U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–963 DTP 2002

S. HRG. 107–299

FOREIGN POLICY OVERVIEW AND THE PRESIDENT’S

FISCAL YEAR 2003 FOREIGN AFFAIRS BUDGET

REQUEST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 5, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BARBARA BOXER, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

EDWIN K. HALL, Staff Director

PATRICIA A. MCNERNEY, Republican Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware, prepared statement . 4

Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas, prepared statement ............ 58

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, prepared staement ... 40

Powell, Hon. Colin L., Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington,

DC .......................................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Responses to additional questions for the record from:

Senator Biden ................................................................................................ 59

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................ 68

Senator Bill Nelson ....................................................................................... 70

Senator Gordon Smith .................................................................................. 71

Senator Brownback ....................................................................................... 73

(III)

(1)

FOREIGN POLICY OVERVIEW AND THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2003 FOREIGN AFFAIRS BUDGET REQUEST

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,

(chairman of the committee), presiding.

Present: Senators Biden, Sarbanes, Feingold, Wellstone, Boxer,

Helms, Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, Brownback, and Enzi.

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to

the committee. We are delighted to have you here and we look forward to having a chance to hear what you have to say. You have

had a good run here and I want to compliment you on the way you

have handled yourself, the Department and the administration, let

me begin by saying that.

Let me do a little housekeeping first. I will have an opening

statement that will be about 5 minutes, maybe less. Then I will go

to Senator Helms and then we will go to the Secretary. We are

going to, unfortunately, have a vote at 10:30. We will go to the end

of the Secretary’s statement and if need be, if the vote time runs

out, we will come back and hear the remainder of it, and then the

committee will break for the time it takes for the entire committee

to go and vote and come back with your permission, Mr. Secretary.

Today the Committee on Foreign Relations begins what we hope

to be a series of hearings to review American foreign policy in the

wake of the attacks on the United States last September. The essential objectives of the hearings are two-fold: to highlight the serious national security challenges facing this country, and to ensure

that we are allocating our resources properly to meet those challenges. In other words, to do the job the Congress is supposed to

do.

We began with Secretary of State Powell, who has done, as I

said, a first-rate job in guiding American foreign policy, particularly since the attacks of September 11, but I would say there has

really been no change. You have done it well from the very beginning and you have not missed a beat.

The administration has skillfully assembled and led an international coalition to wage a war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban

and to attack the threat of terrorism on all fronts—militarily, dipVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:33 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 77963 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
2

lomatically, legally and financially. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you

back to the committee.

Out of the destruction of September 11 came seeds of opportunity

in my view, and I know you believe that as well. The challenge for

the United States now seems to me to ensure that we seize the opportunities that are available to build a new framework for international affairs for the 21st century.

In that regard, we will be interested in hearing from the Secretary today and in months ahead on several key issues, and I’d

just like to highlight a handful.

First, are we doing enough to secure our victory in Afghanistan?

America’s armed forces have waged a brilliant campaign to end the

tyrannical rule of the Taliban, but having spent 4 days not too long

ago in Kabul, and I know Mr. Secretary, you have been there as

well, it is clear that much remains to be done.

Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements remain active in many parts of

the country. Security is inadequate not only in the countryside, but

even in Kabul itself, and the task of reconstruction of a nation devastated by two decades of war is immense, although it does not require a Marshall Plan.

We have to complete the job in Afghanistan, militarily against

terrorists and the Taliban operatives, and through U.S. participation in a multinational security force in my view, and economically

in a partnership with other nations to rebuild the country, which

was started in Tokyo.

Second, what are the implications for the President’s declaration

last week that North Korea, Iran and Iraq comprise an ‘‘axis of

evil’’? Was this merely a rhetorical device designed to lump together three nations who we have long considered dangerous rogue

states, or does it indicate a significant shift in U.S. policy toward

these nations?

I agree with the President that each nation poses a security

threat to the United States and to the civilized world. But they are

hardly identical or allied with each other, and our policies toward

them have up to now involved very different strategies.

For example, working with our partners in South Korea and

Japan, we have until now and maybe continue as well to embrace

a policy of engagement with North Korea, so as to achieve an

agreement for a verifiable end to the country’s long-range missile

program and sales as well as their nuclear program. Does this

mean that that approach is no longer in play here?

Third, what is the current state of U.S. strategic and nonproliferation policy? Since the Secretary was last before us, there

have been several significant events. One, the administration announced the United States would withdraw from the ABM Treaty.

Two, the administration concluded after a lengthy review that most

ongoing nonproliferation programs with Russia and other Eurasian

states should be sustained. And the new National Intelligence Estimate affirmed that the United States remains at greater risk from

the nonmissile delivery of a weapon of mass destruction than from

the delivery of ballistic missiles. Do we have the balance right in

terms of our expenditures?

I hope the Secretary can update us on the administration’s discussions with Russia, on mutual arms reductions, particularly the

3

question of whether the administration intends to reach an agreement on a binding treaty that would be submitted to the Senate.

Any understanding with Russia on the future of our respective

nuclear arsenals must, in my view, rest on more than a handshake.

And let me make my view clear. Any formal agreement on mutual

force reductions should be in the form of a treaty.

The Senate did not allow the previous administration to do an

end run around it on arms control and I don’t believe we should

allow this one to do it either, if that was the intent, and I do not

know what the intent is.

I also believe that the events of September 11 and the subsequent discovery of information about al-Qaeda’s efforts to obtain

weapons of mass destruction, combined with the National Intelligence Estimate, make it imperative that we focus more resources

on what should be our highest national security priority, and that

is preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological

weapons.

And finally, is the President’s budget for international affairs

adequate to protect our national security? The President requests

$25.4 billion, which is less than the amount provided in 2002, if

you include the emergency additions we added to the budget.

The question is if you take that away, there is about a 6 percent

increase. Is that enough? True, as compared to the regular appropriations contemplated before September 11, this budget, as I said,

contains a 5.9 percent increase in nominal terms. But these are not

regular times, as the President has correctly emphasized. The

budget this year should be measured against the total spending for

last year. By that standard, the budget for fiscal 2003 appears to

assume that we can return to the status quo ante.

Aside from the promised expansion of the Peace Corps, a development that I welcome, and a continuation of the Secretary’s proposal to address the personnel shortfall in the Department, which

I think is critical, there appear to be few significant initiatives or

increases in the foreign affairs budget that reflect the changed

world in which we live.

The President’s budget provides for a significant increase in the

Department of Defense and homeland security, but it appears to

fall short in providing enough resources for our first line of defense,

our diplomatic corps. I might add, I just spoke today with our

charge, former Ambassador in Afghanistan, and the Secretary

makes this point all the time—more of our diplomatic corps are at

risk with less protection, although, by the way, these young Marines you all trained, they are something else. They are something

else. But at any rate, diplomats are more at risk than even our

men in uniform. More have been killed in recent years, and so I

want to talk to the Secretary about that. I know he shares the

same concerns.

Let me turn now to my friend, Senator Helms, who has had a

brilliant career in this committee and this is the beginning of the

final lap, and I expect it will be a sprint between now and the time

this Congress ends. But I welcome his comments. I should say, Mr.

Chairman, when you finish speaking, maybe we should leave and

vote so the Secretary can be uninterrupted in his statement.

[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]

4

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.

Today the Committee on Foreign Relations begins a series of hearings to review

American foreign policy in the wake of the attacks on the United States last September. The essential objectives of the hearings are two-fold: to highlight the serious

national security challenges facing this country and to ensure that we are allocating

our resources properly to meet those challenges.

We begin with Secretary of State Powell, who has done a first-rate job in guiding

American foreign policy, particularly since the attacks of September 11. The administration has skillfully assembled and led an international coalition to wage the war

against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and to attack the threat of terrorism across all

fronts—military, diplomatic, legal and financial. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you

back to the committee.

Out of the destruction of September 11 can come seeds of opportunity. The challenge for the United States is to ensure that we seize the opportunity to build a

new framework for international affairs for the 21st century.

In that regard, we will be interested in hearing from the Secretary, today and in

the months ahead, on several key issues. Let me just highlight a handful:

First, are we doing enough to secure our victory in Afghanistan? America’s armed

forces have waged a brilliant campaign to end the tyrannical rule of the Taliban.

But having spent four days in Kabul last month, it is clear that much remains to

be done:

• al-Qaeda and Taliban elements remain active in many parts of the country;

• security is inadequate—not only in the countryside, but in Kabul itself;

• and the task of reconstruction of a nation devastated by two decades of war is

immense.

We must complete the job in Afghanistan—

• militarily against terrorist and Taliban operatives, and through U.S. participation in a multi-national security force,

• and economically, in partnership with other nations, to rebuild the country.

