U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

37–067PDF 2008

POLITICAL CRISES IN SOUTH ASIA: PAKISTAN,

BANGLADESH, SRI LANKA AND NEPAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

AUGUST 1, 2007

Serial No. 110–132

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

TOM LANTOS, California, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

ROBERT R. KING, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID ADAMS, Subcommittee Staff Director 

HOWARD DIAMOND, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

GREGORY MCCARTHY, Republican Professional Staff Member 

DALIS BLUMENFELD, Staff Associate 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Steven R. Mann, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State .............. 10

Mr. John A. Gastright, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South 

and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ...................................... 16

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Gary L. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East 

and South Asia: Prepared statement ................................................................. 3

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio: Letter addressed to Dr. Ahmed ............................................................ 8

The Honorable Steven R. Mann: Prepared statement .......................................... 12

Mr. John A. Gastright, Jr.: Prepared statement ................................................... 17

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas: Letter from the Honorable Danny K. Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ......................................................... 32

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey: Statement submitted for the record ............................... 49

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee: Prepared statement ..................................... 50

(1)

POLITICAL CRISES IN SOUTH ASIA: 

PAKISTAN, BANGLADESH, SRI LANKA AND 

NEPAL 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST

AND SOUTH ASIA,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:18 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary L. Ackerman 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

A person would have to live on a desert island not to know that 

all is not well in South Asia, and not well is putting it mildly. 

The current political crises in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka 

and Nepal have created the potential for multiple failed states in 

the region. It was a failed state that gave us September 11. Failed 

states are breeding grounds for terrorists and safe havens for terrorist activities, and failed states are precisely what we cannot 

have. 

So the declaration by Francis Townsend, one of President Bush’s 

top advisers in the war on terror, that as a consequence of Pakistan’s failure to secure its border region with Afghanistan, the 

United States would have to consider using military force inside 

Pakistan if it identified key al-Qaeda targets, was a stunning admission that the policy of largesse toward Pakistan pursued by the 

administration for the last 5 years had failed. 

After billions in military and economic aid, billions more in socalled coalition support funds, hundreds of millions in debt relief 

and the sale of sophisticated weapons, including F–16s, we are at 

precisely the same point where we were immediately prior to September 11. 

But don’t take my word for it. According to the director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, who I quote:

‘‘Al-Qaeda has been able to regain some of its momentum. The 

leadership’s intact. They have operational planners, and they 

have safe haven.’’

For the last 5 years, I have been warning that despite our assistance, Pakistan was not making a complete effort to combat terrorism, that President General Musharraf had made a strategic decision to have it both ways, that he would cooperate with us on al-
2

Qaeda but turn a blind eye when it came to Pakistan’s former and 

apparently current friends, the Taliban. 

For years, I have advocated tying our military assistance to Pakistan to more effective and complete cooperation in the fight on terrorism, so I am gratified that the House has finally adopted that 

position last week as part of H.R. 1, which the President is expected to sign into law. 

But terrorism isn’t the only place where Pakistani efforts and administration policy have been less than fully effective. The return 

to a democratic government has been too long delayed, and the 

prospect of elections this year should remind us all how deeply 

flawed the 2002 elections were. 

We cannot tolerate a repetition of the process that marginalized 

the moderate and secular political parties, flawed as they may be, 

and produced Islamist majorities in the Northwest Frontier Province, a share of power for them in Balochistan and the biggest Islamic electoral victories on the national level in Pakistan’s brief 

history. 

The restoration of the chief justice earlier this month shows that 

the rule of law is still honored in Pakistan, if mainly in the breach. 

President General Musharraf should step down as army chief of 

staff at the end of the year when his authority to hold both positions expires, and he should stand for election as President after 

free and fair elections have produced a new national assembly. 

There are dangers in elections to be sure and no guarantee the 

outcome will be entirely to our liking, but a Government of Pakistan that is a result of free and fair elections will have greater legitimacy with its own people to pursue the fight against al-Qaeda 

and the Taliban. 

In Bangladesh, we have a caretaker government backed by the 

army that has delayed elections until sometime next year and has 

instead arrested one former prime minister and is threatening to 

arrest another and has imprisoned hundreds, if not thousands, of 

politicians and business leaders on vague charges of corruption. 

While I believe that neither of the two major parties in Bangladesh 

have brought any great good to the Bangladeshi people, I am hardpressed to understand how an extra constitutional process brings 

about political reform. 

From where I sit, this looks remarkably like what Musharraf did 

in Pakistan: Clear the field of mainstream parties and inadvertently open the door to Islamist parties, some of whom have particularly odious associations with known terrorists and terrorist organizations. The administration has previously described Bangladesh 

as a moderate Muslim democratic state. After the caretaker government gets done, however, describing Bangladesh as moderate 

and democratic will certainly strain credulity. 

The 2002 ceasefire in Sri Lanka exists only on paper as both the 

government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have resumed a full-scale conflict, resulting in over 4,000 dead, hundreds 

of thousands displaced and massive human rights violations committed by both sides. In particular, the Government of Sri Lanka 

seems intent on winning the conflict militarily and has resorted to 

alliances with pro-government Tamil militias, extrajudicial killings 

and disappearances of political opponents. 
3

Hundreds of Sri Lankans have been detained under newly 

strengthened emergency regulations. The expansion of emergency 

powers, the widespread use of extrajudicial killings and the disappearances by government and the free reign given by the government to the Sinhalese nationalists only accelerates Sri Lanka’s descent into chaos and drift away from democracy. 

While Nepal has previously represented a bright spot in an otherwise dismal South Asian political scene, the delay of elections for 

a constituent assembly until November, the threat of Maoist withdrawal from the interim government, the uncertain commitment to 

a peaceful resolution to the insurgency and ethnic unrest in the 

Terai region all pushed Nepal further from the restoration of democracy. These delays provide a dangerous opportunity for the 

king and his supporters to reassert the monarchy in ways that can 

only be described as counterproductive. 

Five months ago at our hearing on South Asia, I noted that the 

lesson of September 11 is that we cannot afford to allow any state 

to succumb to any individual or combination of transnational 

threats, that even if the smallest and most remote of states fails, 

it poses a threat to us and our allies. Five months later, events in 

the four nations we are discussing today have gotten worse, and 

the possibility of failure looms ever larger. 

With that, I would like to recognize my good friend from Indiana, 

the ranking member, Mr. Pence. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GARY L. ACKERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

The subcommittee will come to order. A person would have to live on a deserted 

island not to know that all is not well in South Asia and not well is putting it mildly. The current political crises in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal have 

created the potential for multiple failed states in the region. It was a failed state 

that gave us September 11. Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorists and 

safe-havens for terrorist activities and failed states are precisely what we cannot 

have. 

So the declaration by Francis Townsend, one of President Bush’s top advisors in 

the war on terror, that as a consequence of Pakistan’s failure to secure its border 

region with Afghanistan, the United States would have to consider using military 

force inside Pakistan if it identified key Al-Qaeda targets there, was a stunning admission that the policy of largesse toward Pakistan pursued by the Administration 

for the last 5 years had failed. After Billions in military and economic aid, billions 

more in so-called ‘‘coalition support funds,’’ hundreds of millions in debt relief and 

the sale of sophisticated weapons including F–16s we are at precisely the same 

point we were immediately prior to September 11. But don’t take my word for it. 

According to director of national intelligence Mike McConnell, ‘‘Al Qaeda has been 

able to regain some of its momentum. The leadership’s intact. They have operational 

planners, and they have safe haven. ‘‘

For the last five years I have been warning that despite our assistance, Pakistan 

was not making a complete effort to combat terrorism; that President/General 

Musharraf had made a strategic decision to have it both ways; that he would cooperate with us on al Qaeda, but turn a blind eye when it came to Pakistan’s former, 

and apparently current, friends the Taliban. For years, I have advocated tying our 

military assistance to Pakistan, to more effective and complete cooperation in the 

fight against terrorism. So I am gratified that the House has finally adopted that 

position last week as part of H.R. 1 which the President is expected to sign into 

law. 

But terrorism isn’t the only place where Pakistani efforts, and Administration policy, have been less than fully effective. The return to a democratic government has 

been too long delayed and the prospect of elections this year should remind us all 

just how deeply flawed the 2002 elections were. We cannot tolerate a repetition of 
4

the process that marginalized the moderate and secular political parties—flawed as 

they may be—and produced Islamist majorities in the Northwest Frontier Province, 

a share of power for them in Balochistan and the biggest Islamist electoral victories 

on the national level in Pakistan’s brief history. 

The restoration of the Chief Justice earlier this month shows that the rule of law 

is still honored in Pakistan, if mainly in the breach. President/General Musharraf 

should step down as Army Chief of Staff at the end of the year when his authority 

to hold both positions expires and he should stand for election as President after 

free and fair elections have produced a new national assembly. There are dangers 

in elections to be sure, and no guarantee the outcome will be entirely to our liking, 

but a government of Pakistan that is the result of free and fair elections will have 

greater legitimacy with its own people to pursue the fight against al Qaeda and the 

Taliban. 

In Bangladesh, a care-taker government backed by the Army has delayed elections until sometime next year and has instead arrested one former Prime Minister, 

is threatening to arrest another and has imprisoned hundreds if not thousands of 

politicians and business leaders on vague charges of corruption. While I believe that 

neither of the two major parties in Bangladesh have brought any great good to the 

Bangladeshi people, I’m hard pressed to understand how an extra-constitutional 

process brings about political reform. From where I sit this looks remarkably like 

what Musharraf did in Pakistan—clear the field of the mainstream parties and inadvertently open the door to the Islamist parties, some of whom have particularly 

odious associations with known terrorists and terrorist organizations. The Administration has previously described Bangladesh as a moderate Muslim democratic 

state. After the care-taker government gets done however, describing Bangladesh as 

moderate and democratic will strain credulity. 

The 2002 ceasefire in Sri Lanka exists only on paper as both the government and 

the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam have resumed full scale conflict resulting in 

over 4,000 dead, hundreds of thousands displaced and massive human rights violations committed by both sides. In particular, the government of Sri Lanka seems 

intent on winning the conflict militarily and has resorted to alliances with pro-government Tamil militias, extrajudicial killings and disappearances of political opponents. Hundreds of Sri Lankans have been detained under newly strengthened 

emergency regulations. The expansion of emergency powers, the wide-spread use of 

extra-judicial killings and disappearances by the government and the free reign 

given by the government to Sinhalese nationalists only accelerates Sri Lanka’s descent into chaos and drift away from democracy. 

While Nepal had previously represented a bright spot in an otherwise dismal 

South Asian political scene, the delay of elections for a constituent assembly until 

November, the threat of Maoist withdrawal from the interim government, their uncertain commitment to a peaceful resolution to the insurgency and ethnic unrest in 

the Terai region have all pushed Nepal further from the restoration of democracy. 

These delays provide a dangerous opportunity for the King and his supporters to 

reassert the monarchy in ways that can only be described as counter-productive. 

Five months ago, at our hearing on South Asia, I noted that the lesson of September 11 is that we cannot afford to allow any state to succumb to any individual 

or combination of transnational threats—that even if the smallest and most remote 

of states fails, it poses a threat to us and our allies. Five months later, events in 

the four nations we are discussing today have gotten worse and the possibility of 

failure looms even larger. 

Now, I’d like to recognize my friend from Indiana, the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Pence.

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this 

important hearing. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses. 

Today’s hearing covers the political crises in South Asia, specifically the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. 

Some of these countries are often overlooked, but our witnesses 

today will make clear their truly vital importance to American national interests. 

Mr. Chairman, the country of Pakistan has to be considered first 

among equals in this discussion. There are fewer countries whose 

success has greater implications for our efforts in the war on terror 

than Pakistan. 
5

Secretary Gastright will tell us that Pakistan’s contribution to 

our efforts against al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been, and I 

quote, ‘‘invaluable.’’ I second that and hope we will not lose sight 

of that contribution in our various debates and discussions in the 

greater body. 

We can and have taken issue with some of President Pervez 

Musharraf’s tactics, but he is a crucial ally and we must assist his 

efforts against terrorists. I second the Secretary’s testimony that it 

is a credit to President Musharraf that he is abiding by the unfavorable ruling ordering him to reinstate the Supreme Court justice 

he dismissed. It is a good sign that President Musharraf says he 

seeks harmonious ties with the chief justice. 

I also encourage Pakistan to continue its reforms toward democratization and free elections sometime within the year. The fact 

that President Musharraf met recently with former Prime Minister 

Benazir Bhutto as a possible running mate shows his willingness 

to engage in the democratic process, and it represents a genuinely 

hopeful sign for true political progress in Pakistan. 

I share Secretary Gastright’s testimony that the agreements with 

tribal groups, the so-called ceasefire with the Taliban, were ‘‘poorly 

implemented and enforced and failed to produce the results sought 

by the Pakistan Government.’’ Clearly this is a region of the world 

of great concern. That Pakistan has 100,000 troops in this area 

speaks to its priority for its government as well. 

Lost in some of the controversy over the unclassified excerpts released in the National Intelligence Estimate last month is that the 

administration has a new plan for the FATA, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, that may yield fruit. I hope our witnesses will 

discuss that. 

I had the privilege of traveling to Pakistan just shortly less than 

2 years ago. While we did not make it into Waziristan, we traveled 

from Islamabad up into the border regions and visited Peshar. 

There we had dinner with eight tribal leaders who had traveled 2 

days on horseback from South Waziristan to meet with us. 

Then, as before, I couldn’t help but feel that we were dealing 

with people who while they live in very ancient circumstances, Mr. 

Chairman, they have very modern thoughts and are I think much 

more susceptible to the right kinds of inducements and encouragement than we have seen productive in our policies to date. I am 

looking to the discussion in that regard. 

Our interest in Pakistan could not be more crucial to our success 

in the war on terror. The other countries present various challenges as well. The terrorist Tamil Tigers have tried to destroy Sri 

Lanka for a quarter of a century, the Maoist terrorists in Nepal 

who commit crimes of impunity according to Secretary Mann, and 

perhaps the world’s worst corruption found in Bangladesh. Additionally, our witnesses will tell of child soldiers and abductions and 

a host of other problems. I look forward to hearing their recommendations on these vexing issues. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, the jurisdiction of this subcommittee takes 

in much more volatile parts of the world. I want to commend you 

personally for focusing the attention of this subcommittee on the 

balance of our jurisdiction, which in sum I believe bears an equal 

weight in our success in the war on terror and in our global effec-
6

tiveness in the region. I commend you for that, and I thank you 

for calling the hearing. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding this important hearing. Just a brief comment on 

Pakistan first. 

One of our colleagues in the Senate just yesterday I believe, 

Barack Obama, voiced his frustration with the progress that has 

been made by President Musharraf and his forces against al-Qaeda 

and Osama bin Laden. I think many of us share his frustration. 

I do believe that President Musharraf should have been much 

more active and much more persistent in going after al-Qaeda in 

general and Osama bin Laden in particular. However, like my colleague here, having met with President Musharraf several times 

both here in the United States and in Islamabad a while back, I 

do believe that we have to be careful. 

He has a balancing act. Let us face it. If he goes too far, he is 

at risk of the stability of the government, and if that government 

should fall and extremists, for example, would take over, this is a 

country that we don’t suspect has nuclear weapons. They have nuclear weapons obviously. To think of the extremist elements in that 

country getting their hands on nuclear weapons is just an unthinkable dilemma that the world would face. 

And so we have to make sure that we don’t do anything that 

might push that country in that direction, although I again, along 

with my colleague, Mr. Pence from Indiana, do believe that free 

and fair elections should take place in that country sooner rather 

than later. 

In place of an opening statement, if I might read here a letter 

that I, along with my colleague, Mark Kirk, sent to the caretaker 

government 1 week ago today to the head of the government, the 

chief advisor, Dr. Ahmed?

‘‘We write to express our support for the ongoing efforts of 

the caretaker government to institute the economic, political 

and social reforms needed to assist Bangladesh in becoming a 

prosperous democratic government in the 21st century. However, we also write to express our concern with recent reports 

indicating that the national elections which were originally 

scheduled for January 22, 2007, have been postponed yet again 

until the end of 2008.’’

And I understand that there is talk about perhaps that even being 

moved back to 2009.

