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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–814PDF 2005

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BUDGET FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2006

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 17, 2005

Serial No. 109–16

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

KRISTEN GILLEY, Senior Professional Staff Member 

JEAN CARROLL, Full Committee Hearing Coordinator 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice, Secretary, U.S. Department of State ............ 3

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice: Prepared statement ........................................ 7

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 41

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa: Prepared statement ............................................................... 42

Responses from the Honorable Condoleezza Rice to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California ................................................................................ 43

Responses from the Honorable Condoleezza Rice to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California ................................................................ 50

Responses from the Honorable Condoleezza Rice to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Joe Wilson, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of South Carolina ........................................................................ 51

Question submitted to the Honorable Condoleezza Rice for the Record by 

the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 58

(1)

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BUDGET FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2006

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in room 2172, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. 

Madam Secretary, on behalf of my colleagues, I want to extend 

a warm welcome to you, for this, your first appearance before our 

Committee. We are looking forward to your testimony and to a 

wide-ranging discussion of the many challenges and opportunities 

that our country faces. 

I won’t address in detail the President’s foreign policy priorities 

for the next 4 years other than to note they comprise a very ambitious agenda. I am certain that agenda will only grow with the certain emergence of unanticipated needs and the appearance of unwelcome surprises. I can assure you that our Committee will set an 

equally fast pace in our work, both in partnership with you and in 

the execution of our own extensive agenda. 

Regarding that agenda, rather than list the entire range of subjects on which the Committee will focus its attention this year, I 

will mention but one; namely, a thorough review and reform of the 

United Nations and its many agencies. 

Even the most steadfast of U.N. supporters must concede that 

after more than half a century of operation, this many-faceted, 

sprawling entity is very much in need of focused scrutiny and extensive reform. This fact has been dramatically revealed in the 

still-unfolding scandal regarding the enormous sums of the Oil-forFood Program that we have good reason to believe were stolen or 

needlessly wasted. 

In our ongoing investigation, each path we have gone down has 

branched into many others, and we have yet to see any end to the 

series of unwelcome discoveries. If abuses of this magnitude can 

occur in such a high-profile program, and over a period of years, 

it is impossible to conclude that this is likely to be an isolated phenomenon. We can point fingers in many directions, but the United 

States Government must share some of the blame. We can’t avoid 

our responsibility to ensure that the money of the American people 

is used wisely, and as sparingly as possible, and that organizations 

perform the missions and functions for which they were brought 

into being. 

2

The transgressions of this one program demonstrate the scale of 

abuses that can occur when no one is watching. It is our intention 

to ensure that no veil is ever again allowed to shield from view the 

activities of those who would use public resources for private gain 

or pervert the work of institutions with ideological missions. 

For that reason, our goal is not a one-time exposure of abuses 

but the establishment of a lasting culture of transparency at the 

U.N., one that parallels that of our own Government and those 

throughout the advanced world. For it is only when permanent 

scrutiny by outside observers is assured that we can be confident 

that what we are told is true actually is true, and that malfeasance 

is not disguised as a virtue. 

It is important that I stress that this endeavor is not conceived 

in hostility to the U.N. but instead stems from the importance we 

believe that it and its many agencies can play in the world, especially in areas such as the care of refugees and promoting global 

health. To realize that potential, however, requires that the U.N. 

not be allowed to become a mysterious realm governed by unaccountable international bureaucrats, but instead it remain faithful 

to the purposes and responsibilities for which it was created. 

Those who believe in the U.N.’s capacity to do good should welcome this effort. To oppose stringent, open, and permanent examination is not to defend the organization from attack but is instead 

to ensure that abuses will continue to occur, protected by a neglect 

borne of indifference. 

We would do well to remember that here and elsewhere, public 

accountability is neither a burden nor a punishment but an opportunity to demonstrate fidelity to the trust one has been given and 

an acknowledged right to the pride and admiration earned by one’s 

accomplishments. 

As I noted at the outset, this represents but one of the Committee’s priorities for this year. We look forward to working in close 

cooperation with you, Madam Secretary, on this and the many 

other challenges and opportunities that our country currently faces 

and those yet unknown that lie in wait. 

I now turn to my distinguished colleague, Tom Lantos, for such 

remarks as he may wish to make. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to join you in welcoming our extraordinarily distinguished new Secretary of State for 

her first appearance before our Committee today. I have enjoyed 

more than I am prepared to admit the open and cordial challenges 

of communication with Dr. Rice over the past 4 years when she 

served as National Security Advisor to the President, and I look 

forward to the continuation of this open and friendly dialogue as 

she serves as our Secretary of State. 

I want to congratulate Dr. Rice in assuming this new position 

and wish her the very best as she continues her distinguished service to our Nation. 

I also want to congratulate her, Mr. Chairman, on a highly successful trip to Europe this past week. She did a magnificent job in 

her meetings with European leaders. Unfortunately, it takes two to 

tango and I am not sure we have a dancing partner. 

Senator John McCain was quoted earlier this week after his own 

meetings with European officials saying, ‘‘They haven’t budged one 

3

inch that I could see, not on Iran, not on Iraq, not on arms sales 

to China.’’

We are fortunate, Mr. Chairman, to have a Secretary of State 

with Dr. Rice’s intelligence, persistence, and charm to undertake 

the task of dealing with our European ‘‘allies.’’

Mr. Chairman, I have urged NATO for over 2 years to assume 

greater responsibility in Afghanistan and Iraq. Commitments have 

been made with regard to both Afghanistan and the training of 

Iraqi forces, but I have been profoundly disappointed with the meager contributions that have been made thus far by our NATO allies. The failure of NATO to play a more active role in these critical 

areas raises serious questions about the future of the Alliance. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the important work that our Committee is doing on the United Nations and you have called for a 

culture of transparency, and I join you in that call. 

I agree we must actively pursue far-reaching reforms at the 

United Nations and that work will ultimately lead to a more effective and stronger institution, which is my hope. I am convinced 

that my good friend Kofi Annan is fully committed to cleaning up 

and reforming the United Nations. And as to the jihad which is undertaken by some against Kofi Annan, we shall defeat this jihad 

as we defeat other jihads. 

Madam Secretary, you are doing an outstanding job in your new 

position. We wish you well, and we are anxious to do everything 

we can to support your efforts. You are facing many extremely difficult challenges, but if anyone is up to the handling of the range 

of difficult global issues, you certainly are. We look forward to 

working with you, and we look forward to seeing much more of you 

before this Committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. 

To the Members, I state anyone who has an opening statement, 

without objection it will be made a part of the record, and we will 

proceed directly to the Secretary for her testimony. 

Of course I am honored to welcome Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the 

new Secretary of State, to the Committee on International Relations. 

There is no need to elaborate on her many achievements because 

they are well known. Secretary Rice is highly respected both in 

academia and political arenas, and I have no doubt she is well up 

to the task of meeting the duties and challenges of her position. 

Without further ado, we are pleased to hear from you, Madam Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CONDOLEEZZA RICE, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Secretary RICE. Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement I 

would like to have entered into the record. I will excerpt from that 

so we may have full time for questions. 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman 

Lantos. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address this Committee at this 

time of challenge and hope and opportunity for America and for the 

4

world. I look forward to working with the Congress and with this 

Committee to build a strong bipartisan consensus behind America’s 

foreign policy and to ensure that the men and women of American 

diplomacy have the resources and the support they need to conduct 

their vital missions. 

In his recent State of the Union message, President Bush spoke 

of the unprecedented efforts we have undertaken since September 

11, 2001, with allies and friends around the world, to defeat terrorism. The President spoke of the significant progress we have 

made in confronting the enemy abroad, in removing many of alQaeda’s top commanders, in cutting off terrorist financing and in 

putting pressure on states that sponsor or harbor terrorists or seek 

to proliferate the world’s most dangerous weapons. 

But in the long term, as the President has said, the only force 

powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror and replace 

hatred with hope is the force of human freedom. President Bush 

has charged the men and women of the Department of State with 

helping to create a balance of power in this world that favors freedom, and I am privileged to lead them in this effort. 

To advance our diplomatic mission of freedom, I recently traveled 

to Europe and to the Middle East. I spoke with European leaders 

about how America and Europe can best work together to serve 

freedom’s cause worldwide. We have been in a great alliance together that has faced down tyranny before and has seen the spread 

of liberty and freedom. We must now mobilize that great alliance 

to the great causes of the 21st century to face down tyranny and 

terrorism again and to spread freedom to those places it has not 

yet found home. President Bush will continue that conversation 

when he arrives in Europe on February 21. 

Next month in London, Prime Minister Blair will convene an important conference of major donors to help the Palestinian people 

advance their political and security and economic reforms and build 

infrastructure for self-government. Also in March, under the auspices of the broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, Egypt 

will host a meeting in Cairo of the G–8 and Arab League members 

to broaden the base of support for peace and reform. 

We understand fully that the path of democratic reform in the 

Middle East will be difficult and uneven. The spread of freedom is 

the work of generations, but it is also urgent work that can no 

longer be deferred. From Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain, we are seeing elections and new protections for women and minorities and 

the beginnings of political pluralism. These are efforts that we 

must support. We must support it with educational and cultural 

exchanges, public diplomacy, broadcasting initiatives, and support 

for those in these countries who want to see a different kind of future and a different kind of Middle East. 

The success of freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq will give 

strength to reformers throughout the region and accelerate the 

pace of reforms underway already. Every leader with whom I spoke 

in Europe understands that it is now in our common interest to 

build on recent successes and to stabilize and advance democratic 

progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

We talked about turning a page and moving on to the difficult 

but critical work ahead of us. We agreed that it is time to close the 

5

book on that past and to help the Iraqi people write a new chapter 

in freedom’s history, the history of a democratic Iraq. 

Of course the process of reform in the broader Middle East is not 

detached from the important resolution of other political issues 

there. In my recent travels, I found no difference of view at all between the United States and Europe on the goal of an independent 

Palestinian State, living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish 

State of Israel. We all support the process of reform in the Palestinian Authority, the successful Palestinian elections of January 9; 

and the Israeli withdrawal plan from the Gaza and parts of the 

West Bank have created a new climate that is propitious for movement back onto the roadmap. 

At their meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Prime Minister Sharon and 

President Abbas both talked about a time of opportunity, and it 

was interesting to me that in my meetings with them, they both 

started with the same line: ‘‘This is a time of opportunity and we 

must seize it.’’

And so I have returned from my travels to the Middle East and 

Europe, confident that these parties now have before them the best 

chance for advancing peace that they are likely to see for some 

years to come. We must support them and help them on their way. 

Even as we work with allies and friends to meet the great challenges of advancing freedom and peace in the broader Middle East 

and North Africa, we will seize other important opportunities to 

build a world of peace and hope and prosperity. We will work to 

strengthen the community of democracy so that free nations are 

equal to the work before us and before them. We must do all that 

we can to ensure that nations which made the hard choices and do 

the hard work to join the free world deliver on the high hopes of 

their citizens. 

In much of Africa and Latin America, we face the twin challenges of helping to bolster democratic ideals and institutions while 

alleviating poverty. We will insist that leaders who are elected 

democratically have an obligation to govern democratically, and we 

will work in partnership with developing nations to fight corruption, instill the rule of law and create a culture of transparency 

that will attract the trade and investment crucial to poverty reduction. 

In this regard I would like to mention one very high, important 

Presidential priority, and that is the Millenium Challenge Corporation, a bold, growth-promoting approach to development which 

helps countries that govern justly and adopt sound economic policies and invest in the welfare of their people. 

This is a new way to approach the issue of development, recognizing that development is a two-way street; that yes, it is important to make resources available, but it is also important to have 

recipient nations that will use those resources well. That means 

good governance and transparency and rule of law and investment 

in the health and education of people and fundamental attention 

to anti-corruption efforts. 

We will also help countries to enhance their capabilities to protect their citizens from traffickers and terrorists. We are engaging 

our partners in fighting drugs in Latin American through the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, and we are giving assistance to our 

6

partners in the global war on terror because we cannot fight terrorism alone. 

I am sure that we all agree when they engage effectively, multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations, and so you will see that the President has asked for adequate 

resources to meet our obligations to important international organizations and to pay our projected costs for peacekeeping missions 

around the world. 

We are particularly concerned that we respond to crises that 

have emerged since the 2005 budget in places like the Ivory Coast 

and Haiti and Burundi, and especially Sudan/Darfur where peacekeeping missions will hopefully in Sudan and Darfur begin to alleviate that very difficult crisis. 

Moreover, we have seen how states, where chaos and corruption 

and cruelty reign, can pose threats not only to their own people 

and to their regions, but to us. And so we are working to strengthen international capacities to address conditions in failed and failing and post-conflict states. 

And in this regard, I would like to call to the Committee’s attention that the President has charged us at the State Department 

with coordinating our Nation’s post-conflict and stabilization efforts, and we have developed a new Office of the Coordinator for 

Reconstruction and Stabilization, housed in the Department to help 

us do that job. 

The United States must stay at the forefront of the global fight 

against HIV/AIDS. The United States must support the efforts to 

show us as a compassionate country. And, therefore, in addition to 

the funding that the President is seeking on HIV/AIDS, we are 

seeking food aid and famine relief and nonfood humanitarian assistance. 

We are responding to the tremendous tragedy that the tsunami 

brought to southeast Asia, and the President has requested funding 

both to replenish funds that were used on an emergency basis so 

we could respond quickly, and also for further funding so we can 

deal with the immediate reconstruction and reconstitution requirements of that great disaster. 

In all of these endeavors, the primary instrument of American diplomacy will be the Department of State and the dedicated men 

and women of the Foreign and Civil Services and the Foreign Service Nationals who serve us so well. Together, we will apply the 

tools of diplomacy to protect our homeland and advance the values 

for which it stands, and to strengthen the community of democracies in the work of freedom’s spread. 

We are continuing to recruit new personnel. We are continuing 

to give them the very best tools and technology to do their work. 

In this regard, we will also be ever cognizant of the need to have 

Foreign and Civil Service personnel who reflect the great diversity 

of America. What a wonderful message it sends to the rest of the 

world to have our Foreign and Civil Service broadly diverse so that 

places in which difference is still a license to kill will understand 

what it means to truly be a multiethnic democracy. 

We can do this so much more effectively by the people we send 

than by any words that we can possibly speak. Public diplomacy is 

a top priority for me, and the President has requested increased 

7

funding for our activities to engage and inform and influence foreign publics and to open our doors through educational and cultural exchanges to tomorrow’s leaders from around the world. And 

of course we will continue our efforts to make America not just 

open, but secure, and therefore there is significant funding requested for border security and enhancements to our efforts there. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this is a time of global transformation that calls for transformational diplomacy. More 

than ever, America’s diplomats will need to be active in spreading 

democracy, reducing poverty, in fighting terror, and in doing our 

part to protect our homeland. And more than ever, we will need 

your support if we are to succeed in this vital mission for the 

American people. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you 

or the other distinguished Members of the Committee might have. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Rice follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a time of challenge, hope and opportunity for 

America, and for the world. I look forward to working with you and Ranking Member Lantos to build a strong bipartisan consensus behind America’s foreign policy 

and to ensure that the men and women of American diplomacy have the resources 

they need to conduct their vital mission. 

The President’s FY 2006 International Affairs Budget for the Department of 

State, USAID and other foreign affairs agencies totals $33.6 billion. On Monday, 

President Bush submitted an FY 2005 supplemental request, including $6.3 billion 

for international affairs activities, of which $701 million is for tsunami relief funding for the Department of State and USAID. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will begin with an overview of President Bush’s foreign 

policy mission, which we seek this Committee’s support to advance. 

In his recent State of the Union Message, President Bush spoke of the unprecedented efforts we have undertaken since September 11, 2001 with allies and friends 

around the world to defeat terrorism. The President spoke of the significant 

progress we have made confronting the enemy abroad, removing many of al-Qaida’s 

top commanders, cutting off terrorist finances, and putting pressure on states that 

sponsor or harbor terrorists or seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. But 

in the long term, as President Bush said, ‘‘The only force powerful enough to stop 

the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human 

freedom.’’

President Bush has charged the men and women of the Department of State with 

helping to create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom, and I feel 

privileged to lead them in this effort. 

To advance our diplomatic mission of freedom, I recently traveled, as you know, 

to Europe and the Middle East. I spoke with European leaders about how America 

and Europe can best work together to serve freedom’s cause worldwide. President 

Bush will continue that conversation when he arrives in Europe on February 21. 

Our European allies and we must put the power of our partnership to work to 

meet the challenges of a changing world—particularly in the Broader Middle East 

and North Africa. Efforts to encourage political pluralism, economic openness and 

the growth of civil society are critical to the future of this strategically important 

region. Recognizing this, through the G–8 we have established the Forum for the 

Future—a new partnership of progress between the democratic world and the nations of a vast region extending from Morocco to Pakistan. The first meeting of the 

Forum in Rabat last December was a success. We must now follow up on that success and we are committed to assisting the Forum to play a central role in advancing reform in the region. 

Next month in London, Prime Minister Blair will convene an important conference of major donors to help the Palestinian people advance their political, security and economic reforms and build infrastructure for self-government. Also in 

March, under the auspices of the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, 

8

Egypt will host a meeting in Cairo of G–8 and Arab League members to broaden 

the base of support for peace and reform. 

The path of democratic reform in the Middle East will be difficult and uneven. 

The spread of freedom is the work of generations, but it is also urgent work that 

cannot be deferred. 

From Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain, we are seeing elections and new protections 

for women and minorities, and the beginnings of political pluralism. In support of 

these hopeful trends, the FY 2006 budget request proposes enhanced funding for 

diplomatic and assistance activities in the Middle East, North Africa and other majority Muslim countries. The request includes $120 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative for reform, $40 million for the National Endowment for Democracy to support the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, $180 million 

for Muslim outreach through educational and cultural exchanges, and increases for 

a wide range of other public diplomacy and broadcasting initiatives geared toward 

Muslim publics, particularly populations not typically reached by other programs including women and young people. The success of freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq 

will give strength to reformers throughout the region, and accelerate the pace of reforms already underway. 

Every leader in Europe I spoke to understands our common interest in building 

on recent successes and stabilizing and advancing democratic progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. For our part, to build on the momentum in Afghanistan following 

last October’s elections, President Bush has requested nearly $1.1 billion. This 

money will be used to invest in health, education, clean water and free market infrastructure that create conditions for sustained growth and stability. The $1.1 billion includes funds for operations to continue the fight against drugs. The FY 2005 

supplemental seeks $2 billion for expanding police and counter-narcotics programs 

and accelerating reconstruction and democracy and governance activities. The supplemental also includes $60 million for Embassy security and operational costs. 

The European leaders I spoke with agree that it is time to close the book on our 

past differences over Iraq, and time for all of us to help the Iraqi people write a 

new book—the history of a democratic Iraq. To help the advance of democracy in 

Iraq, President Bush has requested $360 million for economic assistance to continue 

work already begun under the IRRF and targeted towards helping the Iraqi government to create a functioning democracy and a justice system governed by the rule 

of law, to deliver basic services to its people, to collect revenues, to generate jobs 

and to develop a free market system capable of joining the global economy. The FY 

2005 supplemental includes $690 million to continue U.S. mission operations and 

$658 million to construct a new embassy compound in Baghdad. 

Of course, the process of reform in the Muslim world is not detached from the 

resolution of important political issues. In my recent travels I found no difference 

of view, at all, between the United States and Europe on the goal of an independent 

Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish State of Israel. We all 

support the process of reform in the Palestinian Authority. The successful Palestinian elections of January 9, and the Israeli withdrawal plan for Gaza and parts 

of the West Bank, have created a new climate that is propitious for movement back 

to the Roadmap. 