Second, what are the implications of the President’s declaration last week that

North Korea, Iran, and Iraq comprise an ‘‘axis of evil?’’ Was this merely a rhetorical

device, designed to lump together three nations we have long considered dangerous

rogue states, or does it indicate a significant shift in U.S. policy toward these nations?

I agree with the President that each nation poses a security threat—to the United

States and to the civilized world. But they are hardly identical or allied with each

other, and our policies toward them have involved different strategies. For example,

working with our partners in South Korea and Japan, we have until now embraced

a policy of engagement with North Korea so as to achieve an agreement for a

verifiable end to that country’s long-range missile programs and sales. Does the

President intend to abandon this approach?

Third, what is the current state of U.S. strategic and non-proliferation poIicy?

Since the Secretary was last before us, there have been several significant events:

• the administration announced that the United States will withdraw from the

ABM Treaty;

• the administration concluded, after a lengthy review, that most ongoing nonproliferation programs with Russia and other Eurasian states should be sustained;

• and the new National Intelligence Estimate affirm that the United States remains at greater risk from a non-missile delivery of a weapon of mass destruction than from delivery by a ballistic missile.

I hope the Secretary can update us on the administration’s discussions with Russia on mutual arms reductions, particularly on the question of whether the administration intends to reach agreement on a binding treaty that would be submitted to

the Senate.

Any understanding with Russia on the future of our respective nuclear arsenals

must, in my view, rest on more than a handshake. Let me make clear my view: any

formal agreement on mutual force reductions should be in the form of a treaty. The

Senate did not allow the previous administration to do an end run around it on

arms control, and I don’t believe we will allow this one to do so, either.

I also believe the events of September 11—and the subsequent discovery of information about al-Qaeda’s efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction, combined

with the National Intelligence Estimate—make it imperative that we focus more reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:33 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 77963 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
5

sources on what should be our highest national security priority: preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Finally, is the President’s budget for international affairs adequate to protect our

national security? The President’s request of $25.4 billion is less than the amount

provided in fiscal 2002, after including the emergency funds provided after September 11.

True, as compared against the regular appropriations contemplated before September 11, the budget contains a 5.9 percent increase in nominal terms.

But these are not regular times—as the President has correctly emphasized. And

the budget this year should be measured against the total spending for last year.

By that standard, the budget for fiscal 2003 appears to assume that we can return

to the status quo ante.

Aside from the promised expansion for the Peace Corps—a development that I

welcome—and the continuation of the Secretary’s proposal to address the personnel

shortfall in the Department, there appear to be few significant initiatives or increases in the foreign affairs budget that reflect the changed world in which we now

live.

The President’s budget provides for a significant increase for the Department of

Defense and homeland security, but appears to fall short in providing enough resources for our first line of defense—our diplomatic corps.

Let me turn now to my friend, Senator Helms, who is beginning his final year

in the Senate, for any comments he may have. Then we will hear from the Secretary.

Senator HELMS. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, let us resolve

next time this gentleman appears before this committee to make

arrangements to use the auditorium studio because we have so

many young people out there in the hallways, about a half an acre

of them and they want to see the Secretary and they cannot see

him. This is a fairly large hearing room. But anyway——

The CHAIRMAN. I thought they were here to see Bertie. I did not

know.

Senator HELMS. It is a tribute to you Mr. Secretary, I think, that

so many young people are interested in what you say and what you

do.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are right, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Secretary, I bet that all of us are aware how

delightful the occasion is when you visit the Foreign Relations

Committee. You always attract many visitors and this morning is

certainly no alternative.

First, Mr. Secretary, I am confident that you probably agreed

that the President’s State of the Union Address the other night was

reminiscent of, to a lot of us, President Reagan’s appearances. They

had the same technique of saying the right thing at the right time

in the right way. Both came at times when great challenges confronted our Nation, and both set out to overcome them, and in the

process, give confidence to the American people which is certainly

evident in the case of President Bush.

President Reagan defeated communism. President Bush, no

doubt about it, will defeat terrorists. I believe that. America’s enemies never obey the laws of war, or for that matter, any other

laws. Their twisted and evil methods are intended to put at risk

every innocent American, every man and woman and child in this

country, and that is a challenge we got to face up to. And that is

why, Mr. Secretary, I applaud your clear understanding that the

terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay absolutely are not, are

not prisoners of war, and in no way do they merit any legal protections of the Geneva Conventions.

6

There is an important higher truth which you obviously have

grasped, my friend, to be in the custody of the United States is to

enjoy the rights conferred by a decent people. Our military forces,

the world has never known finer, have restored civilization to Afghanistan, but our country’s greatest challenges lie ahead. We

must finish the business of Afghanistan and bin Laden before we

undertake new military commitments, and then, Mr. Secretary,

Saddam must go.

He is anathema to the well-being of the people of the Middle

East, as well as to our own national security. There is no doubt

that the people of Iraq will happily get rid of the scourge known

by the entire world as Saddam Hussein. But it needs to be known

that U.S. policy and if necessary, U.S. air power, support them.

Sooner or later the dictatorships of Iran and North Korea must

remain to confront a choice, to live in peace with the world or to

join Omar and his life on an ash heap of history. The President

warned the other night of the ‘‘axis of evil,’’ Iran, Iraq, North Korea

and that he will not, as he put it, wait on events while dangers

gather.

Mr. Secretary, you and the President have the full support of

Congress and the American people whenever and wherever you

back up that statement.

Now, Mr. Secretary, this is my final year in the Senate, and I

do not intend that it be particularly idle. Several other issues beside the war on terrorism merit the immediate attention, in my

judgment, of both the Congress and the administration.

Now then, first the next round of the NATO expansion should

begin at the Prague summit in November. I see no reason why the

most successful alliance in history should not incorporate the Baltic

nations and other countries that share our values and goals and interests. And I think we must put aside the notion that Russia may

soon have a veto over NATO’s decisions as Lord Robertson, the

NATO Secretary General rather foolishly, in my judgment, suggested.

Our new strategic relationship with Russia must be conducted in

a manner to advance our national interests while promoting Democratic change in Russia. Today, Russia is selling missiles and nuclear technology to Iran, a charter member of the ‘‘axis of evil,’’ and

a country that poses, to quote President Bush, ‘‘a grave and growing danger to the United States.’’

Russia’s war on the innocent people of Chechnya and Moscow’s

refusal to seek a negotiated settlement have resulted in more casualties than the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan. The lawless environment of Chechnya is certain to become a breeding ground for

terrorists.

And third, we must move beyond the outdated relics of the cold

war such as the ABM Treaty that in no way, no way advances the

security interests of the United States. We must stand firmly behind our intentions to build and deploy ballistic missile defenses.

The attacks of September 11 were devastating enough. We must

do everything possible to make certain that any further attack will

not be a nuclear one.

Fourth, we cannot forget our commitment to democracy and rule

of law around the world, particularly here in our own Western

7

Hemisphere. In Latin America, the mistakes of nearly a decade of

inattention are now apparent.

And finally, Mr. Secretary, I do hope that we can complete work

on the State Department authorization bill consistent with the

budget that our President put forward yesterday, a bill containing

reform of the Foreign Service, revamping of United States broadcasting programming, while continuing to enhance security at all

of our overseas facilities.

Again, we welcome you here. We always do. We always will.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, with your permission, I apologize

for doing this. We will recess, take about probably 9 to 10 minutes

to go over and vote and get back here and then we will be delighted

and anxious to hear your statement.

Secretary POWELL. Of course, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Recess for 10 minutes, or as much time as it

takes us to get back from voting.

[Short recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Secretary and

everyone else. We welcome any statement you have to make.

Please go forward.

STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF

STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank

you for your cordial welcome. It is a great pleasure to be before the

committee again and I do have a prepared statement which I have

distributed to the members and the staff and I would like to offer

for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. The entire statement will be placed in the record.

Please proceed in any way you would like.

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and

Senator Helms, I thank you all for your gracious welcome. Sir, I

know that you will be sprinting all the way through to the end of

this, I have no doubt. But since this is probably my last opportunity to present a State Department budget to you as part of the

President’s budget, let me take this opportunity, sir, to thank you

for all the support that you have provided to the Department, especially to our diplomats who are out there on the front line of offense, as I like to call it and also sir, if I can drift back to my earlier days, thank you for all the support you have provided to the

men and women in uniform, our GIs who serve us so well. And Mr.

Chairman, thank you for the personal support that you have given

me going on some 15 years. I deeply appreciate it, sir. Thank you

so much.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a statement that will go beyond just the

crises of the day and try to lay out for you some of the opportunities that are out there. You captured it perfectly, Senator Biden,

when you said there are seeds of opportunity. There are a lot of

great things happening in the world right now. There are a lot of

new opportunities that have been provided to us out of the crisis

of the 11th of September, and other things that were going on before then that shows the impact that President Bush’s leadership

is having on the international environment. And as I go through

8

my presentation and talk about some of these opportunities, I will

marry them up with the crises of the day as well.