‘‘Equally disconcerting are the same reports that describe efforts by the caretaker government to arrest and detain more 

than 250,000 Bangladeshi citizens with no respect for due process or the civil rights of its citizens. 

‘‘As you know, this past May, several Members of the U.S. 

House of Representatives met with your Special Envoy in 

Washington, DC, to discuss United States support for Bangladesh. During our discussion, we pledged support for trade 

measures such as the Tariff Relief Assistance for Developing 

Economies Act that will provide Bangladeshi exporting indus-
7

tries with greater economic stability through stronger trade relations with the United States. At the same time, we expressed 

our hope that free and fair national elections would be held as 

soon as reasonably possible and our desire to see the caretaker 

government recognize and respect the rights of its citizens even 

as it pursued initiatives to end corruption and fraud. 

‘‘The continuing news reports describing the caretaker government’s unwillingness to provide specific benchmarks that 

will lead to national elections and the continued accounts of 

human rights violations are alarming. The optimism felt for a 

country moving toward democracy has been replaced with concern that military rule will govern. Indeed, the need to delay 

the January 22, 2007, elections was a necessary course of action to ensure that a fair and just election is administered. 

However, it has been more than 7 months since the caretaker 

government was installed, and the constraints placed on civil 

rights have not been eased. The same citizens and international community that supported your efforts in January deserve a clear roadmap that will provide them stability and certainty for the future. 

‘‘We wholeheartedly agree that corruption has no place in 

politics, the electoral process or in government. Building a corruption-free electoral process is critical to the future of Bangladesh, yet the success of a democracy also rests in the ability 

of its people to enjoy civil and political rights unhindered, including the freedom to associate with and participate in the political party of one’s choosing without fear of repercussion. Unfortunately, the recent high-profile arrests of former Prime 

Minister Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia, together 

with the arrest and the 17-month detainment of Shoaib 

Choudhury . . .’’

who I happened to meet with in the Capitol Building just a couple 

hours ago,

‘‘only gives credence to the speculation that the caretaker government’s anticorruption campaign is politically motivated and 

contrary to international human rights and due process practices. During this turbulent time, it is important that each and 

every citizen, regardless of social and political party affiliation, 

be able to expect that the rights and civil liberties provided by 

Bangladeshi law, including due process, will be followed in 

each and every case. The success of a democracy rests in the 

ability of its people and the press to rely on the Constitution 

and laws which they supported and operate in an open and 

independent process, one in which views can be expressed 

without fear of intimidation.’’

I am almost finished.

‘‘We urge you to publish as soon as possible a timeline describing the process to be administered over the next several 

months that will result in elections before the end of 2008, including a compilation of a voter list. In addition, we urge you 

to restore the fundamental rights of all Bangladeshi citizens, 

including the right to due process under the law. We remain 
8

committed to supporting the caretaker government and its reform efforts. However, the political and civil rights of the 

Bangladeshi citizens must not be compromised in the name of 

reform.’’

The letter is signed by myself and Congressman Mark Kirk, and 

I would ask that the letter be entered into the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:]
9

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. 

Before I proceed with our witnesses today, I just want to point 

out that we are pleased to have with us today as observers and 

part of our audience six members of the State Great Hural, which 

is the national legislature of Mongolia. We welcome our international colleagues here under the auspices of our House Democracy Assistance Commission. They are led by Mr. Damiran. If you 

would stand so we could acknowledge you? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you for joining us. 

Our second panel consists of Ambassador Steven R. Mann, which 

has now become our first panel because our first panel has not 

shown up yet. Ambassador Mann is the Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. Ambassador Mann has served in that position since May of last year. 

For the last several years, Ambassador Mann has been heavily 

involved in the Caspian energy issues, working on both the BakuTbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline as well as the Caspian Pipeline Consortium. He has also played an active role in mediating some of the 

thorniest Eurasian conflicts. 
10

Ambassador Mann joined the Foreign Service in 1976 and served 

as the Ambassador to Turkmenistan, Deputy Chief of Mission in 

Sri Lanka and at various other postings in Washington and abroad 

over the last 30 years. 

Mr. John A. Gastright is Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs and has served in that 

post since March 2005, focusing primarily on Pakistan, Bangladesh 

and Afghanistan. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Gastright served 

in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs as Acting Coordinator for Afghanistan and as a Special Assistant to former Deputy Secretary 

of State Richard Armitage. 

Before joining the State Department, Mr. Gastright served as 

chief of staff to Congressman Jack Kingston and as military assistant to Senator Strom Thurmond. Prior to his service on the Hill, 

Mr. Gastright spent 6 years as a naval officer. 

We welcome both of you, and without objection, your written 

statements will be made part of the permanent record. You may 

proceed as you wish, starting with Ambassador Mann. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN R. MANN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH 

AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador MANN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Members of the committee, for inviting me here today 

to discuss developments in Nepal and Sri Lanka. These are two 

South Asian nations which have great promise, but each are struggling with domestic insurgencies that in Nepal’s case will require 

a period of recovery and national reconciliation and in Sri Lanka’s 

case still threaten the country’s institutions and people. 

Let me first deal briefly with Nepal. The recent history in Nepal 

is nothing short of remarkable. Its citizens have endured much, but 

there is a real hope for a brighter future. Nepal has seen a decadelong insurgency end as the Maoists agreed last November to enter 

into the political process. 

It has gone through severe political upheaval over the years, and 

in April 2006, the country witnessed a popular movement that 

ended the direct rule of King Gyanendra and replaced him with 

Prime Minister Koirala, who is serving in that position for the fifth 

time. 

At the moment, Nepal is in a decisive phase in its history in the 

run-up to constituent assembly elections on November 22. While 

there is progress, as you have noted, Mr. Chairman, serious concerns remain. We are hopeful that the November 22 elections will 

be conducted in a free and fair manner, yet we know there are 

many difficulties in that run-up. 

I would like to flag here the serious law and order issues which 

could affect the election and which must be addressed by the government of Prime Minister Koirala. We remain concerned that the 

Maoists and their young communist league will continue their campaign of intimidation, abduction and extortion and seek to disrupt 

the election or unfairly influence its outcome. The Maoists commit 

crime with impunity, they devalue justice in Nepal, and they 

threaten the integrity of the election process. 
11

Mr. Chairman, the key elements of our policy in Nepal are to use 

every means at our disposal to promote free and fair elections, to 

work with the Government of Nepal and other interested governments, to push the Maoists away from arms struggle and into 

peaceful participation in the political process as well as to promote 

inclusion more widely in the Nepali political process. 

If I can turn briefly to Sri Lanka, this longstanding conflict, the 

fragile peace process, the deteriorating human rights conditions 

continue to cause concern for the United States. The conflict between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of 

Tamil Eelam has entered a phase of intensified fighting during 

President Rajapaksa’s administration. 

The fighting has been steady. We have seen this in the east as 

the government force has attempted to retake areas held by the Tigers, and on July 11 of this year, the Sri Lankan military announced that it had taken Thoppigala, the last remaining Tiger 

stronghold in the east. But the costs of war have taken a heavy toll 

certainly on the economy, as in other areas. Inflation stands at 20 

percent, and tourism, so important for Sri Lanka, has plummeted 

by 40–60 percent over the past year. 

The Tamil Tigers we have seen have demonstrated little interest 

in a peaceful settlement. They have not renounced their stated goal 

of an independent homeland, and mine attacks and political assassinations attributed to Tigers in the past months further signal 

their intention to continue the conflict. 

The Tigers insist that the Government of Sri Lanka abide by the 

terms of the 2002 ceasefire agreement as a condition for talks. We 

believe the government is unlikely to agree to these terms because 

it would, among other things, require giving back the east to Tiger 

control. 

Our top policy priorities for Sri Lanka remain restoration of good 

governance and respect for human rights, leading to an eventual 

negotiated settlement. We believe that finalizing a credible devolution of power proposal, together with ending human rights violations and improving government accountability, are essential steps 

toward a lasting peace. 

Mr. Chairman, overall we are deeply committed to achieving 

lasting peace and stability in Nepal, Sri Lanka and the South 

Asian region. We will continue to work together with our friends 

and allies through international fora such as the co-chairs group in 

Sri Lanka and through the extensive outreach of our Embassies in 

Kathmandu and Colombo to help the Nepalese and Sri Lankan 

people overcome the considerable obstacles before them on the path 

to peace and prosperity. 

A final note, Mr. Chairman, if I could on our diplomatic and consular operations. I would just like to stress that our personnel deployed throughout the field are America’s front line of national security, and I can assure you in terms of our operations that every 

dollar that Congress provides for our diplomats in the field and at 

home here in the Department is warmly appreciated and effectively 

used. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you and 

stand ready to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mann follows:]
12

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HE HONORABLE STEVEN R. MANN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

POLITICAL CRISES IN SOUTH ASIA: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN NEPAL AND SRI LANKA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss recent developments in Nepal and Sri Lanka. These two South 

Asian nations are both struggling with domestic insurgencies that in Nepal’s case, 

will require a period of recovery and national reconciliation, and in Sri Lanka’s case, 

still threaten the country’s institutions and people. Let me first turn to Nepal. 

Nepal’s recent history is nothing short of remarkable. Its citizens have endured 

much, but have hope for a brighter future. Nepal has seen a decade-long insurgency 

end as the Maoists agreed in November 2006 to enter into the political process. It 

has experienced political upheaval as a palace massacre claimed the lives of the 

king and several members of the royal family. In April 2006, the country witnessed 

a popular movement that ended the direct rule of King Gyanendra and replaced him 

with Prime Minister Koirala, who is serving in that capacity for the fifth time. 

Today, Nepal is entering a decisive phase in its history as it prepares for Constituent Assembly elections on November 22. While there is progress, serious concerns remain. We are optimistic that the November 22 elections will be conducted 

in a free and fair manner. At the same time, we are fully cognizant that Nepal faces 

difficult challenges in the run-up to the election. 

If I may start on a positive note, we are impressed by the work of the members 

of Nepal’s Election Commission to date. They are aware of the importance of conducting a free and fair election on schedule and they are working diligently with 

the international community. The Election Commission has registered over 17.6 million voters, representing 58 political parties. 

The Commission has welcomed and encouraged volunteers and representatives of 

non-government organizations, including the Carter Center, to monitor the election. 

The Election Commission is preparing to issue a Code of Conduct, outlining election 

rules and behavior. The Code will clarify the right of parties to campaign and have 

access to the media and places a ceiling on campaign expenditures and restrictions 

on polling of voters, all of which could unfairly influence the outcome of the elections. 

Serious law and order issues could affect the election and need to be addressed 

by the government of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. We remain concerned 

that the Maoists and their Young Communist League will continue their campaign 

of intimidation, abduction, and extortion and seek to disrupt the election or unfairly 

influence its outcome. The local press reports Maoist atrocities virtually every day. 

The Maoists commit crimes with impunity, devalue justice in Nepal, and threaten 

the integrity of the election process. As such, they clearly continue to warrant designation as a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist organization. 

Due to improvement in the human rights situation since the April 27th declaration of a cease-fire between the government and the Maoists, there has been a substantial decrease in abuses by the Government. We continue to urge the Government to address past abuses and to appoint new members to the National Human 

Rights Commission. We welcome recent progress in this regard. 

Regional tensions, increasing demands by traditionally-marginalized groups for 

representation, and the emergence of ethnically-based political factions and splinter 

groups—particularly in the Terai—have complicated the political landscape. 

We are concerned by recent violence in the Terai, the low lying area of Nepal bordering India, where approximately half of the Nepali people reside, because it has 

the potential to derail the election process and it undermines law and order and stability. Aside from the criminal activity of the Maoists, which continues nationwide, 

the greatest obstacle to a peaceful and successful election is ethnic tension in the 

Terai. 

The situation is complex because the Maoists are politically active in the Terai, 

but their interests often conflict with those of Terai inhabitants, most of whom are 

Madhesis, a distinct ethnic group with its own language whose culture is, in many 

ways, closer to that of India. It is in the Maoists’ interest to blame the violence in 

the Terai on Madhesi groups despite Maoist involvement. The Maoists and Young 

Communist League have assumed great influence in the western Terai through 

threats and intimidation. In the eastern Terai, the Maoists are in open conflict with 

Madhesi groups, who are using this transition period to assert their rights and, in 

some cases, to call for regional autonomy. 

During the past year, a number of political groups with radical agendas, some of 

them armed, have emerged in the Terai. These groups’ agendas vary. Some groups 
13

seek to continue the armed struggle that the Maoists claim to have given up, others 

are promoting an ethnic-based agenda. Other established groups have split into factions dominated by politically ambitious individuals. In some areas, groups have 

splintered from the Maoists and become their military or political rivals. 

As the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon reported on July 18:

‘‘The security situation in the Terai has remained extremely disturbed and efforts to improve law and order in the region have been halting at best. Frequent 

clashes continue to occur between Maoists and Madhesi activists in the Terai 

as they compete for political space.’’

The Nepal Government’s Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction is reaching out to 

these emerging groups to start a dialogue and to draw them into the election process. This is an essential process that the government needs to expand. 

A successful, free and fair Constituent Assembly election would represent a significant step forward toward establishing a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic 

Nepal. Reaching out to the Terai groups and bringing them into the democratic fold 

will greatly improve prospects for success. It is clear that the Government of Nepal 

will have to make new and sustained efforts to fulfill the promise of the peace process. We believe that seven of the political parties in the Parliamentary Alliance are 

committed to peaceful, multi-party pluralism. The Maoists are the exception. The 

seven parties may disagree at times, have competing agendas, and fail to consult 

with each other, but they are committed to working within the Parliamentary system. 

Like ambitious political parties worldwide, they want to succeed and to expand 

their political base. Representatives of Terai districts and areas where the Maoists 

are active have been not been able to visit their constituencies regularly. In some 

cases, they fear for their safety if they return. 

As described by the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in a 

report in June, 2007:

‘‘The Young Communist League’s violent disruption of activities of opposing 

groups, at times with other parties of the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), must not 

be tolerated. Such actions close the political space for dialogue and risk contributing to a spiral of violence. They are contrary to the principles of freedom of 

opinion, assembly and association and run contrary to conditions conducive for 

free and fair elections.’’

Under the current Eight Party Alliance, the Maoists have more power than they 

are likely to achieve through the ballot box. Although their leaders have promised 

to curb violence, to date we have not seen any lasting drop in criminal activity by 

the Maoists or their Young Communist League affiliates. Their commitments to 

abide by the law and to respect their agreements have proven hollow. Maoist leader 

Mr. Pushpa Dahal has stated publicly that the Maoists have no intention of joining 

the political mainstream and their actions, to date, have consistently proved that 

statement accurate. 

Mr. Chairman, the key elements of United States policy in Nepal are to use every 

means at our disposal to promote free and fair elections, to work with the Government of Nepal and other interested governments to push the Maoists away from 

armed struggle and peaceful participants in the political process, and to promote the 

increased participation of the Madhesis into Nepali political life. 

In addition, we have a keen interest in providing humanitarian assistance to 

Nepal. In 2006 the United States spent roughly $32.6 million dollars on assistance 

to Nepal, most of it going to health-related programs, focusing primarily on women 

and children. Other assistance programs included law enforcement training, programs that bolster civil society, rule of law and respect for human rights in the government and military, and stabilization operations. In doing so, we continue to work 

with a variety of partners, both within Nepal and in the international community. 

Turning to Sri Lanka: 

Sri Lanka’s long-standing ethnic conflict, fragile peace process, and deteriorating 

human rights conditions continue to cause concern for the United States and the 

international community. The conflict between the Sri Lankan Government and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam entered a phase of intensified fighting during President Rajapaksa’s administration. In recent months, fighting has been steady in the 

Tamil Tiger-controlled East as Government forces attempted to re-take areas held 

by the Tigers under the terms of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement. On July 11, 2007, 

the Sri Lankan military announced it had taken Thoppigala, the last remaining 

Tamil Tiger stronghold in the East, bringing the entire Eastern Province under government control. The costs of war have taken a heavy toll on the economy: inflation 
14

currently stands at 20% and tourism—one of Sri Lanka’s main industries—has 

plummeted by 40–60% since last year. 

Fighting continues in the North and there is a continued Tiger presence in the 

East. Just five days after the government announced it was in control of the East, 

suspected Tiger gunmen shot and killed a senior provincial administrator. The Tigers remain a considerable fighting force and are capable of launching attacks 

across the island. On July 25, the Tigers detonated a claymore mine in the North, 

killing 11 soldiers and wounding eight others. 