At their meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh with President Mubarak and King Abdullah, 

both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas called this a time of opportunity 

that must not be lost. And President Bush has invited both leaders to Washington 

in the spring. President Bush also has announced an additional $350 million to help 

the Palestinians build infrastructure and sustain the reform process over the next 

two years. Of the $350 million, $150 million is included in the FY 2006 budget request and $200 million is included in the FY 2005 supplemental. 

And so I have returned from my travels to the Middle East and Europe confident 

that the parties now have before them the best chance for advancing peace that 

they are likely to see for some years to come. 

Even as we work with allies and friends to meet the great challenge of advancing 

freedom and peace in the broader Middle East and North Africa, we will seize other 

important opportunities to build a world of peace and hope. 

We will work to strengthen the community of democracies, so that all free nations 

are equal to the work before us. We must do all we can to ensure that nations which 

make the hard choices and do the hard work to join the free world deliver on the 

high hopes of their citizens for a better life. In much of Africa and Latin America, 

we face the twin challenges of helping to bolster democratic ideals and institutions, 

and alleviating poverty. We will insist that leaders who are elected democratically 

have an obligation to govern democratically. We will work in partnership with developing nations to fight corruption, instill the rule of law, and create a culture of 

transparency that will attract the trade and investment crucial to poverty reduction. 

9

We seek $3 billion for the third year of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, 

our bold, growth-promoting approach to development, which helps countries that 

govern justly, adopt sound economic policies and invest in the welfare of their people. We also seek $2.4 billion in development, child survival and health assistance. 

This Budget exceeds the President’s 2002 commitment for overall growth in core development assistance by requesting a total of $19.8 billion, $8.2 billion more than 

in 2002. 

We will help countries enhance their capabilities to protect their citizens from 

traffickers and terrorists. 

Our FY 2006 request includes $734.5 million for the Andean Counter Drug Initiative to consolidate gains made in recent years in eradication, interdiction and alternative development. We are requesting $5.8 billion in assistance to our partners in the global war on terror. And the FY 2005 supplemental proposes $750 million to support our coalition 

partners, including those standing steadfastly with us in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

When they engage effectively, multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. We are requesting nearly $1.2 billion for U.S. obligations 

to international organizations, including the United Nations, and a little over $1 billion to pay projected U.S. assessments for UN peacekeeping missions. We are seeking $114 million to enhance the peacekeeping capabilities of non-UN forces, with a 

particular focus on Africa. The FY 2005 supplemental request seeks $780 million 

to fund the UN-assessed costs of new and planned peacekeeping missions in the 

Ivory Coast, Haiti, Burundi, and Sudan/Darfur, and includes $55 million for a possible Sudan tribunal. In addition, the supplemental seeks $100 million to support 

the North-South peace agreement and $242 million to address urgent humanitarian 

needs arising from the ongoing Darfur crisis. 

We have seen how states where chaos, corruption and cruelty reign can pose 

threats to their neighbors, to their regions, and to the entire world. And so we are 

working to strengthen international capacities to address conditions in failed, failing 

and post-conflict states. We know that this is an issue of special interest to you, Mr. 

Chairman, and President Bush already has charged us at the State Department 

with coordinating our nation’s post-conflict and stabilization efforts. We are asking 

for $24 million for the new Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization housed in the Department. The FY 2005 supplemental seeks $17 million 

for start-up and personnel costs for the Coordinator’s Office. And the FY 2006 budget proposes a $100 million Conflict Response Fund to quickly address emerging 

needs and help deploy trained and experienced civilian personnel immediately to an 

unstable region. We appreciate your support, Mr. Chairman, and that of the Committee, for this funding and look forward to working with you closely on reconstruction and stabilization issues. 

The United States must stay at the forefront of the global fight against HIV/

AIDS. We are requesting $3.2 billion in total U.S. funding for care, treatment and 

prevention efforts. We will demonstrate the compassion of the American people in 

other ways as well. Through our continued support of international and non-governmental organizations, we will ensure that America remains the world’s most generous food and non-food humanitarian assistance provider. We are requesting $2.59 

billion in food aid and famine relief and non-food humanitarian assistance. The FY 

2005 supplemental seeks $950 million for relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction of 

areas devastated by the Indian Ocean tsunami and for tsunami early warning and 

mitigation, including the $350 million initially pledged by President Bush. $701 million of the supplemental is for State and USAID, including for coverage of USAID’s 

expenditures for relief efforts to date. 

In all of these endeavors, the primary instrument of American diplomacy will be 

the Department of State, and the dedicated men and women of its Foreign and Civil 

Services and Foreign Service Nationals. Together, we will apply the tools of diplomacy to protect our homeland and advance the values for which it stands and to 

strengthen the community of democracies for the work of freedom worldwide. 

I welcome this Committee’s help in ensuring that the men and women of American diplomacy are well equipped for the challenges ahead in terms of training, technologies and safe workplaces. Secretary Powell and his team made important 

progress in these areas and we must build on the foundation they established. 

We are requesting $1.5 billion for security-related construction and physical security and rehabilitation of U.S. embassies and consulates, and $690 million to increase security for diplomatic personnel and facilities. We have a solemn obligation 

to protect the people of our diplomatic missions and their families, who serve at our 

far-flung posts in the face of an ever-changing global terrorist threat. 

We must strengthen the recruitment of new personnel. We are seeking $57 million for 221 new positions to meet core staffing and training requirements. And as 

10

we seek out new talent, we also seek to further diversify our workforce in the process. We send an important signal to the rest of the world about our values and what 

they mean in practice when we are represented abroad by people of all cultures, 

races, and religions. Of course, we also must cultivate the people we already have 

in place—by rewarding achievement, encouraging initiative, and offering a full 

range of training opportunities. That includes the training and support needed to 

make full use of new technologies and tools, and we are asking for $249 million from 

appropriations and fee revenues for investment in information technology. 

Public diplomacy will be a top priority for me, as I know it is for this Committee, 

and the FY 2006 request includes $328 million for activities to engage, inform and 

influence foreign publics. America and all free nations are facing a generational 

struggle against a new and deadly ideology of hatred. We must do a better job of 

reaching hard to reach populations, confronting hostile propaganda, dispelling dangerous myths, and proactively telling a positive story about America. In some cases, 

that may mean we need to do more of what we are already doing, and in other 

cases, it may mean we need new ways of doing business. 

If our public diplomacy efforts are to succeed, we cannot close ourselves off from 

the world. We are asking for $931 million to improve border security and for an increase of $74 million over FY 2005 for educational and cultural exchange programs, 

bringing the total to $430 million in FY 2006. We will continue to work closely with 

the Department of Homeland Security to identify and prevent terrorists and other 

adversaries from doing harm, even as we maintain the fundamental openness that 

gives our democracy its dynamism and makes our country a beacon for international 

tourists, students, immigrants, and businesspeople. We will keep America’s doors 

open and our borders secure. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this time of global transformation 

calls for transformational diplomacy. More than ever, America’s diplomats will need 

to be active in spreading democracy, reducing poverty, fighting terror and doing our 

part to protect our homeland. And more than ever, we will need your support if we 

are to succeed in our vital mission for the American people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you 

and the other distinguished Committee Members may have.

Chairman HYDE. We will proceed under the 5-minute rule. I implore Members to be succinct. We will call the roll in the order in 

which people appeared. So first, Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, again let me welcome you to the Committee 

and compliment you on an excellent statement. We are all proud 

to have you be the face of America to the rest of the world. 

Madam Secretary, the Syrian Government’s recent actions are 

simply beyond the pale, and they demand a strong and forceful response from the President. While only time will tell if the Syrian 

Government or its proxies in Lebanon will be formally implicated 

in the tragic and brutal assassination of former Prime Minister 

Hariri, at a minimum, the Syrians have created an environment in 

Lebanon which allowed for this despicable act to occur. 

I strongly favor an international investigation of this crime because we cannot trust the Syrian-dominated Lebanese Government 

to conduct a credible inquiry. 

On the peace process, I am encouraged by recent steps taken by 

both Israel and the Palestinians, but at the same time, I think we 

must avoid euphoria. Mahmoud Abbas may have good intentions, 

but they will not be good enough. They will barely be enough to 

get him started. 

Because of the positive beginning, I would like to support the 

President’s request for $350 million of aid for the Palestinians, but 

I am inclined to support this request only if proper safeguards are 

in place with respect to corruption, and only if the Palestinian Authority is fighting terrorism and terrorists. 

11

I was stunned earlier this week to read a newspaper report 

claiming that the Palestinian Authority had unfrozen certain 

blocked Hamas funds. About an hour ago, I phoned President 

Abbas and I spoke with him on this subject. He assured me that 

the Palestinian Authority has not yet released any funds, and I 

told him I hope this is a permanent state of affairs. He must understand that you cannot appease terrorists; you must either destroy them or they will destroy you. 

I would like to make one more point about the funding issue and 

ask you to react to it. Unless Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Arab 

States which have enjoyed absurdly high windfall oil profits do 

their part, we simply cannot ask our constituents to cough up more 

money for this process. There is also a $400 million figure in arrears that Arab countries have pledged to the Palestinian Authority and have not yet delivered. I hope you will use your good offices 

to see to it that both the past commitments and future commitments will be forthcoming. 

Finally, Madam Secretary, as you know, I just returned from 

North Korea a couple of weeks ago. After 3 days of extensive discussions with North Korean officials, I believe that the latest announcement is just a bargaining move on the part of Pyongyang, 

and that the six-party talks will resume if all sides keep their cool. 

We must also urge the North Koreans to carefully study the Libyan model which is clearly the one for them to learn from. Libya 

is now accepted by the community of civilized nations. We are moving toward normalization of relations, and I salute you for your efforts in that regard. 

I would be grateful for your comments on these items. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you, Congressman Lantos. 

First of all on Syria, we are in complete agreement that while 

we do not know the origin of what happened to Prime Minister 

Hariri, Syria has created conditions in Lebanon and those conditions are codified in Resolution 1559 which calls on the Syrians to 

do some things. We have recalled our Ambassador, and we have, 

unfortunately, a growing list of difficulties with the Syrian Government. I hope they will take this opportunity to return to a better 

path with the United States. 

As to aid to the Palestinians, I agree that this is a time of hope 

and opportunity, but nothing is assured. We must work with the 

Palestinian leadership to create institutions and security forces 

that can actually be a part of the solution, not the problem. But 

that is going to require hard work on the part of the Palestinian 

leadership as well. It requires a will to fight terrorism, it requires 

a will to have security forces that are capable. It requires a will 

to take on anti-corruption measures and to have transparency 

measures that will make sure that money is well spent. 

We have done a good deal of work with the Palestinian Finance 

Ministry on transparency measures. I think we can make use of 

those, but I also want to assure you that we will consult with Members of Congress as we move forward on any funding for the Palestinians. Much of this will be in project support. Some of it will 

go through nongovernmental organizations that we have worked 

with in the past. But we will insist on transparency, because we 

know the history of the Palestinian Authority in this regard. 

12

Let me say, I could not agree more on the commitments that are 

due the Palestinian from the Gulf States. I said this publicly when 

I was in Europe, that we cannot have a situation in which people 

call all of the time for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, 

and then do not meet their pledges to help the Palestinians govern. 

We will use our good offices to encourage those pledges to be met 

and further pledges to be made, because we do have a chance, an 

opportunity. The neighbors, more than anyone, should be able and 

willing to put forward some funding for that. 

Finally as to North Korea, the North Koreans are succeeding in 

further isolating themselves by this behavior, and we have called 

on them, as have the other members of the six-party talks and the 

other members of the international community, to return to the 

talks and to take the path that has been given to them if they are 

prepared to make a strategic choice about their nuclear weapons 

programs. There is a path for them to better relations with the 

international community, and they should return to the talks, 

which is really the only place that path will be available. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach of Iowa. 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I was going to address 

the North Korean issue; but with your response, I don’t think that 

there is any need to go further. I don’t think there is much more 

you can say. 

Let me just indicate one particular concern I have, and it is in 

addition to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. And everybody understands the opportunity that exists. My concern is the mortality 

issue. By this I mean if one were to make a bet on whether Mr. 

Abbas and Mr. Sharon would both be alive 2 years from now, it is 

not a great bet. And if that is the circumstance and that there is 

opportunity today, the United States cannot be timid. By that, I 

mean all of the preconditions that we have always wanted are unlikely to be perfectly in place at any time, especially not 3 years 

from now. 

So my sense is the greater the acceleration of movement, the better off we are, and that the greater the delay, the more jeopardized 

the potential of peace is. So I just raise this by perspective because 

we have gone through a period in which we have talked about a 

roadmap of steps, and now I think we have to think of it in terms 

of stages. And it is my view, and it was articulated well in a hearing this week by former Secretary Kissinger, that it is pretty hard 

to consider anything like a conclusion to the problem without outlining the final outcome; and that can be staged, but it can’t be 

stepped. If it is stepped without a view of the final outcome, we 

just have continuing problems that will be exacerbated. 

If I were to give your Department any advice, it is acceleration 

and it is finality in the shortest possible time period. I relate this 

to both events as well as to mortality. I think there is just so much 

danger—that we have these two individuals that are perfectly positioned, and let us take advantage of it and recognize that. 

If you care to comment, you are welcome. 

Secretary RICE. Congressman Leach, I agree with you, this is an 

extraordinary opportunity, but one can always lose even extraordinary opportunities. I had a sense from the parties that they unVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
13

derstand that this time. There are some fundamental differences 

from in the past: New leadership on the Palestinian side has made 

a difference; a leader that is prepared to say, without reservation, 

that the armed Intifada really is over; and the disengagement plan 

of the Israelis, which means that the Likud Prime Minister of 

Israel is prepared to dismantle the settlements in the Gaza. These 

are major issues. 

I hope we can do the work that is before us in terms of Palestinian reform and a peaceful and successful disengagement from 

the Gaza and West Bank for the Israelis as smoothly and quickly 

as possible. And then the roadmap does provide a reliable guide to 

how to get to final status, but we are in fact accelerating this entire 

process, in any case, by the fact that some of these fundamentals 

have changed. I will commit to you that we will look for opportunities to make not just steps but larger leaps if we possibly can. 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Just on this last point, I would like to, with great 

respect to my friend, Mr. Leach, I would like to offer a cautionary 

warning. In the Los Angeles Times yesterday, Aaron Miller, who is 

involved in a process that—notwithstanding the tremendous intentions and dedications of the people from the United States who 

were involved in that—collapsed in a way because it wasn’t ready, 

and has suggested at this particular time the following steps: Pocket what we can get now; build the institutions; play the role to reestablish the security forces; show the Palestinians there is a better 

life ahead through more economic help; and don’t rush so fast that 

this thing collapses and spirals out of control, as it did in 2000. 

A real quick observation, and then a question. Congratulations 

on the 150 account. There is a 13 percent increase in there. I would 

like it to be more, but I am conscious of what it must have taken 

to get that kind of an increase out of the Administration. 

The one thing I know, and it will not come from this side of the 

aisle, I am not even sure it will come from this Committee, but 

whether it is in the Budget Committee or when the cardinals get 

together, their natural inclination will be to decimate this account, 

and only your strenuous efforts and I think the President’s strenuous efforts will salvage the kind of increase that we need to do 

the things that you referred to in terms of the challenges around 

the world. You are going to have an enormous battle on your hands 

to preserve anything near that number, and you are going to have 

to do it with some of the President’s own party to win that battle. 

My question is this: On the issue of democratization, there is a 

very understandable and legitimate countervoice that essentially 

says be careful what you wish for. In the context of Iraq, this is 

a realist school. A lot of people on my side of the aisle feel strongly 

about this. In the context of Iraq, we have now had an election. 

The United Iraqi Alliance has won that election, has the majority 

of the seats in the national assembly. The fear is based on the leaders of that slate’s background, their positions, that we are going to 

end up with a radical Shiite theocracy that is going to lead to even 

more bloodshed than we now have in Iraq—civil war—and massively increase Iran’s influence in the Middle East. 

14

I would like to give you this opportunity to present the evidence 

that you have why that won’t be the case. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you very much. If I may say one word 

about the Palestinians and then go to the Iraqi issue, I agree, and 

we have cautioned the parties that what we need to do is complete 

the work that is before us, and we have hard work before us. If we 

do that, then we increase the chances that we can move more 

quickly beyond that. But unless the Palestinian security forces are 

reformed, and unless the institutions of democracy are beginning to 

emerge, and unless life gets better for the Palestinian people, and 

unless the Israeli withdrawal is peaceful and successful, we are 

going to lose the opportunity of going forward, and so we are very 

focused on the work ahead of us right now to get that done in effective ways. I wanted to just take the opportunity to say that. 

All of the indications are that the Iraqis have taken this opportunity before them, after the liberation from Saddam Hussein, to 

be responsible about what their future is going to look like. The 

United Iraqi Alliance was heavily a Shia alliance. They are the majority in the country. But all of the leaders in that Alliance have 

talked very convincingly about their new responsibility to build a 

unified Iraq in which all Iraqis are both represented and respected. 

They make the point when you talk with them that the Shia 

have suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s repression, that 

ethnic differences and religious differences were exploited by the 

regime in the way that totalitarian regimes often exploit ethnic and 

religious differences, and that they have no intention of doing the 

same—having been liberated from that oppression—to other Iraqis. 

And I believe them. 

The process that they are engaged in now is an intensively political process of trying to create a Constitution and democratic institutions that will help them to overcome the divisions and differences that have been there for years. That is what democratic 

institutions do. That is what Constitutions do; they protect minority rights, they protect women, they protect religious differences. 

I think we and the international community will want to work 

with them in this intensely political period. But these are people 

who suffered tremendously, and all of the indications are that they 

do not want to impose that suffering on others, but, rather, want 

to see a single Iraq that overcomes those differences. 

Iran and Iraq have a history, and it is not a very good history. 

And most Iraqis, whether Shia or Sunni, remember that history 

with Iran. There is no evidence I can see that Iraq has any tradition of the kind of theocratic mullah-based rule that the Iranians 

have. In fact, the senior Iraqi clerics tend to speak in just the opposite direction, that clerics should not be involved and hold governmental positions. 

They will have relations with Iran. It is their neighbor. But we 

need to make certain that the Iranians understand that the international community expects those relations to be transparent and 

good-neighbor relations, not relations that are trying artificially to 

effect the internal development of Iraq. 

I think the Iraqis, left to their own devices, will not create the 

kind of State that you have in Iran. Left to their own devices, there 

will be a unified Iraq in which all are welcomed and respected. 

15

I have met and talked with Mr. Jafaree and some of the other 

Shia leaders, and they make very clear that is their intention. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. First of all, Madam Secretary, welcome. It is great to see you here. We deeply appreciate your great 

work in the past, and what we know will be fine work in the future. 

I would like to note at the outset that Brian Gunderson, your 

chief of staff, is well known on both sides of the aisle, having been 

the chief of staff for the former Majority Leader. Brian is an unsung hero on two historic laws: The Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act, which I was the prime sponsor of, and which was referred to 

11 Subcommittees and 4 Full Committees, usually the kiss of 

death. He helped honcho that bill through all of those Committees, 

and he did the same thing with Frank Wolf’s International Religious Freedom Act. They would not be law today if he did not do 

that work. I want to publicly thank him for that extraordinary 

work. He is quiet, but he gets the job done. 

I also want to note that Harry Wu is in the audience today. 

Harry Wu, as you know, spent 19 years in the Chinese Laogai, was 

tortured and suffered unspeakable cruelties at the hands of the 

Chinese dictatorship. He wrote a book called Better Ten Graves 

Than One Extra Birth, which is a family-planning slogan used in 

China. I recommend this book to anybody who wants to know what 

is really going on in China, where the human rights abuses against 

women, the cruelty of the one-child-per-couple policy, and forced 

abortions and draconian fines is unconscionable. Brothers and sisters are illegal in China. My wife and I have four children. In 

China, only Melissa would have been here today. 

Five hundred women commit suicide each and every day in 

China attributable in whole or in part to this horrible intrusion 

into their lives as part of this one-child-per-couple policy. Any 

thoughts you have on that? 