I want to say a word, though, about something Senator Helms

said. And that was the ‘‘axis of evil.’’ And it does have a familiar

ring, Senator Helms. It occurred to me as well, the old ‘‘evil empire.’’ The fact of the matter is Ronald Reagan was right and the

fact of the matter is George Bush is right. And as I go through my

presentation, I hope that I will be able to demonstrate why these

nations that he identified, and there are others in this category, I

would submit, are deserving of this kind of designation.

But, at the same time, it does not mean that we are ready to invade anyone or that we are not willing to engage in dialog. Quite

the contrary. But because we are willing to engage in dialog, and

we are quite willing to work with friends and allies around the

world to deal with these kinds of regimes, there is no reason for

us not to identify them for what they are, regimes that are inherently evil. There are people that aren’t evil, but the governments

that lead them are evil and clearly make this statement. And the

more sure we are of our judgment, the better able we will be to

lead the international coalition, lead nations who are like-minded

in the pursuit of changes in the policies of these nations and it will

make for a better and safer world for all of us. So I thank you for

that comparison.

I might touch on something you mentioned also, Senator Helms,

which is not in my prepared statement, or my reading statement,

and that is the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees

held in Afghanistan that may be headed toward Guantanamo Bay.

You are quite right, all of us in the administration are united in

the view that they are not deserving of prisoner of war status.

There is a question that we are examining and it is a difficult question and that is the legal application of the Geneva Convention.

This is a new kind of conflict. It is a new world. But at the same

time, we want to make sure that everybody understands that we

are a nation of law, abiding by our international obligations. And

so we are examining very carefully and have been for a number of

days now the exact applicability or lack of applicability to the Geneva Convention to the detainees. This is a decision the President

will be making in the very near future.

Whether he finds one way or the other on this issue, the reality

is that they will be treated humanely in accordance with the precepts of the convention because that is the kind of people we are.

We treat people well. We treat people humanely, and you can be

sure that is what’s happening with the detainees at Guantanamo

and all others who are in the custody of the United States Armed

Forces or other parts of the U.S. Government.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my presentation by thanking you again for all of the support that this committee has provided to me and to the Department in my first year of stewardship.

And let me begin once again by saying thank you for all the confirmations of appointees that you provided to me; 145 members of

my team have passed through the committee’s confirmation process: I thank you, especially, for passing out Ambassador Frank

Ricciardone to go to the Philippines yesterday evening. That was

a very important signal to us.

9

As many of you will recall, in my first budget testimony last

March, I said that I was going to break the mold and instead of

just talking about foreign affairs, I wanted to focus on the financial

condition of this Department, as well as the morale of the Department and the responsibilities that I have as chief executive officer

of the State Department as well as chief diplomat of the United

States.

I did that last year and I did do it again this year because the

resource challenges for the Department of State had become and

still remains a serious impediment for the conduct of the Nation’s

foreign policy. You heard that testimony last year and you responded and we are very grateful. Because of your understanding

and generosity, we have made significant progress. In the remainder of the fiscal year 2002, we will make even more progress in

new hires for the Foreign Service. We have made great strides.

We have doubled the number of candidates for the Foreign Service written exam. I’m very proud of the fact that we are communicating the message out to the young people of America that serving your Nation in the Foreign Service is a noble calling and something that all young people should consider as a career choice.

Moreover, I am very pleased that among the new recruits that

we have attracted to the Foreign Service exam process, 17 percent

of them are minorities. In African-Americans alone, we tripled the

number of applicants for taking the exam, and I am very proud

about that.

We are doing the same with the Civil Service. We are looking at

the Department as a team, not just Civil Service officers, Foreign

Service nationals, but all part of one great team that is bound together by trust and commitment to the foreign policy of the administration, the foreign policy of the American people.

We also want to make it a friendlier place to get into. When I

took over last year, it was taking 27 months from the date somebody took the Foreign Service exam to get into the Foreign Service.

It is now down to less than 1 year. So we have made that kind of

progress in 1 year and I hope to make even greater progress to get

it down to just a matter of months.

We are also well underway in bringing state-of-the-art information technology to the Department. We have an aggressive deployment schedule for our OpenNet system, which is a way of getting

the Internet down on every single desktop in the Department of

State. I want everybody to have access to each other and to the

Internet, some 30,000 State users worldwide.

And we are also deploying our classified connectivity program at

the same time. We want to make sure that we are in the forefront

of technology in order to do our job better. In right-sizing our facilities and shaping up and bringing smarter management practices to

our overseas building program, we are moving forward briskly as

well.

I heard from Congress that we had to do a better job on embassy

construction, bringing more modern business practices into the construction and refurbishing of our embassies. And you all know that

General Chuck Williams, who I brought on board to do this, is hard

at work and is doing a terrific job in making sure that we have a

master plan. We do have a master plan that takes us all the way

10

through 2007 and I am very pleased with the progress that we are

making.

I am also very pleased to report that I think the morale of the

Department is on the upswing. We have focused on families. We

have focused on security. We have focused on putting people back

into the ranks. For a couple of years in the 1990’s, we did not even

recruit people for the Foreign Service. You cannot do that. You put

an air bubble in the system. But now as a result of your generosity

and as a result of the request that I hope you will respond to that

I am making this year for more people for the Foreign Service, another 400 positions, I think that will help to improve morale.

The people in the Foreign Service now know that everybody

cares about them. The administration, the Department, and the

Congress.

Just as an aside, Senator Biden, I know you and some of your

colleagues were in Kabul. I hope you had a chance when you were

around our embassy, which is now reopened, to talk to some of

those Foreign Service Nationals, an often misunderstood part of

our family team. These are those wonderful foreigners who work in

our embassies.

In the case of Kabul, after we were driven out and had to leave,

those Foreign Service Nationals stayed there and they took care of

that building. It got banged up a little bit, but when we went back

in a couple of months ago, it was pretty much intact. And one of

the funny stories is that in the basement——

The CHAIRMAN. Except for the plumbing.

Secretary POWELL. But in the basement of the building, we discovered that all of the automobiles that had been left there were

there in perfect condition. All we had to do was charge the batteries and they all started. So through all that period of the

Taliban, those cars were there. As our Charge ́, Ron Crocker, said

to me, we have the finest fleet of 1985 Volkswagen Passats in the

world, and there they all were lined up ready for inspection.

The CHAIRMAN. By the way Ron and his wife and that staff not

only do the normal duties, they sweep, they physically themselves

clean, they wash the dishes. I mean, it is incredible what that job,

what your team is doing there.

Secretary POWELL. The team is marvelous, and Mr. Chairman,

you all travel a lot. It is reflective of the kind of people we have

at all of our missions and stations overseas and that is why it is

so important we let them know we believe in them and we trust

them.

With regard to our budget last year, I told you that the out years

were a source of concern to me and they still are. In fact, given the

cost of the war on terrorism, the downturn of the economy and the

accompanying shrinkage of revenues I am even more concerned

this year than last, but I was confident last year that I could make

the case for the State Department and I am confident that I can

do it again this year.

We need to keep the momentum going. That is why for fiscal

year 2003 you will get no break from me. I am going to focus on

resources again this year because it is so critical that we continue

to push the organization and conduct of America’s foreign policy

11

into the 21st century. So let me deal with the resources requested

using my CEO hat before turning to foreign policy.

The President’s request for the Department of State and related agencies for 2003 is $8.1 billion in our operating accounts. These

dollars will allow us to continue initiatives to recruit, hire, train

and deploy the right work force. It will help us to continue to upgrade and enhance our worldwide security readiness, even more

important in light of our success in disrupting and damaging the

al-Qaeda terrorist network.

The budget request will include $553 million that builds on the

funding provided from the emergency response fund of the increased hiring of security agents and for counterterrorism programs.

The budget will also continue to upgrade the security of our over- seas facilities. The request includes $1.3 billion to improve physical

security, correct serious deficiencies that still exist and provide for

security-driven construction of new facilities at high-risk posts

around the world.

It will also allow us to continue our program to provide state-ofthe-art information technology to our people everywhere. And it

will allow us to build an aggressive public diplomacy effort to eliminate support for terrorists and thus deny them safe haven.

We have got to do a better job with the message we do to the world. The budget includes $518 million for international broadcasting, of which $60 million will be dedicated to the war on terrorism. This funding will enable the Voice of America and Radio

Free Europe/Radio Liberty to continue increased media broadcasts

to Afghanistan and the surrounding countries and especially

throughout the Middle East.