Furthermore, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are regarded as one of the world’s best funded guerrilla groups, with an estimate reported $200 to $300 million 

in annual revenues. Ample funding allows them to purchase weapons, to operate a 

maritime force—the Sea Tigers, and to maintain a small air capability. Tiger aircraft attacked military facilities co-located with Colombo’s international airport, as 

well as fuel installations outside Colombo in April 2007. The Tigers have publicly 

expressed their intention to continue attacking military, government and economic 

targets. The Tigers do not target U.S. citizens or assets. Rather, they limit their attacks to Sri Lankan security forces, political figures, civilians, and businesses. Their 

innovations such as explosive vests and waterborne suicide attacks have been copied 

by other terrorist groups. 

The Tamil Tigers have demonstrated little interest in a peaceful settlement. They 

have not renounced their stated goal of an independent homeland. Claymore mine 

attacks and political assassinations attributed to the Tigers in the past months further signal their intention to continue the conflict. The Tigers are insisting the Government of Sri Lanka abide by the terms of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement as a condition for talks. The Sri Lankan Government is unlikely to agree to these terms, 

however, as it would require ceding the East back to Tiger control. 

Prospects for peace are currently focused on an effort by the President’s party, the 

major opposition parties, and other parties to finalize a proposal which would reform the constitution to create a system devolving certain powers to Tamil and 

other minority areas. The peace process in Sri Lanka has collapsed repeatedly in 

part due to a lack of political consensus over how to satisfy the rights and aspirations of the majority Sinhala and minority Tamil populations. It is critical that the 

country’s political leadership engage fully and in good faith in the current debate 

over devolution of power and place the best interests of the country ahead of partisan politics. I must flag the fact that the Tamil Tigers share the responsibility for 

the negotiation impasse. It is important to note as well that although the Tigers are 

a party to the negotiations, they cannot be considered to be the representatives of 

all Sri Lankan Tamils. 

Our top policy priorities for Sri Lanka remain restoration of good governance and 

respect for human rights leading to an eventual negotiated settlement. We believe 

that finalizing a credible devolution of power proposal, together with ending human 

rights violations and improving government accountability, are essential steps towards a lasting peace. The Government of Sri Lanka must do more to provide security and equitable treatment for its citizens, including taking seriously the plight 

of internally displaced persons, creating the conditions to allow economic opportunities to return across the island, and ensuring fair treatment at the hands of the police and security forces. These issues cannot be stably resolved through military 

means alone. 

We are supporting the pursuit of a political settlement in Sri Lanka in several 

ways. 

As a member of the Co-Chairs of the Tokyo Donors Conference, the United States 

participates along with the European Union, Japan, and Norway in the only international mechanism solely dedicated to peace in Sri Lanka. Assistant Secretary of 

State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard A. Boucher led the U.S. delegation at the Co-Chairs most recent meeting in June in Oslo. The Co-Chairs discussed 

ways forward for the peace process as well as current challenges on the ground in 

Sri Lanka, including deteriorating human rights conditions and difficulties with humanitarian access. The Co-Chairs continue to pursue openings to return both sides 

to negotiations. After the Oslo meeting, the Norwegian Ambassador in Colombo was 

permitted to travel north to meet with Tiger leadership for the first time in six 

months. 

We are also working towards peace in Sri Lanka through consistent senior-level 

bilateral engagement and high-level visits, in which we deliver to the Government 

of Sri Lanka a consistent message that the only lasting solution to this conflict is 

through negotiation. Assistant Secretary Boucher visited Colombo and Jaffna in 

May 2007 and delivered a tough message to all parties on the need for dialogue, 

a serious devolution of power proposal, equality among all Sri Lankans, and respect 

for human rights. Assistant Secretary Boucher stressed that a credible power-shar-
15

ing proposal that addresses legitimate Tamil grievances and preserves a political, 

social, and economic role for the Tamil and other communities in a post-conflict Sri 

Lanka could help re-energize the peace process and begin the process of national 

reconciliation. 

In addition, we support peace efforts in Sri Lanka through U.S. Agency for International Development projects promoting dialogue between ethnic communities, developing citizenship skills, and improving governance. Our programs are focused on 

laying a foundation for peace in many ways, including providing technical assistance 

to develop a political framework to resolve the ethnic conflict, targeting corruption, 

training local government officials in management and budgeting, building the capacity of human rights institutions, and stimulating economic development. We are 

also interested in supporting programs that work with judges and bar associations 

and provide training for human rights groups to help provide legal aid to citizens 

in the North and East. 

The United States is committed to help foster a lasting peace in Sri Lanka and 

to improve human rights conditions for all Sri Lankans. Ultimately, however, it is 

the Sri Lankan Government’s responsibility to the Sri Lankan people to provide the 

conditions of safety and security that will lead to a more peaceful and prosperous 

future. Reaching consensus on a devolution proposal is a critical first step towards 

peace, but it is a domestic political issue in which the United States should not take 

sides. The United States’ interest is in keeping the political process on devolution 

moving forward, rather than prescribing particular solutions to the Sri Lankans. We 

therefore continue to see no role for a Special Envoy to Sri Lanka at this time. We 

have, moreover, a highly capable envoy already on the job—his name is Robert 

Blake and he is our U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka. 

The only lasting and stable solution to this conflict will be one that is reached 

through negotiations. Our military assistance does not support efforts to expand the 

conflict. Our modest assistance focuses on improving maritime capabilities such as 

weapons interdiction and surveillance. We support Sri Lanka’s efforts to defend 

itself against terrorism and have demonstrated our commitment over the last year 

by arresting 15 individuals in the United States and Guam on material support 

charges, including an alleged leader of the Tamil Tigers in the United States who 

was arrested in April 2007. We refuse to allow the Tamil Tigers and their supporters to use the United States as a source of supply for weapons, technology, and 

financial resources. 

Another key U.S. policy concern in Sri Lanka is the deterioration in human rights 

conditions. As the State Department’s most recent Country Report on Human 

Rights practices indicated, human rights conditions across Sri Lanka have deteriorated significantly in the past year. We are deeply concerned by continuing reports 

of disappearances, abductions, torture, and the rise in extrajudicial killings, with 

eight extra-judicial killings reported over a three day period in July on the Jaffna 

peninsula. Human rights conditions are worst in Tiger-controlled areas, where there 

is no rule of law to protect Sri Lankans’ civil liberties. The Tigers’ recruitment of 

child soldiers is singularly deplorable. 

The intimidation of civil society through such incidents as the April 29 killing of 

Tamil journalist Selvarajah Rajivarman and the July 23 murder of Mariyanayagam 

Aloysius, a Tamil employee of the Danish Refugee Council, is an additional area of 

concern. We are encouraging the Government of Sri Lanka to improve its accountability and rein in the paramilitaries that reportedly operate openly in governmentcontrolled Tamil areas and have been accused of serious human rights abuses, including the recruitment of child soldiers. We are also working with the government 

to improve human rights conditions through the human rights Commission of Inquiry and the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons. Our representative to the Group, former Department of State Assistant Secretary Arthur E. 

‘‘Gene’’ Dewey was in Sri Lanka in July 2007, and will return in mid-August for 

the Group’s next plenary meeting. While it is important that the Government investigate abuses, our message has consistently stressed the need for the Government 

to improve accountability writ large—this means not limiting its response to investigations that could take years, but taking immediate measures to hold the security 

forces accountable for order and discipline. 

We are also engaged fully in humanitarian relief efforts to address the critical 

needs of Sri Lanka’s more than 500,000 internally displaced persons. To date, in 

Fiscal Year 2007 alone, the United States has given $10.6 million in humanitarian 

assistance to Sri Lanka. This includes funding for Save the Children and UN Children’s Fund programs providing protection, emergency relief supplies, nutrition, 

water, and sanitation and hygiene services. It also includes World Food Program 

funding for emergency food assistance, as well as International Committee of the 

Red Cross funding for emergency relief such as health services and shelter. In addi-
16

tion, the U.S. also supports the efforts of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

through regional funding. 

Mr. Chairman, we are deeply committed to achieving lasting peace and stability 

in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the South Asia region. We will continue to work on the 

ground in that region with our friends and allies, through international fora such 

as the Co-Chairs group in Sri Lanka, and through the extensive outreach programs 

of our Embassies in Kathmandu and Colombo, to help the Nepalese and Sri Lankan 

people overcome the considerable obstacles before them on their path to peace and 

prosperity. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. I would be pleased to 

answer your questions.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN A. GASTRIGHT, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before this committee. It is obviously important that you 

have this hearing, and I agree with you that this is the right opportunity to discuss these important matters. 

I will discuss Pakistan and Bangladesh today. With 300 million 

people in these two predominantly Muslim countries, it is absolutely essential that we work together on an agenda to promote regional stability while building the foundations of sustainable democracy. 

As you pointed out, lots of words have been spoken about Pakistan in recent days, but here is the bottom line. Pakistan is an indispensable ally in the global war on terrorism. Pakistan has captured or killed more al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists than any 

other country in the world. 

Moreover, a stable, prosperous and democratic Pakistan is the 

key to stability and prosperity in the entire region, and it plays a 

critical part in all of our policy goals for the region. Our interests 

in Pakistan are immediate as well as long-term and strategic, and 

we need to have a long-term, strategic partnership between the 

United States and Pakistan because that helps us address our immediate security needs. 

Now this year, as you described, we look forward to Pakistan’s 

successful transition to a democratically elected civilian government. We are working with the Government and the people of 

Pakistan to achieve this goal. 

We also know that a thriving democracy requires a free press, a 

right to assembly, a fair and impartial criminal justice system, a 

vibrant civil society, broadly participative and responsive political 

parties and institutions, in other words, the foundations of sustainable democracy. We have done some good work in this area in the 

past several years with our Pakistani partners, and I look forward 

to discussing that with you today. 

The vast majority of Pakistanis are concerned about extremism. 

The Government of Pakistan has recently increased the pressure 

on militants and extremists such as the storming of the Red 

Mosque in Islamabad recently. Unfortunately, the extremists have 

reacted with retaliatory bombings in the tribal regions and in 

Islamabad, killing more than 200 Pakistanis since July 12. At this 

moment, the Pakistani army is redeploying thousands of additional 
17

troops to the border area and strengthening border posts and controls. 

As Mr. Pence alluded to, in the federally administered tribal 

areas, the government is implementing a comprehensive, sustainable development strategy to combat terrorists and extremists, and 

by integrating these ungoverned spaces into the mainstream of 

Pakistan’s economy and government, the goal is to render these 

areas permanently inhospitable to terrorists and violent extremism. 

Now moving on to Bangladesh, this administration and the international community at large do not characterize the current caretaker government as a military government. First, the government 

is composed of civilians and led by a civilian, and second, it was 

established under a constitutional construct. However, it is obviously a country in transition. 

Mr. Chabot takes personal interest in Bangladesh, who is the 

last Member of Congress to visit in Bangladesh, and we take his 

concerns very seriously on this matter. The caretaker government 

has outlined the roadmap for elections in 2008 that you and Mr. 

Kirk have called for, and that roadmap includes a new computerized voter list and a reformed election law, and perhaps even more 

significantly, the political parties that have long been a roadblock 

to democracy themselves are considering the internal reforms that 

provide an opportunity for fresh leadership and new ideas that 

would benefit the Bangladeshi people. 

At the same time, the caretaker government is leading an unprecedented anticorruption campaign that has had some notable 

successes like separating the lower courts from the executive 

branch and streamlining the operations of Bangladesh’s largest 

port. These are long overdue reforms that we have been urging the 

government to take for years. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have noted that the caretaker government 

has carried out more reforms than previous governments have enacted in the last 10 years. 

We are carefully monitoring the campaigns and the actions of the 

caretaker government, and we are seizing every opportunity to 

urge the caretaker both privately and publicly to respect due process, to ensure that international standards of human rights are 

upheld, and we have been saying both publicly and privately that 

Bangladesh must hold free, fair, transparent and fully 

participatory elections as promised or this opportunity to advance 

the interests of the Bangladeshi people will be lost. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know well, this is a dynamic part of the 

world, and much is happening. Again, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing and look forward to answering your 

questions. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gastright follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN A. GASTRIGHT, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

STATE

Pakistan 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, Pakistan plays a key role in some of our most critical 

foreign policy goals, such as eliminating terrorism and violent extremism as a threat 
18

to our security, and creating a regional environment inhospitable to terrorism and 

other forms of violent extremism. Pakistan is also critical to Operation Enduring 

Freedom in Afghanistan. Without Pakistani support and cooperation, we would face 

severe difficulties in supplying, reinforcing, and protecting our Coalition Forces deployed in neighboring Afghanistan to defend the democratically elected Afghan government. Most of the logistical support for those forces in Afghanistan passes 

through Pakistan. Pakistan also is key to our strategy of linking the landlocked, energy-laden nations of Central Asia to the dynamic markets of South Asia. 

A stable, prosperous, democratic Pakistan is key to the stability and prosperity 

of the entire region and plays a critical part in all our policy goals for the area. A 

successful transformation of Pakistan—politically, economically, and democratically—would bring the benefits of prosperity, good governance, and justice to 160 

million Pakistani people. This in turn would help to reverse the inroads made by 

violent extremism and help Pakistan to move toward modernity and moderation, 

eventually becoming a model in the Muslim world. Our interests in Pakistan are 

immediate as well as long-term and strategic; we will be working together to address the issues and concerns in this region for many years to come. Therefore, one 

of our most important objectives is to forge a long-term strategic partnership between the United States and Pakistan that is strong, multi-dimensional, and enduring. But at the same time we must address our immediate security concerns emanating from that country. Our assistance will help the Pakistani people to enjoy the 

benefits of security, prosperity, democracy, and good governance as well as improve 

governance in the least governed and most vulnerable areas of Pakistan. 

The remainder of 2007 presents challenges and opportunities to accomplish fundamental tasks essential to achieving our long-term goals in Pakistan. This year will 

help determine whether Pakistan makes a successful transition to a democratically 

elected, civilian government, and we intend to assist President Musharraf to fulfill 

his commitment to this goal. We believe that Pakistan must transition to civilian 

democracy and we are backing the Pakistani government’s efforts to make that 

transition. Civilian democratic rule will allow the Pakistani military to focus on its 

primary job of providing security for the people of Pakistan and ensuring that Pakistan fulfills its international obligations to combat terrorism and violent extremism. 

I believe we have a good plan in place to work with Pakistan on all of these fronts. 

The challenge is to maintain the right balance and implement the plan quickly and 

effectively. 

The upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections will be critical benchmarks in determining Pakistan’s progress toward full democracy. To help Pakistan 

transition to a sustainable democracy, we are helping strengthen the accountability 

and transparency of Pakistan’s democratic and civic institutions. The U.S. Agency 

for International Development and the State Department are working with international partners to provide the necessary tools for a democratic parliamentary election in Pakistan later this year. We are helping to create new computerized electoral 

rolls to help ensure that all Pakistani citizens eligible to vote will be able to, provide 

over 300,000 transparent ballot boxes, and display the new voter lists at 45,000 centers nationwide. 

Additionally we are working with the Asia Foundation and others to train 60,000 

polling staff and other officials, provide 175,000 voter screens to ensure voter privacy, train local media on providing election press coverage, and build voter awareness. We have focused on funding nongovernmental organizations that encourage 

women to participate in Pakistan’s electoral process with a particular focus on the 

FATA and the Northwest Frontier Province. Finally, we are working to ensure that 

the election is adequately monitored by independent observers. But we also know 

that a thriving democracy requires more than just holding elections. Democracy requires a free press, the right to free assembly, a fair and impartial criminal justice 

system, a vibrant civil society, and broadly participative and responsive political 

parties and institutions. We are working to strengthen those important aspects of 

democracy as well. 

The July 20 judgment issued by Pakistan’s Supreme Court that reinstated Chief 

Justice Chaudhry is an index of the independence of Pakistan’s judicial system. The 

President submitted the issue to the judicial branch and promised to abide by its 

judgment, and despite the unfavorable ruling, did precisely that. The Chief Justice 

having been reinstated by the Court, the matter was resolved in accordance with 

the Pakistani constitution and both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Aziz 

accepted the Supreme Court’s decision. We think this outcome demonstrates to the 

world that the democratic institutions of Pakistan are able to function in accordance 

with the rule of law and be honored by all participants. 