We had a hearing in December, courtesy of our Chairman, and 

Mr. Lantos and I and others participated, with Mrs. Mao 

Hengfeng. Mrs. Mao is in the gulag right now, serving an 18-month 

sentence, has been tortured and is an Amnesty International political prisoner of conscience because of her opposition to this cruel 

policy. And she is not the only one. 

I would also like to ask you very briefly about the tsunami relief. 

I chair the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee, and while we are all very, very grateful for 

the good work the Administration has done on tsunami relief, 

many of us are concerned about the diversion of funds for food aid 

from Africa and elsewhere, where there are some 16 million people 

at risk of starvation. 

We have been told the money will be put back into the accounts, 

but many of the NGOs believe, rather than $150 million, the number needed is $650 million to truly replenish those food storages or 

the caches of food that will be needed to feed those hungry people. 

Finally in Belarus, the Belarus Democracy Act was signed by the 

President. I was a sponsor of it. Lukashenko is the last remaining 

dictator in that part of the world, although we are all worried 

about Putin and where he is taking Russia. There is $7 million in 

16

the budget for Belarus. Many of us thought at least $20 million 

would be needed to support the NGOs and all of the good work 

being done there. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. First of all on China, we have been 

outspoken with the Chinese about this terrible practice. Of course, 

as Secretary of State, I will enforce the Kemp-Kasten to make certain we are not funding anything that remotely is related to these 

policies. And we are very concerned that the Chinese on the human 

rights side have not been as responsive in recent years. Last year 

we tried to introduce to the U.N. Human Rights Commission a resolution on China. It did not succeed. 

We have said to the Chinese this year we will do it again if we 

are unable to get some progress on human rights issues. I might 

just add that I know the interest of the Congressman on religious 

freedom issues as well, and this is an area that we take up frequently. You can be certain that we will continue to do so, and do 

so forcefully. 

On the tsunami, the supplemental does replace the USAID funding that was used on an emergency basis to allow us to respond 

quickly to the tsunami, but it is funding that we do need to replace 

and intend to replace fully, based on the supplemental. 

Yes, Belarus is a sore thumb in the middle of Europe. Given all 

that has happened around it—and we are trying to be supportive 

of civil society, supportive of nongovernmental operations—it is not 

easy for those people to operate in conditions in Belarus. The only 

thing I will say is that I was even myself taken aback at the 

strength of civil society in Ukraine underneath, and I think it was 

testament to a lot of hard work by nongovernmental organizations, 

not just ours but the Europeans and others, and really to the triumph of the human spirit, which, despite the difficulty of those 

years in the Ukraine, remained alive. I think it has to be our hope 

and effort to see if the same is true in Belarus. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Secretary, congratulations on your new 

position. 

First, I congratulate you and the Administration for stepping up 

to the plate and expressing a willingness to be supportive of the 

Palestinian Authority in their expressed quest to reform the behavior that they have exhibited in the past. I think carrots are a very 

decent approach, and when they demonstrate success, I believe 

they should be rewarded even more. 

A suggestion: I think we look at what is successful on TV. I 

would suggest, because you need to show to the Palestinian people 

a change on the ground, as they say, to go into two, three, four different villages, in consultation with them and the Israelis—who 

should also step up to the plate—go into those small villages or 

towns and do an extreme makeover. Go in, take the whole pot of 

money, divide it into four different places, rebuild houses and 

schools and water supply, a factory, employment, roads, et cetera, 

to demonstrate there is a reward for good behavior and to indicate 

to others that maybe their village could be next. 

I am very interested in the Administration’s overall policy direction, and I was left a bit confused after the original Bush doctrine 

that I believe said we will not tolerate rogue nations going into nuVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
17

clear programs. After Iraq, we are now faced with real nuclear programs in both North Korea and Iran. Does the Bush doctrine still 

apply? North Korea has found a loophole and said, ‘‘We are not developing a program, we have one.’’

Secondly, I listened very intently to the President’s inaugural address in which he talked very much about freedom, a very noble 

notion of which we all approve, and a policy reinforced by your eloquent remarks as you began your statement. 

I am not sure what it means when the President says to the nations or the peoples of the world that if you stand up for freedom, 

we will stand with you. What does that mean? The President’s assertion, we are going to spread freedom all over the world, and I 

like the notion of seeing George Bush as a Johnny Freedom Seed 

or something and going around trying to convert all of these dictatorships, or what have you. How do you do it? Wishing or hoping 

doesn’t make it so, and we can’t have a faith-based foreign policy. 

There has to be an actual plan. 

Standing up; if you stand up for yourself, we are going to stand 

up for you. What does that mean? If they saddle up, we will saddle 

up with them? Does it mean we are going to stand by and just applaud? Does it mean we are going to send them a Hallmark card 

wishing them well? What does ‘‘stand up with you’’ actually mean? 

In specific cases, if the people of Taiwan declare that they want 

freedom, do we send the 7th Fleet into the Strait of Taiwan? And 

what if there are revolutions in China for more freedom and 

human rights; do we take up arms against China? Saudi Arabia; 

sometimes the devil that you know is better than the devil that you 

don’t know. And I think we know the devil that we don’t know. 

The President singled out Egypt, and what do we do about that 

if political reforms are a lot slower and people demonstrate that 

they want to stand up for more political rights? Do we help them 

overthrow the Government of Egypt? This is all very confusing. 

Maybe you can straighten us out. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you very much. Let me take the nuclear 

question first. 

North Korea, actually since the mid-1990s, we believe that the 

assessment has been that they probably were capable or maybe 

even had developed a nuclear weapon, so it is not new in that 

sense. We have been trying to deal with that North Korean problem ever since. We tried through the agreed framework. The North 

Koreans violated it. The South and North signed an agreement in 

1992 that they would both forgo nuclear weapons, there should be 

no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, and they violated 

that. So we are trying a different way, which is to do it through 

six parties, so they are not facing just us but also China, Russia, 

Japan, and South Korea. A different path is open to them, and it 

is our hope that they will take it. 

But there are different ways to deal with the weapons of mass 

destruction threat and problem in different states. Not all of them 

can look exactly alike. Iraq was a unique situation, given Saddam 

Hussein’s long history of use of weapons of mass destruction and 

his defiance of the international community. So we are going about 

these in different ways and looking for international support and 

multilateral support to help solve the problems. 

18

When it comes to the President’s remarks about standing with 

people who wish freedom, I think there are several basic points. 

First of all, if one believes really that these values are universal, 

then you don’t believe that democracy has to be imposed. I have 

heard people say, ‘‘You are going to impose democracy.’’ Tyranny 

has to be imposed, not democracy. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. But how do you depose tyrants? 

Secretary RICE. Do you want to be able to speak freely and be 

free from not just the secret police? People will say yes. I understand this is the work of generations, and we are not going to go 

around the world deposing tyrants all over the world, but there are 

a lot of things working in our favor. If you look at how, for instance, we ultimately defeated tyranny in the Soviet Union, a State 

that was, after all, armed with 5 million men under arms and 

30,000 nuclear weapons, we did advise continuing to broadcast the 

truth through Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, by supporting civil society through the Helsinki Process so that human 

rights advocates got a chance to come out and deal with human 

rights advocates from around the world. We have a similar way of 

dealing with educational and cultural exchanges to give people a 

place to adhere, and we have stayed strong with those fighting for 

those values. And despite the power of the Soviet Union, tyranny 

came down. 

Looking at the last several months, who could have predicted in 

Georgia the Rose Revolution would have happened? Or in the 

Ukraine, the Orange Revolution? Or that Afghans and Iraqis would 

have voted in the numbers that they did? Or that the Palestinians 

would have voted for a man who talks about ending the armed 

Intifada? 

I know sometimes when you look out and say, ‘‘What is the way 

that one brings an end to tyranny and brings about freedom?’’ that 

it is easy to look at many very difficult cases, but I can’t think of 

more difficult cases than some of the ones that we have already 

seen. 

You are seeing, even in the Middle East, the stirrings of freedom 

in places like Jordan and Bahrain and Morocco. We are going to 

help that process through the broader Middle East Initiative which 

again allows civil society groups and women’s groups and business 

groups to come out and to have discussion, and help from similar 

groups from G–8 countries and from other international countries. 

We have many arrows in our quiver that help in the spread of 

democracy and liberty, because, since these are universal values, 

we are not pushing on a closed door, we are pushing on an open 

door. It is going to take a generation or more, perhaps, just as it 

did in defeating tyranny in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 

but if the President of the United States does not speak out for 

this, if the President of the United States does not put this on the 

agenda, then nobody else will; and the people in places that are 

still suffering in tyranny will think that they are friendless. 

The most important thing that the President of the United 

States can do, as Presidents have done for the last 50 years of the 

Cold War and must continue to do, is to let these people know that 

they are not friendless, that the United States of America stands 

with them. 

19

Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you in front of our 

Committee. Please do not let anyone belittle the President’s call for 

freedom and hope and democracy. I know in my native homeland 

of Cuba, the President’s message was received very warmly by the 

11 million political prisoners on that enslaved Island. We congratulate the President for what has been called moral clarity, the clarity to see that we have a responsibility as a superpower to help oppressed people be free everywhere. Please congratulate the President for that. I know you will be leading his charge in the cause 

for freedom worldwide. 

At a hearing on Iranian terrorism that our Subcommittee on the 

Middle East held yesterday, there was a recurring theme from our 

former hostages in Iran, from the relatives of the Americans who 

were killed in the Marine barracks attack in Beirut several years 

ago, by the United States and global terrorism experts. And the 

theme throughout every testimony was that Iran is convinced that 

it will not face any punitive measures or any action by the international community, and they underscored that the lack of action 

has emboldened Iran. 

Now, the European Union and Japan continue with their policy 

of constructive dialogue of assistance, investments, and now even 

nuclear cooperation with Iran, and this continues a policy of appeasement while Iran inches closer and closer to a nuclear capability. There is also Japan’s investments as well as Russia’s and 

China’s assistance in Iran’s missile program, the EU’s refusal to 

put Hezbollah on the terrorist list, so it is an ongoing problem. 

What are we doing to make it more expensive for Iran to engage 

in terrorism and develop unconventional weapons, and what is the 

Department of State’s strategy to secure support from our international allies, and will we see a renewed effort to use our economic leverage to induce such a cooperation? And tied to that, we 

have heard the recent reports these days about the linkage between Iran and Syria and their declaration that they had formed 

a mutual self-defense pact to confront the threats that they are facing. I welcome your comments on that as well. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. We have been pretty clear that Iran 

is a country that is out of step with the direction that we and others are trying to promote in the Middle East, a State that, in its 

internal and external behavior, is out of step. And we are working 

with the international community to try and deal with those elements of Iranian policy that are so troubling. First of all, on the 

nuclear issue. While the Europeans are, in fact, talking to the Iranians about two tracks, as they call it, we have been in very close 

contact with them about what it is Iran would have to do to live 

up to its international obligations. That is, that they should not 

have uranium enriching processes. They should not use their civilian nuclear program to mask what really might be a component development for nuclear weapons. And we are getting some cooperation even from, for instance, the Russians who finally, with their 

civilian nuclear power development, Bushehr, have said to the Iranians they would have to return to the fuel and have the additional 

protocol. So we are working to try and put together with the EuroVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
20

peans, with the Russians, with the IAEA, ways that we could have 

a verifiable means by which to halt these Iranian activities. 

On terrorism, you make a very good point. We have just been 

talking about hopes for a Palestinian-Israeli, some resolution of the 

Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Well, you can’t have it both ways. You 

can’t both say that you want peace, and not be very hard on the 

states that are supporting the terrorists who would literally blow 

up that peace. And so we have been talking to our allies about the 

activities of Hezbollah, we have been talking to our allies about the 

activities of the Iranians who support the Palestinian rejectionists. 

And there has to be a concerted effort to say to these states that 

support rejectionists that that is simply unacceptable. 

Finally, in terms of their internal behavior, the President has 

been very clear that we do stand with the Iranian people, who, 

after all, have—when they have been given a chance, have demonstrated that they want a different kind of government and a different kind of life. And it is important to make that statement. We 

would hope that some of the efforts that we have been broadcasting 

and the like, Radio Farda, which is very popular, will get the truth 

to the Iranian people. 

But the most important element here is to recognize that this is 

a broad problem with Iran, that there are several elements here. 

And the United States has put this on the agenda and put a spotlight on Iran in ways that I think has helped very much in recent 

years. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. 

Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank also 

our Senior Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, for holding this hearing. 

And I want to also offer my personal welcome, Madam Secretary, 

and for your new appointment as our Secretary of State. There is 

nothing like hearing from 540 Secretaries of State on Capitol Hill 

directing traffic here, but truly Madam Secretary, in response to 

President Bush’s State of the Union Address in which he talked 

about ‘‘our generational commitment to the advance of freedom,’’ 

and in which the President further said:

‘‘America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements of the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.’’

He also said:

‘‘Our aim is to build and preserve the community of free and 

independent nations, with governments in answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures.’’

Madam Secretary, I want to bring to your attention the plight 

and the current colonial legacy of some 800,000 people of West 

Papua New Guinea in the South Pacific. 

There is consensus among many that the island of Papua New 

Guinea was settled from the people of West Africa. In 1883, the island of Papua New Guinea came under colonial rule, and it was 

partitioned by three Western powers. The Dutch claimed the western half, while the British and the Germans divided the eastern 

half. In 1949, the Dutch granted independence to the colonies of 

21

former Dutch East Indies including the Republic of Indonesia, but 

the Dutch retained West Papua New Guinea, and in 1950 prepared 

West Papua New Guinea supposedly for eventual independence. Indonesia, however, upon achieving independence, demanded that the 

Dutch colony of West Papua New Guinea and the Portuguese colony of East Timor then come under the rule of the leadership and 

control of military dictator Sukarno, who sent military troops to the 

two colonies, thereby slaughtering and murdering some 100,000 

West Papuans and over 200,000 East Timorese. 

In 1962, the United States mediated an agreement between the 

Dutch and Indonesia, but without any representation from the 

West Papuan people. Under the terms of the agreement, the Dutch 

were to leave West Papua, and New Guinea transfer sovereignty 

to the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority known as 

UNTEA. 

Madam Secretary, in 1969, Indonesia orchestrated an election 

that many regarded as an example of a brutal military operation. 

In what became known as an act of no choice, the Indonesian military selected 1,000 West Papuan elders, and under barrel of gun, 

forced them literally to accept Indonesian rule in West Papua. The 

U.N. representative sent to observe the election process produced 

a report which outlined very serious violations of even the United 

Nations charter. 

Madam Secretary, despite testimonials in the media and opposition, some 15 countries, and the cries of help from the Papuans 

themselves, West Papua New Guinea was handed over to Indonesia 

in 1969 in November. 

Since the Indonesian Government seized control of West Papua 

New Guinea, the Papuans have suffered blatant human rights 

abuses, including extrajudicial execution, imprisonment, and torture. It might be fair at this point to note that West Papua New 

Guineans differ racially and ethnically from the majority of Indonesians. West Papuans are Melanesian and believed to be of African descent. And it might be also fair to point out that the United 

States rendered no assistance to West Papua, New Guinea. In fact, 

as early as 1961 Mr. Johnson wrote to Mr. Bundy, the President’s 

special assistant to the United National Security, and said our policy was to give up West Papua New Guinea under the sovereignty 

of Indonesia. 

In other words, Madam Secretary, it was our national policy to 

sacrifice the lives and future of some 800,000 West Papua New 

Guineans to the Indonesian military in exchange, supposedly, for 

dictators Sukarno and Suhardo to become our friends; and yet 

these two dictators organized the most repressive military regime 

ever known in the history of Indonesia. And now it is the year 

2005, and it is the policy of our Government that we intend to provide training programs for Indonesia’s military forces. 

Madam Secretary our President also said: ‘‘As you stand for your 

own liberty, America stands with you.’’ And I am hopeful that this 

means the Administration will support West Papua New Guinea’s 

right to self-determination through a referendum or a plebiscite to 

be sanctioned by the United Nations as it was done for East Timor, 

not by a barrel of a gun, but by the casting of a vote, for, as Mahatma Ghandi said, ‘‘Till we are fully free, we are slaves.’’

22

Madam Secretary, I would like to hear your views about the people of West Papua New Guinea and their struggles to be free, and 

whether or not there is a commitment on the part of our Nation 

to help them live not as slaves but in freedom as envisioned by our 

President. I do take my President’s views very seriously of what he 

has said at his inauguration and also his statement at the State 

of the Union speech before the American people. 

Madam Secretary, I would be honored to hear your response. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you, Congressman. Of course we are committed to human dignity, human rights for people all over the 

world. We are committed to a unified Indonesia. There is a democratically-elected Government now in Indonesia that we believe will 

be more accountable for the conditions of the many peoples that 

live in the Indonesian Archipelago. 

We have been strong defenders of the principle that when, even 

if there is territorial integrity and respect for sovereignty, that all 

peoples ought to be treated well within it, and that cultural and 

ethnic and historical traditions ought to be respected. And so I can 

only say that we will work very hard with this new Government 

to make certain that what is obviously a very complex ethnic mix 

and quilt in this area, that all people are respected. I think the Indonesian Government understands our position on that, and we 

will continue to press that case. 

I do think we have a new opportunity with this second election 

in Indonesia and this time one that I think is widely viewed as, 

was widely viewed as free and fair. The new President of Indonesia 

was himself a graduate of the international military educational 

training program of the United States, and so I believe we have 

with him someone that will understand. He ran on a program of 

democracy and support for all the peoples of Indonesia. And so I 

take the point, and we will make certain to raise that all the peoples of the Archipelago need to be treated with dignity. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Madam Secretary. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize. I have this cough that has been plaguing me now for 

about a month. It could have something to do with my three little 

babies that keep me up all night long. I am not sure. No sympathy 

at all around here. 

Well, anyway. Madam Secretary, I would like to congratulate you 

and the Administration for the historic role you have played since 

9/11 in turning around what was a horrible situation for our country. We were clearly vulnerable. You know, after a few months in 

office, the President found a mass slaughter of Americans in New 

York, and the Pentagon under attack, and this incredible threat 

that didn’t seem to catch anybody’s attention in the years prior to 

the President’s Administration. 

But since then, the strength and the courage and sense of purpose that the Administration has had, I think, has turned around 

what was going in such a horrible direction. And in Afghanistan, 

we have taken what was a center of operations for people who 

wanted to kill Americans in an organized fashion, and organize the 

23

Islamic world against us, and driven them from power and put the 

leadership on the run. In Iraq, the President had the courage to 

stand strong when other people were calling for him not to have 

the elections or to postpone the elections. 

And we all know now, if the President and himself, your advisor, 

wouldn’t have had the strength and purpose, what a catastrophe 

it would have been in terms of where we would be right now. It 

would have been a horrible situation. So thank you for what you 

have accomplished. But I am going to ask a question that is a bit, 

let us say, more negative than that positive analysis. 

While in Afghanistan we have done a tremendous job. During 

this time, as we know, the production of poppies has tremendously 

expanded. And the two of us have had personal discussion on this 

issue several times. Isn’t it about time that we eliminate this poppy 

production? I mean, we have got—the poppy production in Afghanistan is financing the terrorist movements in different parts of the 

world, and we haven’t touched it yet, thinking it would create instability in Afghanistan. But we have got to come to grips with 

this. We have the means of eliminating that poppy production. 

Should we not proceed and eliminate it, and then offer some help 

to the Afghan people economically to offset that dislocation of their 

economy? 

Secretary RICE. Thank you very much, Congressman. Absolutely 

we have to help the Afghans get their hands around this narcotics 

problem, because it does have the potential to destabilize the country, and we are working very hard. We have a five-part strategy 

for doing that. The British have been in the lead. They are doubling their commitment to this. We feel that we need to work on 

eradication, on interdiction. Law enforcement is a major part of 

this. And President Karzai will tell you it has to be delegitimized. 