And let me say a little bit more about that. The terrorist attacks

of September 11 underscored the urgency of implementing an effective public diplomacy campaign. Those who abet terror by spreading distortion and hate and inciting others take full advantage of

the global news cycle. And we have to do the same thing.

Since September 11, there have been over 2000 media appearances by State Department officials. Our continuous presence in

Arabic and regional media by officials with language and media

skills has been unprecedented. Our international information Web

site on terror is now on line in seven languages. Internet search

engines show it is the hottest page on the topic. Our 25-page color

publication, ‘‘The Network of Terrorism,’’ is now available in 30

languages with different adaptations all around the world, including a full insert in the Arabic edition of Newsweek. ‘‘Right content,

right format, right audience, right now’’ describes the philosophy

we will be applying to our overseas public diplomacy efforts.

All of these State Department and related agencies programs and

initiatives that I have just touched on the surface of are critical to

conduct America’s foreign policy. And some of you know my feelings, I am quite sure, about the importance or the success of any

enterprise of having the right people in the right places. And if I

had to put one of these priorities at the very pinnacle of our efforts,

it once again would be recruiting.

So as I indicated earlier, we are going to sustain the strong recruiting program we began last year. We want to get to the point

12

where our people can undergo training without being pulled out of

jobs because we have a float in our personnel system for people to

go off to be trained and so I think that we have been successful

in the first year in our stewardship of the Department. And I hope

that you see the same thing, your staffs see the same thing, and

we can enjoy your continued support this coming year and the

years ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to talk about foreign policy. And I

will talk about it in the usual terms and the regional setting in

talking about specific countries. But I hope as I do this, you will

see it in a broader tapestry, the tapestry of the growth of democracy around the world, the impact that market economic principles

are having around the world as more and more nations understand

that this is the direction in which they must move. I hope you will

see it in terms of more and more nations, notwithstanding the terrible crises that still exist and the horrible regimes that are still

in place.

Nevertheless, more and more nations are understanding the

power of the individual. When you empower an individual man and

woman with the opportunity to reach the heights of possibility limited only by their own willingness to work and ambition, and not

by the political system in which they are trapped or in which they

are living, so many wonderful things have happened. So as I get

into the eachs, let us not forget the power of the whole, the power

of democracy and the power of the free enterprise system.

Let me begin, sir, by talking about Russia. One of the major

items on my agenda over almost every single day has to do with

Russia. President Bush in his conduct of our foreign policy with

Russia has defied some of our critics and he has structured a very

strong relationship. The meetings that he has had with President

Putin and the dialog that is taking place between Russian Foreign

Minister Ivanov and me and between Secretary Rumsfeld and his

counterpart at a variety of other levels have positioned the United

States for a strengthened relationship with Russia, the land of

eleven time zones. The way that Russia responded to the events of

September 11 was reflective of this positive relationship.

Russia has been a key member of the anti-terrorist coalition. It

has played a crucial role in our success in Afghanistan by providing

intelligence, bolstering the Northern Alliance and assisting our

entry into Central Asia. As a result we have seriously eroded the

capabilities of a terrorist network that posed a direct threat to both

of our countries.

Just an illustration of how things have changed, a year or so ago

when I first came into office, there was a bit of tension between me

and my Russian colleagues over what the United States might or

might not be doing in Central Asia. After September 11, after we

coordinated with one another, after we had such a successful 9 or

10 months of dialog of building trust between the two administrations, things changed so radically. So much so that when my colleague, Foreign Minister Ivanov a few weeks ago was asked on television, Igor, why are you cooperating with the Americans in Central Asia, they are the enemy, aren’t they?

Foreign Minister Ivanov said no, you are wrong, the enemy is

terrorism. The enemy is smuggling. The enemy is extremism. The

13

enemy are all these other transnational threats. We are now allied

with the United States in fighting these kinds of enemies. And we

will find a way to move forward in cooperation.

It is this kind of most dramatic change that I think is one of the

seeds of opportunity that Senator Biden talked about, and as we

go forward in this next year, we are not going to let this seed be

trampled out. We are going to continue working with Russia and

with the countries in the region to structure a new relationship

that will bring stability to the region and provide opportunities for

peace and democracy and economic reform.

Similarly, the way we agreed with Russia to disagree on the

ABM Treaty reflects the intense dialog we had over the 11 months

before we had that decision, a dialog in which we told the Russians

where we were headed. We said to them clearly, we are going forward to achieve missile defense. We are going to have missile defense, and we can work together. And if we cannot work together,

then we will have to agree to disagree. We did not just pull out of

a treaty on a whim. We spent time exploring opportunities with

them, exploring options with them. But we made it clear where we

were going, and we asked them is there a way we could do this together to go forward.

At the end of the day, we agreed to disagree and we notified Russia that we were going to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. I notified Foreign Minister Ivanov that we were going to make this decision, I went to Moscow and sat in the Kremlin with President

Putin and described to him how we would unfold this decision so

that he was ready for it and he could respond in an appropriate

way in accordance with his national interest. President Bush

talked to President Putin about it and then at the end of the day,

we made our announcement.

To the surprise of a number of people, an arms race has not broken out and there is not a crisis in U.S.-Russia relations. In fact,

their response was: we disagree with you. We think you made the

wrong choice, but you have made that choice and now that disagreement is behind us. Our strategic relationship is still important. It is vital, and we will continue to move forward. And I think

this is an indication of a mature relationship with Russia and especially a positive relationship between the two Presidents, President

Bush and President Putin.

Both Presidents pledged to reduce further the number of their offensive nuclear weapons and we are hard at work on an agreement

to record these mutual commitments. This is all part of the new

strategic framework with Russia.

To your point, Senator Biden, Mr. Chairman, we do expect that

as we codify this framework, it will be something that will be legally binding and we are examining different ways in which this

can happen. It can be an executive agreement that both Houses of

Congress might wish to speak on, or it might be a treaty. We will

explore it with Russia and we will discuss it within the administration the best way to make this a legally binding or codified agreement in some way.

We even managed to come to an agreement in how we are going

to work through NATO. We are now developing mechanisms for

pursuing joint Russia-NATO consultations in actions at 20 on a

14

number of concrete issues. Our aim is to have these mechanisms

in place for the Foreign Ministers’ ministerial meeting in Reykjavik

in May. And as we head for the NATO summit in Prague in November, where the expansion of the alliance will be considered, I

believe we will find the environment for the continued expansion

of NATO a great deal calmer than we might have expected.

And, Senator Helms, I just might mention that as we talk about

NATO at 20, and as we talk about the expansion of the alliance,

it will all be done without Russia having any veto about what

NATO might do at 19 or what the alliance will do in determining

who should be allowed into the alliance.

Russians understand this perfectly. But at the same time, we are

responsive to their concerns and we are trying to meet those concerns. That is what you would expect to do with somebody you are

now calling a partner and not an enemy.

We will defend our interests and we will defend the interest of

our alliance. But we want to work with a new partner, the Russians, who increasingly want to be drawn and are attracted and

want to be integrated in the West in a way that fits the mutual

interests of both sides.

I believe the way we handled the war on terrorism, the ABM

Treaty, nuclear reductions, and NATO is reflective of the way we

will be working together with Russia in the future.

Building on the progress we have already made will require energy, goodwill, and creativity on both sides as we seek to resolve

some of the tough issues on our agenda. We have not forgotten

about Russian abuse of human rights and we raised issues with

them. We raise Chechnya at every opportunity. We raise freedom

of the press at every opportunity. We raise proliferation activities

to countries such as Iran or Russian intransigence with respect to

the sanctions policy for Iraq. And there has been considerable

progress on that issue and we can discuss that in greater detail

when we get to the question and answer period with respect to

moving to smart sanctions.

Neither have we neglected to consider what the situation in Afghanistan has made plain for all of us to see. How do we achieve

that more stable security situation in Central Asia? In fact, the

way we are approaching Central Asia is symbolic of the way we are

approaching the relationship between us and Russia as a whole,

and the growing trust between our two countries. Issues that used

to be sources of contention are now sources of cooperation and we

will continue to work with the Russians, as I indicated earlier, to

make sure that the seeds that Senator Biden alluded to are landed

in fertile ground, get the nutrition they need and blossom in a positive direction.

Mr. Chairman, we have also made significant progress in our relationship with China. We moved from what was a very volatile situation in April, when a reconnaissance plane was brought down

over Hainan Island, and people were concerned that this would be

such an obstacle that we wouldn’t be able to go forward and things

would not work out.

As it turned out, things did work out. We were able to recover

our crew rather quickly and the plane came back not too long after

that and both countries were interested in getting this incident beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:33 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77963 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
15

hind us. And I think you saw as a result of the trip I took to China

in the summer, but most importantly President Bush’s trip to the

APEC meeting in Shanghai in October, and the subsequent meeting between President Jiang Zemin and President Bush at that

APEC summit, showed that the relationship was back on an improving track.