Most moderate Pakistanis are concerned about the growing threat of extremism 

and violence. Last month, the Pakistani government moved decisively against ex-
19

tremists in Islamabad’s Red Mosque after Mosque leaders spurned opportunities to 

peacefully resolve the standoff. At the same time, the Government of Pakistan is 

increasing pressure on the militants and extremists in certain areas of Pakistan. 

Extremists reacted with retaliatory bombings in the tribal regions and in 

Islamabad, killing more than 200 Pakistanis and wounding many others. Most of 

the casualties have been Pakistani security forces, many of whom were moving into 

positions in the tribal areas. Islamabad has also borne the brunt of this retaliation, 

suffering a suicide bombing at a political rally that killed 12, and a suicide bombing 

at a market that killed 18 people. This week Pakistani security forces conducted another raid on extremists in North Waziristan, killing some 10 to 12 militants in the 

operation, according to initial press reports. 

The Government has meanwhile expanded its political efforts in the Tribal Areas 

by working to boost the capacity and will of local tribes to resist and expel violent 

extremists in their midst, achieving successes in a few cases such as the expulsion 

of the al Qaeda-affiliated Uzbeks by tribal forces in and around South Waziristan. 

At this moment, the Pakistan Army is redeploying thousands of additional troops 

to the border area and strengthening border posts and controls. Since January, Pakistani forces have helped kill or capture major Taliban figures such as Obeidullah. 

In the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the Afghan-Pakistani border regions, the government is implementing a comprehensive, sustainable development 

strategy to combat terrorists and extremists and remove them from their hideouts 

by integrating these ungoverned spaces into the mainstream of Pakistan’s economy 

and government. The goal is to render these areas permanently inhospitable to terrorism and violent extremism. 

Of course, we are under no illusions about the difficulties the Government of Pakistan will face in extending its writ to these previously ungoverned territories. 

The Tribal Areas, for example, have the worst social indicators in all of Pakistan, 

such as a 3 percent female literacy rate. We also are clear about the level of commitment required to prevent Al Qaeda and the Taliban from continuing to exploit their 

border hideouts as a safehaven in Pakistan. In a $2 billion, ten-year sustainable development plan, the Government of Pakistan is committed to improving living conditions, expanding governance, and improving security in the Tribal Areas, and we 

are asking for $750 million over five years to assist Pakistan in this crucial endeavor. By boosting security and governance as well as political and economic development, the people of the border region will have a real opportunity to embrace peace 

and prosperity, while those preaching violence and extremism will be left in the 

cold. 

President Bush has announced his intention to work with Congress to create Reconstruction Opportunity Zones which would further expand cooperation and official 

ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan. These zones will be a critical part of our 

broader counterterrorism strategy in those areas, designed to connect isolated regions to the global economy and create vital employment opportunities in territories 

prone to extremism. The zones will encourage investment and economic development by granting duty-free entry to the United States for certain goods produced 

in the zones, and create employment alternatives for the working-age population 

who may otherwise be drawn into terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and other illicit 

activities. This initiative includes input from across the spectrum of U.S. government agencies—State, Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative, Treasury, Defense, 

Agriculture, Labor, Homeland Security, and others. We hope Congress will pass the 

legislation necessary to create this trade preference program soon so that we can 

utilize this important economic tool in our fight against terrorism. 

Our partnership with the Pakistanis gives us an opportunity to support Pakistan’s 

own efforts to become a modern, open, prosperous, democratic state, and a moderate 

voice in the Islamic world. That is the vision for Pakistan that President Musharraf 

has articulated and demonstrated by reiterating his resolve to stop talibanization 

on the frontier and in urban areas, such as the Red Mosque compound. It is strongly 

in the U.S. national interest that Pakistan succeeds in realizing this vision. 

There has been a lot of discussion about whether Pakistan can and should ‘‘do 

more’’ against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Islamabad faces immense challenges on 

this front, but Pakistan’s contribution has been invaluable. Since 2001, the Pakistani Government has arrested hundreds of terrorist suspects, turning over to the 

U.S. such senior Al Qaeda figures as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al 

Shibh, and Abu Zubaida. Pakistan is an indispensable partner, one whom we not 

only believe can do more in the war on terror, but whom we believe is already demonstrating its commitment to doing more, not only because it is essential to our security, but because they recognize it is essential to their own. Pakistan has already 

increased its military personnel and assets in the FATA region and must now use 

these assets to take more effective action against extremists taking refuge there. 
20

There are currently 100,000 Pakistani forces stationed on the rough terrain near the 

Afghanistan border, and more than 600 members of Pakistan’s security forces have 

sacrificed their lives in support of anti-terror efforts, more than 100 of them in the 

last few weeks alone. Pakistani security operations in the tribal areas are disrupting terrorist activities in an area where terrorists previously felt secure. 

In many of its operations against militants, Pakistani troops are using equipment 

and training provided by the United States. This assistance has been crucial to bolstering Pakistan’s anti-terrorism capabilities, and by extension, our own. The State 

Department remains committed to working closely with the Department of Defense, 

with our Pakistani counterparts, and with Congress to ensure that Pakistani security forces have the necessary training and equipment to conduct these operations 

appropriately and effectively. I am aware of the substantial amount of foreign assistance—both economic and security—that we provide Pakistan, and assure you 

that we will work to see that these valuable resources the American people provide 

to Pakistan are utilized efficiently and effectively. 

President Musharraf shares with the United States a recognition that we cannot 

counter terrorism and other forms of violent extremism by military means alone. 

Our mutual goal is to drain the swamp by creating an environment inhospitable to 

terrorists and extremists. That can be done only by bringing governance into 

ungoverned areas while persuading the local people that the benefits of governance 

are greatly preferable to the false hope offered by extremist recruiters. Musharraf’s 

plans for the most vulnerable areas of Pakistan include not only security operations 

to combat terrorists but assistance and development to provide for basic human 

services, health, education, economic opportunity and local governance that provides 

for civilian security for those that support the government’s efforts. His plan cannot 

succeed without a modicum of security and the support of local tribal leaders, and 

Musharraf has tried a number of methods to enlist their cooperation, including several agreements and undertakings with various tribal groups. For the most part 

these agreements were poorly implemented and enforced and failed to produce the 

results sought by the Government. 

Before these arrangements existed, the Pakistani Government had tried deploying 

regular Pakistani military forces to these areas, but found that this antagonized 

local tribal leaders at the same time they pressed Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Government then tried a strategy of working with the tribes to fight extremists in the 

area. This strategy had limited success not only because the tribes failed to stop the 

extremists but because those who did cooperate with the government were sometimes murdered by extremists. One unfortunate indicator of the insurgents’ desperation to maintain their hold is their willingness to kill tribal leaders to intimidate 

the local population. It is worth pointing out that the tribes in these areas have 

been victims more than supporters of the extremists. While the government has reinserted some forces into the tribal areas, long-term denial of these areas to terrorists will require the eventual support and cooperation of the local population. We 

think that in President Musharraf’s three-pronged security, governance and development strategy the Government has finally found the right approach in the FATA 

and we and the international community should support it. 

U.S. development assistance in Pakistan is tailored to help build sustainable 

growth and improve living standards that will promote the conditions for good governance, responsible citizenship, and foreign investment. In 2006, the United States 

spent more than $100 million to help Pakistan upgrade primary and higher education. Our emphasis is on improving the quality and affordability of Pakistan’s 

public schools and to permit parents of limited means to pursue educational opportunities for their children beyond religiously oriented madrassahs. Pakistan’s efforts 

to improve education are showing results. In Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, 

free textbooks and stipends paid to female students have increased enrollment by 

more than two million students since 2001. In the Tribal Areas, enrollments have 

increased 38% since 2000 with female enrollment accounting for 27% of total enrollments. National female literacy rates in Pakistan have increased from 32% in 1998 

to 40% in 2005. 

An additional $45.7 million in U.S. funding is aimed at improving maternal and 

newborn health services and the accessibility and availability of family planning 

products, prevent major infectious diseases and increase access to clean drinking 

water. 

We are also working closely with our Pakistani and non-governmental partners 

on key issues such as furthering women’s rights and legal protection for ethnic and 

religious minorities, and combating forced child labor and human trafficking. Women’s health is a particular challenge in Pakistan, but we know that the rate of maternal mortality can be lowered significantly with properly trained rural health providers, and the U.S. Agency for International Development providing such training. 
21

We continue to actively pursue our public diplomacy efforts inside Pakistan to ensure that we reach out to Pakistani citizens to share our own message, and help 

others understand American policies, views and values. Americans continue to be 

generous in their willingness to help and reach out to Pakistanis as demonstrated 

after the devastating 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, where the immediate and overwhelming support of the U.S. military and the donations of private Americans saved 

many lives and garnered the goodwill of the Pakistani people. Nothing could have 

been more effective in demonstrating American values and disseminating a message 

of friendship between our peoples. 

We are working with the Pakistani and the Afghan governments to find ways to 

assist their efforts to stabilize the areas along their rugged border. The joint statement issued by President Musharraf and President Karzai in Ankara this spring 

demonstrates growing cooperation between the two countries. But it is obvious that 

tensions remain. U.S. and NATO policies must continue to foster expanded Pakistan-Afghanistan bilateral dialogue, stronger economic and trade ties, and deeper 

cooperation between Pakistani and Afghan border security forces. With U.S. assistance, Pakistan is working to secure its border with Afghanistan to prevent the 

smuggling of arms, terrorists, and illegal drugs which are fueling the Taliban insurgency. 

Pakistan’s transformation into a moderate democracy and a prosperous and open 

nation where its people can thrive is vital to our own future and safety, as well as 

to the future prosperity and regional stability of South and Central Asia. I look forward to working with Congress toward this goal. 

Bangladesh 

Moving on to Bangladesh, we find a country in transition. In accordance with the 

Bangladeshi constitution, the outgoing government of Prime Minister Khaleda Zia 

turned over the reigns of government on October 28, 2006 to the newly appointed 

Caretaker Government, appointed by the President to conduct elections within 90 

days. From the beginning the opposition accused the Caretaker Government of 

party favoritism, unfairness, and incompetence. The former opposition party leader 

Sheikh Hasina called for massive demonstrations against the government that 

turned bloody and ultimately promised to boycott the elections if her many demands 

were not met. Our encouragement of a dialogue or compromise between the two 

main parties fell on deaf ears. 

On January 11, 2007, on what appeared to be the eve of one-sided, violent elections, the President, at the urging of senior military officials, declared a state of 

emergency, indefinitely postponed elections, dismissed the Caretaker Government, 

and replaced it with a non-partisan group of advisers drawn mostly from the private 

sector—all actions permitted under the Bangladesh constitution. The new Caretaker 

Government immediately took measures, such as replacing the Election Commission 

and preparing a new and more accurate voter list, which had been key opposition 

demands. Some civil liberties were suspended, and a massive anti-corruption campaign swept dozens of senior politicians, businessmen, and government officials into 

custody. Six months later the state of emergency remains and some civil liberties 

have still not been restored, elections have not yet been held, and arrests remain 

15 percent higher than last year. And yet independent polls reveal continued strong 

support for the Bangladesh government among Bangladeshis. The challenge for U.S. 

policy makers has been to forge a policy that accommodates the complex realities 

on the ground in Bangladesh—a country that was fast becoming a democracy in 

name only, where money, cronyism, and intimidation increasingly dictated the outcome of elections, the Parliament could not function, the electoral winners vanquished the losers, and the opposition’s sole focus was on bringing down the government at any cost. 

From the beginning, the new Caretaker Government stressed that it sought to restore, not replace, Bangladesh’s democracy, by undertaking a comprehensive reform 

aimed at leading the country toward free, fair, and credible elections. The government insisted that it would not be rushed in this difficult task. Initially we were 

troubled that this dramatic shift in government might signal a hidden agenda to 

indefinitely delay a return to democracy and conceal a secret military coup. We articulated these concerns to the new Caretaker Government immediately, calling for 

a roadmap to elections to be announced as soon as possible and advocating a lifting 

of the ban on political activity. We also insisted that, while we applauded the anticorruption effort, it would enjoy our continued support only if conducted with respect for international standards of human rights and with due regard for due process under the law of Bangladesh. Thus far the Caretaker Government has been 

open and responsive to our views, and has taken steps to address each of our concerns. 
22

Bangladesh is a moderate and tolerant Muslim-majority country. While its democratic credentials have not always been perfect, it has held three elections since the 

restoration of democracy 16 years ago, and its people take pride in this achievement. 

On July 15, the Bangladesh Election Commission released a roadmap detailing the 

path to hold democratic elections by the end of December 2008. With international 

assistance, the Commission has already begun creating a new voter list with photographs—a huge step forward in a country where flawed and suspect voter lists have 

cast doubt on previous electoral outcomes. The Commission plans to start meeting 

with political parties to discuss electoral reform in September 2007 and will continue with electoral law reform by February 2008. Staggered local elections will 

begin in January 2008 with national elections scheduled by December 2008. We 

have commended the Caretaker Government on the release of this plan, but will 

continue to encourage them to honor this timeline. 

The next step for Bangladesh to take is to lift the ban on political activities, which 

hampers the parties’ ability to meet and introduce reforms. Since the Caretaker 

Government took power there has been a ban on political activity. At this point it 

is necessary for the government to lift the ban so that parties are able to meet legally to initiate internal reforms and prepare for the upcoming elections. We will 

continue to push the Caretaker Government to relax the ban on politics to allow 

Bangladesh’s civil and political society to prepare for elections. 

Part and parcel of electoral reform is political party reform, which I alluded to 

earlier. Until now, politics in Bangladesh has been dominated by Sheikh Hasina of 

the Awami League and Khaleda Zia of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Both have 

served as Prime Minister and hold deep grievances against the other, poisoning the 

interaction between the two parties. They also resist any party reforms that will diminish their power. Reformers within each of the parties are pushing for fundamental changes in party leadership and structure and for internal party democracy. 

While this is a matter for the Bangladeshi people to decide, the United States is 

actively following these developments. 

Mr. Chairman, you are no doubt also aware of the Caretaker Government’s anticorruption campaign. Bangladesh has the dubious distinction of consistently scoring 

among the most corrupt countries in the world according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Corruption such as this is not a simple 

matter of lining one’s pockets at the expense of wealthy corporations, or doing a few 

favors for a friend. Corruption of this nature eats away at the very tissue of society, 

resulting in justice denied to those too poor to bribe, deaths and injuries from illegal 

construction, mudslides due to illegal excavation, and poor basic services due to lax 

revenue collection. It is no coincidence, for example, that Bangladesh has a serious 

power generation deficit, and that many of the corruption allegations against highprofile figures involve power projects. As such, the strong actions the Caretaker 

Government has taken against corruption are popular with the average Bangladeshi 

and underlie the Caretaker Government’s support among the people of Bangladesh. 

The government can point to achievements like moving swiftly to adopt the UN 

Convention Against Corruption, separating the lower courts from the executive 

branch, and streamlining the operations of Bangladesh’s largest port, cutting transit 

times through the port from over eight days to three and trimming the rolls of noshow employees by 50 percent. 

However, concern about the potential for over-zealous anti-corruption efforts yielding human rights abuses has resulted in a number of inquiries from NGOs, Congress and the press. Approximately 200 top political and business officials, from 

both major parties, have been arrested on corruption charges since January. In the 

first six months of 2007, approximately 286,000 people have been arrested, a figure 

15 percent higher than during the same period last year. This number includes all 

arrests throughout the country, from charges of petty theft to murder, as well as 

the enforcement of long-standing arrest warrants that, for political purposes, were 

never acted upon. According to the government and human rights NGOs, the vast 

majority of those arrested have been released. The anti-corruption campaign has 

spared no one, regardless of rank; former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself was 

arrested on July 16 on extortion charges involving a power project when she was 

Prime Minister. She is being held in a special jail created for her in the residence 

of the Deputy Whip of Parliament, where she is allowed regular access to her lawyers and family. In a demonstration that Bangladesh has a system of checks and 

balances, the High Court ruled against the government, and in favor of Hasina, in 

a petition regarding one of her cases this week. We continue to monitor the case 

closely, and urge the government to ensure Hasina’s rights are respected. 