After 25 years of civil war, people don’t see the growing of poppy 

as illegitimate. So he has a public education campaign. And, of 

course, we are working for an alternative-livelihood approach, as 

you just suggested. 

There is new funding for this effort in the supplemental to try 

to really put a major push behind this effort on counternarcotics. 

We had the plan and we have actually accelerated some funding 

from other programs that we now need to replenish so we would 

have a quick start on trying to deal with this problem. But we are 

very committed to trying to deal with the counternarcotics problem. 

The good news is the Karzai Government also appears to be very 

serious about it. He spent a good deal of his inaugural address saying how important it was. And we will work with him. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am working on a piece of legislation that 

is called the Afghan Prosperity and Poppy Eradication Act. And basically it would require the United States Government to use any 

means available to us to rapidly eliminate the opium production, 

while at the same time, authorizing the spending of up to a billion 

dollars a year for 2 years in providing a work program. Basically, 

any Afghan that will work for $10 a day in construction or whatever, would then infuse that money into their economy. But it 

seems to me that a billion dollars is less than it would cost us to 

interdict all of this opium that is being grown in Afghanistan and 

being used to fund terrorists, et cetera. 

24

Secretary RICE. Well, I think we have a good program in place. 

And as you go over the supplemental and then the 2006 budget request, I think you will see that we have structured a program that 

we believe will work. We have to work very closely with the Karzai 

Government on this, and to remember that it is indeed a sovereign 

Government. We have tried to take to them some of our experiences in Latin America, to demonstrate to them that some of the 

things that we might do are not harmful. But we want to work 

very closely with the Karzai Government. I think it is a committed 

Government and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Turkey is a good example, too, Madam Secretary. Turkey was a—that is what they did, they produced opium 

in the 1960s, and they have totally eliminated that and their economy did well despite that. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ms. Secretary, good to see you. As we know, Tony Blair, our 

close ally in Iraq, is heading up the G–8 Summit in July and he 

will be chairing that. And his main interest is eradicating extreme 

poverty in Africa. He has won endorsements from European leaders, Schroeder and Chirac. And the British are seeking an international finance facility which would add $50 billion annually to 

the fund, 100-percent debt relief for the poorest countries, and 

elimination of trade-distorting subsidies that discriminate against 

African exports. I am interested in—up to now, the U.S. has not 

been supportive of the IFF. I wonder how supportive the U.S. will 

be to Tony Blair’s initiatives. 

Secondly, as you know, he is supportive of the Millennium Development Goals which have goals of having, by 2015, universal education, having the poorest of people living on less than a dollar a 

day. And I wonder to what extent will the U.S. be supportive of 

them. Then the goals, finally in that area that we do see a tremendous increase or some increase in the fighting of the pandemic of 

HIV and AIDS. However, we have seen a decrease then in the general aid programs, of child survival and health programs. Therefore, abandoning to some degree, reducing illiteracy and expanding 

educational opportunities, and ending hunger and improving agriculture. And I wonder how these things are going to work. 

Lastly, Sudan is a tremendous issue. We do know that the northsouth agreement has occurred. There is $342 million in the supplemental, $100 million for the north-south peace accord, and about 

$242 million for Darfur. However, we insist that we still have a 

focus on Darfur, even though there has been a peace accord between the north and the south. And finally, the peacekeepers in the 

north-south accord are China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Jordan. All of these Governments have specific involved relations with 

the current Government of Sudan. And I wonder how impartial 

they are going to be in a north-south accord where China, Malaysia, and India own the oil rights, Malaysia, Jordan, and Pakistan. 

Pakistan opposed any of the United States’s Security Council proposals. So how can we see that there would be a fairer U.N. presence in Sudan? 

25

Secretary RICE. Thank you. On the north-south agreement and 

the peacekeeping, I think we believe that there is considerably 

more unity on the north-south issue than on the Darfur issue, and 

that it is less of a problem that needs—not necessarily peacekeepers issues on the Darfur situation. 

However, I take the point. And we also believe that there should 

be contributions from African States to those peacekeeping efforts 

and are seeking them. And one of the reasons that there is funding 

in the supplemental is to try to deal with all of the elements of the 

north-south agreement, which we hope gives an incentive to Khartoum to want to resolve the Darfur issue as well and to put its full 

weight behind resolving the Darfur issue. 

Darfur can’t continue to go unresolved. It is a terrible humanitarian crisis, a terrible political crisis, a terrible conflict. Internally 

displaced people. It really must be resolved. And we would like 

very much to see the Government at least start with allowing the 

full complement of AU monitors in. Right now, I think there are 

about 1,400 or 1,500 in, it could be as many as 3,300 who are prepared. So we have a lot of work to do with Darfur, with the Sudanese Government, and hopefully the north-south issue or resolution 

gives us some leverage to do that. 

We are, of course, supportive of the Prime Minister’s efforts to 

put emphasis on the millennium goals, on development in Africa. 

We don’t support the international financing facility because we 

don’t think it is a cost-effective way to deliver what is trying to be 

delivered here. We believe very strongly that it is very important 

to have a mechanism to make sure also the development aid is well 

spent. That is why we think the Millennium Challenge Corporation 

approach that the President has put forward, which requires good 

governance, and that there be attention to health and education, 

that anticorruption measures be taken. The Millennium goals were 

not just to get more money into development, although that was 

important, but also to have a recipient on the other side that understood that there were responsibilities of the recipient countries 

for good governance, and for corruption to get out—to have 

anticorruption measures and the like. And so we are more than 

prepared to work with the international community to advance 

those goals, but we think they need to be advanced in the right 

way. 

We are committed to 100-percent debt reduction for the HIPC 

countries. We were very active in the first round of HIPC. We will 

be active in the second. I believe that it is important that countries 

not continue to be more and more indebted, which is why we were 

the promoters of grants rather than loans from the world banks 

and the international development banks for the poorest countries. 

And, indeed, that has become a part of what the World Bank and 

others are doing, because if you relieve debt and then countries become more indebted, you just are in a vicious circle. 

And, of course, the United States has done a great deal, much 

of it with the support of people like yourself, Congressman Payne. 

GOA, the MCC, the billion dollar famine relief fund. What we have 

done with HIV/AIDS. It would be very helpful, and I would like to 

say publicly, the United States is still contributing actively to the 

Global Fund for AIDS, but we need contributions from others. BeVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26

cause since the United States can only be 33 percent of that fund, 

we don’t want to be in a position again this coming year where the 

United States cannot make a full contribution because others have 

not contributed. 

So there is a lot that the world could do and that we can do to 

help achieve these goals, but it is—the degree to which we don’t 

support the financing facility is not a reflection on the fact that we 

don’t support the goals, just that we believe that this particular 

tactic is not cost efficient. 

Mr. SMITH [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Chairman Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Welcome, Madam Secretary. Again, on the issue of 

genocide in Sudan. I led a delegation to Chad and to Darfur, Sudan 

a few weeks ago, and several Members of this Committee were on 

that delegation, including Congresswomen Diane Watson and Lee 

and McCollum. One of the things that we saw in Darfur in Tine—

a town that used to have 30,000 people, now has less than 200—

were the results of aerial bombardment by the Sudanese Government on that town. We talked with survivors of Janjaweed attacks 

and got their accounts of what was happening. The situation within Sudan; you have 800,000 people driven out of their homes now 

wandering through the countryside in Darfur. We can’t access 

those people because the Government of Sudan won’t allow it. 

I know that the Administration is doing more than any country 

in the world. The United States has had a finding of genocide, and 

the Administration is funding the effort there and trying to bring 

the parties together. But we are being blocked in the Security 

Council by China and by Russia. In the meantime we are trying 

to bring along this north-south peace agreement, as you mentioned. 

There is a complex dynamic here at work. You have got to work 

with the Sudanese Government on trying to make that north-south 

agreement work while pressuring Khartoum to stop this genocide 

in the west. I was going to ask, How do we assure that any peace 

dividend from the north-south peace agreement doesn’t end up encouraging or even rewarding those responsible for this genocide? 

What other pressure are we prepared to put on Sudan? 

My other question goes to a different subject. That is public diplomacy. What have we learned over the last few years? Under 

President Reagan, expats from Eastern Europe got the pulse right 

when they figured out how to transmit a message about political 

pluralism and tolerance and market economy, and it reached a very 

receptive audience in the former East Bloc. But we are having 

trouble connecting up with the audience in the Middle East. I 

wanted to ask you for your thoughts on that as well. Thank you. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

On Sudan, we have tried very hard, as you know, as you have 

just acknowledged, in the U.N. Security Council, to get tough resolutions against the Khartoum Government to get their attention 

about what is going on there. We will keep trying. We do have a 

good report out of the U.N. about what is going on there. Even if 

they don’t call it genocide, whatever you want to call it, it is pretty 

awful. And so we are going to continue to press on that. 

And, in fact, we have made pretty clear to the Government of 

Sudan that they are not—that they are not going to see the beneVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
27

fits of the north-south agreement if they can’t deal with the situation in Darfur. That we are not going to have a situation in which 

they benefit on the one hand, and then continue the problems in 

Darfur. 

Now, the south—the southern Sudanese who have suffered over 

the last many years during the civil war—we do want very actively 

to try to improve their situation as quickly as possible. But the Sudanese Government, Khartoum needs to understand that they risk 

the benefits of the north-south peace agreement if they do not respond more effectively on Sudan—on Darfur. 

The public diplomacy is extremely important. We did have, very 

well actually, during the Cold War, and public diplomacy was not 

somehow propaganda. Public diplomacy meant opening ourselves 

up and showing the best and the difficult sides of America. When 

people came here, they saw America at its best and they saw 

things about America that were not very good. But they saw a vibrant and multi-ethnic society that was struggling with all of that. 

And it had an indelible impression on people who were part of 

those educational and cultural exchanges. We also had effective 

broadcasting efforts through Voice of America and Radio Free Europe which were just getting the truth to people who otherwise 

couldn’t get the truth. And so we have to look at that experience 

and update it to the modern era, and recognize that it is a different 

population in the Muslim world, a younger population, a population 

that has been subjected to a lot of propaganda about the United 

States and the West for a very, very long time. 

We have asked for, in the 2006 budget, increased funding for 

public diplomacy and for educational and cultural affairs, because 

I believe very strongly that the war on terror, just like the Cold 

War, is not principally going to be won by military force; it is going 

to be won by replacing the ideology of hatred with freedom, and it 

is going to be won by winning hearts and minds. And you do that 

by getting the truth to people who wouldn’t otherwise get it, by 

putting them in contact with America and what we are. 

And that is a very, very high priority for me. And it has got to 

be not a monologue but a conversation, because we have to not only 

have them hear us, we have to hear them, too. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. SMITH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez, the gentleman 

from New Jersey. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Madam Secretary, congratulations on your appointment. I look 

forward to working with you. 

You know, for those of us who did not support the invasion of 

Iraq, we however want our country to succeed there. So my first 

question goes toward that issue. And that is, we see the Administration did not put in their fiscal year 2006 budget anything as it 

relates to Iraq, and then submits a supplemental that has nearly 

$75 billion for the Defense Department almost completely for Iraq 

and Afghanistan. And we are constantly being asked, as Members 

of Congress who have a fiduciary responsibility to the American 

people, to vote on these funds. 

And certainly we want to support the troops in the theater, but 

there is almost an open-ended check here. And so my question goes 

28

to, What are the success standards that we are applying here so 

that, as Members of Congress, we can have benchmarks along with 

the Administration to understand where it is that we are headed 

here? And as we are getting asked to vote for very significant 

amounts of money that are being asked in supplementals, even 

though we are entering a third year of war, so it is not that it is 

a surprise that we have men and women in the theater and there 

is a cost which goes directly to the debt. 

What are the success elements? Could you define for the Committee dealing with the counter-insurgency, dealing with the Constitution, dealing with the elections, dealing with the territorial integrity: What are these elements of success that we can all know 

so that we can have benchmarks that we approach as we vote on 

these monies? That is my first question. 

The second question goes to A.Q. Khan. He holds some of the 

most important information in the world on Iran and North Korea’s 

nuclear program, since he ran the nuclear supermarket where they 

purchased their goods. We didn’t protest when the Pakistanis pardoned him in exchange for information on his activities, but we 

also have not pressed for direct access to him, which I personally 

think is incredulous since we are getting filtered information. And 

the question is, he certainly has the most accurate information 

about what he sold or didn’t sell to the Iranians and North Koreans. 

For example, if he sold a bomb design to the Iranians, as he did 

with the Libyans, we have to have even more heightened concern 

than we already have as it relates to Iran. Isn’t it time for our Government to directly seek an interrogation of Mr. Khan so that we 

don’t have filtered information here? 

And, lastly, as the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on 

the Western Hemisphere, I must say that once again we are looking at a budget that, in essence, cuts by approximately 12 percent 

development funding to the region. And, you know, we can’t look 

at it in the context of the Millennium Challenge Accounts because 

we haven’t even—as I understand it, we haven’t even finalized the 

compacts with a handful of countries that were qualified in 2004. 

And for those countries lucky enough to be qualified for 2006, they 

are likely not to receive funds until 2008. And that is a very small 

number in Latin America anyhow. 

So the MCA is not really doing the job. We took money out of 

the Haiti transitional development fund because we said development accounts in such a fragile country like Haiti doesn’t work. 

And the fiscal year 2005 request was already a cut from the fiscal 

year 2004-enacted levels as it relates to development assistance. 

So I don’t understand, right here in our Hemisphere, when we 

are concerned about security, when we are concerned about the instability that is taking place in various countries in the Hemisphere and conflict between Venezuela and Colombia, what is happening in Bolivia, what has happened in other parts of the Hemisphere, that we are not as engaged as we should be. So I would 

appreciate your responses to those questions. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you very much. Let me take them a little 

bit out of order, if you don’t mind. 

29

On A.Q Khan, I think we would all agree that the best thing 

about A.Q Khan is that he is out of business. And we are working 

very actively with other countries to make sure that the tentacles 

of that network are in fact destroyed. 

We are working with the Pakistanis on getting information, the 

most important information about what he knows and what he is 

doing. And I would just say that I think we continue to work on 

that. It is a sensitive matter, but we continue to work on it. And 

the Pakistanis are trying to cooperate. And so we are able to say 

that at least this network is out of business, and we are working 

with the Pakistanis on further information. 

Secondly, on Iraq. The turbulent changes of this kind, Congressman, as you will well recognize, have their ups and downs. It is not 

going to be a straight line toward success. But I do think we are 

seeing emerging now, if you look at the line that the Iraqis are on, 

that they have met just about every milestone that we could have 

hoped they would meet, and they met them well. 

There were those that didn’t think that they would be able to get 

a transitional administrative law. They did. They then didn’t think 

we could transfer sovereignty. We did. They didn’t think that they 

could form a government. With the help of Lakhdar Brahimi, they 

did. Then it was a question of could they hold elections on time. 

They did. They now are going to form a government and they are 

going to have a Constitution and they are going to have elections 

in December 2005. That is the most important timeline that one 

ought to look at or phases that one ought to look at in seeing the 

success that this is beginning to show. Because as long as people 

see their interests as served by this political path that has been 

laid out ahead of them, even if you have and you will continue to 

have the insurgents with car bombings and kidnappings and assassinations, the political framework and the political foundation for 

a new Iraq is being laid step by step. And so that is the success, 

that is the timeline, that is the phasing that I watch most closely 

myself. 

We are trying, alongside that, to improve the capacity of the 

Iraqi Government to govern through helping them in the structure 

of their ministries, through helping in the reconstruction of the 

country. The reconstruction has frankly gone more slowly than we 

would have hoped largely because of the security situation, but it 

is continuing and picking up. That is another line that I think we 

want to watch in terms of success. 

Third, we want to watch the building of their security forces. And 

while there may be disagreement about what the numbers are, the 

fact is that we are more concerned also with quality than with 

quantity. And we have seen a steady progression of success in 

building Iraqi security forces that are capable. Frankly, back in 

April, when we had the first events prior to sovereignty they didn’t 

perform very well, the Iraqi security forces. But subsequent to that, 

after sovereignty, when there was the insurgency, the Shia insurgency of Muqtada al-Sadr in Najif, they performed very well. When 

we went into Fallujah to clean out the insurgency associated with 

Zarqawi, they performed very well. And they performed really well 

in support of their own elections, so much so that General Casey 

30

was able to say that he couldn’t think of very many cases, if any, 

where coalition forces had to step in for them. 

So we are seeing a steady progression in the capabilities of those 

forces. There is a lot of work still to do in terms of leadership for 

them, in terms of training and equipping of them that is active. 

But that is another line to watch in terms of success. 

The final one is their general acceptance in the international 

community and their relations with their neighbors. And that too 

is a story of increasing success of integrating Iraq into the international community. Everything from the Paris Club being willing 

to forgive 80 percent of their debt, to the training that is taking 

place in NATO, to the training that others are doing outside of 

NATO in their neighborhood, to the many fora and conferences to 

which the Iraqis have been invited. 

So if you put those four lines together, you see the Iraqis taking 

responsibility politically for their future, you see increasing success 

in rebuilding an Iraqi infrastructure that can unleash what should 

be a fairly powerful Iraqi domestic and indigenous capability for 

growth. You see security forces that are becoming more capable in 

supporting those other two elements, and you see their increasing 

integration into and acceptance in the international community. By 

December 2005, I think you will see that they have achieved a 

great deal along those four lines of success. Now, they will need our 

help. There is a multinational force there under U.N. mandate, because they are not able to protect all of that progress yet. And they 

have a tough insurgency. But they will have an insurgency for a 

while. The issue is, Are they capable of dealing with that insurgency in a way that does not threaten to destabilize the country or 

to throw them back to the regime of Saddam Hussein? And I think 

in that regard they are also making progress. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. King. 

Secretary RICE. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I did not respond to 

Congressman Menendez’s question on Latin America. May I do 

that very briefly? 

Chairman HYDE. Surely. 

Secretary RICE. On Latin America, we of course have significant 

aid programs, for instance, with Colombia through Plan Colombia, 

through the Andean Regional Initiative, through our trade initiatives, which are considerable. The Millennium Challenge, it took a 

year to get it set up. We are starting to make real progress with 

those compacts, and I think that will accelerate. 

And as to Haiti, the transfer of Haiti into the transitions initiative was not to cut funding for Haiti but to simply put it into an 

account that might more flexibly respond to what are changing circumstances to Haiti as Haiti moves toward democratic elections 

and the establishment of a government. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Rice, I want to join with everyone in commending you 

for the terrific job you are doing as Secretary of State, the many 

years of service you have given to our country. And you really 

make us all proud. And I would like to think that at least some 

of that skill was perfected at the institution where you got your 

Master’s Degree. 

31

Secretary RICE. Absolutely. No, that would be Notre Dame. DU 

was undergraduate and Ph.D. 

Mr. KING. I would like to ask three questions. One was on Russia. As President Putin seems to be moving in some areas away 

from democracy, how do you expect the Administration to deal with 

that, and how will that interface with the support that we are getting from Russia in the war against terrorism? 

The second question would be on Afghanistan. I know that Congressman Rohrabacher asked you about the drug dealing. I would 

ask, How much control does the Karzai Government have extending beyond Kabul? And is there a real threat of resurgent in 

Taliban? 

And the third question would be on what seems to be the European Unions’ decision to lift the arms embargo on China. Thank 

you very much. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. 

On the final of those, the European Union’s decision or their consideration of the decision to lift the arms embargo: I was very clear 

when I was in Europe that we have deep concerns about this from 

the point of view of military balance, from the point of view of 

human rights. I will say I found them open to listening to those 

concerns, and I hope that any decision that they take, that they 

will fully consider our concerns about it. 

In Afghanistan, the news is, I think, pretty good in terms of the 

ability of the Karzai Government to extend its influence. Some of 

the most powerful warlords are no longer active in Afghanistan. 