There are certain shared interests that we have with China and

we have emphasized those shared interests. They are regional and

global interests such as China’s accession to the WTO, stability on

the Korean Peninsula and combating the scourge of HIV/AIDS. On

such issues as we can talk and we can produce constructive outcomes.

There are other interests where we decidedly do not see eye-toeye such as on arms sales to Taiwan, human rights, religious freedom, and missile proliferation. On such issues, we can have a dialog and try to make progress, but we do not want the issues where

we differ to constrain us from pursuing those where we share common goals, and that is the basis upon which our relations are going

rather smoothly at present, that and counterterrorism.

President Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call

President Bush and offer his sorrow and condolences for the tragic

events of September 11. And in the almost 5 months since that

date, China has helped in the war against terrorism. Beijing has

also helped in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and we hope will

help even more in the future.

Moreover, China has played a constructive role in helping us

manage, over these past few weeks, the very dangerous situation

in South Asia between India and Pakistan.

When I could call the Foreign Minister of China, Mr. Tang, and

have a good discussion, making sure that our policies were known

and understood, it made for a more reasoned approach to what was

a volatile situation between India and Pakistan. As a result, China

supported the approach that the rest of the international community had taken. Beijing was not trying to be a spoiler, but instead

was trying to help us alleviate tensions and convince the two parties to scale down their dangerous confrontation, which now it appears they are trying very hard to do.

So it is a case where this so-called coalition that has been formed

has a utility far beyond terrorism in Afghanistan. We are just talking to each other a lot more. We are finding other areas in which

we can cooperate and the India-Pakistan crisis was one of them.

All of this cooperation, however, came as a result of our careful

efforts to build a relationship over the months since the reconnaissance plane incident. We never walked away from our commitment

to human rights and nonproliferation or religious freedom. And we

never walked away from the position that we do not think the Chinese political system is right for the 21st century. We do not. But

we, at the same time, are anxious to engage and we continue to

tell the Chinese that if their economic development continues apace

and the Chinese people see the benefits of being part of a world at

rest in the rule of law, we can continue to work together constructively.

A candid, constructive, and cooperative relationship is what we

are building with China; candid where we disagree, constructive

16

where we can see some daylight and cooperative where we have

common regional, global, or economic interests.

These are the principles that President Bush will take with him

to Beijing later this month when he meets again with President

Jiang Zemin.

As we improved our relationships with China, we also reinvigorated our bilateral alliance with Japan, Korea and Australia. Nowhere has this been more visible than the war on terrorism, where

cooperation has been solid and helpful from all of our Pacific and

Asian allies and friends.

Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan immediately offered Japan’s

strong support within the confines of its constitution and he is

working carefully to enhance Japan’s capability to contribute to

such global and regional actions in the future. Always the linchpin

of our security strategy in East Asia, the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance now is as strong a bond between our two countries as it has

been in a half century of its existence. Our shared interests, values

and concerns, plus the dictates of regional security, make it imperative that we sustain this renewed vigor in our key Pacific alliance,

and we will.

With respect to the peninsula, our alliance with the Republic of

Korea has also been strengthened by Korea’s response to the war

on terrorism and by our careful analysis of and our consultations

with the South Koreans on where we needed to take the dialog

with North Korea. President Bush has made it clear we are dissatisfied with the actions of North Korea, that they continue to develop and sell missiles that can carry weapons of mass destruction.

But both we and the Republic of Korea are ready to resume dialog

with Pyongyang on this or any other matter at any time North Koreans decide to come back to the table. The ball is in their court.

We conducted our review last year. When that review was finished in the summer, I communicated to the North Koreans and

communicated to our South Korean friends that the United States

was ready to talk any time, any place, anywhere without any preconditions with North Korea.

North Korea has chosen not to respond. North Korea has chosen

to continue to develop missiles, although they comply with the moratorium that they placed upon themselves and they stay within the

KEDO agreement as we do. But nevertheless, their actions have

not been responsible and their people are still starving and we are

helping to feed those people.

So while we are open to dialog, I see no reason that we should

not call it the way it is, and refer to them by the terms that are

appropriate to their conduct and to their behavior and those of us

who are in the business of dealing with North Korea realize it is

a very, very difficult account. At the same time, we are waiting for

them to come out and realize that a better world awaits them if

only they would put this horrid past behind them.

Other friends in the region have also been forward leaning and

I could list all of them but just let me say that our Australian

friends in particular have been forward-leaning in their efforts to

support the war on terrorism. Heavily committed in East Timor already, Australia nonetheless offered its help immediately and we

17

have been grateful for that help. The people of Australia are indeed

some of America’s truest and most trusted friends.

As I look across the Pacific to East Asia I see a much improved

security scene and I believe that President Bush and his interest

in Asia and the Pacific region deserves a great deal of credit for

this success.

Let me turn for a moment, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee, to Europe, where I think there has been a great deal

of success in our relations over the last year. In waging war together on terrorism, our cooperation with Europe has grown

stronger.

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever on September 12,

the day after the events of September 11. Since then, the European

Union has moved swiftly to round up terrorists, close down terrorist financing networks, and improve law enforcement and aviation security cooperation.

President Bush has made it clear that even as we fight the war

on terrorism, we will not be deterred from achieving the goal we

share with the Europeans of a Europe whole, free and at peace. We

continue to work toward this goal with our allies and partners in

Europe. While in the Balkans there remains several challenges to

achieving this goal, we believe we are meeting those challenges. We

have seized war criminals and helped bring about significant

changes in government in Croatia and Yugoslavia. Our military

forces are partnered with European forces in Kosovo and Bosnia to

help bring stability and self-governance while European led action

fosters a settlement in Macedonia. We need to finish the job in the

Balkans, and we will. And we went in together and we will come

out together.

I also believe we have been successful in bringing Europeans to

a calmer level of concern with respect to what many had labeled

in Europe as unbridled U.S. unilateralism. Notwithstanding the reaction we have seen to the President’s State of the Union Address

last week, I still believe that is the case. We spend an enormous

amount of our time consulting with our European and other

friends. It is a priority for the President. He met with Chancellor

Schroeder last week. I don’t even want to count the number of European Ministers I have been in touch with over the last week or

so.

But beyond Europe, we have been in constant touch with Foreign

Ministers around the world, Defense Ministers around the world.

The President is readily available for leaders who come to this

country. We believe in consultation, but we also believe in leading.

We believe in multilateralism, but we also believe in sticking up for

what we believe is right, and not sacrificing it just on the alter of

multilateralism for the sake of multilateralism.

Leadership is staking out what you believe in and coalition leading means leading, and that is what this President does. And I

think he does it very, very well. And he demonstrated it in Europe

last year, beginning with his speech in Warsaw, talking about a

Europe whole and free; his participation in G–8 meetings and the

U.S.-European summit and the European summit; our extensive

consultations with respect to the new strategic framework with

Russia; and culminating in the brilliant way in which the President

18

pulled together the coalition of terrorism. I believe we demonstrated to the world that we can be decisively cooperative when

it serves our interest and the interest of the world.

We have also demonstrated that when it is a matter of principle,

we will stand on that principle whether it is universally applauded

or not.

I think we have been very successful. Let me note also that this

sort of principled approach characterized our determined effort to

reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, an effort well underway before the tragic events of September 11 added even greater urgency.

We and the Russians will reduce our deployed nuclear weapons.

In the meantime, along with our friends and allies, we are going

to go after proliferation. We are going to make sure that we do everything possible to cutoff the kinds of technologies that rogue nations are using to threaten the world.

The principled approach that we take does not equate to no cooperation. Quite the contrary. We are ready to cooperate, not just

with our European friends, but also with our Asian friends, and we

are quite prepared to cooperate and anxious to cooperate in even

broader form.

We are looking forward to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg later this year. There we will have an

opportunity to talk about all kinds of transnational issues, good

governance, protection of our oceans, fisheries and forests and how

best to narrow the gap between the rich countries and the poor

countries of the world.

And that also allows me then to turn to Africa where this summit will be held next September. We have crafted a new and more,

I think, effective approach to Africa, the success of which was most

dramatically demonstrated in the WTO deliberations in Doha last

November that led to the launching of a new trade round. The

United States found its position in these deliberations being strongly supported by the developing countries, most notably those from

Africa.

You may have some idea of how proud that makes me as the

American Secretary of State, proud of this country, proud of this

Congress for its deliberate work to make this possible. The Congress laid the foundation for our efforts with the African Growth

and Opportunity Act, an historic piece of legislation with respect to

the struggling economies in Africa.