The United States supports, as always, efforts to combat corruption. The reforms 

being enacted by the government are necessary to restore integrity to government, 

impartiality and fairness to the criminal justice system, and to ensure the proper 
23

funding of public programs from tax revenue. But it is also essential that the burden of corruption be removed from Bangladesh’s economy to allow it to function 

properly, become more efficient in order to continue to grow and expand. However, 

we are carefully monitoring the campaign and seizing every opportunity to urge the 

Caretaker Government, both publicly and privately, to respect due process in every 

action of the anti-corruption campaign, to follow Bangladeshi law, and ensure that 

it upholds international standards of human rights. Detainees should be granted access to legal counsel and should not be held indefinitely without being charged. Although some have complained about the slow pace of individual cases, the courts 

have made a few convictions and more trials are on their way. We need to ensure, 

however, that the drive to rid Bangladesh of one evil must not substitute another 

and must not come at the expense of the basic rights and freedoms that are necessary for a stable, democratic future. 

The Caretaker Government has not been without its missteps. Some of its initial 

actions toward journalists and detainees did not accord with the norms we would 

expect from a democratic country. Initially the government attempted to remove the 

leaders of the two largest political parties with out due process. However, the government has since corrected several initial mistakes. Formal limitations and informal pressure on journalists has begun to ease and, despite concerns that the increased number of arrests would result in an increased number of custodial deaths, 

in fact there has been a significant drop in the number of deaths by law enforcement officials so far compared to the same period in 2006. We seek, however, even 

more than this; we are asking to see independent investigations of officers, whether 

civilian or military, who are involved in these abuses, and appropriate disciplinary 

action taken against those who have been found at fault. We will continue to monitor the human rights situation and, when appropriate, press the Caretaker Government to take the actions necessary to protect the rights of all during this critical 

time in Bangladesh’s history. 

Mr. Chairman, Bangladesh, a country where poverty is rampant, is also beginning 

to see further economic growth. The World Bank and IMF have noted that the Caretaker Government has carried out more reforms than previous governments have 

enacted in the last 10 years. GDP growth, at 6.7 percent for Fiscal Year 2007, was 

the strongest on record since Bangladesh’s independence. Economic prospects are 

brightening. But problems remain. Increasing prices of basic staples such as rice 

and gasoline are pressuring the poor and electricity shortages hinder industrial 

growth. Many of the decisions taken by the government to improve order and conserve power, for example have courted dissatisfaction. Efforts to address chronic 

power shortages by curtailing the evening hours of shops has resulted in economic 

losses to shopkeepers and disrupted work schedules of those accustomed to shopping 

after work. Razing of slums constructed without legal work permits has displaced 

the poor. Strict import regulation and the elimination of small vendors have also 

contributed to rising costs of basic commodities. These are some of the continuing 

challenges facing the government. Bangladesh struggles to collect taxes and is facing growing inflation. However, I am confident that the current government, led by 

the former head of Bangladesh’s central bank Fakhruddin Ahmed, will address 

these economic challenges through prudent reforms and completion of the anti-corruption campaign. 

Bangladesh has also joined with us to combat terrorism. On August 17, 2005, the 

banned terrorist group Jamaatul-Mujahedin Bangladesh launched a nationwide 

campaign of intimidation by detonating nearly 500 small bombs across Bangladesh 

on a single day. The arrest of its top leadership in late 2005 and early 2006 under 

the Zia government led to a halt in terrorism, but a new spate of arrests in late 

2006 and early 2007 indicated that extremists are regrouping with the intent of conducting new attacks. Upon taking office, the Caretaker Government identified 

counterterrorism as a top priority. Since then, Bangladesh has pursued extremists, 

cracking down on the Jamaatul-Mujahedin Bangladesh, sentencing and executing 

six convicted militants in March of this year. The United States will continue to cooperate with Bangladesh, helping it to strengthen control of its borders and land, 

sea, and air ports of entry. Further, we will provide, with the consent of the Congress, additional counterterrorism-related assistance in Fiscal Year 2009. This assistance is necessary to support Bangladesh in its quest to rid itself of further violent militants that may emerge from within the country or seek safe haven in its 

borders. 

The situation in Bangladesh remains fluid and the Caretaker Government still 

must prove itself by adhering to the elections roadmap it has released, and by meeting each milestone and benchmark, culminating in free, fair, transparent, and fully 

participatory elections. It must continue to fight corruption while ensuring that the 

human rights of all its citizens are preserved and protected, while fostering the 
24

growth of the very institutions that will make sustaining democracy possible, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and a fair and impartial judicial system. The United 

States will continue working with our longstanding partner as it moves through this 

important period in its history. Together we can strengthen a growing democracy, 

eliminate terrorism from Bangladesh, and provide brighter opportunities for Bangladesh’s over 150 million citizens.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you both very much. 

Mr. Gastright, it seems that the consensus view within the intelligence community is that al-Qaeda has largely restored its organization and its capabilities and has been able to do so because it 

found a safe haven within Pakistan, yet your statement paints a 

decidedly different portrait of a Pakistan that is actively and effectively combating terrorism. 

How is it that al-Qaeda has flourished in a country that in your 

view is actively combating them? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The intelligence estimate that you were obviously referring to is the recently released 

National Intelligence estimate. I brought a copy of it here. It is entitled The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. and the Homeland. 

The first judgment that the assessment makes is that terrorists 

are going to continue to try and attack us here in the United 

States. I think that is fairly obvious. 

The second one that it assesses, and this is generally overlooked 

by those who are discussing the matter, is that, and I would like 

to quote:

‘‘We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism 

efforts over the past 5 years have constrained the ability of alQaeda to attack the U.S. homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target to 

strike than on 9–11.’’

The third bullet goes on to describe that terrorists remain active 

in their ability to recruit, train and the like and that they have 

found a safe haven in Pakistan’s federally administered tribal area, 

as you suggested. 

This does not, however, suggest that the Government of Pakistan 

is not fully committed in this fight. The Government of Pakistan 

is no friend of al-Qaeda, and certainly President Musharraf is no 

friend of al-Qaeda. In the last 4 years, al-Qaeda has made at least 

five attempts on his life, and no government has captured or killed 

more al-Qaeda or Taliban extremists than the Government of Pakistan. 

Now, again, they recognize and have acknowledged that a safe 

haven has developed in a remote part of their country. This is a 

part of the country that has not been effectively governed since Alexander the Great was there, but they have developed a strategy 

entitled Pakistan’s Strategy for the Federally Administered Tribal 

Areas, and it is a comprehensive counterterrorism, counterinsurgency strategy that the experts in the field—not me, but the best 

in the business—have described as the most comprehensive strategy the Government of Pakistan has ever embarked upon. We are 

supporting that strategy. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. That area is where they are flourishing, right? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Sir, it doesn’t say flourishing. It says that they 

have found the ability to operate in——
25

Mr. ACKERMAN. No, no. I am asking you. I am not asking what 

that said. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Again, sir——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is that the area where the terrorists are flourishing? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. It does not suggest that they are flourishing. It 

suggests that they found the ability to operate in that environment. 

Mr. CHABOT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. CHABOT. Just one quick point. I hear this a lot about the 

Government of Pakistan has killed more of the terrorists than anybody else, but isn’t that because that is where they are at? 

I mean, they are in their country in the Northwest Territory up 

there, and I understand that there is difficulty in going up there 

because there are a lot of them and it is a lawless area and they 

suffer a lot of casualties when they try to go up there. I hear that 

all the time that they have killed more than anybody else, that is, 

because they are in their country. That is a lot of the criticism that 

we have about the government, their government, not sufficiently 

going after them. 

Again, I know it is dangerous work and hard work, et cetera, but 

isn’t that true, that that is where they are? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Clearly al-Qaeda has had the opportunity and 

ability to operate in that environment. They had a safe haven in 

Afghanistan for years which as a result of Operation Enduring 

Freedom we eliminated it. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I think the gentleman’s point, which I believe is 

well-taken, is that while it is absolutely true that the New York 

City Police Department gives more tickets on the Long Island Expressway than any other country gives on the Long Island Expressway is absolutely true, it really doesn’t mean much. If the administration is claiming bragging rights——

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Sir, it is not bragging rights. It is a statement 

of facts. 

Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. On behalf of Pakistan because they 

are killing more terrorists because they have more terrorists, and 

I think that is the gentleman’s point. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. But the suggestion is that they are not actively 

engaged in the fight, and the reality is that Pakistani soldiers are 

dying because of the fight, and al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are 

being killed because of this effort. Captured and killed. Excuse me. 

Again, it does not diminish the fact that, as you suggested, they 

are there, but the alternative could be a situation such as Afghanistan where the government was actively hosting the terrorists and 

extremists. That is not the case with the Government of Pakistan. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I think I conceded in my opening statement that 

Musharraf is looking to have it both ways, that they are cooperating with us in the war against the al-Qaeda, but against our 

other enemy and their enemy, the Taliban, they seem to have 

taken a powder. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Again, the intelligence, and I am happy to have 

a detailed discussion on this in a classified setting, the intelligence 

suggests that they are especially recently taking aggressive actions 

against the Taliban as well. 
26

Mr. ACKERMAN. Okay. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. In just the last month——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Without revealing any great national secrets——

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. I would concede that they are making efforts. The point is are they effective? Are those efforts successful? 

The evidence is to the contrary, which has nothing to do with intelligence I would think. It seems obvious to most people even without the National Intelligence Report estimate that the Taliban has 

regrouped, and they are back as strong as they ever were. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I respectfully disagree, sir, that they are back 

and as strong as they ever were. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. What degree of they are back and they are 

strong? Would you say 80 percent? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I couldn’t assess their current capabilities, but 

it is a shadow of the government that controlled Afghanistan. 

Clearly it is a shadow. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are they back more than 50 percent? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Again, sir, that is an assessment that I think 

would be better made by an intelligence expert, an intelligence analyst. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. How do we and the American public gauge 

whether or not the effort is effective? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Against the Taliban or against al-Qaeda? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Against both, but specifically right now the 

Taliban. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Again, I think that the measure of success 

against the Taliban is whether or not the senior leadership has the 

ability to operate unhindered, whether or not they are being captured and killed. Again, the intelligence is clear. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I don’t know that the standard that they should 

be allowed is that they have been successful in operating 

unhindered. Nobody is suggesting that they are out there in full 

public view with the concurrence of the government. That should 

not be our standard. That they are hindered in some way is the 

least of our expectations. After all this money and all this effort, 

it seems like the government has turned almost a blind eye. It is 

a wink and a nod. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. One of the assertions in your previous question 

was whether or not it is a question of will or capability, and I believe the Government of Pakistan has said help us with the capability, but don’t question our will because we are ready to engage 

in this effort. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. What happened to the deal that the government 

cut with the tribal leaders? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I think the government recognized it didn’t 

work. It didn’t work because the strategy that the Government of 

Pakistan has designed calls for a security component. It calls for 

a governance component. It calls for an economic development component. 

The first component that they moved forward was this deal with 

the tribes, a governance agreement basically saying, listen, we are 

going to give you some autonomy to operate. We will pull our 
27

troops out of your region if you adhere to certain principles, principles that we would agree with, by the way: No cross border, no 

Talibanization, respect the writ of the government. Those principles are fine. 

What resulted was I think that the Government of Pakistan lived 

up to their side of the deal and the al-Qaeda and Taliban enemy 

did not. Now the Government of Pakistan has recently said obviously that is not going to work. We are going to have to do this 

a little differently. We are going to have to do it comprehensively. 

As a result, we always used the figure of 85,000 troops. That is 

now 100,000 troops in the federally administered tribal areas, a resurgence of the stick, so to speak, in order to result in adherence 

to the principles. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And your assertion is that they are effective? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Our assertion is that they are taking actions as 

we speak. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are they effective? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. They are taking actions. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are they effective? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. They are having effects. Now could we improve 

the effectiveness of the organization? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Perhaps you didn’t understand my question. Are 

they effective? I am not sure I can fine-tune that any more. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. If I could just respond? If I could show you a 

graphic, a picture if you will. 

This is a picture of the Pakistani army folks that we trained. 

This guy is as well-trained, as well-equipped as any soldier in the 

world. He is wearing full body armor. He has optical scanners. This 

is a weapon that——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Looking good. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. This is the Frontier Corpsman. This is a World 

War I kit that he is outfitted with. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is that the same? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The Pakistani Government has said help us get 

these guys who are local, who are indigenous. Help us get these 

guys up to standard so that those who are from the local community can be engaged in this effort. They are more likely to have 

support of the community. That is part of their comprehensive 

strategy. Help us get these guys so that we can be, the Government 

of Pakistan can be, more effective. We think that part of the strategy makes good sense. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is that working? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. This is a new development, and it is part of a 

new initiative that the Government of Pakistan has embarked 

upon this year to make that piece more effective. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. There is an old expression that went something 

like you can dress them up, but you can’t make them dance. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Again, we have just begun the process of working with the Frontier Corps and in fact the tribal levies, which are 

considered local law enforcement, and so there is no doubt that 

there is going to be——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is there an assessment that local law enforcement wants to be and can be effective? 
28

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The assessment is that the local law enforcement needs to be effective. Currently there are 6,000 tribal levies 

in the federally administered tribal areas. They assess they need 

about 20,000. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, local law enforcement needs to be effective. 

Sending them bubble gum won’t do it. 

I am trying to find out how you make them, if you can make 

them. That they have to be, they should be, we want them to be, 

this is the prayer. This is the plan of prayer. Let us pray that they 

become more effective. That is not the question. How do we do it? 

How do they do it? Do they want to do it before we figure out if 

they can do it? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. We have a small program ongoing right now to 

train the tribal levies, to train them. Those programs are fully 

staffed and fully——

Mr. ACKERMAN. How many people? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The classes are full, so if the question is: Are 

they interested——

Mr. ACKERMAN. How many people are in those full classes? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I believe there are 500 in the class. It takes 

about 6 months to train a class of tribal levies. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And how many people do we have there training 

them? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I don’t have that number. I will have to get it 

for you, sir. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple 

of quick questions. Relative to Nepal and the Maoist movement 

there, Ambassador Mann, could you tell us what, if any, involvement there is or support from China that the Maoist movement 

has? What do we know about that, if anything, that you can disclose here? 

Ambassador MANN. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is 

basically an indigenous movement that has arisen out of the difficulties in the countryside, the very bad social and economic conditions there. 

I think, I mean, from our own analysis, we are not seeing that 

this is fueled by external sources. It sprung up in the mid 1990s. 

It has attained a certain degree of power in the countryside, especially through coercion, violence, through tactics like that. And I 

think, sir, that is a capsule description that I hope answers the 

question. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. So they haven’t been supplied to our knowledge then as far as weapons or explosives or any of that from an 

outside source that we are aware of? 

Ambassador MANN. Well, in that part of the world, borders are 

very leaky, and I can’t give you a precise answer as to where the 

weapons come from, but it is also a very low-tech insurgency with 

some firearms but also simply sometimes with clubs and implements like that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. And then shifting to Sri Lanka relative to 

the Tamil Tigers, where are they getting their support from, whatever they utilize in order to carry out their——
29

Ambassador MANN. Well, a lot of this comes from the Tamil diaspora worldwide, our understanding is, both voluntarily and 

through means of coercion that the Tigers use to get funding for 

their cause. 

They have an extensive arms supply network. We know some of 

this. The United States carried out last year a series of arrests. 

The FBI conducted an investigation and conducted arrests that we 

hope went far to breaking up whatever network the Tigers had involving the United States and financial flows and weapons supply. 

But it is an extensive network, and as you noted, Mr. Congressman, this insurgency has been going on for more than 25 years, 

and they have had ample time to build these networks. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Gastright, let me switch over to Pakistan at this point. I may 

have a different view from my colleague from New York, the chairman of the committee, on some things relative to Afghanistan, certainly a lot of things with respect to Iraq and other things. 

I share some of the frustration relative to how successful President Musharraf has been toward going after al-Qaeda in the Northwest Territories. I may be somewhat more sympathetic to the extent I understand probably why they haven’t been more effective 

and the balancing act that he has had. 