They are—in effect, those are governors now in places like 

Kandahar that are directly related to the Karzai Government. That 

is a real improvement from even a year ago. And the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, the PRTs that have been combining civilian 

and military help for these regions has been a part of that success 

story, of extending the Government’s reach out to these areas. 

Sometimes in places like Afghanistan, it is even the matter of a 

road between Kandahar and Kabul which the United States built 

along with the Japanese and with the Saudis. 

So a lot has happened. There is still a lot to do. It is always 

going to be a pretty decentralized place. But I think you would say 

that Karzai is clearly the President of all Afghanistan after this 

election in a way that it could not have been said before. 

I am sorry you had one other question. 

Mr. KING. Russia, about Putin. 

Secretary RICE. Russia, of course. Well, the President will meet 

with President Putin in Slovakia very shortly. We have been very 

clear with Russia that we have concerns about the internal developments there and the course of democratic development. We have 

also been clear that we think that the isolation of Russia would be 

a mistake; that, rather, the continued engagement of Russia—because it is after all only recently emerging from the Soviet Union. 

But the concentration of power in the Kremlin is a problem, and 

the absence of an independent media is a problem. And we have 

also tried to keep alive and keep working our nongovernmental organization programs there, which may help the development of 

Russian civil society, the development of parties, the development 

of business groups that can be effective forces for change and effecVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
32

tive checks on the power of the Kremlin. But it is indeed troubling. 

It was a matter of discussion throughout Europe when I was there, 

and so probably the Russian Government should understand that 

the kind of deep integration of Russia into the European space, into 

the community of democracies that had been hoped for will be at 

risk if Russia cannot return to a more democratic path. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Secretary Rice. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Brown of Ohio. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Congratulations. I 

had a great relationship with your predecessor at these hearings; 

I hope we can continue that. 

On Monday, President Bush asked Congress and United States 

taxpayers for the fourth time in 2 years for more money to fight 

the Iraq war. It is turning into a predictable event, and I hope the 

Administration will include this money in, as Mr. Menendez said, 

its regular annual budget in the future rather than pretending it 

doesn’t have some permanence to it and some predictability. 

What I found particularly interesting in the supplemental was 

the money provided for the United States Embassy in Iraq, some 

$658 million, the largest, most expensive Embassy anywhere, anyplace. Then there is the $690 million for Embassy security, bringing the Embassy total to $1.3 billion. We are spending $900 million 

in tsunami relief for the entire affected Asia region, a generous 

amount but dwarfed by the cost of that single building. And when 

you look closer at the tsunami numbers, you find out that much of 

the money is being used to repay DoD for services already rendered. In other words, already spent. 

I just came from a hearing, I apologize for not hearing all of this. 

I came from a hearing with Secretary Leavitt in the Commerce 

Committee, and he is trying to defend a $60 billion cut in Medicaid. 

And one of the things several of us mentioned is that our budget 

is a statement of our moral values and a reflection of what we hold 

important. And when I look at that kind of money for the Embassy 

and this kind of money for the Iraq war and that amount for tsunami relief. 

Then there is Haiti, the 2006 request asks just $30 million in the 

transition initiative account for a nation that is right next door. 

Given that the Administration played such a significant role in the 

removal of a democratically-elected President, and given that Haiti 

doesn’t have a standing army due to the gross human rights violations and corruption and other abuses of the country’s past armed 

forces, could you assure us that the increased military assistance 

won’t create more problems? And can you promise to do more, and 

tell us what you plan specifically to do, to provide more assistance 

for that country? 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. On Haiti, I believe that we responded effectively and quickly to what was a growing political crisis in Haiti that was turning very violent. And one of the things 

that we have since then is a transitional Government that is committed to elections and an effort internationally, and we have a 

lead role in that, to build police forces in Haiti that are accountable 

and professional. And indeed, we have put a great emphasis on police forces. There will be an army as well, but we have put a great 

emphasis on police forces because we believe that police forces will 

33

play that civilian role in a way that will take the Army out of that 

business hopefully once and for all. 

The support for Haiti, as I said, has been put in this transition 

initiative so that we can be responsive to the changing circumstances in Haiti. But for the first time in a long time, I do believe the Haitian people have a chance and we are going to try to 

help them to take advantage of that chance. 

As to the money for the Embassy, I feel very strongly about that 

request and I really ask you to look at it favorably. We are talking 

here about the security of our men and women in a very difficult 

circumstance in Baghdad. There is a reason that this is an Embassy that has extraordinary measures. There is a reason that the 

operating costs are high in Iraq. And that is because it is a very 

dangerous place. And when we send men and women to very dangerous places, we ought to be sure that we are taking care of their 

security. And, frankly, the quarters in which they are currently 

housed, which we have promised to give back to the Iraqi Government because it is their Presidential Palace, for instance, are not 

adequate. 

We are doing everything we can to protect them in those places. 

But when you look at security measures like setbacks for, in terms 

of territory and space, we are just not able to do it where we are 

now. We have better setbacks in places that are not nearly as dangerous. 

And so I would hope that the Committee would look favorably on 

this request for the Embassy, because I would not be responsible 

if I told you that staying in the buildings that we have now is a 

good solution for our men and women in Baghdad. 

And while it is indeed a very expensive proposition in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq as a part of the war on terror are extremely—

are crucial, they are critical to our national security. We learned 

on September 11th what happens when you try and shut yourself 

off from threats that have been gathering and are emerging, and 

we don’t want that to happen again, if we can possibly help it. We 

can’t fight this war on the defense. We are trying to fight this war 

on the offense. And Iraq and Afghanistan are key elements of that 

effort. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, since you went to Notre Dame, you are an adopted 

Hoosier, and we are very proud of that. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. And, second, I think you distinguished yourself very 

well in your previous position at the White House, and everybody 

that I know—Democrat and Republican alike—are very impressed 

with the way you are handling your job so far. It is extraordinary. 

Congressman Menendez and I are the people who are Chair and 

Ranking Member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, and 

he asked you a few questions about that. One of the things that 

I am very concerned about is something that has been in the public 

domain the last few days, and that is that Venezuela and Chavez 

have been importing large amounts of AK–47s and helicopters, and 

there is some concern about what is going to be done about all that 

military equipment. 

34

Also, he has very close ties with Fidel Castro and other leftist 

leaders. And we worked very long and hard since the 1980s and 

the Reagan Administration to not only stabilize Central and Latin 

America but to create democracies. And we have been, with the 

help a lot of leaders down there. I hate to see a real risk arise 

where you are going to see democracies imperiled. And I just wonder if you had any statement that you can make publicly about 

how we ought to deal with the problems that we see arising in 

Latin America. 

Secretary RICE. Well, we are certainly concerned. We are concerned in cases where even democratically-elected governments 

may not be governing democratically, and we have been very clear 

about our concerns about the Venezuelan Government. We also are 

trying to help the new democracies of Central America in several 

ways. We have given significant assistance to those Governments. 

We have of course, through CAFTA, created a trade arrangement 

which, if ratified by the Congress, will probably open up for them 

more than all the assistance we could possibly give. Because we 

know what free trade does for a region. And it has encouraged 

them, by the way, not just to wait for tree trade with us, but to 

liberalize some of their rules among themselves so that they trade 

more freely among themselves. And so CAFTA is a very important 

part of our Central American policy. 

We are concerned about trends in some of these countries, in 

Nicaragua and Honduras, and we work very closely with the freelyelected Presidents of those countries. The President met with them 

a couple of years ago and we keep very close contact with them. 

But probably the best thing that we can do for them is to help 

them get their economies growing. They are experiencing pretty 

good growth, thanks to worldwide growth, but if we can make these 

trade—make free trade available to them, I think you will see even 

greater growth. And what they need to be able to do is to deliver 

for their people. 

This is a dilemma in Latin America. We have democraticallyelected Governments, and their people expect a lot from democratically-elected Governments who can be held accountable. We have 

to help them to achieve that progress for their people. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, I hope, and I know you will, consider our 

Committees and Subcommittees as partners in your goals. And if 

we can help you in Western Hemisphere, all you have to do is holler. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman from California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I will start with an easy question that 

I know at least some of your staff will appreciate. We in Congress 

have great ideas to compel you to give us congressional reports, 

and we come up with these ideas and put them in statute. And I 

wonder if you could send us a letter outlining how we could modify 

and rationalize our congressional report requirements to reduce the 

work on your staff either by eliminating some of those reports if 

the need for them may have diminished, others by changing the 

outlines of the report, and, least controversially and most likely to 

be easily accepted by the Committee, perhaps changing the due 

35

dates of these reports so that you don’t have the same people with 

coincident deadlines. I wonder if you wouldn’t mind sending us a 

letter like that. 

Secretary RICE. I would be most pleased to send you such a letter. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We have lost 1,200 of our best dealing with the 

nuclear weapons program of Saddam Hussein. And I think history 

will evaluate us on whether we have kept nuclear weapons out of 

the worst hands. But that threat, the nuclear threat of Saddam 

Hussein was extremely modest compared to Iran and North Korea. 

And the question is whether we will use a program of maximum 

carrots and maximum sticks to back up our demands that those 

two countries eliminate their nuclear weapons programs. 

In terms of carrots, what Iran seems to want is an open trade 

relationship and WTO membership. I don’t think we have offered 

that as part of our efforts to get them to change their policies in 

human rights but more importantly nuclear weapons. 

North Korea has asked for the carrot of a nonaggression pact and 

we have turned them down. But what worries me more is our unwillingness to use our economic power as a stick because of our unwillingness to inconvenience international corporations. We have 

turned the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act into a joke, at least as it applies to Iran, and there has been over $33 billion of investment in 

Iranian oil fields, each one of those investments a violation of 

ILSA. You know, we have joked and laughed and ignored all of 

those. 

And with regard to North Korea, we have sat back and let China 

continue its subsidy of North Korea without ever mentioning to 

them that we might interrupt our trade relationship or diminish it 

in some degree if they continue to subsidize the most dangerous 

State with nuclear weapons. 

So since we have lost 1,200 people trying to deal with the Saddam Hussein nuclear weapons program, are we willing to inconvenience international corporations to tell some that we may hold—we 

may interfere to some degree with imports from China? To tell others that we may actually enforce ILSA and take other action to try 

to really have an economic noose around Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons? Are we willing to inconvenience international corporations to achieve the same—to counter a much 

greater threat than that for which 1,200 of our finest have already 

died? 

Secretary RICE. Well, as to Iran, our goal has been to get the Iranians to simply do what they should do, which is live up to their 

international obligations. And we shouldn’t allow them to continue 

to create conditions to do that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Secretary, with respect, we shouldn’t 

allow them to. But reminding them that they are liars and cheats 

so far has yet to change their policy. 

Secretary RICE. Well, we will see what happens if there is unity 

of purpose and unity of message to the Iranians about what life 

would look like if they were really isolated. They are pretty isolated 

from us; because we do enforce ILSA, they are isolated from us. 

But they are not isolated from much of the world. 

36

Mr. SHERMAN. Halliburton has huge contracts there. I don’t 

think we have isolated them. 

Secretary RICE. The Iranians are in a position, they are moving 

toward a position in which the entire world will move to isolate 

them if they don’t deal with their international obligations. That is 

why we continue to say to people that we still have as an option 

referring this case to the Security Council. 

If I may speak for a second to North Korea though, because the 

North Koreans do have a very clear path ahead of what life would 

look like if they were willing to make the strategic decision of giving up this nuclear program. Congressman Lantos mentioned the 

Libya model. And in fact, the North Koreans know what that would 

look like. They have been told that the President of the United 

States has no intention to invade or attack North Korea, and that 

in fact they would be given security assurances on a multilateral 

basis if they are prepared to get out of these——

Mr. SHERMAN. But we have never told China to apply the stick 

and stop the subsidies that are the lifeblood of that North Korean 

regime. 

Secretary RICE. What we have asked the Chinese to do is to use 

the leverage that they have to get the North Koreans back into 

talks and to make the strategic decisions that they need to make. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Asking without a threat is begging. And my time 

has expired. 

Secretary RICE. We are in much better shape now that we are 

in a multilateral arrangement with the North Koreans as opposed 

to before when it was just the United States and the North Koreans, country on country. At least now the North Koreans know that 

when they decide not to go to the talks, that they are also facing 

down the Chinese. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Secretary, congratulations on your appointment and confirmation. We are all very confident you are going to 

be an outstanding Secretary of State and do a tremendous job for 

our Nation. 

I serve as one of the four founding Co-Chairmen of the Bipartisan Congressional Taiwan Caucus, along with Mr. Wexler who is 

here, and Mr. Brown and Mr. Rohrabacher, who are also here. The 

caucus has over 130 active members. 

As you know, there have been a number of recent developments 

in the Taiwan Strait. Some have been very positive. For example, 

Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian has worked hard to reach out 

to the PRC since his election to a second term last year. Taiwan 

and the PRC reached consensus on the historic arrangement of 

cross-strait charter flights which could serve as the foundation of 

cross-strait negotiations. 

Chinese officials recently attended the funeral of KuChen Fu, a 

Taiwanese statesman who played a key role in promoting crossstrait ties. It is believed to be the highest level of Chinese visit to 

Taiwan in 10 years. We hope that the visit is an indication that 

more productive dialogue between Taiwan and the PRC will occur 

in the near future, but there have been some disturbing developments. 

37

China continues its arms buildup. The 500 missiles pointed at 

Taiwan a year ago now number approximately 600. At the same 

time, our sometime European allies are apparently preparing to lift 

the arms embargo on China, allowing the Beijing dictatorship to 

accelerate its weapons buildup even more. 

At the same time, China seeks to unilaterally change the status 

quo in the Taiwan Strait by adopting a so-called anti-succession 

law. I hope you are expressing to your Chinese counterparts that 

any attempt to determine Taiwan’s future by other than peaceful 

means would be of grave concern to the United States, and that it 

is the policy of the United States that the future of Taiwan should 

be resolved by peaceful means and with the consent of the people 

of Taiwan. 

Let me move briefly to another issue which I brought up with 

both Secretary Albright and Secretary Powell. The issue is international parental child abduction; and specifically the case of Tom 

Sylvester in my district in Cincinnati and his daughter, Carina, an 

American citizen who was an infant barely a year old, when she 

was kidnapped by her mother and taken to Austria almost 9 years 

ago. During those long, painful years, her father has only occasionally been able to see his daughter, and always under strict supervision. During that period, the child’s mother, an Austrian national, has refused to comply with Austrian and American court orders. She has ignored appellate decisions and has lived in continual 

violation of the Hague Convention. All the while, the Austrian Government has arrogantly failed to enforce The Hague Convention return order. 

In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights released two separate decisions determining that Austria violated the rights of both 

the father, Tom Sylvester, and his daughter, Carina, by failing to 

enforce the final Hague Convention return order. 

Most recently, just a few days ago on February 3rd, that same 

court determined that Austria had violated the rights of Mr. Sylvester to a fair and speedy trial. 

Madam Secretary, many good people have worked on this case. 

Secretary Albright, for example, met with Mr. Sylvester and myself 

and personally called the Austrian chancellor in an effort to resolve 

the case. Secretary Powell did likewise. Ambassador Hardy of the 

State Department has taken a strong interest in the case and has 

tried to be helpful. Attorney General Ashcroft has raised the case 

in Vienna. Even President Bush has raised the issue with the Austrian Ambassador. And I know, Madam Secretary, in your previous 

capacity at the White House, you were made aware of the case and 

were helpful in getting our message to the Austrian officials. 

Mr. Sylvester has testified before this Committee on two separate occasions, and my colleagues recognize what an egregious example of fundamental human rights violations are occurring in this 

case. Anyone who has become familiar with the case is appalled by 

both the suffering of Mr. Sylvester, because of what the Austrian 

Government has done, and in light of our inability to resolve this 

case through diplomatic channels. I am going to be discussing with 

Mr. Hyde what Congress can do to finally do something about this 

case which has dragged on and on. 

38

I hope, Madam Secretary, you and I and Tom Sylvester can work 

together to finally reunite him with his daughter. It is abominable 

what has happened in this case. I wish you the best of luck, and 

look forward to working with you on that case and relative to Taiwan. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. I look forward to working with you 

on both. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you very much for being so respectful 

to the less senior Members of the Committee in staying as long as 

you have today. We very much appreciate your staying. 

If I may ask with respect to the Middle East, and first say that 

I, as do I think most if not all of the Members of the Committee, 

respect the effort you made this past week in meeting with the 

Israelis, the Palestinians, the Egyptians and Jordanians, and we 

wish you very well. 

I am curious if the Bush Administration has changed policy to 

a degree. With respect to the three Americans who were murdered, 

I believe in October 2003—and I know you are very familiar with 

this—it was my understanding that we could not have been more 

direct with the Palestinians in saying that these perpetrators that 

murdered those Americans, whose only crime was that they were 

a part of a detail of people going to interview Palestinians who 

were going to participate in the Fulbright Program, I thought it 

was our policy that we demanded action. For 11 months under 

Yasser Arafat, we had none to my knowledge. The perpetrators of 

those crimes have not been identified. They have not been tried, 

but yet we have committed, or the Administration has committed, 

$350 million. 

If I could change gears, I was very moved by your first sentence 

or two where you talk about the diplomatic mission of freedom. It 

is a rallying call. We all can support it. And your recitation of part 

of the President’s call to leave no one friendless in their quest for 

freedom, apply that if you would to the Turkish Cypriots. 

Our Turkish Cypriot friends went to the ballot booth. They have 

voted and created a democracy. They did what we and the Europeans asked. They voted to unify Cyprus and to join the European 

Union, and the Greek Cypriots voted no. And we haven’t been particularly good friends since that vote. I have tried to understand 

how we have tried to reward them, to befriend them. 

Finally, I very much respect the effort you made and I am sure 

the President will make in Europe next week in advancing a new, 

vibrant, Transatlantic Alliance. I am curious as to the Administration’s reaction to Chancellor Schroeder’s announcement where he 

said the obvious: NATO needs to be reformed; Iraq was not debated 

at NATO; the Iranian nuclear program is not being debated at 

NATO; the European decisions to lift the embargo on China is effectively not being debated at NATO. 

I think Chancellor Schroeder in essence said if the core of the 

Transatlantic Alliance is going to mean something, let us have an 

honest discussion and make it better. What was Secretary Rumsfeld’s reaction on the day it was said, if I remember correctly from 

the newspaper, ‘‘We don’t need another high-level thing.’’ I don’t 

39

think Chancellor Schroeder was talking about another high-level 

thing; and I wonder, why would the Europeans think that we are 

genuine—and I say that with no disrespect to you and no disrespect to the President—why would they believe we are genuine 

in our attempt to rebuild this Transatlantic Alliance when the 

leader of Germany comes out with what appears to be a very constructive suggestion, one that Americans should applaud, and the 

reaction is we don’t need another high-level thing? 

Secretary RICE. First of all on the Gaza, I was just with 

Mahmoud Abbas, and I made this point to him in no uncertain 

terms, very strongly, that we expect cooperation on the people who 

were killed in the Gaza, that we have not been getting that cooperation, and that we expect that to change. I said that to him 

personally, and spent a good deal of time telling him why that was 

going to be important if we were going to be able to go forward on 

some of the things that we were hoping to do. I raised this very, 

very strongly with him, and will continue to. 

On the Turkish Cypriots, we were disappointed, too, that the Island Plan was not adopted. We had worked very hard to try and 

get it adopted. We are trying to work to make sure that the Turkish Cypriots are not disadvantaged, despite the fact that Cyprus 

has been admitted to the European Union and despite the fact that 

the Island is not unified. 

We have provided some direct assistance to the Turkish Cypriots 

for economic development. Colin Powell, before he left, had a highlevel meeting with the leadership, and we will continue to look for 

ways that we can ease the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, given 

these circumstances. It is very important. 