In the first year of implementation of this act, we have seen substantial increases in trade with several countries: South Africa, by

11 percent; Kenya 21 percent; Lesotho 51 percent, and Madagascar,

a whopping 117 percent, all based on the first three quarters of

2001 compared to the same period of 2000.

Likewise, we are very pleased with the excellent success we had

with the first U.S. Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, which was held last October.

A large part of our approach to Africa and to other developing

regions and countries will be a renewed and strengthened concern

with progress toward good governance as a prerequisite for development assistance. Where conditions are favorable, where the rule

of law is in place, where there is transparency in their economic

19

and financial systems, then we will encourage investment. We will

encourage companies to take a look at those nations that are moving in the right direction.

Agriculture, of course, is the background of Africa’s economies

and we are working with them to revitalize their agricultural sector in an open system in order to reduce hunger and to lift the

rural majority out of poverty. Fighting corruption, good governance,

getting rid of debt, getting rid of those despotic regimes and individuals who hold their people back, all of this is part of our agenda.

The people of Africa know in many cases their governments do

not deliver the health care, transportation and other systems that

they need to be successful in the 21st century. And our policies toward these countries will be to put them on the right path, move

them in the right direction and allow their people to enjoy the benefits that come from democracy and economic freedom.

We also know that especially in Africa, none of this potential success is possible if we do not do something about HIV/AIDS. It’s destroying families, destroying societies, destroying nations. That is

why I am pleased to report that pledges to the Global Fund to fight

AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria now exceed $1.7 billion and continues to grow. Soon the fund is expected to accept proposals and

begin disbursing money. And we will continue to support that with

additional contributions.

Mr. Chairman, we have also, I think, had some success in our

own hemisphere from the President’s warm relationship with Mexico’s President Fox, to the Summit of the Americas in Quebec last

spring to the signing of the Inter-American Democratic Charter in

Lima, Peru, to our ongoing efforts to create a free trade area of the

Americas. All of this suggests to me that we are moving in the

right direction in our hemisphere, even though there are difficult

problems in Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, and other places that

are of concern to us.

We need to keep democracy and market economics on the march

in Latin America and we need to do everything we can to help our

friends dispel some of the dark clouds that are there. Our Andean

counter-drug initiative is aimed at fighting the illicit drugs problem

while promoting economic development and human rights and

democratic institutions in Colombia and among its Andean neighbors.

For our Caribbean neighbors, the situation has gotten worse as

a result of September 11. Lower growth, decreased tourism, increased unemployment, decreased tax revenue and decreased external financial flows. This economic decline is also affected by increasing rates of HIV/AIDS. I will be going to the Caribbean later

this week to meet with the Foreign Ministers of the Caribbean to

talk about these problems and to also talk about President Bush’s

Third Border Initiative, which seeks to broaden our engagement

with our Caribbean neighbors based on recommendations of the region’s leaders on the areas most critical to their economic and social development.

The Third Border Initiative is centered on economic capacity

building and on leveraging public/private partnerships to help meet

the region’s pressing needs.

20

At the end of the day, it is difficult to exaggerate what we have

at stake in our own hemisphere. Political and economic stability in

our own hemisphere and our own neighborhood reduces the scale

of illegal immigration coming to the United States, drug trafficking, terrorism, and economic turmoil. It also promotes the expansion of trade and investment. So we must remain engaged in

our own hemisphere.

I have touched on some of the dark clouds that are on our foreign

policy horizon, but let me focus on one or two areas that are especially distressing.

The Middle East, of course, is the one that is uppermost on my

mind and the minds of most of us here in the room. With respect

to the tragic confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians, I

want you to know that we will continue to try and focus the parties

on the need to walk back from violence, to find a political solution.

Our priorities have been and will remain clear, ending the violence

and terror through establishment of an enduring cease-fire and

then move forward along the path outlined in the Tenet Security

Workplan and the Mitchell Report recommendations agreed to by

both sides and supported by the international community. This forward movement would ultimately lead to negotiations on all of the

issues that must be resolved between the two parties.

The Israelis and the Palestinians share a common dream, to live

side by side in genuine, lasting security and peace in two states,

Israel and Palestine, with internationally recognized borders. We

share that vision. The President spoke to that vision in his speech

at the U.N. last fall and I gave more form to that vision in the

speech that I gave in Louisville.

Even though things have not gone well in recent weeks, we cannot walk away from it. We must not become frustrated or yield to

those who would have us turn away from this conflict or from this

critical region. As the President has said, the United States has too

many vital interests at stake to take such a step, and one of those

vital interests is the security of Israel.

A positive vision will not be realized, however, as long as violence

and terror continue. The President and I and General Zinni have

been unequivocal with Chairman Arafat. The Palestinian people

will never see their aspirations achieved through violence. Chairman Arafat must act decisively to confront the sources of terror

and choose, once and for all, the option of peace over violence.

He cannot have it both ways. He cannot engage with us and others in the pursuit of peace and at the same time commit or tolerate

continued violence and terror. I have made it clear to Chairman

Arafat and to his associates that the smuggling of arms to the Palestinian authority by Iran and Hizbollah aboard the Karine A is

absolutely unacceptable. Chairman Arafat must ensure that no further activities of this kind ever take place and he must take swift

action against all Palestinian officials who are involved. He knows

what he must do. Actions are required, not just words, if we are

to be able to move forward.

Israel must act as well. Prime Minister Sharon has spoken of his

desire to improve the situation of life for Palestinian civilians confronted with the disastrous economic situation and suffering daily.

We have urged the Israeli Government to act in ways that help

21

ease these hardships and avoid further escalation or complicate efforts to reduce violence.

Difficult as the present circumstances are, the United States will

remain engaged. But, in the end, Israel and the Palestinians must

make the hard decisions necessary to resume progress toward

peace.

With regard to another trouble spot that occupies much of our attention—Iraq—that country remains a significant threat to the region’s stability. We are working at the U.N. and elsewhere to

strengthen international controls.

We stopped the free fall of the sanctions regime. We got the Security Council back together. We are working hard to come up with

the smart sanctions that we think are appropriate and we will not

stop in that effort. I am confident, very confident that by the end

of this 6-month sanctions period, we will be able to implement

smart sanctions in a way that all members of the Security Council

will be able to abide with.

There is reporting this morning that the Iraqi regime has asked

the U.N. to have a discussion. It should be a very short discussion.

The inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one

else’s terms, under the terms of the Security Council resolution.

The burden is upon this evil regime to demonstrate to the world

that they are not doing the kinds of things we suspect them of. And

if they are not doing these things it is beyond me why they do not

want the inspectors in to do whatever is necessary to establish that

such activities are not taking place.

With regard to Iran, we have a long-standing list of grievances,

but at the same time, we have been in conversation with Iran. We

take note of the positive role they played in the campaign against

al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We take note of the contribution they

have made to Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts. But we also

have to take note of their efforts with respect to the ship, the

Karine A. We have to take note of some of the things some parts

of the Iranian Government are doing in Afghanistan which are not

as helpful as what other parts of the Iranian Government are

doing.

We have to take note of the fact that they are still a state sponsor of terrorism. So we are ready to talk, but we will not ignore

the reality that is before our eyes. Those who got so distressed

about the President’s strong statement ought to not be looking in

our direction; they ought to be looking in the direction of regimes

such as Iran, which conduct themselves in this way.

I might just touch very briefly, Mr. Chairman, on the standoff between India and Pakistan. It is of concern to us, but I am pleased

that both nations remain committed to finding a peaceful solution

to this crisis, and we will continue to work with them. I visited

there a few weeks ago and had positive discussions with both sides.

And both sides have made it clear to me then and in their actions

since, that they are trying to move forward to find a diplomatic solution.

President Musharraf gave a very powerful speech that put his

country on the right path, and I hope he will continue to take action to reduce incidents over the line of control, and round up terrorist organizations and do it in a way that will give India conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:33 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77963 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
22

fidence that they are both united in a campaign against terrorism,

and not let it degenerate into a campaign against each other.

Mr. Chairman, I think you are aware of what we have been

doing in Afghanistan. I do not need to belabor the point. We should

be so proud of our men and women in uniform who fought that

campaign with such skill and efficiency. And now the task before

us is to make sure that we help the people of Afghanistan and the

new authority of Afghanistan get the financial wherewithal they

need to start building hope for the people of Afghanistan, and to

bring reality to that hope.

I was pleased that as one of the co-chairs of the Tokyo reconstruction conference, the conference was able to come up with $4.5

billion to be disbursed over a period of 5 years which will get the

country started. The big challenge facing Mr. Karzai and his colleagues is the challenge of security, providing a secure environment

throughout the country so that the reconstruction effort can begin.