Is it accurate that one of his principal problems is that if he is 

too aggressive after the elements up in that region of the country, 

the more terrorist-oriented elements up there, that he risks the 

stability of his government when it comes to perhaps inciting those 

who may be more sympathetic to those elements up there that he 

would like to get and we would like him to get? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, sir. I would simply add one other piece of 

this, and it goes back to your previous question, which is that is 

where they are. There was a policy in place for years. Islamization 

is what it was called in Pakistan. That policy and the legacy of the 

Jihad against the Soviet Union resulted in a large number of individuals having a predisposition to an extremist ideology. 

There are a number of Pakistanis who have this sentiment, and 

when the army goes up and gets attacked and returns fire, most 

of the time those are Pakistani citizens that the army is attacking 

and returning fire on. No government wants to fight its population. 

No government wants to be in that position. I think that you are 

right. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. That is a tight rope to walk. 

Mr. CHABOT. And yet we of course believe—I assume this is still 

the belief of many people within the State Department and the Defense Department, et cetera—that Osama bin Laden in particular 

and those who are closest to him and al-Qaeda we believe are in 

that area out there. I mean, sometimes we think he perhaps is on 

the Afghan side, but in general, I think most of the thinking is he 

is still in that area. Is that correct? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, sir. I believe the last testimony by the National Intelligence director assessed as much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. And again, I had mentioned in my opening 

statement about Senator Barack Obama’s comment I believe yesterday about being more aggressive and going after them. I think 
30

there has been some frustration. If we have our military engaged 

in that part of the world, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and the guy who 

was most responsible for September 11 happening is just across the 

border, why don’t we just send our troops in there and go after 

him? I mean, that kind of sentiment is there. 

What risk, if any, is there to the stability of Pakistan spreading 

our military involvement into another country if we took that type 

of action? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. First, sir, the federally administered tribal area 

is the size of New Jersey, so it is a fairly large-sized area. It has 

about 3.5 million people in it. It is obviously sovereign Pakistani 

territory. The Government of Pakistan has said let us address this 

within our own population. 

The concern obviously is a bunch of Americans would have no 

greater information than the Government of Pakistan, and again, 

they are actively engaged in that area with 100,000 people, 100,000 

troops. Again, it is a large area. It is extremely rugged, some of the 

most rugged terrain in the world. 

Again, the sovereign Government of Pakistan has said this is 

something we want to address. We want to root this out. Their 

long-term strategy laid out in this plan talks about not just killing 

people, because that in the long term won’t address the issue. 

The long-term strategy ultimately decides the best way to do this 

is to produce an environment that is inhospitable to extremists, to 

create an environment where the extremists simply cannot operate, 

where the population determines it is in their interest to work with 

the sovereign government. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. Finally let me turn to Bangladesh now. One of my frustrations and I think many others that 

have followed this issue is the government in Bangladesh continuing to put off the elections. I thought it was the end of 2008 

is what they were saying most recently, but then I heard that they 

are now perhaps saying 2009. Am I correct on 2009, or have I been 

misinformed on that? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Sir, I met with Ambassador Faruk Sobhan last 

week, the Special Envoy to Bangladesh, and he again reaffirmed 

that the roadmap to elections that the caretaker has recently laid 

out is on schedule. 

They are working with the United Nations UNDP to get the 

pieces in place to make sure that they meet the deadline that they 

have proposed. I think it would be a tremendous setback for the 

government if they were to let that slide. 

Mr. CHABOT. And by slide, you are talking about 2008? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. My staff had something here saying it now 

looks like elections will be delayed until 2009. Prior to reading this 

from my staff, I had not heard that. I had heard 2008 was the outside date at this point. So you don’t have any information on that 

either? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I don’t have any information to that effect, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I have not heard as much. 

Mr. CHABOT. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Ms. Jackson Lee? 
31

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You always focus this committee on very timely issues, and I appreciate 

this hearing in particular. It seems that there is not a lacking of 

questions and concerns that the Secretaries I hope will be able to 

share. I have heard some of the questions, and I appreciate both 

of you and your service. 

Let me acknowledge—I know the chairman has acknowledged—

the members of the Mongolian Parliament that I understand are 

here. We welcome them, and we thank them for their presence. 

We know that there are representatives from Bangladesh in the 

audience as well, and we certainly thank them for their interest. 

There may be others. Sri Lanka may be present as well. We thank 

them. 

I particularly want to acknowledge a delegation that I think will 

be very constructive, a trade delegation and business delegation, 

members of business from Karachi, Pakistan, who are here in the 

audience who have been visiting and I believe are offering some 

very constructive insight to some of the issues that we have to address. 

Let me first of all start with Sri Lanka. I know that our dear 

friend, Congressman Pallone, is otherwise attending to a need on 

the floor, but I want to raise a point that he has made in his testimony, that the military Government of Sri Lanka and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil have resumed a two-decade ethnic 

conflict where nearly 70,000 people have been killed since 1983. 

I think there was a lull while the tsunami took place, and I went 

to Sri Lanka during that time. We thought that there was a hope 

that there might be a reconciliation. It seems as if that is not the 

case. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, and more 

continue to die in Sri Lanka as a result of the violence. Both sides 

have chosen a military approach to the detriment of civilian distress. 

It appears the government and the alleged liberators are not interested in peace. I raise the question whether or not our Government has involved itself in any of the severe food shortages in the 

north and whether or not one of the points of Congressman 

Pallone’s statement and the similar letter or statement from Congressman Danny Davis, and, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may submit that statement into the record. 

I am not sure whether you have this letter, a letter from Congressman Danny Davis. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:]
32

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It makes the point that it really is the civilian 

victims, whether they are with the government or whether they 

happen to be the Tamil minority, who are suffering. What leadership role has the United States taken, Mr. Secretary, Secretary 

Mann, on trying to bridge the schism that seems to be deep in Sri 

Lanka? 

Ambassador MANN. Thank you very much, Madam Congresswoman. You have identified so many of the crucial issues in this 

conflict. It is a tragedy in humanitarian terms. It is a tragedy in 

political/socioeconomic terms. 

The United States has been approaching this on a number of 

fronts. In terms of the humanitarian issues, we of course have pro-
33

vided a great deal of tsunami relief. We have an aid and assistance 

program, but one thing I would flag also is that we advocate very 

strongly with the government to facilitate the work of nongovernmental organizations because we do a lot as a government, but the 

NGOs are just critical and U.N. organizations as well are critical 

to providing that assistance in these specific areas that you’re talking about. So we are very strong in pushing for their effective operation for the military forces in the region to allow them to operate 

to the fullest possible extent. 

In terms of the peacemaking, it is a very difficult circumstance. 

We are one of the co-chairs, the formal body of the international 

community, that tries to promote a peace between the two sides in 

this conflict. We meet regularly with the co-chairs. We travel to Sri 

Lanka. 

We push very hard, and I have done this in my own meetings 

with President Rajapaksa, and our leadership in the State Department has done this as well, our Ambassador, to convey the message 

that there is no lasting, stable solution that rests on military 

means. It has to be a negotiated settlement. So we have been pushing very hard on this. 

If I could add one other part to this, it is critical that the government observe internationally recognized standards of human 

rights, of good governance in the area it controls. It has just taken 

fully the east, the eastern part of Sri Lanka, and in terms of peacemaking, in terms of winning the confidence of the peoples of the 

area, it is essential that the government reverse the decline, reverse the deterioration of human rights standards, bring an end to 

the disappearance and kidnappings and in short restore rule of law 

to the area. 

So we hold no brief for the Tigers, which are a terrorist organization and under whose writ there is no rule of law in Tiger areas, 

but we have a very strong message for the government that it must 

govern effectively. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And it must not punish the Tamil civilians, 

who are as much victims as those who are associated with the government. 

I have a list of questions for Secretary Gastright, but, Secretary 

Mann, I do want to pursue it further maybe in a meeting. I am just 

thinking that we can do more with the United Nations. I don’t 

want to take time to get an answer right now unless maybe later 

on you might have time to do so. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. We will see if we can have time for a second 

round. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. I just want to go to Mr. Gastright to 

pose a question with him. 

Mr. Gastright, you have two challenging areas there that I am 

concerned about. Let me quickly go because I want to make sure 

I speak to the issues of Bangladesh and Pakistan. 

It is interesting that the right thing was done by the previous 

leadership resigning 90 days before the election was supposed to be 

held, but, lo and behold, we have a military-backed caretaker government currently in power in Bangladesh that will promptly lift 

or should lift the state of emergency and move toward holding free 

elections. We don’t have that. 
34

And so I think if we don’t see movement, it is important for all 

to hear. Some of us may be pushing legislation that would make 

a statement by this Congress. We know the State Department is 

working, but I think it is important for a very strong statement to 

be made to Bangladesh and the caretaker government that we 

should have due process for the citizens, that we should focus on 

early elections—my colleague from Ohio mentioned that—so that 

no slippage goes into 2009. It should be early in 2008. 

Certainly I think one of the strangest actions is not allowing political parties to meet. That is the very crux of democracy. So I 

would appreciate it if you would answer that. 

I think you are taking notes. Let me get in my second question, 

Mr. Secretary, because this is crucial. I heard you give and I saw 

it looked like a PowerPoint. I don’t know if we have it, but if it is 

not classified, I would certainly like to get a copy of it. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think we should clearly establish that Pakistan is a valuable ally and has really by the people, PakistaniAmericans, and the general public, the predominance of the general 

public particularly in the cities are advocates and seek to be allies 

in many instances of the United States, but we have a seeming rising crisis. One thing I think we have not done is taken advantage 

and embraced business groups, civic groups in Pakistan who want 

to stand for a democratic Pakistan. 

I indicated that there is a delegation traveling throughout the 

United States, and one of the things that they have offered as a 

suggestion is a reconstruction plan that I think is to be presented 

by the State Department in that region, and the region I am talking about of course is the area where the tribal leaders are. 

It is crucial that that reconstruction project turn into constructive legislation but that the State Department is energetic behind 

defining that there are good people in Pakistan who are attempting 

to do the right thing. 

Could you answer for me the fact that there are thousands of 

Pakistani troops on the border, that even though the agreements 

may not have been successful, they were with tribal leaders and 

not necessarily with the Taliban, that the focus was tribal leaders 

to sort of get them to unify against the terrorists and the value of 

Pakistan as an ally and the importance of reconstruction in the 

area to provide jobs? If you could go to Bangladesh and then that, 

I would appreciate it. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Thank you, ma’am. On the first question, Bangladesh, those were my talking points, obviously due process, a 

schedule for the elections, which they have put together, human 

rights. 

I am informed that this caretaker government may actually and 

shortly develop an independent Bangladeshi human rights commission—I think that would be a step in the right direction—that protects the basic human rights of all of its citizens. 

But indeed the mandate of the caretaker government is to establish the conditions for a free and fair election that all of the 

Bangladeshi people have an opportunity to take advantage of. That 

is what they need to be doing. They have in fact developed a plan 
35

which has been evaluated by the United Nations and thus far are 

on schedule to meet that plan. I agree with you again, ma’am, that 

slippage on that would be of great concern. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Please let them know that legislation may be 

forthcoming if they are not moving as quickly as they should——

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. By some who are interested in 

that approach. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. On the second issue of Pakistan, I 

too met with the Karachi Chamber of Commerce as they came 

through town this week, and I found that they had a number of 

very constructive ideas and excellent proposals, some of which we 

are already taking action on to elevate up to the highest levels. 

With regard to the FATA strategy, this is a 9-year, $2.5 billion 

effort that the Pakistanis outlined. They have asked the World 

Bank to evaluate the economic development piece of it. World Bank 

says if they will follow the plan, this will work. 

They are putting their own resources into it. This year the Government of Pakistan set aside $120 million for it. They have spent 

$96 million in health, in education and infrastructure, all of the 

things that you have to do to make an area more viable. 

We have come to the Congress and in a supplemental proposal 

asked for $150 million for this year and each of the proceeding 5 

years asked Congress to support that, to support the effort as well 

to make an area inhospitable to extremists, because the lion’s 

share of people are not supportive of extremists. They want to have 

a decent life. They want to send their children to school. 

As we establish girls’ schools, they are fully staffed. They are 

fully attended. It is the story of walking uphill both ways. They 

really are. The girls are making——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As you say this, are you convinced of this in 

that area that is so controversial that there are people there and 

that it is worth it that the United States pursues——

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. An alliance with Pakistan and 

that there is a desire to thwart the terrorists, to find Osama bin 

Laden, as opposed to being cohorts? Are there not Pakistani troops 

on the ground there, a substantial amount? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. Yes, ma’am. One hundred thousand 

Pakistani troops and again a comprehensive strategy developed by 

the Government of Pakistan that the best in this business have decreed is the most comprehensive plan the Government of Pakistan 

has ever attempted to make an area inhospitable for extremism 

and terrorists. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I don’t want to cover up finally to suggest that 

we don’t know that there are serious problems there, but I think 

the State Department and I think the administration has to show 

that they are mindful of the challenges there. They are mindful 

that it is dangerous. They are mindful that terrorists are there. 

They have to make a stronger point that while they are mindful 

of that that they are very much engaged so that Congress does not 

get a sense that we are covering up, that we are letting things get 

by, because I don’t want that to be the perception. 
36

At the same time, to give serious recognition to the bloodshed, 

loss of lives of Pakistani military, that there is a reconstruction 

economic program and that it may be salvageable, that area, if we 

are persistent and diligent in the war on terrorism, but that we 

continue the alliance with Pakistan. Is that the position? Am I capturing where we need to go? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. Yes, ma’am. Absolutely. To fight 

this fight, you have got to bring all the tools to the table, and that 

includes jobs and education and social opportunity for women and 

children especially. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Crowley? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing 

me to sit in on this subcommittee hearing as well as a Member of 

the full committee. It is appropriate following my good friend and 

colleague, Ms. Jackson Lee, who shares an interest that I have in 

this region. 

Mr. Gastright, I thank you as well as Ambassador Mann for your 

testimony today. Mr. Gastright, you and I have had an opportunity 

for a number of briefings particularly on Bangladesh, and I thank 

you for your availability both now but in the past as well and for 

your advice. 

Let me just follow up on a couple of questions that Ms. Lee had 

broached to you in regards to Bangladesh, one which I don’t think 

you answered, and that was pertaining to the political activity or 

the lack thereof of private political meetings that can take place 

within Bangladesh. 

Before you answer that, I think it is safe to say that every Member of this House would have loved to have seen Bangladesh move 

forward more quickly on reducing the level of corruption within the 

Government of Bangladesh. 

Corruption is relative. It is everywhere. It is here in the United 

States. It is not that we are free of corruption or other countries 

are free of corruption, but consistently Bangladesh found itself at 

the top of Transparency International’s list of most corrupt countries for a number of years in a row. 

I think I had a couple of conversations where I asked ambassadors and members of the Bangladesh Parliament can you move 

from 1 to maybe No. 5 or No. 7 so we can help show there is some 

progress here in terms of challenge accounts? 

Be that as it may, there was no movement, which some would 

argue has led to the political unrest that has taken place within 

Bangladesh, other contributory factors as well, but it seems as 

though the intention here of this temporary government or caretaker government is to root out corruption within Bangladesh. At 

least that is what has been portrayed to me. 

I thank Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Ackerman as well, 

who has always maintained a deep interest in all things dealing 

with Bangladesh, as well as my colleague, Mr. King, who myself, 

Mr. Ackerman and Mr. King are co-chairs of the Bangladeshi Caucus, but we have real concerns here about what is happening in 

Bangladesh in light of the issues we have with the country. 

There was some movement toward helping us apprehend some of 

the most wanted outlaws and terrorists within Bangladesh. Time 
37

and again when we put the pressure to them, the Bangladeshis responded, whether it was on child labor, whether it was on trafficking of women, and most recently when the pressure was 

brought to bear to capture and find those responsible for terrorist 

activity within Bangladesh. 

I am concerned about the breakdown of due process, of rule of 

law. The election process itself has been postponed until the end 

of next year. What is our Government doing to, one, ensure that 

those elections do take place? I understand it is probably not practical to have them take place earlier. What are we doing to ensure 

that happens? 

Has there been any inquiry as to the safety of the two Begums, 

both Sheikh Hasina and former Prime Minister Zia? Have we inquired as to an exit strategy in terms of moving beyond the caretaker government into the regular election process and then regular order within government? Do we have an ambassador on the 

ground? If not, do we have one coming? Can you give us any insight as to that? 