Finally, as to the Chancellor’s remarks, I have talked to my German colleague several times about this, and even they believe what 

he said was misinterpreted on that day; that it was not formulated 

in a way that people understood what he was saying. 

We have been assured what he was saying was that we want 

NATO to be as strong as possible and want it to be a viable forum 

for these political discussions. We look forward to discussing this 

with the Germans when we see them, when the President sees 

Chancellor Schroeder when we are at NATO. We all want NATO 

to be a vital and vibrant institution. It has undergone a lot of 

changes and transformation in the last several years. 

I am an old Soviet specialist, and old Warsaw Pact specialist, in 

fact, and I remember when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, people said 

NATO would collapse too. Quite the contrary. It has expanded to 

bring in the new democracies of Eastern and Central Europe. It is 

now operating in Afghanistan. It is about to train security forces 

in Iraq. It is doing extremely well in the Balkans. NATO is alive 

and well, and it should continue to have very vibrant discussions, 

and we are for anything that makes it more vibrant. 

Chairman HYDE. The Secretary was supposed to leave at 4 

o’clock. She very graciously extended the time to 4:15, but we must 

accommodate her. Before I close the hearing, I recognize Mr. Lantos for purposes of a motion. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, before I make my motion, I know I 

speak for every Member of this Committee in expressing not only 

a deep appreciation to the Secretary but our profound admiration 

40

for her brilliant performance and awe-inspiring awareness of issues 

and policies. We are deeply in your debt. 

In view of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that several Members have 

not had a chance to ask Secretary Rice a question, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee submit questions on behalf of all 

Members who choose to do so, so that they can have their inquiries 

answered. And I want to thank the Secretary for her appearance. 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. 

I will only say in adding to the laudatory comments of Mr. Lantos, that I have never seen so many home runs hit out of a Committee room that isn’t a ballpark. You did great and it was a thrill 

listening. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you very much. I really look forward to 

working with the Committee and will definitely and responsively 

answer any questions that may be pending. 

Chairman HYDE. I never looked forward to questions that were 

not friendly, directed at a witness with such joy, because I knew 

what you would do with them. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON- GRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing today and for your steady 

leadership. 

The last year has shown how American support for democratic processes can enable and empower people to reach for freedoms that we so deeply cherish—we witnessed historic elections in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, and Indonesia. 

We clearly live in a time of dynamic global change where the decisions we make 

today have repercussions both here at home and abroad for years if not decades to 

come. 

Now more than ever we need to make the right decisions and take the right actions. More importantly perhaps, we need to ensure that we put the tools and resources behind those actions. And that is what we’re here today to talk about this 

afternoon; is our foreign policy moving in the right direction and are we putting the 

right resources in the right places to get the job done. 

I want to personally welcome our new Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. 

It is often said that America’s diplomacy is our first line of defense. I believe we 

could have no more formidable defender than Dr. Rice. I think a few of our more 

skeptical friends in Europe would agree after Dr. Rice’s recent successful trip to the 

continent. Dr. Rice, I admired your work as National Security Advisor and I have 

great confidence in your statecraft. I wish you every success in your new role. 

Dr. Rice, shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 you were asked 

whether the United States might sacrifice our principles of standing up for human 

rights and democracy as we waged the global war on terrorism. You pledged: ‘‘We 

are not going to stop talking about the things that matter to us—human rights and 

religious freedom and so forth. We’re going to continue to press those issues. We 

would not be America if we did not.’’

I agree. 

The United States must continue to send a loud and clear message to regimes 

that institute and enforce policies that degrade human rights, freedom and democracy and spread violence: This must stop. 

Since 9–11 this message has been directed most forcefully at those regimes that 

could give aid and comfort to Al-Qaida and the forces of Islamic extremism. But 

there are also regimes in the Western Hemisphere that neither govern with justice 

and transparency nor invest in their people and their future; and they too must be 

put on notice. 

I am honored to resume the Chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere this Congress and I am eager to see the United States take advantage 

of enormous opportunities for economic growth and strengthen of our national security interests in the region. The United States worked hard during the 1980s and 

1990s to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, and to promote economic growth 

and development throughout Latin America. We must consolidate these gains and 

further strengthen these still very fragile democratic institutions, in our own back 

yard. 

Unfortunately, I am very concerned that, particularly since 9–11, we have almost 

developed an attitude of benign neglect towards our affairs in the Western Hemisphere. 

It seems to me that there are already signs of backsliding into old line leftist 

ideologies in Latin America. We have leftist-leaning presidents in Brazil and Venezuela, a resurgence by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and even gains by leftist parVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
42

ties in Mexico. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in particular continues to build 

closer ties to Fidel Castro and his hostile opposition to democracy and free markets. 

President Chavez is seizing private property, imposing harsh restrictions on the 

media, engineering elections to crush opposition, and undermining efforts to protect 

borders and stop narcotics traffickers. He calls Colombia’s narco-guerrillas ‘‘comrades’’ but denies that he aids or harbors terrorists. And if we think that many of 

the 100,000 AK–47s he is buying from Russia won’t end up in the hands of these 

narco-terrorists, I think we are fooling ourselves. 

We need to deal with this. 

The population of Latin America is also growing rapidly, and placing serious 

strains on resources. Nations in the region are hard-pressed to create sufficient job 

growth, equitably distribute wealth, and provide for social welfare. Nearly half of 

the region’s inhabitants live on less than $2 per day. In Mexico alone, one million 

people join the work force every year to compete for only 200,000 new jobs. 

In addition to providing fuel for leftist ideologues, these economic and social crises 

are fueling the proliferation of gangs and the violence they spawn. Gangs are a 

growing, transnational problem affecting all of North and Central America—particularly the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These disaffected youths are exactly the type of footsoldiers Al-Qaida is looking to recruit and 

sneak into our country because Al-Qaida believes—correctly or incorrectly—that our 

attention is focused on tracking people from Arab or Muslim countries and not people from Latin America. 

We need to deal with this. 

Overall I think the President’s FY06 Foreign Affairs Budget generally moves in 

the right direction and provides steady support for the United States’ role in the 

Western Hemisphere. 

Our foreign assistance to the developing world is making a measurable impact in 

countries that have provided sanctuary to terrorists and extremists. Improvements 

in social welfare, education, press freedom, women’s and minority rights, and other 

areas provides hope in the future for our friends in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and countries where Al-Qaida and other terrorist 

franchises have established training facilities, conducted or financed operations. 

We must make sure we don’t make the mistake of creating fertile soil for terrorists’ right here in our own backyard. We must deepen engagement and cooperation 

with the countries in the region. And we must continue to help our friends in the 

region attack poverty, continue developing innovative ways to stimulate free enterprise and economic growth, raise health standards and education for their people 

and promote good governance. 

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere I intend to pursue 

issues very aggressively and I look forward to working with Secretary Rice to accomplish these goals. I look forward to hearing from our new Secretary of State and 

discussing with her some of the reasoning beyond the Administration’s foreign policy budget decisions for FY06. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lantos: 

I thank you for holding this hearing. I also welcome you, Secretary Rice, and commend you on your appointment. We appreciate your presence before our Committee. 

Madame Secretary, in response to President Bush’s State of the Union address 

in which he talked about ‘‘our generational commitment to the advance of freedom’’ 

and in which he said ‘‘America will stand with the allies of freedom to support 

democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of 

ending tyranny in our world’’ and that ‘‘our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures,’’ I want to bring to your attention the plight 

of West Papua New Guinea. 

There is a consensus among many that the Island of New Guinea was settled by 

a people from West Africa. In 1883, the Island of New Guinea came under colonial 

rule and was partitioned by three western powers. The Dutch claimed the western 

half while the British and the Germans divided the eastern half. 

In 1949, the Dutch granted independence to the colonies of the former Dutch East 

Indies, including the Republic of Indonesia, but the Dutch retained West Papua 

New Guinea and in 1950 prepared the territory for independence. Indonesia, however, upon achieving independence, demanded all former territories of the Dutch 

43

East Indies and Portuguese Colonial Empires, including West Papua and East 

Timor and, under the leadership of military Dictator Sukarno, sent troops to militarily occupy both slaughtering and murdering some 100,000 West Papuans and 

over 200,000 East Timorese. 

In 1962, the United States mediated an agreement between the Dutch and Indonesia but without any West Papuan representation. Under terms of the agreement, 

the Dutch were to leave West Papua and transfer sovereignty to the United Nations 

Temporary Executive Authority, known as UNTEA, for a period of 6 years, after 

which time a national election would be held to determine West Papua’s political 

status. But almost immediately after this agreement was reached, Indonesia violated the terms of the transfer and took over the administration of West Papua from 

the United Nations. 

In 1969, Indonesia orchestrated an election that many regarded as a brutal military operation. In what became to be known as an ‘act of no-choice,’ 1,025 West 

Papua elders under heavy military surveillance were selected to vote on behalf of 

809,327 West Papuans on the territory’s political status. The UN Representative 

sent to observe the election process produced a report which outlined various and 

serious violations of the United Nations Charter. 

In spite of the ‘‘duly noted’’ report and in spite also of testimonials from the press, 

the opposition of fifteen countries and the cries of help from the Papuans themselves, West Papua was handed over to Indonesia in November 1969. Since the Indonesian government seized control of West Papua , the Papuans have suffered blatant human rights abuses, including extrajudicial executions, imprisonment, torture 

and, according to Afrim Djonbalic’s 1998 statement to the United Nations, ‘‘environmental degradation, natural resource exploitation, and commercial dominance of immigrant communities.’’

It might be fair at this point to note that West Papua New Guineans differ racially from the majority of Indonesians. West Papuans are Melanesian, believed to 

be of African descent. It might also be fair to point out that the United States rendered no assistance to West Papua. In fact, as early as 1961, Robert Johnson of the 

National Security Council Staff wrote a letter to Mr. Bundy, the President’s Special 

Assistant for National Security Affairs, noting that the United States ‘‘must conclude that it is in our interests that a solution be devised which will lead to accession of West New Guinea to Indonesia.’’

In other words, it was our national policy to sacrifice the lives and future of some 

800,000 West Papua New Guineans to the Indonesian military in exchange, supposedly, for Sukarno and Sukarto to become our friends, and yet they organized the 

most repressive military regimes ever known in the history of Indonesia. And now, 

as of 2005, the U.S. intends to certify full IMET for Indonesia while our brothers 

and sisters in West Papua New Guinea live a struggle of our making. 

Madame Secretary, the U.S. essentially confined the people of West Papua to a 

life without liberty and as Ghandi said, ‘‘To deprive a man of his natural liberty 

and to deny him the ordinary amenities of life is worse than starving the body; it 

is starvation of the soul.’’ This said, I am hopeful that we will make right our 

wrongs, particularly as we now have a President who has publicly stated that ‘‘we 

are all part of a great venture—To extend the promise of freedom in our country, 

to renew the values that sustain our liberty, and to spread the peace that freedom 

brings.’’ In my opinion, the President’s mantra must and should include West 

Papua. 

In his State of the Union address, President Bush said, ‘‘As you stand for your 

own liberty, America stands with you’’ and I am hopeful that this means the Administration will support West Papua’s right to self-determination through a referendum or plebiscite sanctioned by the UN as was done for East Timor—not by 

the barrel of a gun—but by the casting of a vote for as Gandhi said, ‘‘Till we are 

fully free, we are slaves.’’

Madame Secretary, I look forward to working with you and learning of your views 

about the people of West Papua New Guinea, their struggle to be free, and whether 

or not there is commitment on the part of the U.S. to help them live, not as slaves, 

but in freedom as envisioned by President Bush and by all Americans. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE

TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Question: 

Based on your recent trip to the Middle East, what are your impressions of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen)? Is he proceeding on the right track 

44

in dealing with Palestinian terrorism? So far he has sought to win the cooperation 

of Palestinian terrorist groups through suasion alone. Do you think groups like 

Hamas and Palestinian Jihad will willingly lay down arms, or will Abu Mazen 

eventually have to confront them? 

Response: 

We are very encouraged by the recent events in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The Palestinians have made efforts at achieving reform in a very short time 

that we have not seen from them previously. President Abbas has shown his commitment to improving the security situation in the Palestinian territories by making 

clear he will hold his security chiefs accountable in their performance in halting attacks on Israelis and firing them if they fail to perform. He has also advanced important internal reform objectives by forming a new cabinet that aims at bringing 

new blood into the senior PA leadership. These reforms are welcome signs and we 

support President Abbas in his efforts to create lasting democratic institutions. 

However, these efforts must continue and the PA must continue to live up to its 

responsibilities of improving the security situation in the Palestinian territories and 

dismantling the terrorist groups. The Roadmap is clear that terrorist organizations 

must ultimately be dismantled if the goal of a two state solution is to be achieved. 

Terrorists seek to destroy the very goals we aim to achieve, a safe and secure Israel 

coexisting with an independent, viable Palestinian state. 

Question: 

Why is Libya still on the list of state-sponsors of terror? Is it the Administration’s 

view that Libya attempted to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, as alleged 

by the prisoner Abdurahman Alamoudi? Is Libya still involved with international 

terrorist groups? 

Response: 

While the U.S. and Libya have begun a dialogue on outstanding issues related 

to past Libyan support for terrorism, we continue to have serious concerns, including over Libyan involvement in a 2003 plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince 

and residual contacts with past terrorism clients. In December 2003, Libya provided 

direct assurances that it does not support the use of violence for political purposes. 

It has also cooperated with the U.S. in a meaningful way in the war on terrorism. 

Mr. Alamoudi entered into a binding plea agreement with the Department of Justice in which he agreed to a statement of facts that included a statement outlining 

his involvement in a plot to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah. The plea agreement 

represents the official position of the U.S. Government on the facts of Mr. 

Alamoudi’s case. 

As the State Department has noted in recent iterations of the Global Patterns of 

Terrorism Report, Libya has ‘‘held to its practice in recent years of curtailing support for international terrorism, although (it) continues to maintain contact with 

some past terrorist clients.’’

Question: 

Last month, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a report 

finding that the Administration failed to properly account for over $8.8 billion in 

funds from the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI)—meaning that approximately twothirds of the total amount of Iraqi funds expended by the Administration during the 

tenure of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is unaccounted for. Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen, in this report, asserts that the CPA distributed this 

money in cash to Iraqi ministries without following up to determine whether the 

money was used for its intended purposes. Why were there no controls over these 

funds, either within the CPA or within the recipient Iraqi ministries? Do you now 

know what was this money used for? Will there be a further investigation? What controls are in place now to ensure that money from the Development Fund for Iraq and, 

especially, taxpayer money, is being spent for its intended purposes? 

Response: 

The Department of Defense is the lead Agency on responding to questions regarding this Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) report, as it was 

the lead agency representing the U.S. in the CPA. 

We would, however, note that the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), was funded 

from a variety of Iraqi and international sources, and did not include any U.S. taxpayer money. The FY 05 Defense Authorization Act re-designated the Office of the 

CPA Inspector General to the SIGIR, and under this new mandate, Mr. Bowen provides independent and objective conduct and supervision of audits and investigations relating to ongoing reconstruction programs funded by the Congressionally-apVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
45

propriated Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. In addition, the State Department 

Inspector General has responsibilities for oversight of State-managed IRRF programs. 

Question: 

In your view, how close is Iran to achieving the capability of producing a nuclear 

bomb? Under what circumstances, if any, would the U.S. agree to enter into dialogue 

with Iran? 

Response: 

• The intelligence community is in the process of updating its estimate on Iran’s 

nuclear program; an unclassified estimate of Iran’s timeline is not available at 

present, but we would be happy to arrange a classified briefing for you if you desire.

• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General ElBaradei has 

issued numerous written reports that document Iran’s covert nuclear activities, 

including uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing experiments, over a 

period of at least 18 years. There is no evidence that Iran has yet succeeded in 

operating enrichment facilities. Nonetheless, the infrastructure that Iran is establishing—particularly in its gas centrifuge enrichment program—could, once fully 

operational, produce significant amounts of weapons-grade fissile material.

• The United States is not contemplating any diplomatic dialogue with Iran. The 

problem is not lack of dialogue but Iran’s deeply troubling behavior—its pursuit 

of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, its support for terrorism and its violent opposition to Middle East peace, its interference in Iraq, 

and its abysmal human rights record. Iran knows what it needs to do on all of 

those issues. 

Question: 

Pakistan Pays Al-Qaeda Debt—Press reports indicate that Pakistan paid $540,000 

to four tribal militants in South Waziristan to settle their outstanding debts with AlQaeda, presumably thereby buying the loyalty—for a time—of these militants. Are 

you concerned that our ‘‘major non-NATO ally,’’ Pakistan, has just transferred over 

a half-million dollars—coincidentally, the amount that financed the 9/

11 attacks—

to al-Qaeda? Are we certain that none of these funds were from U.S. assistance? 

Since money is fungible, are we going to reduce Pakistan’s assistance by a like 

amount? 

Response: 

Pakistani security forces are deeply engaged against extremists, and have suffered several hundred casualties in the war on terror. We do not believe that the 

Pakistan government was paying militants either for the purpose of bribing them 

to forego attacks or to pay off their debts to al-Qaeda. The Government of Pakistan 

provided some tribal leaders in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) 

compensation for damages resulting from military operations in the area over the 

past year. We have no evidence that the tribal leaders are passing those funds on 

to al-Qaida. Those military operations have resulted in the arrests or deaths of hundreds of militants and the disruption of the operations of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and 

other extremist groups in Pakistan. 

Question: 

Nepal Martial Law: What is the United States doing to help restore democracy and 

stability in Nepal? 

Response: 

The U.S. views with serious concern the King’s decision to dismiss the multi-party 

government and impose a State of Emergency. 

Ambassador Moriarty met the King to express our concerns and to urge him to 

restore democratic institutions and civil liberties promptly. The Ambassador 

stressed that U.S. assistance will be at risk unless the King provides and acts on 

a clear roadmap to restore Nepal’s democratic institutions and deal with the 

Maoists. 

The Ambassador is reaching out to political leaders under house arrest as well 

as other elements of civil society. 

We are speaking out to the international media to stress the need for immediate 

return of civil liberties and restoration of democratic institutions. 

We are working closely with key international players, including India and the 

United Kingdom, to convince the King that his February 1 actions represent a step 

backwards for Nepal. 

46

We are reviewing our assistance programs and examining the best ways to encourage a reversal of the King’s February 1 actions and a restoration of Nepal’s 

democratic institutions while avoiding steps that could lead to a Maoist takeover. 

Question: 

Would it be productive for the United States to withhold military assistance to the 

Nepalese government until human rights are restored? 

Response: 

We are reviewing our assistance programs and examining the best ways to encourage a reversal of the King’s February 1 actions and a restoration of Nepal’s 

democratic institutions while avoiding steps that could lead to a Maoist takeover. 

Question: 

Are you concerned that a Maoist takeover of Nepal could result in that country becoming a new terrorist state? 

Response: 

In recent years, the Maoist presence has spread dramatically throughout Nepal. 

The Maoists have made clear their intention to impose a dictatorship, severely limit 

political and economic freedoms and export their revolution to neighboring states. 

The humanitarian ramifications of such a regime would be immense, reminiscent 

of the nightmare brought upon Cambodia by Pol Pot. Certainly, much if not all the 

progress that the United States and others have helped Nepal accomplish would be 

negated, and other U.S. interests in the region would also be threatened. 

Question: 

I understand that the Afghan parliamentary elections are currently slated for the 

end of May. Numerous news media and observers report that the parliamentary elections will most likely be delayed because United Nations and Afghan organizers are 

not ready. Reports now indicate that the elections could be delayed until summer. 

The election organizers have run up against several problems in preparing for the 

upcoming parliamentary elections, including the failure to define electoral boundaries 120 days ahead of the vote as well as the continued security concerns posed 

by the drug lords, warlords, and Taliban and al-Qaeda elements. What is the Administration doing to help President Karzai’s government prepare for free, fair and 

legitimate parliamentary elections? What is the likelihood that the elections will be 

delayed? What more can the United States do to help the Afghans hold timely and 

fair parliamentary elections? 