With respect to our continued campaign against terrorism, I

think the President has spoken clearly. We will continue to pursue

terrorism. We will pursue al-Qaeda around the world. We will go

after other terrorist organizations and we will deal with those nations that provide a haven or a harbor for terrorists and we will

not shrink from this. We have the patience for it, we have the persistence for it, and we have the leadership for it.

Mr. Chairman, in my prepared statement you have the various

details of budget items and since I have gone on quite a bit, I do

not want to belabor it any longer. But I just wanted to take the

time that I did to show that there is a lot more going on than just

what we read about in the daily papers on a particular crisis.

We have forged good relations with Russia and China and we

have solid relations with the Europeans. We have solid relations

with our allies in the Pacific-Asia region. We are working the problems with Africa and our own hemisphere.

There is no part of the world that we are not interested in. We

are a country of countries. We are touched by every country and

we touch every country and we have a values-based foreign policy

that rests on principle, and it is principle that is founded in our

value system of democracy, the free enterprise system, the individual rights of men and women.

We seek no enemies. We seek only friends. But we will confront

our enemies and we will do it under what I believe is a solid, dedicated persistent leadership of the man who heads the foreign policy

of the United States, President George W. Bush. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Powell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you to

testify in support of President Bush’s budget request for FY 2003.

Before beginning, I want to thank you for confirming almost all of the nominees

for the State Department. They are now hard at work.

Of those who remain to be confirmed, our ambassador-designate to the Philippines is of particular concern to me. We need Frank Ricciardone in Manila and

we need him there as soon as possible. Not only have we not had an ambassador

there in over eighteen months, it is now an even more crucial requirement as we

scale up our assistance in helping President Arroyo combat the terrorists in her

country. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask for your help in getting Frank confirmed, and in

getting the remainder of our people to work as well.

23

I also ask that you help me get the FY 2002/2003 State Department Authorization

bill passed as quickly as possible and that it include full authorization of our budget

request for FY 2003, that it lift the cap on UN Peacekeeping dues, allow us to pay

the third tranche of UN arrears with no additional strings attached, and include the

management authorities we have requested. Moreover, I would also be grateful for

your help in removing from the final bill the foreign policy restrictions, earmarks,

and reporting requirements that tie the Department’s hands.

And let me say here at the outset, Mr. Chairman, before I go into the details of

the budget and our foreign policy, that President Bush has two overriding objectives

that our foreign policy must serve before all else. These two objectives are to win

the war on terrorism and to protect Americans at home and abroad. This Administration will not be deterred from accomplishing these objectives. I have no doubt

that this committee and the Congress feel the same way.

As many of you will recall, at my first budget testimony last March I said I was

going to break the mold and instead of talking exclusively about foreign affairs, I

was going to focus on the financial condition of the Department—both in terms of

State Department operations and in terms of foreign operations. I did that because

the resources challenge for the Department of State had become a serious impediment to the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy. And you heard my testimony and

you responded, and we are grateful.

Because of your understanding and generosity, we have already made significant

progress and in the remainder of FY 2002 we will make more. In new hires for the

Foreign Service, we have made great strides. For example, we doubled the number

of candidates for the Foreign Service Written Examination—and this year we will

give the exam twice instead of just once. Moreover, our new recruits better reflect

the diversity of our country with nearly 17% of those who passed last September’s written exam being members of minority groups. We have also improved Civil Service recruitment by creating new web-based recruiting tools. And once we identify the

best people we bring them on more quickly. For Foreign Service recruits, for instance, we have reduced the time from written exam to entry into service from 27

months to less than a year. We are also working with OMB to create extensive new

performance measures to ensure that we are hiring the very best people.

We are also well underway in bringing state-of-the-art information technology to

the Department. We have an aggressive deployment schedule for our OpenNet Plus

system which will provide desktop Internet access to our unclassified system for

over 30,000 State users worldwide. We are deploying our classified connectivity program over the next two years. Our goal is to put the Internet in the service of diplomacy and we are well on the way to accomplishing it.

In right-sizing our facilities and in shaping up and bringing smarter management

practices to our overseas buildings program, we are moving forward briskly as

well—as many of you are aware because General Chuck Williams has been keeping

you informed about our progress. In fact, that is the first change we made, putting

General Williams in charge and giving him assistant secretary equivalent rank. His

Overseas Building Operations (OBO) has developed the Department’s first longrange plan, which covers our major facility requirements through Fiscal Year 2007.

The OBO has also developed a standard embassy design concept for small, medium, and large embassies. This concept will reduce cost while speeding up construction and enhancing quality. And in making all of our facilities, overseas and

stateside, more secure, we are also making good headway. By the end of FY 2002,

over two-thirds of our overseas posts should reach minimal security standards,

meaning secure doors, windows, and perimeters. And we are making progress in efforts to provide new facilities that are fully secure, with 13 major capital projects

in design or construction, another eight expected to begin this fiscal year, and nine

more in FY 2003.

I am also pleased that we have been able to improve the morale of our State Department families. We are especially proud of our interim childcare center at the

National Foreign Affairs Training Center. It opened on September 4 and can handle

a full complement of 30 infants and toddlers.

The idea of family and the quality of life that must always nourish that idea even

in the remotest station, is uppermost in our minds at the Department. While we

concentrate on the nation’s foreign affairs we must also focus on caring about those

Americans who conduct it, as well as the many thousands of Foreign Service Nationals who help us across the globe. For example, our sixty Afghan employees in

Kabul worked diligently to maintain and protect our facilities throughout the 13

years the Embassy was closed. They worked at considerable personal risk and often

went months without getting paid. They even repaired the chancery roof when it

was damaged by a rocket attack. This is the sort of diligence and loyalty that is

typical of our outstanding Foreign Service Nationals.

24

With regard to our budget, last year I told you that the out years were a source

of concern to me—and they still are. In fact, given the costs of the war on terrorism,

the downturn in the economy and accompanying shrinkage of revenues, I am even

more concerned this year than last. But I was confident last year that I could make

the case for State and I am confident this year that I can do so. We have a solid

case to make, and it is the case of how we best pursue America’s interests and there

is no doubt in this old soldier’s mind that foreign policy stands foremost among the

answers to that ‘‘how.’’ And Mr. Chairman, I am excited about the changes we’ve made and the momentum we’ve developed.

We need to keep that momentum going. That is why for FY 2003 you will get no

break from me. I am going to focus on resources again this year in my testimony,

because it is so critical that we continue to push the organization and conduct of

America’s foreign policy into the 21st Century.

Since that heart-rending day in September when the terrorists struck in New

York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, we have seen why our foreign policy is so important.

We have had great success over the past five months in the war on terrorism,

especially in Afghanistan. And behind the courageous men and women of our armed

forces has been the quiet, steady course of diplomacy, assisting our military’s efforts

to unseat the Taliban government and defeat the al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.

We’ve reshaped that whole region—a new U.S.-Pakistan relationship, a reinvigorated U.S.-India relationship, a new Interim Authority in Kabul, the Taliban gone,

and the terrorists dead, in jail, or on the run. We are also forming important new

relationships with the nations of Central Asia.

In his second visit to the Department last year, President Bush told us that despite the great tragedy of September 11, we could see opportunities through our

tears—and at his direction, the Department of State has been at flank speed ever

since, making as much as possible of those opportunities.

And we need to continue to do so and for many years to come. We will need resources to do it, so first let me focus on my ‘‘CEO dollars’’, and then I will turn to

foreign policy.

THE BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR FY 2003: DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

The President’s request for the Department of State and Related Agencies for FY 2003 is $8.1 billion. These dollars will allow us to:

• Continue initiatives to recruit, hire, train, and deploy the right work force. The

budget request includes $100 million for the next step in the hiring process we

began last year. With these dollars, we will be able to bring on board 399 more

foreign affairs professionals and be well on our way to repairing the large gap

created in our personnel structure and, thus, the strain put on our people by

almost a decade of too few hires, an inability to train properly, and hundreds

of unfilled positions. In FY 2004, if we are able to hire the final 399 personnel,

we will have completed our three-year effort with respect to overseas staffing— to include establishing the training pool I described to you last year that is so

important if we are to allow our people to complete the training we feel is needed for them to do their jobs. Soon, I will be back up here briefing you on the

results of our domestic staffing review.

• Continue to upgrade and enhance our worldwide security readiness—even more important in light of our success in disrupting and damaging the al-Qaida terrorist network. The budget request includes $553 million that builds on the

funding provided from the Emergency Response Fund for the increased hiring

of security agents and for counterterrorism programs.

• Continue to upgrade the security of our overseas facilities. The budget request

includes over $1.3 billion to improve physical security, correct serious deficiencies that still exist, and provide for security-driven construction of new facilities at high-risk posts around the world.

