in the newspaper very often, the way that there 

is an interfaith dialogue, a foundation there. And I think we can 

foster and amplify that. 

Let me ask you one more question in this area of religious freedom. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has 

recommended that Pakistan be designated a ‘‘country of particular 

concern’’ for the systemic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom. The country’s blasphemy law carries the death penalty. It requires no evidence and has been repeatedly used against 

minority religious groups and also against Muslims viewed as 

breaking with certain orthodoxies. 

Pakistan has aggressively pushed a so-called ‘‘defamation of religions’’ resolution at the United Nations. This resolution is essentially an attempt to internationalize blasphemy laws. It would 

undercut international norms on the freedoms of religion and 

expression. 

Taking all of this into account and comparing Pakistan’s conduct 

with other countries currently listed as countries of particular concern by the State Department, Pakistan meets the criteria and is 

a glaring omission. What is your view of this part of the religious 

freedom discussion and debate? And how can the United States do 

more to improve conditions in the country as it relates to this particular concern about the blasphemy resolutions and the violations 

of religious freedom? 

Ambassador MUNTER. In the specific issue, we have always gone 

to the Pakistani Government and to the Pakistani public that we 

believe that any restriction on press freedom serves no purpose, 

that it doesn’t help achieve a goal. In fact, it does the opposite. We 

weight it many times against the restrictions of the blasphemy law. 

I will have to check for you on the reasons for the ranking of 

Pakistan in the religious freedom report and get back to you on 

that. I can only say that everything I understand about what the 

Embassy is doing now puts the blasphemy law and other issues of 

religious and minority freedom on the agenda always in meeting 

with the leaders of the country. I certainly plan to continue that. 

And on that specific question, I will look into that and let you 

know. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I have just one further question. 

We have, from time to time, lamented the work of A.Q. Khan and 

his work with others, for that matter, to spread the technology of 

nuclear weapons and potential for difficulty this entails in a host 

of countries. My understanding is that he is free of house arrest 

now, and is still considered in heroic status in Pakistan. 

We have dealt today essentially with questions regarding economics, politics, and the development of civil society. But a very 

large part of the relationship that the United States has with Pakistan and, in that matter, with other countries, frequently comes 

down to nonproliferation, or at least the inventory and control of 

weapons of mass destruction. This is because proliferation has the 

potential to create violence not only for the specific countries inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:12 Mar 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\111TH CONGRESS\2009-10 NOM HEARINGS READY FOR PRESS\09
23 

volved, but in others who may feel threatened by this state of 

affairs and wish for defenses and international regulation. 

This is a question which is entirely speculative, but one which 

I suspect that you are prepared to attempt to address through work 

with the Pakistani Government. As the rest of the world comes to 

conferences, such as we just had in Washington this time on nonproliferation, countries pledged to, in essence, ship back various 

weapons or materials in a manner fully transparent with the other 

countries. Such pledges at the conference were made so that the 

world might be safer, as opposed to there being questions of security if proliferation occurs. 

Now, have you given any thought to this general area? And what 

kind of thoughts or response can you give as part of this hearing? 

Ambassador MUNTER. Here, I don’t think we have made a lot of 

progress with the Pakistanis. And I intend to raise the question 

again of our repeated requests to have our people be able to interview Mr. Khan. And the point being that we are trying to communicate the idea that this is an issue that is an issue for everyone, 

not just an American favor asked of Pakistan, but something that 

American-Pakistani partnership, if we are able to build it, this 

must be a part of it as well. 

In addition, the fissile material control treaty, which is, in fact, 

being blocked at certain times or certainly is being held back by 

the Pakistanis, this is not something that we think makes sense. 

We urge them to be constructive in this area, once again, not because they are doing it for us in a transactional way, but because 

this is something that is of interest to everyone in the world, not 

just Americans, but the international community and Pakistan 

itself. 

If confirmed, I will address this. But again, I think this is going 

to be a very tall order. I think we have had real difficulties on this 

in the past. But we have got to stay on it. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I thank you for that statement and your 

preparation, as you say, for a very tall order. 

Ambassador MUNTER. Thank you. 

Senator LUGAR. And I congratulate you on your testimony today 

and look forward to supporting your nomination. We are hopeful 

that you and your wife will be able to serve with safety to your persons and likewise with the full confidence of this country behind 

you. 