Response: 

The United States provided support to the October 2004 presidential election in 

Afghanistan, and will do so again for the 2005 parliamentary elections. The United 

States will support the operational and logistical activities of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA)—the primary organization responsible 

for the conduct of the elections. Funding allotted for democracy and elections-related 

programs will also cover the activities of other international organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in support of the elections. These organizations 

will implement programs to build capacity in the Afghan electoral commission, provide additional logistical and other operational support for the elections, conduct 

voter and civic education, and train and deploy elections observers and poll workers. 

In addition, the funding will cover programs to train parliamentarians, provincial 

and district council members. The United States will also support independent 

media through funding for radio broadcasting and professional training for journalists for the elections. Working alongside the UN and the Afghan government, the 

United States is encouraging other nations to support the Afghan parliamentary 

elections. 

The Afghan Cabinet and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) are working together to find solutions to several issues that must be resolved before the election date can be determined. These issues include: contested district boundaries; 

which type of population data to use; and which voting system (single non-transferable vote (SNTV) or proportional representation (PR)) to adopt. IEC Chairman 

Besmellah Besmel, announced recently that because the law requires the election 

date be announced 90 days in advance it will not be possible to hold the elections 

in mid-May. The Afghan government will decide when the elections will be held. 

The United States stands ready to provide guidance and support should the government of Afghanistan request it while they move forward in their deliberations. 

With full funding of our $60 million FY 2005 supplemental request and the $35 million FY 2006 request for democracy and governance initiatives, the United States 

47

will meet its objectives of supporting elections and providing the resources needed 

for an effective parliament. 

Question: 

China and the region: In the last year, China has significantly raised its profile 

in the region. Last month, China’s Vice President Zeng Qinghong paid a diplomatic 

visit to Latin America and the Caribbean. Two months earlier, Chinese President Hu 

Jintao visited South America, where he pledged that China would invest at least 

$120 billion in Brazil and Argentina alone in energy, industry, agro-business, and 

infrastructure projects. China has also deployed its first troops in the Western Hemisphere when it sent riot police to Haiti as part of the U.N. peacekeeping mission 

there. It recently has signed agreements with President Chavez’s government, boosting Chinese investment in Venezuela’s oil and gas reserves as well as in Venezuela’s 

transportation, telecommunications, and security sectors. Do you believe that the underlying demographic and economic trends in China will necessarily mean that China’s increased presence in this hemisphere will endure and expand? What are the implications for U.S. national security, if any, of an expanded Chinese presence in the 

hemisphere. 

Response: 

As its economy has grown, China has sought expanded ties with other countries 

and regions, including in the Western Hemisphere. While certain instabilities within 

the Chinese economy itself make it unclear whether China will be able to sustain 

the phenomenal pace of growth it has experienced over the past 25 years, current 

trends suggest that China will continue to be an increasingly global economic force. 

China seeks assured and more diverse sources of raw materials to fuel its growth 

and development, as well as markets for its final goods. The effect has been to raise 

profits for commodity exporters around the world, including in Latin America—contributing to global economic growth and development. Over the past year, the world 

economy grew by almost five percent, the fastest pace in two decades, and roughly 

half of this growth was powered by the U.S. and China. 

China’s investment in Latin America is increasing. Chinese President Hu Jintao 

signed contracts worth approximately $30 billion during his trip to Latin America 

following the November 2004 APEC summit. He also said that China planned to invest as much as $100 billion in the region over the next decade. Nonetheless, China’s cumulative realized investment of $6.3 billion at the end of 2004 remains well 

behind total U.S. investment in Latin America of over $300 billion. Chinese trade 

in the region is also expanding rapidly, rising from $27 billion in 2003 to $36 billion 

from January-November of 2004, but is still dwarfed by the $425 billion in U.S.-

Latin American trade during 2004. The U.S. also has long-standing historical ties 

with Latin America and remains deeply engaged in the region through a variety of 

initiatives, including the Summit of the Americas process and regional free trade 

agreements. 

China’s engagement with Latin America also is part of its diplomatic strategy to 

isolate Taiwan. Twelve nations in Latin America continue to officially recognize Taiwan. China successfully gained permanent observer status in the Organization of 

American States in May 2004 and prevented Taiwan from being considered for the 

same. The significance of these developments is largely symbolic, and will not have 

a great effect on our relationship with countries in the region. 

China’s growing presence in the region does not and need not run counter to our 

interests. China provides needed investment and new markets for Latin America 

that can improve living standards of those in the region, bringing greater stability. 

In addition, China’s international engagement, coupled with our engagement with 

China, gives China a greater stake in promoting global stability and prosperity. Our 

task is to continue to engage constructively with China to shape China’s outlook and 

policies, and to encourage it to play a positive role in global institutions. 

Question: 

The Government of Colombia and the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia 

(‘‘AUC’’ or ‘‘paramilitaries’’), a State Department-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, are negotiating the terms under which the paramilitaries will disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate into society. The Department of Justice and the DEA have 

indicted AUC leaders, including Carlos Castan ̃ o, Salvatore Mancuso, Diego Fernando Murrillo, a/k/a ‘‘Don Berna’’ or ‘‘Adolfo Paz,’’ and Vicente Castan ̃ o for importing multi-ton quantities of cocaine into the U.S. for the purpose of financing their 

terrorist activities and enriching themselves. Has the Administration issued extradition requests for any of these individuals in the likely event that the Colombian 

government takes custody of them as part of the demobilization process? Do you beVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
48

lieve that mandatory extradition to the U.S. should be part of a negotiated agreement 

between the Colombian government and the paramilitaries? 

Response: 

The United States supports a demobilization that serves the goal of peace with 

justice in Colombia. A credible peace process can help end the violence in Colombia 

and achieve an enduring peace. We continue to work with the Government of Colombia to ensure that its process includes the rapid disarmament and demobilization of illegal armed groups, justice and reparation for victims, and legal accountability for the perpetrators of atrocities, narcotics trafficking, and other major 

crimes. 

Three AUC members were extradited to the United States in 2004: Luis Manuel 

Sanchez-Varilla; Fanny Cecilia Barrerra-de-Amaris; and Arturo CalderonSalamanca. The United States has requested the extradition of AUC leaders Carlos 

Castan ̃ o, Salvatore Mancuso and Juan Carlos Sierra Ramirez. The United States 

has announced the indictments of Diego Fernando Murillo and Vicente Castan ̃ o. The 

United States has also requested the provisional arrest for purposes of extradition 

of three additional AUC members whose names cannot be disclosed due to concern 

that disclosure could compromise the possibility of apprehending a fugitive, could 

endanger the safety of law enforcement personnel or sources, or there may be sealed 

indictments prohibiting such disclosure. 

The Colombian government will have to determine what becomes part of any negotiated agreement with the AUC. The United States has made very clear to the 

Colombian government that the U.S. will not drop its requests for the extradition 

of any Colombians, including AUC leaders, who have been indicted in the U.S. or 

may be indicted in the future. 

Question: 

The President’s FY06 request for the MCA is $3 billion, which is $500 million more than last year’s request but $2 billion less than what the President and the Administration repeatedly had pledged would be the account’s requested level for FY06. As 

the Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of the MCC, what do you see as the primary objective of MCA assistance? 

Response: 

The 2006 request of $3 billion, while less than the originally-planned amount for 

this year, doubles the 2005 level and allows for an effective expansion of MCA assistance to the full funding level of $5 billion in 2007. That being said, MCC should 

receive full funding of $3 billion in FY 2006 so that MCC can make a lasting impact 

in the countries that are eligible for Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) assistance, and encourage MCA eligible countries to continue with the reforms necessary 

to remain eligible for MCA assistance. 

MCC has one mission—that of reducing poverty through long term economic 

growth. I believe the MCC will have a major impact on the way the United States 

delivers its foreign assistance. It helps clarify our development objectives and creates an integrated strategy for achieving them. Its focus on building business-like 

partnerships with developing countries, while encouraging countries to create the 

policy environment for economic growth, is a major new step so poor countries can 

lift themselves out of poverty. 

The MCC is selective, targeting those countries that ‘‘rule justly, invest in their 

people, and encourage economic freedom.’’ By selecting only those countries that 

have adopted policies that will lead to sustained economic growth and poverty reduction, MCA assistance will more likely achieve its stated purpose. It will also create a powerful incentive for countries wishing to qualify to adopt growth-enabling 

policies. 

Second, the MCC establishes a true partnership in which the developing country, 

with full participation of its citizens, proposes its own priorities and plans. 

Finally, the MCC will place a clear focus on results. Funds will go only to those 

countries with well implemented programs that have clear objectives and benchmarks. 

Question: 

The President has twice signed into law legislation imposing a comprehensive import ban on Burma because of its horrendous human rights record, and its continued 

harsh treatment of opposition political figures, including Nobel Laureate Aung San 

Suu Kyi. The import ban expires this July, and must be renewed by Congress and 

signed by the President. Madame Secretary, do you support the renewal of import 

sanctions on Burma? What can the United States do to encourage Burma’s key trading partners, particularly Thailand, China and the European Union—to impose comVerDate Mar 21 2002 09:52 Jun 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021705\98814.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
49

prehensive import sanctions on Burma? How do we multilateralize the sanctions 

against Burma so that they are truly effective in changing Burmese government behavior? 

Response: 

The Department of State would fully support Congressional renewal—should Congress decide to do so—of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. No other government has levied sanctions against Burma as comprehensive as those we have implemented. We have called on the European Union to impose additional sanctions, 

including a comprehensive import ban on Burmese products. We continue to urge 

Burma’s neighbors, such as Thailand, China, India and other countries in the region, as well as organizations such as ASEAN, to press the junta to address concerns on democracy and human rights. Notwithstanding these strong efforts to date, 

we have been unable to convince others in the international community to impose 

sanctions equal to ours against the Burmese junta. However, we will continue to 

press the EU and countries in the region to take a stronger position against the repressive policies of the Burmese Government. 

We agree with your assessment that the situation in Burma continues to deteriorate. In December 2004, the junta restricted Aung San Suu Kyi’s access to medical 

care and contacts with the outside world, leaving her virtually incommunicado. The 

junta also extended her unjustified detention by one year, and took similar action 

against National League for Democracy Vice Chairman U Tin Oo last month. In 

February, the junta arrested Shan Nationalities League for Democracy leader Hkun 

Htun Oo and several other political activists. It recently reconvened the National 

Convention for the intended purpose of drafting a new constitution. However, without the full participation of the democratic opposition and ethnic minority groups, 

the Convention lacks the legitimacy to draw up a Constitution that is truly democratic and representative of the will of the Burmese people. 

Question: 

The U.S. military has worked closely with the Indonesian military since the tsunami last December to provide assistance to the devastated communities in Aceh, Indonesia. What is our Administration doing to prevent any food aid from being 

abused for military or political purposes in conflict areas in general, and in Aceh 

in particular? What kind of access do international relief organizations have in Aceh, 

and does that access also include human rights observers? What does our recent cooperation with the TNI during the Tsunami mean for future military assistance for 

Indonesia? 

Response: 

Throughout relief operations in Aceh, the Indonesian military (TNI) displayed unprecedented cooperation with the U.S. military to ensure the delivery of food aid, 

in addition to jointly meeting other relief needs. TNI’s role on the ground was crucial in ensuring order as supplies were distributed, accompanying relief convoys, 

and ensuring security en route and during distribution of supplies, especially to remote areas. As relief activities phase into reconstruction efforts, the majority of food 

aid distribution is being delegated to local authorities. We cannot be certain that 

no food aid is being misused, but we have observed that the assistance process has 

been conducted well so far, reaching many of the over 400,000 displaced people. 

USG-funded organizations continue to train food monitors to improve program oversight. 

Many of the foreign non-governmental organizations are wrapping up their relief 

operations now, and there are fewer relief workers on the ground than there were 

in January and February. At present, the Government of Indonesia requires that 

relief workers obtain TNI escorts due to security concerns, which stem from sporadic 

fighting between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and TNI. We do not yet know 

what the Government of Indonesia’s policy toward human rights observers will be, 

but we continue to stress that open access to Aceh is essential for both the improvement of Indonesia’s human rights record and the long-term success of rehabilitation 

and reconstruction efforts. We will continue to closely monitor food aid distribution 

and the TNI relationship with foreign relief workers through our strong USAID 

presence on the ground in Banda Aceh. 

The U.S. military’s successful cooperation with TNI in tsunami relief demonstrated the benefit of having at least a minimum working relationship with the 

TNI, and highlighted the gains that could be made through closer engagement. Our 

cooperative efforts with the Thai military, for example, allowed us to quickly establish a regional Combined Support Force headquarters, which illustrated the type of 

improved responsiveness and flexibility that could be achieved with greater engagement. Certain TNI inadequacies during the initial stages of our relief efforts, in 

50

areas such as transportation and the English language, also demonstrated that improvements in specific capabilities would be mutually beneficial. The recent restoration of full International Military and Education Training (IMET) programs, based 

upon Indonesian cooperation in the Timika investigation, will help address some of 

these targeted areas. We expect it will also help raise the professional standards 

and respect for democratic principles and human rights within the TNI, as part of 

Indonesia’s broader democratic transition. Any other military assistance will require 

steps taken by Indonesia in areas such as accountability, respect for human rights, 

and budget transparency. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPART- MENT OF STATE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALI- FORNIA

Question: 

The ongoing gang problem in Central America is wreaking havoc on the streets of 

El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and other countries. Salvatrucha and other Latin 

American gangs have been able to coordinate their illegal activities with gangs I see 

in my district such as the 18th street gang. What is the State Department doing to 

combat the rising gang problem in Central American countries? Are these gangs having an effect on U.S. citizens abroad? 

Response: 

• The State Department shares your concern about the rise of crime and violence 

in the U.S.—and in other countries—linked to Central American youth street 

gangs.

• Such gangs are not a new phenomenon in the region. Some of these groups, like 

Mara Salvatrucha and MS–13, have existed for decades and have evolved into 

transnational criminal organizations. International cooperation is therefore necessary to combat them.

• As you are aware, the gang problem is particularly complex. The U.S. and other 

countries have learned that a strictly law enforcement response is inadequate and 

can, in some instances, exacerbate the situation. A comprehensive, multifaceted 

national and regional response, including many sectors of society, is essential.

• The U.S. and partner nations in the Americas have expanded cooperation in this 

area, promoting information exchanges between U.S. gang experts and Central 

American law enforcement officials, including best practices and lessons learned.

• Through the Organization of American States, for example, the Inter-American 

Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) has been working with Central American and other governments to promote an approach emphasizing prevention of 

the conditions leading to gang activity.

• U.S.- and OAS-supported anti-gang initiatives encourage governments to develop 

national strategies that focus on the areas of prevention, early intervention, rehabilitation, vocational training and social reinsertion, as well as broad-based administration of justice reform. Specialized training is for police, as well as for educators, social workers, health professionals, and civil society at large.

• Examples of U.S.-supported programs:

— The major school-based crime prevention program being advanced by the 

U.S. and the OAS is the Culture of Lawfulness project. It works with teachers and junior/high-school students to promote ideals of rule of law, combating corruption, and how this contributes to good governance.

— Embassy Tegucigalpa’s Administration of Justice program helped to update 

the criminal procedures code and to train judges, thereby improving the 

legal system’s ability to process gang members. Economic Support Funded 

Administration of Justice police assistance programs have also contributed 

to more effective law enforcement action and police capabilities to control 

gangs.

— USAID Guatemala has developed a program to increase citizen participation 

in fighting crime, to include elements of gang prevention and rehabilitation 

for former gang members. The program targets vulnerable youth, works with 

local authorities on crime prevention and includes training and equipment 

for prosecutors and investigators.

— Embassy San Salvador is working with El Salvador’s National Council of 

Public Security on prevention programs in schools, in which gang members 

51

have participated in great numbers to take part in the comprehensive rehabilitation project, which includes tattoo removal.

— Embassy Panama is launching a pilot Gang Intelligence Meetings project 

that could become a regional model for assisting law enforcement to focus 

on criminal leadership.

— The Department is also funding a regional anti-gang event in Chiapas, Mexico in June. It is being organized by the Organization of American States, 

CSIS, and the Government of Mexico and will include all of Central America.

The Department continues to work with the U.S. interagency community to better 

coordinate our many programs in order to focus and intensify our efforts on disrupting and dismantling the major criminal groups and preventing the induction of 

young people into them. Engaging the OAS in an effective regional anti-gang strategy will be an important step in achieving those goals. 

Question: 

What are your intentions in assistance to the Caucasus’ region and specifically to 

Nagorno Karabakh? 

Response: 

We intend to continue our robust assistance to the Caucasus countries, and have 

requested $55 million for Armenia, $67 million for Georgia, and $35 million for 

Azerbaijan in FY06 FREEDOM Support Act funds. Funds from other accounts, such 

as FMF, IMET, and NADR, are also being requested to enhance our security and 

law enforcement programming. In addition, both Armenia and Georgia are eligible 

for Millennium Challenge Account funds in both FY04 and FY05. Successful completion of MCA compacts with these countries will supplement FSA assistance, with 

the goal of boosting economic performance and accelerating poverty reduction. 

In all three Caucasus countries, our programs aim to enhance broad-based economic growth, democratic reform, security and law enforcement, and institution 

building in government structures. Corruption remains an overriding challenge in 

each of these countries, and USG assistance programming in the region is helping 

to develop credible and unbiased anti-corruption programs. 

The USG provides subsistence level humanitarian assistance to victims of the 

Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict residing in NK based on the needs of these victims 

and in response to U.S. Congressional directives. Continued humanitarian assistance programs in NK support housing and school repairs, primary health care, irrigation, potable water/sanitation, and subsistence agriculture. Our humanitarian and 

democracy programs also assist the victims of the conflict residing in Azerbaijan, 

helping to build their capacity to address priority socioeconomic projects in their 

communities. 

Question: 

What will be the Administration’s role in the ongoing Nagorno Karabakh peace 

talks? 

Response: 

The United States, together with its OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair partners 

France and Russia, is working to mediate a solution to the ongoing conflict between 

Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. In 2004 the Co-Chairs initiated 

the ‘‘Prague Process,’’ a series of meetings between the Foreign Ministers designed 

to reinvigorate a peace process stalled by the 2003 elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan and the death of former Azeri President Heydar Aliyev. 

A series of positive meetings between the Foreign Ministers and the Presidents 

in 2004 convinced the sides the ‘‘Prague Process’’ should continue in 2005, with a 

focus on advancing negotiations towards a settlement. The next meeting of the Foreign Ministers is expected to take place in April. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE

JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Question: 

Does the administration believe in and support the notion of standards before status with regard to Kosovo independence? 

52

Response: 

The key to Kosovo’s future lies in implementing the eight internationally endorsed 

standards, which cover areas ranging from security and rule of law to the economy. 

Progress toward their achievement will benefit the people of Kosovo no matter what 

Kosovo’s future status. 

The ‘‘standards before status’’ policy announced by the UN Administration in 

Kosovo has undergone further development. Along with our partners in the Contact 

Group, the United States looks forward to a mid-2005 comprehensive review of 

Kosovo’s progress in implementing the standards, a policy endorsed by the UN Security Council in December 2003. A positive review, the precise modalities of the 

review have yet to be worked out. It will lead to the start of a process to address 

Kosovo’s future status. The United States will be an active player in the review and 

in any status process that follows. As we move toward the mid-2005 review, we are 

also actively engaging Belgrade to ensure that Serbia’s legitimate interests in the 

process, including in the status of Kosovo’s ethnic Serb community, are taken into 

full account. While the outcome of the review and the status process remains open, 

we are certain that Kosovo’s future, and that of its neighbors, is as a part of Europe. 