The arrest of 200,000 people that has been brought to my attention through the special emergency law, that over 200,000 people 

have been detained, most of whom have not been charged with 

anything, is our Government speaking out with regard to that? 

I have thrown a lot at you. If you could give me something back 

at this point? I want to mention I did meet with Ambassador 

Sobhan, who was here yesterday. I know he has met with folks 

from State as well. You may have had a meeting with him as well. 

I had the opportunity yesterday to meet the new Ambassador from 

Bangladesh to the United States and am impressed. I have always 

been impressed with Ambassador Sobhan but am impressed with 

the new Ambassador as well. 

Having said that, if you can shed some light? If you can go back 

to Ms. Lee’s question about internal political activity as well? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Thank you, sir. The majority of those briefings 

end up being information sessions from me or information on activities within Bangladesh, is always startlingly accurate and many 

times it is you that was briefing me on what was happening. 

On the case of political party activity, I apologize, Ms. Jackson 

Lee, for failing to mention that we too have called for lifting the 

political party ban. It is the logical next step, and our charge ́ just 

in the past couple days has reiterated that, which leads logically 

to what is up with our Ambassador. We are going through the process of identifying someone now. We currently have a very competent charge ́ d’affaires, and she is doing a wonderful job. 

You asked about the corruption question, Transparency International’s most corrupt country for I believe 5 years running. Unless they can get corruption under control, unless they would take 

real steps against corruption, many believe that that in fact was 

the greatest risk of losing Bangladesh to the extremists. 

It has always been a moderate Islamic country. However, if they 

didn’t have the ability to turn to their secular political parties, 

would they look elsewhere? In fact, in other cases, that is something that has occurred around the world. 

They have taken some activities, some effective actions. They 

have infused some power into this anticorruption commission that 
38

is conducting a number of cases. They have separated judiciary 

from the executive, something that you have been calling upon for 

a long time. 

They have cleaned up the Chittagong Port. You and I talked 

about that a lot. They have shaved the amount of time it takes to 

turn something around by 50 percent already. The first thing they 

said is you are no longer allowed to just keep your stuff on the port 

complex and use that as your sales lot, so they have instituted demurrage. You would be surprised when people have to start paying 

to keep things there how quickly they get them off. The port is running much more effectively, so some positive steps there. 

We have inquired on the safety of Sheikh Hasina. Specifically we 

have gone in and visited with her. She is currently housed in a 

building in the Parliament complex. It is a two-story house that is 

set aside for the deputy prime minister. It is air-conditioned. She 

has access to health care because she has some medical issues. She 

has access to her friends and family and her legal counsel and is 

being treated well according to the information that the Embassy 

provided me. 

The arrest issues, the arrest of 286,000 people, you are right. 

That is how many people have been arrested in Bangladesh so far 

this year for everything from petty theft to murder. Our information is that 80,000 of those remain in custody today. The 286,000 

figure is about 50 percent higher than it normally is, so more people have been arrested. Most of them are related immediately and/

or charged with their cases as they come in. 

The good news is deaths in custody are down, so a positive step 

forward there. Deaths by the Rapid Action Battalion—you and I 

have talked about this organization that had a bad track record on 

crossfires—are down by 16 percent, so there are some positive 

steps. Deaths caused by the military are up, but the evidence suggests because the military is now on the streets deployed. Again, 

overall the figure is down, so they are taking those matters seriously. 

The right things for them to do? Create the conditions for elections, respect due process, human rights, create the conditions for 

the elections to take place. They have outlined a roadmap, and we 

expect them to adhere to that roadmap. That is what the international community has called on them to do. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Crowley. Thank you. 

Ambassador Mann, in your statement, you discuss the need to 

push Maoists in Nepal away from the arms struggle, and yet your 

statement also notes that the Maoist leader, Pushpa Dahal, has 

stated publicly that the Maoists have no intention of joining the political mainstream. How do you push the Maoists into the political 

process? 

Ambassador MANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there are 

two aspects to that. First of all, there needs to be a steady and 

sober political process for the Maoists to become a part of, so in 

that respect, we are helping the Government of Nepal, helping this 

party grouping pull together with the logistics, with the structure, 

with everything that will lead up to the November 22 constituent 

assembly elections. 
39

The other part of it is to just say simply the laws have to be observed, and we strongly encourage the Government of Nepal, Prime 

Minister Koirala and his officials to have the home ministry forces, 

to have the police, to have the authorities mandate a strict observance of the laws of the country and the rules of the road. 

We have not seen a lot of this happening, Mr. Chairman. This 

is a must for an effective political process in Nepal, so we can encourage. We can encourage. We can advise. We can support. In the 

end, there are certain things that must fall to the sovereign government of the country. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. In your statement, you point out that the LTTE 

is one of the best-funded guerrilla groups in the world, receiving, 

as you say, an estimated $200 million to $300 million annually. 

Where does that money come from, and what steps has the administration taken to close it down? 

Ambassador MANN. That money comes from the Tamil diaspora. 

I think like with most intelligence issues it is hard to get a handle 

on this. The Sri Lankan Government has given us information 

about what they know about this, but there are large Tamil 

diasporas in Europe, in Canada, in Southeast Asia, some Tamils in 

the United States. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are they wealthy? 

Ambassador MANN. I think it is a mix. Prosperous. There are 

many prosperous Tamils overseas. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. How many Tamils would you say were in the diaspora? 

Ambassador MANN. Gosh, you have stumped me on that, Mr. 

Chairman. I will have to get back to you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And they are all supportive of the terrorist organizations? 

Ambassador MANN. I think not, and I think it is an important 

point. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. What percentage would you say? 

Ambassador MANN. I would just be throwing darts on that, but 

we know there is coercion in this, and it is important that we don’t 

equate the Tamil Tigers with the leadership of the Tamil citizens. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. How many Tamils are there? 

Ambassador MANN. Sri Lanka is about 18 percent Tamil nationality and, what, it is about 29 million, 23 million, so just doing the 

math, roughly several million Tamils on the island. And then we 

have probably tens of millions of Tamils in Southern India in Tamil 

Nadu, so there are far more Tamils outside of Sri Lanka than there 

are in Sri Lanka. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would you say there are 6 million Tamils in the 

diaspora outside of Sri Lanka? 

Ambassador MANN. No. I would say there are tens of millions of 

Tamils in the diaspora if you count Southern India. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And would they be predisposed to supporting the 

guerrilla groups? 

Ambassador MANN. I think not because after the assassination 

of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by the Tamil Tigers, I think that 

took the bloom off of the rose for a lot of the support that had existed in India for the Tigers. 
40

Mr. ACKERMAN. So it would be a small number of very wealthy 

Tamils that were providing this $200 million to $300 million every 

year? 

Ambassador MANN. My guesswork here, Mr. Chairman, and I am 

happy to sharpen this in a written response, is that it is more 

broad streams of funding, not coming from a few wealthy business 

people but from Tamil businesses, families on a global basis. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And the other part of the question? What are we 

doing to close down the money? 

Ambassador MANN. Well, the FBI has gone after this very aggressively with investigations, and we have convened a group of 

like-minded countries, European, Asian, to exchange information 

on financial flows on this terrorist organization and to see what we 

can do as the international community to combat this. We can tell 

you we are proud, Mr. Chairman, that the United States has 

stepped up to the mark on this with actual arrests, prosecutions 

and investigations. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. In what countries? 

Ambassador MANN. Well, this is in the United States. Last year, 

U.S. District Court Brooklyn unsealed two complaints against eight 

defendants. There are also indictments in Baltimore against Tamil 

networks reaching into Singapore but also involving the United 

States in a shipment of weapons and funds. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. How much in money, weapons and funds come 

from the United States? 

Ambassador MANN. My estimate, Mr. Chairman, is that we are 

not one of the more important streams in the flow of money and 

funds, but when it crosses our borders and violates our laws, we 

act. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. What is the dimension within the charges of 

those indictments in Brooklyn and the other places in the United 

States? 

Ambassador MANN. Yes. In the Brooklyn indictments, four of the 

defendants were arrested with an attempted purchase from an undercover agent of SA–18 surface to air missiles, AK–47s and other 

weapons. The second complaint in this, multiple defendants were 

charged with fundraising, money laundering through U.S. bank accounts and front organizations. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. How much money was involved in that? 

Ambassador MANN. I will have to get back to you on that, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Was it in the millions or hundreds of thousands? 

Do you know? 

Ambassador MANN. I cannot. Sorry. I don’t have the exact details 

here. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. But this is small potatoes? I don’t want to put 

words in your mouth. You said it was a small amount. The United 

States is not the hub of the activity? 

Ambassador MANN. I think in our sense from the experts I have 

talked to, and again, it is very hard to nail down covert illegal activity, but our sense is that there is a lot of activity, let us say 

more activity, that comes out of Southeast Asia, perhaps out of Europe and Canada, than from the United States. 
41

Mr. ACKERMAN. The bulk of the Tamils, the largest number, you 

seem to indicate is in India? 

Ambassador MANN. Yes. Well, in the southern part of India is 

heavily Tamil. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Have we engaged India? 

Ambassador MANN. Yes, we frequently talk with the Government 

of India about this. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And have they been cooperative? 

Ambassador MANN. Yes. Again, certainly the assassination of 

Rajiv Gandhi has been a riveting, tragic event for India. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Right. 

Ambassador MANN. So they are no fans of the Tamil Tigers. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. It was riveting for all of us. 

Ambassador MANN. Yes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. What is the dimension of the amount or the percentage of the $200 million or $300 million would you suspect 

comes from Southern India from the Tamils? 

Ambassador MANN. I would not want to venture an uneducated 

estimate. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. In our war against global terrorism and global 

terrorists, of which the LTTE is a part, we are trying to get a grip 

on how effective that war is going, and we would like to know if 

you could get us a written answer as to how much money has been 

intervened from the various countries from whence it might be 

coming, whether it be South Asia, the United States, Europe or 

Asia or anywhere else. 

Ambassador MANN. I would be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. On the Sri Lankan Government, you state that 

they are no longer willing to accept the 2002 ceasefire terms as demanded by the LTTE. Why is the earlier agreement no longer acceptable to the government? 

Ambassador MANN. I think with the government’s military push 

forward in the east, in effect, it has gone beyond the ceasefire 

terms which recognize that area as Tamil Tiger area, so that is one 

of the areas, one of the aspects of this. 

Overall, Mr. Chairman, I think that what has happened is the 

ceasefire has crumbled at the edges, and then it accelerated from 

there over the past year and a half. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Gastright, we in the United States have 

been urging President General Musharraf to return Pakistan to 

democratic rule since he initially took power in 1999. Based on his 

performance in the 2002 elections and his recent attempt to remove 

the chief justice, why should we believe that this time things are 

going to be different? Is there any evidence that you can cite that 

would give us some confidence that the parliamentary elections are 

going to be free and fair and that the President General will take 

off his uniform and stand for election as a civilian and that he 

would do so after a new national assembly is elected? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The first question was what is the evidence that 

elections are moving on schedule, that we are going to have the 

elections, and I guess the best guide is——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Well, it was actually, what evidence do we have 

or why should we believe that they will be free and fair? 
42

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Well, the start is, are they going to happen? The 

Constitution says that they are going to happen this year. Presidential elections according to the Constitution would take place by 

the existing assemblies unless President Musharraf dissolves the 

assemblies before that, which is his responsibility as President, so 

he is responsible. 

If he does not dissolve the assemblies, then they would take 

place between September 15 and October 15 by the sitting Parliament. He has stated as much. That is what the Constitution of 

Pakistan says. We are working with the election commission. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Do you have confidence that he is going to do the 

right thing? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I have confidence that he is moving toward elections in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan, and again, 

the Constitution of Pakistan is what the Pakistani people need to 

have confidence in. 

On your other question, the uniform, he said at the end of this 

year I am taking the uniform off. We have confidence that he is 

going to do that. Again, the Pakistani people will have an opportunity when they elect the Parliament in parliamentary elections, 

and I can leave this document. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. In the past, he has dismissed the Parliament. He 

has dismissed the courts. He has dismissed the Constitution, 

changed the Constitution. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. His job as President is to dissolve the Parliament and call for elections. That is what the Constitution requires him to do. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Right. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Now, if the Parliament serves its full term, 

which we expect it to do, that would take it through November 15 

and then sometime the beginning of next year, between then and 

the beginning of the next year, the elections for Parliament would 

take place. 

Now, with regard to dismissing the court, he didn’t dismiss the 

court. He referred the chief justice. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. That was recently. Previously he originally dismissed the court. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I was referring to the most recent instance——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT [continuing]. Where he dismissed the chief justice. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, he recently dismissed the chief justice, but 

previously he dismissed the entire court when he first came in. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I believe the last question you had was 

about——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Well, my first question was do we have confidence that he is going to do the right thing, or do you have confidence? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I have confidence that he is going to have elections in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. On a scale of 1 to 10, the next time you appear 

before our committee, will you say it worked out the way you had 

hoped it worked out? What are the chances of that happening? Zero 

to 10. 
43

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I am confident that he is going to hold elections 

in accordance——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I heard that. I am looking for a number. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT [continuing]. With the Constitution of Pakistan. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, with the Constitution of Pakistan. From 

zero to 10. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. If the question is: Am I zero to 10 on the Constitution of Pakistan, will he adhere to that?, then it is a 10. I 

think he will adhere to the Constitution of Pakistan. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The question was if the question is asked the 

next time you appear, on a scale of 1 to 10, would you say that you 

were happy with the way it worked out? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I will be happy if he adheres to the Constitution 

of Pakistan. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And what number is that? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. That is a 10. If he adheres to the Constitution 

of Pakistan, then he has done what the people of Pakistan need 

him to do, and that is live up to the laws of their land. It is not 

our election. It is the people of Pakistan. It is their election, and 

they have to have confidence that that was free and fair and that 

they have a system and a process that they believe worked. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Did he cook the last election? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. In 2002? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I think that international observers generally 

considered that was not a free and fair election. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. So are we going to have a free and fair election? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Again, the question is he says he is going to 

have a free and fair election. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Listen, I am asking just as an ordinary, everyday American. Let us strip ourselves of all the attitudes, and let 

us assume that neither of us is an apologist for General Musharraf 

or anybody else. Is he going to do the right and democratic thing 

that people who are democratic minded, whatever that means, are 

going to be happy with? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. He has said that is his goal, and I think that the 

people of Pakistan deserve that. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yea for the people of Pakistan. They deserve everything that they wish, every good wish, and we wish for them 

too. I am trying to find out your perspective or the administration’s 

or somebody’s perspective, not General Musharraf’s perspective. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The administration expects him to hold a free, 

fair, credible election. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. We want him to. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. This is the policy of prayer. It is our fervent 

prayer and deep desire and dream and hope. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. We are working very closely——

Mr. ACKERMAN. But do we think he is going to do it, and why 

do we think he is going to do it? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. We are working very closely with his election 

commission. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Has he met your expectations in the past? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. On? 
44

Mr. ACKERMAN. On anything. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Absolutely. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Like what? Like free and fair elections? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Well, let us talk about capturing more al-Qaedas 

than any government on earth. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. No. Let us talk about free and fair elections. Let 

us talk about free and fair elections. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. We are working intensively with the Government of Pakistan. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Has he met your expectations so far on free and 

fair elections in the past? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. We have asked him to establish an independent 

election commission. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Has he met your expectations? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. He is meeting the expectations of establishing a 

foundation for a stable democracy. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I know your message, but that is not my question. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The foundation of a sustainable democracy isn’t 

the question? That has to be the question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I get to ask the questions that have to be the 

questions for anybody here. You can evade them. You can fudge it. 

You can read your talking points again, but it is a simple question. 

If you don’t want to answer it, then we get the message, but I just 

want to make sure you understand the question and are not accidentally just reading something. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I am not reading anything, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Okay. Has he met the administration’s expectations so far as far as having free and fair elections? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I believe he is working with us. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. If you can’t answer that, I have no reason to believe anything you are trying to tell us. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to tell you that he 

is working with us to establish the conditions for a free and fair 

election. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am not asking what he is working on. I am just 

asking you retrospectively. It is easy to look over your shoulder and 

say the son of a gun hasn’t done as good as we wanted. That is 

not hard. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, he is trying to establish the conditions——

Mr. ACKERMAN. We would like him to do better. That is not hard. 