Ambassador MUNTER. Thank you. 

Senator CASEY. Let me reiterate and associate myself with what 

Senator Lugar just said. We are grateful for the effort you are putting forth to continue your public service, and we look forward to 

your confirmation as Ambassador. We have lots more questions, 

but we are out of time. 

But thank you so much for being here today. We will try to move 

as fast as we can to get this confirmation completed. 

Ambassador MUNTER. I am grateful, and I look forward not only 

to working with you here, but to see you out in the field as well. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

24 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE CAMERON MUNTER TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. In your view, how can the United States and other regional partners 

work to help Pakistan and India make improvements in their bilateral relationship, 

which are not only in their interest, but in the interest of broader regional stability? 

What do you see as the prospects for improved relations between these two nations 

during your term, if confirmed? 

Answer. We have strong bilateral relations with India and Pakistan that are 

based on interests we share with each country. Good relations with either country 

do not come at the expense of good relations with the other. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with Ambassador Roemer, U.S. Ambassador to India, to discuss 

this issue going forward. 

Ultimately, it is up to India and Pakistan to set the pace and parameters for improving their relations. We look forward to the day when India and Pakistan enjoy 

friendly, neighborly relations and believe both India and Pakistan have an important role to play in stability and security of South Asia. We are engaged with both 

countries, and encourage them to work together to bring peace to their region. 

We applaud the Indian and Pakistani governments for holding talks this year and 

encourage future meetings. We are pleased that their Prime Ministers met formally 

at the SAARC summit in Bhutan this April (we understand that their previous 

meeting dated back to July 2009), followed by meetings of the Foreign Secretaries 

and Home Ministers in June and Foreign Ministers meeting this July. 

Question. It has been our strategy for several years to increase aid to Pakistan 

in the hopes that it will begin to consistently address all of the militant groups in 

the country but it has not done so. At what point should we pursue a new strategy 

to address this problem and what ideas do you have for new approaches? 

Answer. The highest U.S. priority in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is defeating 

and destroying al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and eliminating extremist safe 

havens in Pakistan. Implementing this policy in Pakistan requires three distinct but 

mutually reinforcing elements: 

• Short-term stabilization, to include humanitarian relief and immediate assistance to conflict- and flood-affected areas. 

• Security assistance that builds the capacity of the Pakistani military to conduct 

counterinsurgency operations and strengthens civilian law enforcement capabilities. 

• Medium- and long-term development and security assistance programs that create the foundation for a stable economy that provides jobs and supports a 

strong, moderate, competent government that exercises control across all of its 

territory and is responsive to its people. 

The success of these efforts will depend heavily on our ability to build a sustainable strategic partnership with the Government of Pakistan and the Pakistani people. Over the past year, the administration has made significant progress in building the foundation for a stronger partnership through the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic 

Dialogue and other hands-on efforts to directly engage Pakistani leaders and the 

general population. 

Question. According to our intelligence community, instability in Pakistan is driven primarily by poor governance and lack of socioeconomic reform. Efforts to encourage Pakistan to address these issues are therefore critical to our success in the 

region. 

• How would you assess progress in this area and how can we work with various 

partners in Pakistan to prevent militant elements from taking greater advantage of the current crisis generated by the floods? 

Answer. Over the past year we have made great strides in expanding our relationship with Pakistan beyond security issues. We are engaged in an active dialogue 

with the Pakistanis, the international community and the Pakistani diaspora to 

help the Pakistani people overcome the political, economic, and security challenges 

that threaten Pakistan’s future and undermine regional stability. 

Our civilian assistance strategy is focused directly building the Pakistani Government’s capacity to address the basic needs of its people, and to provide improved 

economic opportunities to engender a more stable and prosperous nation. The recent 

humanitarian disaster caused by the floods has added a tremendous challenge for 

the country. We can only prevent militant groups from taking greater advantage of 

25 

the current crisis if we make sure that there is as little room as possible for anyone 

else who tries to exploit the desperate needs of so many people. For this, we need 

to be present and visible over the long-term. 