As we move ahead on Kosovo, we look forward to working closely with our Allies 

and friends in the European Union, who we expect to take a leading role in this 

process. 

Question: 

What is your view of the importance of insisting on reciprocity by the Albanians 

with regard to the future status of Kosovo? 

Response: 

The eight internationally endorsed standards, covering areas ranging from security and rule of law to the economy, affect the welfare of all communities in Kosovo. 

The mid-2005 comprehensive review of Kosovo’s progress in implementing the 

standards will take into account the fact that the head of the UN Mission in Kosovo, 

Soren Jessen-Petersen, recently identified a number of key indicators that Kosovo 

should focus on. These are standards primarily designed to ensure the protection 

and rights of Kosovo’s minority communities, notably the Serbs. At the same time, 

we are encouraging work to decentralize the administration of Kosovo, which would 

give Serb and other minority communities a greater voice in education, health care 

and possibly even police and justice issues, in municipalities where they have a 

large presence. 

Kosovo must guarantee to its people, regardless of ethnic background, race or religion, that they are free to live, work and travel without fear, hostility or danger 

in a place where there is tolerance, justice and peace for everyone. 

Question: 

Given the importance of Serbian President Boris Tadic to continue stability in the 

Balkans, the re-integration of Serbia in Euro-Atlantic affairs and the improving relationship between the U.S. and Serbia, what, if anything, does the Administration 

plan to do to strengthen Mr. Tadic’s hand and support the democratic forces in Serbia who are behind him and oppose the radical elements trying to return to power? 

Response: 

The United States and its partners in the international community share a vision 

for the future of Serbia and Montenegro that includes its integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. When President Tadic took office in July 2004 as the first democratically elected president of Serbia since World War II, we had high expectations 

for him, and for greater cooperation between the United States and Serbia. We welcomed Tadic’s stated commitment to reform and progress during senior level meetings in Washington shortly after his election. We encouraged him to use his mandate to take much needed and long-overdue action to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), carry out defense reform, and engage constructively on Kosovo. Serbia has taken some small but important steps in these directions, and we note in particular President Tadic’s courageous call for Kosovo Serbs to vote in October’s parliamentary elections. We continue to support those leaders that champion positive change and we direct our assistance resources toward recipients who are committed to furthering democratic 

and economic reforms. We do not initiate assistance projects with municipallyowned or administered entities where we are concerned that the leadership of the 

municipality opposes cooperation with the ICTY as a matter of policy, engages in 

corrupt practices, and/or actively or passively opposes reform measures. Moreover, 

we are actively working with those leaders and organizations that are not only voicing their commitment to progress, including advocating essential steps in order for 

53

further integration into Euro-Atlantic structures, but are taking concrete action to 

move forward on these commitments. The door to their future is open, they have 

our support, and it is our hope that Belgrade’s democratic leaders will take the necessary actions to cross the threshold and take their rightful place in a Europe 

whole, free and at peace. 

Question: 

As you know, Chad is a very poor nation with limited resources, and life for the 

residents of eastern Chad is difficult without 200,000 refugees. What assistance are 

you recommending for Chad and its citizens in the FY 2006 budget or the emergency 

supplemental appropriation to relieve the incredible burden they are experiencing in 

hosting this refugee population? 

Response: 

We are closely following the situation in eastern Chad and are working to prevent 

the refugee influx from worsening living conditions for Chad’s own citizens. 

The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration will con- tinue support for refugees in Chad in FY 2006 and has requested $790.35 million 

dollars to do so. An additional $48.4 million has been requested in the FY 2005 supplemental request to protect and assist over 213,000 Sudanese refugees in Chad as 

well as protect civilians in Darfur. The Department recognizes the importance of ensuring that host communities benefit from refugee assistance programs. We support 

the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee’s (UNHCR) policy that five per 

cent of its funding for Chad be used to help local populations, and anticipate 

UNHCR will continue this policy into 2006. Through UNHCR and through our support to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), we will continue to ensure that local 

populations living near the refugee camps have access to the same services being 

provided to refugees (e.g. health care, water, education). If supplemental funding is 

available in FY2005, we will also consider support for community development 

projects for both refugees and host communities to augment water supply and to 

promote agriculture and reforestation. 

The above-mentioned funding for refugees impacts only a limited number of Chadian citizens living in the direct vicinity of refugee camps. We recognize that considerable additional resources are required to meet the broader development needs of 

eastern Chad. 

The needs of eastern Chad will be strongly considered when planning for the use 

of ESF funds in FY 2006. 

Question: 

Resolving the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea is essential for these 

two nations to focus their attention on food security, economic opportunity and an 

improved quality of life for their respective populations. What is the U.S. government’s position regarding the Ethiopia-Eritrea border dispute and in light of the tens 

of millions of dollars in assistance we are providing Ethiopia, what steps is the U.S. 

taking to permanently resolve the dispute? 

Response: 

The USG has been actively engaged in trying to resolve the stalemate between 

Ethiopia and Eritrea so that both countries can focus on the economic and political 

development that will benefit their people. During 2003 and 2004, government officials, including the Deputy Secretary of State, the Assistant Secretary for African 

Affairs and others, have visited Ethiopia and Eritrea and/or spoken to the countries’ 

leaders and senior officials. Most recently, Bureau of African Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary Donald Yamamoto and representatives from the National Security 

Council and the Department of Defense traveled to Asmara to meet with Eritrean 

President Isaias (December 2004) and to Addis Ababa to meet with Ethiopian Prime 

Minister Meles (January 2005) in an effort to break the border stalemate as well 

as enhance U.S. bilateral relations with each of the two countries. The United 

States remains concerned about the possibility of renewed hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea, although both leaders deny any intention to start armed conflict. 

The interagency team urged both parties to avoid public pronouncements and inflammatory rhetoric. Ambassador Yamamoto assured both leaders that the United 

States was willing to facilitate communication between their countries, and reminded them that the establishment of a stable, lasting peace on the border is ultimately their bilateral responsibility. 

As our January 21, 2004, public statement made clear, the United States considers the EEBC decision final and binding, believes it should be implemented 

peacefully and without delay, and that any concerns about the decision should be 

resolved through bilateral communication between Ethiopia and Eritrea. We have 

54

also supported the efforts of UN Special Envoy Lloyd Axworthy to find a peaceful 

solution to the stalemate. 

We share your concerns and consider resolution of this important issue a priority. 

We will continue to press both parties to honor their commitments and work with 

the international community, including the United Nations, to achieve lasting peace 

and security in the region through demarcation of the Ethiopia-Eritrea border. 

Question: 

Somalia’s status as the world’s best example of a ‘‘failed state’’ creates instability 

in the Horn of Africa and misery for the Somali people. What is the U.S. strategy 

for fostering a central government in Somalia and creating conditions to allow for 

the re-establishment of a functioning central government? 

Response: 

The United States strongly supports the establishment of a functioning central 

government in Somalia capable of bringing the Somali people out of this long period 

of civil conflict and addressing the international community’s concerns regarding 

terrorism. To advance this goal, the United States provided $500,000 in FY 2004 

Economic Support Funds (ESF) to support activities related to the Somalia National 

Reconciliation Conference, which concluded in October 2004 following the formation 

of the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG). We also plan to provide $5 

million in Development Assistance (DA) in FY 2005 for democracy, governance and 

basic education programs in Somalia. It is the Somali people, however, who are ultimately responsible for the creation of a functioning government. 

The TFG is now at a crossroads. The TFG must quickly address the challenging 

task of relocating to Somalia and begin a gradual process of establishing effective 

governance. The TFG can only succeed in Somalia through a sustained process of 

peace and reconciliation and only with the full support of the Somali people. 

At current levels, U.S. assistance programs in Somalia are alleviating suffering 

and promoting stability, while helping Somalis develop a more self-sufficient population as they address reconciliation, transition, and development problems. We will 

continue to work with Somalis themselves, with countries of the region who have 

been leading this process through the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and with our international partners to support the reestablishment 

of stable and effective governance in Somalia. 

Question: 

In the 2000 Algiers Peace Agreements ending the war, both nations agreed to accept as final and binding the delimitation decision by the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary 

Commission that the Agreements established. However, the implementation on the 

ground has not been able to go forward because one party, Ethiopia, has constantly 

refused to accept the parts of the decision it does not agree with. How do you propose 

the United States, as one of the guarantors of the Algiers Agreements, use its influence to uphold the rule of law, encourage the implementation of the decision and thus 

prevent regional instability and, possibly, a new violent crisis in the Horn of Africa? 

Response: 

As our January 21, 2004, public statement made clear, the United States considers the EEBC decision final and binding, believes it should be implemented 

peacefully and without delay, and that any concerns about the decision should be 

resolved through bilateral communication between Ethiopia and Eritrea. We have 

also supported the efforts of UN Special Envoy Lloyd Axworthy to find a peaceful 

solution to the stalemate. 

Bureau of African Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary Donald Yamamoto and representatives from the National Security Council and the Department of Defense 

traveled to Asmara to meet with Eritrean President Isaias (December 2004) and to 

Addis Ababa to meet with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles (January 2005) in an effort to break the border stalemate as well as enhance U.S. bilateral relations with 

each of the two countries. The United States remains concerned about the possibility of renewed hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea, although both leaders 

deny any intention to start armed conflict. The interagency team urged both parties 

to avoid public pronouncements and inflammatory rhetoric. Ambassador Yamamoto 

assured both leaders that the United States was willing to facilitate communication 

between their countries, and reminded them that the establishment of a stable, lasting peace on the border is ultimately their bilateral responsibility. 

We share your concerns and consider resolution of this important issue a priority. 

We will continue to press both parties to honor their commitments and work with 

the international community, including the United Nations, to achieve lasting peace 

and security in the region through demarcation of the Ethiopia-Eritrea border. 

55

Question: 

We have committed and recommitted ourselves to this goal of ensuring environmental sustainability: at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, as part of the Millennium 

Declaration, and at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. What is the Administration’s plan for meeting its commitment to these goals 

and how does the FY 2006 budget reflect that? 

Response: 

We believe the most effective way to achieve environmental sustainability is to 

integrate environmental considerations throughout our foreign policy and development activities. We use our limited financial resources to support work in international organizations and programs such as the UN Environment Program that directly relate to sustainability; international fisheries commissions, including the 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; and the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species, a vital conservation agreement. 

One of the key areas for promoting environmental sustainability is through our 

development activities. In addition to the direct funding requested for the Oceans, 

Environment and Science Initiatives (OESI) program, each year the State Department uses portions of its monies coming from the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account to finance projects such as integrated water resource management, access to 

energy and safe water systems. These projects contribute to reaching key diplomatic 

goals by reducing tension in volatile parts of the world, while also contributing to 

environmental and humanitarian priorities. 

Another key feature of our approach to sustainability is our partnership approach. 

Government alone can not achieve the desired results. We must work closely with 

the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society in order to 

make lasting progress. We are dedicating much time and effort to working more collaboratively with these partners to reach the goals contained in these important 

summit outcomes. 

Question: 

During the Convention of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate 

Change recently held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, other nations proposed that the 

United States join them in a seminar this year to examine what future accommodation could be reached to bring the United States back into accordance with the rest 

of the countries in regard to climate change. The Bush Administration responded 

with the position that it would only agree to a single day seminar in which ‘‘presentations and discussions shall be limited to an information exchange on practical implementation of existing national policies, and shall not include the issues of future 

negotiations, frameworks, or mandates.’’ Please describe the process by which this position was developed. Who specifically was consulted and who authorized negotiators 

to put forward this proposal? How does the Administration plan to re-engage in a 

binding program to address climate change? 

Response: 

The Tenth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP–10), held in Buenos Aires in December 

2004, provided an important opportunity for an exchange of views on addressing climate change. 

UNFCCC Parties in Buenos Aires reached agreements in a number of areas, including two that were identified by the Argentine conference hosts as of particular 

importance: a comprehensive approach to climate-related adaptation and a Seminar 

of Governmental Experts. 

At COP–10, senior U.S. representatives led by Under Secretary of State for Global 

Affairs Paula Dobriansky participated in a series of productive and interesting highlevel panels focusing on: the UNFCCC after 10 years; impacts of climate change, 

adaptation measures and sustainable development; technology and climate change; 

and mitigation of climate change. 

The positions of the U.S. delegation in Buenos Aires were developed through extensive interagency consultation in the months prior to the conference. 

The Bush Administration believes that addressing climate change requires a sustained effort by all nations over many generations. Developing and bringing to the 

marketplace transformational energy technologies will be key. 

To this end, the United States has launched five important multilateral partnerships:

1. The International Methane to Markets Partnership;

2. The International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy:

56

3. The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum;

4. The Generation IV International Forum; and,

5. The Global Earth Observation initiative.

In addition, the United States has established bilateral climate partnerships with 

14 countries and regional organizations that together with the United States account for over 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

Question: 

To address the global problem, a group of environmental NGOs has made a proposal to the UNEP Governing Council. This proposal includes adopting ‘‘aggressive 

but realistic global goals of a 50% reduction in mercury consumption by 2010 and 

an 80% reduction by 2015, versus 2000 levels. Will the Administration support this 

proposal? If not, why not? What specific and binding obligations would the Administration support to eliminate the threat of this developmental toxin? 

Response: 

The Administration developed a proactive proposal for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Governing Council (GC) that engages countries in partnerships and collaborative activities that will produce results in the near term by 

facilitating reductions in mercury exposure, use, and release. This approach will 

achieve reductions globally by advancing specific projects in key source countries 

and priority sectors, and by working collaboratively with stakeholders, including 

governments, the private sector, international organizations, and nongovernmental 

organizations, to leverage resources, technical capacity and expertise. Countries and 

other partners will make public commitments to address mercury problems and be 

accountable for results from the actions taken. 

The United States did not believe that seeking to negotiate policy goals at the GC 

such as the one noted in your question would result in significant improvements in 

human health and the environment, in particular in the absence of a clear path to 

achieve such objectives. Instead, we proposed an approach that actively engages 

other countries in partnerships and collaborative activities focusing on a number of 

high priority areas. Focused and active engagement can lead to outcomes that will 

reduce mercury-associated risks in the near term. While many countries indicated 

they believed it was inappropriate to begin discussing binding obligations on mercury at this time, the U.S. proposal received strong support from countries all over 

the world, and a framework for the future development and implementation of these 

activities was adopted by the GC. The GC also agreed to review progress made 

under this approach, and the possibility of taking additional measures at its next 

meeting in 2007. 

The United States has been a leader in promoting global reductions in mercury 

use and releases. In 2003, the GC adopted a U.S. proposal establishing the UNEP 

Mercury Program to facilitate and conduct technical assistance and capacity building to support efforts of less-developed countries to take action regarding mercury 

pollution. The decision adopted by the GC in February 2005 will accelerate the 

progress achieved through the UNEP Mercury Program as well as build on existing 

multi- and bi-lateral agreements. 

Our domestic efforts make it possible for us to establish partnerships and explore 

solutions on an international level. The United States has been a leader in taking 

actions to reduce our domestic human exposure, use and emissions of mercury, having recently issued a joint EPA–FDA mercury consumption advisory and already 

achieved a 45% reduction in emissions of mercury to the air from anthropogenic or 

human-caused emissions sources between 1990 and 1999. We will work within the 

context of the partnerships approach to share and promote our experiences in other 

parts of the world. 

Question: 

A study by the U.S. Geological Survey and the World Bank showed that had we 

spent $40 billion on disaster mitigation during the 1990s, we could have saved $280 

billion dollars spent on responding to disasters. How is the Administration planning 

to use money from the upcoming supplemental in the fiscally responsible way that 

I described, reducing damage from future disasters? 

Response: 

The supplemental request includes funds for both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to improve 

tsunami-warning systems. The U.S. Tsunami Warning System will save lives and 

minimize property damage by providing timely and accurate information. The USGS 

funding will increase the number of Global Seismographic Network (GSN) stations 

57

that provide data in real time to NOAA’s Tsunami Warning Centers through the 

USGS National Earthquake Information Center. The NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. NOAA will deploy 32 new advanced-technology Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoys 

for a fully operational enhanced tsunami warning system by mid-2007. These measures will provide the United States with nearly 100% detection capability to respond 

within minutes of a U.S. coastal tsunami. Expanded monitoring capabilities 

throughout the entire Pacific, Atlantic, and Caribbean basins will provide tsunami 

warning for regions bordering half of the world’s oceans. 

To complement these investments in warning systems for US coastal regions, the 

supplemental also includes funds to the Department of State for use by USAID in 

risk-wise reconstruction in tsunami-affected regions. USAID will provide assistance 

to national, provincial, and local governments to develop and improve the system 

of communication, warning and public education that serves to warn threatened 

populations. Special attention will be paid to assisting national and local authorities 

to ensure construction is environmentally sound and mitigates damage from future 

natural disasters. An effort undertaken prior to the December 26th tsunami to build 

disaster response capabilities in coastal villages in India is already credited with 

saving lives. 

In addition to the activities covered by the supplemental, the Administration has 

further plans for reducing damage from future natural disasters. The Global Earth 

Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), an international effort initiated by the 

United States at the first Earth Observation Summit in 2003, has as one of its identified focus areas ‘‘Reducing Loss of Life and Property from Natural and Human Induced Disasters.’’ While the tsunami disaster has brought the issue into the spotlight, 60 countries have been working for over 18 months to develop not just a tsunami warning and response system, but an all-hazards warning and response system that will benefit all nations of the world. 

In a parallel effort in the United States, an interagency team has been working 

under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council to develop a 

Strategic Plan for the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System. The U.S. plan also 

has Disaster Reduction as a priority focus area, and through this interagency mechanism, initial plans for the U.S. Tsunami Warning System were readily available. 

Question: 

What do you expect from the May NPT Review Conference to be held in New York? 

What is your feeling about the about the continued viability of the NPT in general 

and, more specifically, what thoughts do you have regarding: the RevCon’s role in 

devising a) effective mechanisms by which States Parties can exert their collective 

will when faced with non-compliance or violations, and b) a method for closing the 

loophole in Article IV of the Treaty, which allows signatories to use the right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but which can be subverted by states 

wishing to develop nuclear weapons? 

Response: 

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) continues to be 

of fundamental importance to U.S. and international security. The long-term viability of the NPT, however, depends upon the ability of NPT Parties to ensure full compliance with the Treaty’s nonproliferation objectives. Without full compliance by all 

Parties, the security benefits derived from the NPT will erode. 

Therefore, the U.S. aim for the 2005 Review Conference (RevCon) is to make clear 

the threat to the NPT posed by noncompliance by certain non-nuclear-weapon states 

with their NPT nonproliferation obligations and to build support for President 

Bush’s proposals on strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime. 

We believe parties have the necessary mechanisms, including the United Nations 

Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA), to exert their collective will when faced with noncompliance with 

NPT nonproliferation obligations or violations of IAEA safeguards agreements. In 

cases where noncompliance has been dealt with ineffectively, the problem has not 

been with the mechanisms themselves, but with the ability of parties to demand 

compliance on the part of other parties and to act when faced with cases of noncompliance. 

At the last session of the RevCon’s preparatory committee in 2004, the United 

States made a series of recommendations to the RevCon on ways to address abuse 

of Article IV by NPT non-nuclear-weapon states pursuing nuclear weapons. The core 

of these recommendations is President Bush’s February 2004 proposals to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime, including limiting the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology and making the Additional Protocol a condition 

58

of nuclear supply by the end of 2005. The United States will continue to consult 

widely with NPT parties to gain support for these recommendations in the run-up 

to the RevCon. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Question: 

Are you reconsidering your participation in the March G–8/Arab League ministerial meeting in Cairo on democracy and reform? What efforts have you and the Department made to convince the Government of Egypt that it is in its own interest to 

continue along the path of political reform and democratization? Are you satisfied 

with the pace and scope of political reform in Egypt?

[NOTE: A response was not received from the State Department prior to printing.]

Æ