If you keep saying we expect him to do better, we expect him to 

do something, I am just asking you. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. We expect him to establish the foundation. Part 

of that is having an independent election commissioner that can do 

his job. Part of that is having an electoral roll that the parties have 

confidence in. Right now we don’t have confidence in that electoral 

roll. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is the administration afraid if we push him too 

hard toward doing things that are democratic that we expect of all 

governments that his government is going to fall? Is that why you 

are not answering? Is that your concern? That is the question. 
45

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have every confidence that he 

is going to hold elections in accordance with the Constitution of 

Pakistan, every confidence. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Which he can change, which he can dismiss, 

which he has changed and dismissed in the past. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. He is not changing the Constitution of Pakistan 

to hold the elections. He is adhering to it exactly, and he has laid 

out a timeline that says this is how I am going to do it. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is he going to give up his uniform? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. He has said he is going to take off his uniform 

at the end of the year. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Did he say that in the past and not do it? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Wow. Got an answer. Appreciate that. It is not 

that tough. I don’t know why there is such resistance to confronting reality. I mean, I know you can’t predict the future, but 

at least we can acknowledge what has happened in the past. If 

there is no reason to believe that he has changed or anybody has 

changed from what they have been in the past, why would the future be different? I am just trying to figure out where we are going, 

where we might be going, because we are spending a lot of money 

here. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. And I believe we are working intensively with 

him on the money that you authorized to prepare for those free and 

fair elections this year, and that is what that $39 million that you 

authorized is going toward for elections. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me ask you a question about Bangladesh. 

Your statement notes, ‘‘The challenge for U.S. policymakers has 

been to forge a policy that accommodates the complex realities on 

the ground in Bangladesh,’’ so read the statement. I take it that 

means the administration does not view takeover by the militarybacked group of advisers as a military coup, which I think you 

said? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And therefore that coup-related sanctions on 

U.S. assistance are not applicable? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is the government that is there now there because of the sufferance of the military? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. No, sir. The government is there now because 

the President at the time dismissed the caretaker government back 

in January and appointed a new caretaker government. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Was that action legal? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Was that legal? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. According to the attorneys at the State Department, that does not meet the standards of a coup. Again, that is 

in accordance with their Constitution. 

They had a caretaker government, which is an unelected body 

that comes to power when the government of a country steps down. 

That is what their Constitution says, so this caretaker body was in. 

Everybody believed that this particular caretaker government, 

the previous, was extremely partisan, was generating the conditions for an unfair election. On the eve of that election, the Presi-
46

dent of the country dismissed the sitting caretaker government and 

appointed this apolitical body. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And the caretaker government is a pawn of the 

military? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. We do not believe that. We do believe the military is backing this caretaker government, and I think that that 

is fairly public information. I know it is public information. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I suspect you are right. In your statement, you 

note that the steps taken by President Ahmed were all actions permitted under the Bangladeshi Constitution. 

It is my understanding that the state of emergency declared cannot exceed 4 months without further parliamentary review. Since 

there is no Parliament to review the current state of emergency 

that has lasted beyond the 4 months, under what legal authority 

is the current Government of Bangladesh proceeding? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I will have to get back to you, sir. I will have 

to bring that information back to you, sir. I don’t have it handy. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Do we believe it is proceeding under legal authority? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The information I have is that we believe the 

current caretaker government is a constitutional entity. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Proceeding under legal authority? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. But we don’t know under what theory? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The best information I have is that the Constitution of the country provides for a caretaker government and that 

this falls within that construct. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. But I was correct in saying they have outlived 

their constitutionally approved life? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. I am not aware of that, sir. I will have to investigate, and I will get back with you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Crowley? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just follow on 

your question on Bangladesh. Again, thank you for the second 

round. 

In the interest of fairness, you did respond initially to my question about the two Begums in relation to Sheikh Hasina but did 

not I don’t believe mention former Prime Minister Zia in terms of 

her condition. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. My understanding is she is not currently under 

arrest. There are indictments, but she is not currently under arrest. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you for that. In relation to the scheduled 

elections, some have suggested that the attempt by the government 

to go for what is known as the Cadillac version of an election ID 

card, because they are going for the Cadillac, could bring problems 

that could help further delay or postpone these elections if they so 

choose to do so. 

Can you comment on that? Has the State Department or has 

anyone here commented to the government about getting ID cards 

together but maybe not necessarily the Cadillac version so as to not 

create impediments for elections in the future? 
47

Mr. GASTRIGHT. The plan that was the roadmap that the government put out called for a draft voter list, with photographs to be 

finished and publicly posted by June 2008. 

The UNDP, which is working closely with the government, believes that that is achievable and therefore does not anticipate a 

slippage on that particular issue. 

Mr. CROWLEY. But if it is not achieved theoretically? 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. If it is not achieved? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. In the hypothetical, again, our information is 

that that is completely achievable and in fact may actually be able 

to be achieved ahead of schedule, so we don’t expect that particular 

timeline to not be met at all. We expect it to be achieved, and in 

fact there is a possibility of it being achieved in advance of June 

2008. Again, that is those who are evaluating the plan. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. Let me again thank Mr. Ackerman for 

his questioning as well, his line of questioning as it pertains to all 

the issues we have talked about but especially as it pertains to 

Bangladesh. These are questions that not only Mr. Ackerman but 

many of us have had and have expressed interest to the State Department about as well as directly with the present caretaker government within Bangladesh. 

I have also talked to the government about exit strategy as they 

move beyond the present caretaker government into, as I mentioned earlier, a more normal state of affairs within Bangladesh, so 

thank you, and again, thank you, Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Crowley, for your long-term and 

abiding interest in the region and for sitting in with our subcommittee. 

Let me thank both witnesses for your testimony, for your appearance before us. The issues that we have left open and yet unanswered, if you could get back to us in some kind of reasonable period of time, it would be greatly appreciated. 

We look forward to seeing you again and speaking to you in 

other venues. Thank you both very much. 

Ambassador MANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GASTRIGHT. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Thank you, Chairman Ackerman for holding this very important hearing on the 

political crises in South Asia. I want to also thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee today. As the founder and co-chair of the 

Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka, I have serious concerns regarding the worsening conflict in Sri Lanka. 

As you know, the military of the Government of Sri Lanka and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have resumed a two-decade ethnic conflict in 

which nearly 70,000 people have been killed since 1983. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed and more continue to die in Sri Lanka as a result of the violence. Both sides have chosen a military approach, to the detriment of civilian distress. It is clear that neither side is committed to peace. 

Over the past 20 months, more than 1,000 people are believed to have ‘‘disappeared’’ and another 4,500 people have been killed. Last month’s murder of two 

volunteer aid workers by unidentified gunmen came ten months after the executionstyle murder of 17 local staff members of the aid agency Action Contre la Faim. This 

was the worst attack against humanitarian workers in memory. 

Three hundred thousand civilians have survived the violence, only to face months 

of constant displacement. Hundreds more have been detained under newly strengthened emergency regulations that give the government broad powers of arrest and 

detention without charge. Security forces have expelled hundreds of Tamils from 

Colombo. LTTE and the Karuna faction continue to engage in recruitment of children as combatants, extortion, abductions and assassinations. 

Meanwhile, the government has established a new institution to investigate allegations of human rights abuses—the Presidential Commission of Inquiry. However, 

it has failed to reduce impunity human rights abuses. In fact, its credibility and effectiveness has been challenged by the International Independent Group of Eminent 

Persons. 

As the war grows more vicious, there is a pressing need for a more concerted effort by the international community to pressure both sides to stop fighting and 

bring them back to the negotiating table. The recent violence has not crossed the 

boundary into genocide or war crimes. But we must not wait for these atrocities to 

occur before we act. 

While the Group of Eight has attempted to mediate the conflict in the past, a recent report by the International Crisis Group has described the international response to Sri Lanka’s human rights problems as ‘‘disjointed, lackluster and tardy.’’ 

Instead there should be an international role in human rights monitoring in the 

ground. This support should not be seen as invasive but as an effective way to help 

the state protect its citizen’s rights. There should also be a strengthened crackdown 

on LTTE fundraising, arms procurement and coercive control of Tamil civilians outside Sri Lanka. 

If America is going to live up to the standards we set for ourselves and continue 

to lead the world in affirming human rights everywhere, we need to facilitate a renewed international effort in Sri Lanka. We must maintain political engagement 

through high-level contacts and visits, including a visit by Members of Congress 

that could be sponsored as a CODEL through the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I have introduced a resolution that supports an increase in U.S 

efforts to the region. It also strongly urges a resumption of peace talks by all parties 

immediately. There is no military solution to this conflict. The LTTE must denounce 

terrorism as a means to its political aspirations. Over 25 years of terrorism has not 
50

improved the lives of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. All efforts must be focused on 

restoring and sustaining peace and all pertinent parties must return to the negotiation process. 

It is my hope that following this hearing, my resolution can be a basis for further 

examining the conflict, and possibly the vehicle used for final legislation that allows 

this Congress to go on record supporting further U.S. involvement in Sri Lanka. 

The United States has a strategic interest in promoting peace in Sri Lanka and 

throughout South Asia. It is time we take some oversight on the crises occurring 

in Sri Lanka. We have an obligation to work toward achieving a lasting peace and 

U.S. diplomatic engagement is a necessary step toward this goal. Without it, there 

are plenty of reasons to fear that things can get much worse. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today’s hearing on this important issue. 

South Asia remains critical to U.S. global interests, and it is a region that is currently in the midst of significant upheaval. Today’s hearing is both critical and timely. May I also thank the Ranking Member, and welcome our three distinguished 

witnesses: the Honorable Frank Pallone, Member of Congress; the Honorable Steven 

R. Mann, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State; and Mr. John A. Gastright, Jr., Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 

I look forward to your informative testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, Pakistan has been one of our most important allies in the war on 

terror, but it is currently experiencing significant political turmoil. Its commitment 

to stamping out the persistent threat of terrorism within its borders has been costly 

both in terms of lives and resources. According to the United States Department of 

State, Pakistan currently has 85,000 troops stationed along the border with Afghanistan. Supported by the United States, Pakistan has invested significant effort and 

resources into securing the northwest tribal areas. Richard A. Boucher, Assistant 

Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, recently noted that Pakistan 

has ‘‘captured more al-Qaeda than any country in the world, and lost more people 

doing that.’’ Pakistani authorities have also killed or captured several top Taliban 

commanders in the northwest tribal areas in recent months. 

Despite this ongoing commitment to the war on terror, just last week the Bush 

administration stated that it was unwilling to rule out the use of unilateral force 

to quell terrorist violence in Pakistan. This announcement came after a draft National Intelligence Estimate reportedly noted that al-Qaeda is rebuilding its command structure along the Pakistani-Afghan border. 

Mr. Chairman, Pakistan has proven an extremely valuable ally in the United 

States-led war on terror, and I believe that such unilateral military action would 

be extremely detrimental to the United States, Pakistan, and the entire South Asian 

region. Instead, I strongly advocate continued concerted collaboration and dialogue 

with President Musharraf and the people of Pakistan. As a founding Co-Chair of 

the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, I am wholeheartedly committed to the political, 

economic, and social amelioration of Pakistan for the Pakistani people and the ascendancy of Pakistan in the international community. 

Despite my firm belief in the importance of ongoing conversation and collaboration with our Pakistani allies, I do not believe that this support should keep us from 

directing our close scrutiny on Pakistan and its government where such concern is 

due. In recent months, a judicial and political crisis erupted following President 

Musharraf’s March 9th dismissal of Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar 

Chaudhry, a move that many critics have charged was made to quash objection to 

his continued tenure as both President and Army Chief. Analysts have indicated 

that the Supreme Court’s July 20th unanimous decision to clear Chaudhry of all 

charges was a major political defeat to Musharraf. 

Additionally, since January of this year radical Islamists have been engaged in 

a rebellion of sorts in Islamabad. This campaign came to a head in early July, with 

a ten-day siege by Pakistani commandos against radicals holed up inside the city’s 

famed Red Mosque. Though the government made efforts to negotiate with the 

mosque’s clerics, these made little progress, and were viewed by many citizens as 

an appeasement of the Islamists. Instead, the Islamist radicals within the mosque 

were defeated after a 20-hour battle, in which over 100 people were killed, including 

approximately 10 security troops, 60 militants, and an unknown numbers of civil-
51

ians. Just last week, a bombing at the same mosque left 13 people dead and over 

50 injured. 

A final issue that continues to plague our good relations with Pakistan is that of 

upcoming elections. With national elections expected before February 2008 and 

President Musharraf’s five-year term ending this year, questions have been raised 

about the constitutionally-mandated transition of power. Key among these controversies remains Musharraf’s ongoing role as both president and army chief. Additionally, serious allegations have been levied against the credibility of the Pakistan 

Election Commission (PEC). These include charges that tens of millions of citizens, 

particularly women, are being denied voting rights. If Pakistan is to have transparent and credible elections, these concerns must be acknowledged and investigated. 

Mr. Chairman, Pakistan is one of our most valued allies, and I believe that it is 

important to continue to support their significant efforts in the war on terrorism. 

However, I do not believe the Pakistani government should be given a ‘‘free pass’’ 

on these concerns of democratic governance and human rights. I continue to advocate ongoing discussion and collaboration with the government of President 

Musharraf, and I strongly urge the United States to hold off discussions and plans 

to use military force against Pakistan. 

Though Pakistan may currently garner the most attention, several other nations 

in the region are also undergoing significant political upheaval. Key among these 

is Bangladesh, where emergency rule was declared by President Iajuddin Ahmed 

following opposition protests during the run-up to the January 2007 elections. This 

military-backed caretaker government, currently headed by Fakhruddin Ahmed, is 

expected to continue to hold power through 2008, though some observers have estimated that elections will not actually take place until 2009 or later. 

It is my sincere hope that the military-backed caretaker government currently in 

power in Bangladesh will promptly lift the State of Emergency and move expeditiously toward holding free and fair elections. It would also be my expectation that 

the caretaker government will abide by internationally recognized standards of 

human rights and due process in its activities. I am personally concerned by reported events in Bangladesh, including the ban on political and union activity; the 

restrictions on free movement, free assembly, free association, free speech and a free 

press; and the denial of bail and other due process rights to more than 200,000 

jailed individuals, according to some accounts. 

Mr. Chairman, Bangladesh has long been a valued ally of the United States, and 

a key Muslim democracy in a region where adherence to democratic principles is 

at a premium. Only yesterday, I met with Mr. Don Haque, nephew of former Prime 

Minister Khaleda Zia. After listening to his concerns and insights, it is my hope that 

Bangladesh will move swiftly toward regaining its status as a thriving, emerging 

democracy and set an example for its neighbors and the rest of the world. 

Both Sri Lanka and Nepal have also experienced significant recent upheaval. 

Since 1983, Sri Lanka has been locked in a separatist war between the government 

forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This ethnically driven conflict has cost over 70,000 lives, and violence levels have surged since 2006. Attempts 

to revive negotiations have met with little success. The LTTE, in particular, has 

been responsible for numerous human rights violations, particularly the recruitment 

of children and the abduction of adults. 

I urge continued U.S. efforts to encourage a political system that allows full political participation for all communities. Both sides to the conflict must be strongly encouraged to cease fighting and the start negotiating. I condemn all human rights 

violations, by both the rebel groups and by government troops, particularly those 

committed against children. We must continue to advocate for the protection of 

human rights and accountability for perpetrators, even as we seek long-term peace 

and stability for Sri Lanka. 

Finally, in recent years, Nepal has been treading the treacherous path to democracy while fighting off a Maoist insurgency that has claimed over 13,000 lives since 

1996. Since the signing of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement in November 2006, 

and the inclusion of the Maoists into the government in early 2007, the Maoist 

threat has diminished, while new ethnic tensions have moved to the forefront of national concerns. Nepal is currently ruled by a coalition government of seven key political parties, formed in April 2007, and elections are now anticipated in November 

2007. However, a poor security situation, which has hindered voter registration, and 

significant unrest in the Terai region, remain significant obstacles to new elections. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the promise of South Asia. I believe that these states, 

particularly Pakistan, are valuable U.S. allies. I also firmly support the rights of 

the people in these countries, for the men, women, and children of Pakistan, Ban-
52

gladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. I look forward to hearing the informative testimony 

of our distinguished panelists. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Æ