We have to ensure that the Pakistani people understand that we are in there for 

the long haul and that our engagement with their government goes beyond just security cooperation. We can do this by working with the Government of Pakistan and 

our implementing partners on the ground to provide assistance that betters the lives 

of Pakistanis affected by the flood. We must also improve upon our ability to communicate effectively with the Pakistani people to get the message out about our 

assistance and help build the relationship over the long term. This is a significant 

challenge, and a top priority for me, if I am confirmed. 

• With respect to the floods, are you satisfied that there has been equal access 

to aid across the populace? 

Answer. We are monitoring the situation as closely as possible in order to make 

sure that assistance is distributed in an equitable manner. In addition, the Government of Pakistan has set up a commission to oversee the equitable distribution of 

aid within the country and ensure transparency with the international donor community. While the exact mechanisms and authorities of this commission remain to 

be defined, we continue to work with the civilian administration in Pakistan to address concerns of accountability and transparency related to assistance. 

Question. There is broad agreement that a major source of discontent in Pakistan 

is lack of access to justice. The Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill sought to address this by 

requiring assistance for civilian law enforcement. The Kerry-Lugar money was intended to train police officers to do criminal investigations that will enhance access 

to justice, not to train police officers to perform as an extension of the military, but 

I am concerned that this is not being implemented as intended. If you are confirmed, will you commit to reviewing this issue and reporting back to me? 

Answer. In keeping with the Afghanistan-Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy, our law enforcement assistance in Pakistan focuses on building capacity in 

areas most affected by the insurgency: Khyber-Pakhtunkwa (KPk) and the Federally 

Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). To achieve this objective, in 2009, the Bureau 

for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) commenced a new training 

effort in KPk enabling its police to prevent and respond to insurgency-related incidents, including suicide bombings, improvised explosive device IEDs detonations, 

kidnappings and targeted killings in addition to the traditional tenants of civilian 

policing, such as human rights, investigative skills and community policing. 

Also, INL is working to strengthen the capacity of the FATA tribal Levies by providing police skills training and equipment, as well as ‘‘hard police’’ training to enhance their response to volatile security situations. 

Improved performance of civilian law enforcement in these regions is critical to 

the long-term success of the Pakistan military’s counterinsurgency effort and will 

also bolster public confidence in civilian institutions. 

Question. Religious freedom is a noted problem in Pakistan, and according to the 

most recent State Department report, serious problems remain, including that 

‘‘[d]iscriminatory legislation and the Government’s failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different religious belief fostered religious intolerance, acts of violence, and intimidation against religious minorities.’’ 

This has been of particular concern to Ahmadiyya Muslim communities in the 

United States, including my constituents. 

• If confirmed, how would you work to underscore the importance of religious 

freedom and other human rights issues with the Pakistani Government? 

Answer. We remain deeply concerned about the treatment of all religious minorities in Pakistan, including Ahmadis. The close monitoring of the human rights situation in Pakistan is one of our highest priorities. In our discussions at all levels 

with the Government of Pakistan (GOP) as well as with members of the Pakistani 

civil society we underline the importance of equal protection of every Pakistani 

citizen. 

That is especially true with regard to religious freedom. Although the GOP has 

undertaken some steps in order to enhance the situation of religious minorities, 

more can be done. Pakistan’s Constitution states that adequate provisions are to be 

made for Muslim and non-Muslim minorities to profess and practice their religious 

beliefs freely. However, Pakistan’s ‘‘blasphemy laws’’ are often used to justify acts 

of violence and intimidation against religious minorities as well as against Muslims 

who hold minority views, such as the Ahmadiyya community. As stated in our 

‘‘Annual Report on International Religious Freedom’’ and ‘‘Country Report on 

26 

Human Rights Practices,’’ while the Government of Pakistan has taken steps to improve the treatment of religious minorities, serious religious freedom concerns 

remain. The Department of State considers Pakistan’s blasphemy and anti-Ahmadi 

laws discriminatory. 

If confirmed, I will continue to raise concerns with the GOP about this discriminatory legislation and call on the GOP to expand its efforts to grant protection especially to those within the Pakistani society who need it the most. In addition, we 

need to maintain a robust dialogue with those religious leaders, teachers, and other 

people within Pakistani civil society who can serve as multipliers for promoting 

peace and tolerance in order to ensure better protection of the fundamental rights 

of every Pakistani citizen. 

Æ