• Continue our program to provide state-of-the-art information technology to our

people everywhere. Just as I promised you last year, the budget request will

continue projects aimed at extending classified connectivity to every post that

requires it and to expanding desktop access to the Internet for Department employees. We have included $177 million for this purpose. Over the past decade,

we let the Department’s essential connectivity ebb to very low levels and we

need to correct that situation.

• Continue and enhance our educational and cultural exchange programs. The

budget request includes $247 million for strategic activities that build mutual

understanding and develop friendly relations between America and the peoples

of the world. These activities help build the trust, confidence, and international

25

cooperation necessary to sustain and advance the full range of our interests.

Such activities have gained a new sense of urgency and importance since the

brutal attacks of September. We need to teach more about America to the

world. We need to show people who we are and what we stand for, and these

programs do just that.

• Continue to meet our obligations to international organizations—also important

as we pursue the war on terrorism to its end. The budget request includes

$891.4 million to fund U.S. assessments to 43 international organizations, active membership of which furthers U.S. economic, political, security, social, and

cultural interests.

• Continue to try to meet our obligations to international peacekeeping activities.

The budget request includes $726 million to pay our projected United Nations

peacekeeping assessments—all the more important as we seek to avoid increasing even further our UN arrearages. UN peacekeeping activities allow us to leverage our political, military, and financial assets through the authority of the

United Nations Security Council and the participation of other countries in providing funds and peacekeepers for conflicts worldwide. As we have seen in Afghanistan, it is often best to use American GIs for the heavy-lifting of combat

and leave the peacekeeping to others.

• Continue and also enhance an aggressive public diplomacy effort to eliminate

support for terrorists and thus deny them safe haven. The budget includes almost $518 million for International Broadcasting, of which $60 million is for the

war on terrorism. This funding will enable the Voice of America and Radio Free

Europe/Radio Liberty to continue increased media broadcasts to Afghanistan

and the surrounding countries and throughout the Middle East. These international broadcasts help inform local public opinion about the true nature of alQaida and the purposes of the war on terrorism, building support for the coalition’s global campaign.

Mr. Chairman, on this last subject let me expand my remarks.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 underscore the urgency of implementing an effective

public diplomacy campaign. Those who abet terror by spreading distortion and hate

and inciting others, take full advantage of the global news cycle. We must do the

same. Since 9/11, there have been over 2,000 media appearances by State Department individuals. Our continuous presence in Arabic and regional media by officials

with language and media skills, has been unprecedented. Our international information website on terror is now online in seven languages. Internet search engines

show it is the hottest page on the topic. Our 25-page color publication, ‘‘The Network of Terrorism’’, is now available in 30 languages with many different adaptations, including a full insert in the Arabic edition of Newsweek. ‘‘Right content, right

format, right audience, right now’’ describes our strategic aim in seeing that U.S.

policies are explained and placed in the proper context in the minds of foreign audiences.

I also serve, ex officio, as a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the

agency that oversees the efforts of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio

Liberty to broadcast our message into South Central Asia and the Middle East.

With the support of the Congress, our broadcasting has increased dramatically since

September 11. We have almost doubled the number of broadcast hours to areas that

have been the breeding grounds of terrorists. The dollars we have requested for

international broadcasting will help sustain these key efforts through the next fiscal

year.

In addition, Under Secretary Charlotte Beers leads an aggressive effort to create

and implement new programs to reach new audiences. She is working with private

sector companies, government agencies, and with our embassies to create avenues

to broader, younger audiences in critical regions. One of our new initiatives will

focus on Muslim life in America. It will include television documentaries and radio

programs co-produced with Muslim-Americans, speaker exchanges, and op-ed pieces.

We know that this must be a long-term effort that will bear fruit only over time.

But we must do it. Two of America’s greatest strengths during the Cold War were

our vigorous information and exchange programs. I believe that we can and must

build a comparable capability today if we are to confront successfully the new threat

to our security.

Mr. Chairman, all of these State Department and Related Agencies programs and

initiatives are critical to the conduct of America’s foreign policy. Some of you know

my feelings about the importance to the success of any enterprise of having the

right people in the right places. If I had to put one of these priorities at the very

pinnacle of our efforts, it would be our people. We must sustain the strong recruiting program we began last year. At the same time, we will continue measuring our

26

progress not simply on numbers hired but on how our new hire’s enhance the Department’s mission. We want to get to a point where our people can undergo training without seriously jeopardizing their missions or offices; where our men and

women don’t have to fill two or three positions at once; and where people have a

chance to breathe occasionally. Morale at the Department has taken a definite

swing upward and we want it to continue to rise and to stay as high as possible.

As a soldier, I can tell you that such high morale, combined with superb training

and adequate resources, is the key to a first-class offense—and that is what our men

and women are, the first line of offense for America.

So, before I turn to foreign policy, let me say once again how strongly I feel as

the CEO of the State Department about this part of our budget. It is essential that

we have the funds necessary to pay for our operations worldwide.

FOREIGN POLICY: SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

In addition to the successes of the war on terrorism and the regional developments its skillful pursuit has made possible, we have been busy elsewhere as well.

With regard to Russia, President Bush has defied some of our critics and structured a very strong relationship. The meetings that he had with President Putin

and the dialogue that has taken place between Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov and

me and between Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his counterpart, and at a variety of other levels, have positioned the United States for a strengthened relationship

with the land of eleven time zones.

The way that Russia responded to the events of September 11 was reflective of

this positive relationship. Russia has been a key member of the antiterrorist coalition. It has played a crucial role in our success in Afghanistan, by providing intelligence, bolstering the Northern Alliance, and assisting our entry into Central Asia.

As a result, we have seriously eroded the capabilities of a terrorist network that

posed a direct threat to both of our countries.

Similarly, the way we agreed to disagree on the ABM Treaty reflects the intense

dialogue we had over eleven months, a dialogue in which we told the Russians

where we were headed and we made clear to them that we were serious and that

nothing would deter us. And we asked them if there was a way that we could do

what we had to do together, or a way that they could accept what we had to do

in light of the threat to both of our countries from ballistic missiles.

At the end of the day, we agreed to disagree and we notified Russia that we were

going to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. I notified FM Ivanov—we talked about our

plans for two days. President Bush called President Putin. Then the two presidents

arranged the way we would make our different announcements. And the world did

not end. An arms race did not break out. There is no crisis in Russia-U.S. relations.

In fact, our relations are very good. Both presidents pledged to reduce further the

number of their nuclear weapons and we are hard at work on an agreement to

record these mutual commitments. This is all part of the new strategic framework

with Russia.

We even managed to come to an agreement on how we are going to work through

NATO. We are now developing mechanisms for pursuing joint Russia-NATO consultations and actions ‘‘at 20’’ on a number of concrete issues. Our aim is to have

these mechanisms in place for the Reykjavik ministerial in May. And as we head

for the NATO Summit in Prague in November, I believe we will find the environment for the continued expansion of NATO a great deal calmer than we might have

expected.

I believe the way we handled the war on terrorism, the ABM Treaty, nuclear reductions, and NATO is reflective of the way we will be working together with Russia

in the future. Building on the progress we have already made will require energy,

good will, and creativity on both sides as we seek to resolve some of the tough issues

on our agenda. We have not forgotten about Russian abuse of human rights in

Chechnya, Moscow’s nuclear proliferation to Iran, or Russian intransigence with respect to revision of Iraq sanctions. Neither have we neglected to consider what the

situation in Afghanistan has made plain for all to see: how do we achieve a more

stable security situation in Central Asia? We know that this is something we cannot

do without the Russians and something that increasingly they realize can’t be done

without us, and without the full participation of the countries in the region. We are

working these issues as well.

In fact, the way we are approaching Central Asia is symbolic of the way we are

approaching the relationship as a whole and of the growing trust between our two

countries. We are taking issues that used to be problems between us and turning

them into opportunities for more cooperation. Such an approach does not mean that

differences have vanished or that tough negotiations are a thing of the past. What

27

it means is that we believe there are no insurmountable obstacles to building on

the improved relationship we have already constructed.

It will take time. But we are on the road to a vastly changed relationship with

Russia. That can only be for the good—for America and the world.

We have also made significant progress in our relationship with China.

We moved from what was a potentially volatile situation in April involving our

EP-3 aircraft which was forced to land on China’s Hainan Island after a PLA fighter

aircraft collided with it, to a very successful meeting in Shanghai in October between President Jiang Zemin and President Bush and an APEC Conference, hosted

by China, that was equally successful.

There are certain shared interests that we have with China and we have emphasized those interests. They are regional and global interests, such as China’s acces- sion to WTO, stability on the Korean Peninsula, and combating the scourge of HIV/

AIDs. On such issues we can talk and we can produce constructive outcomes.

There are other interests where we decidedly do not see eye-to-eye, such as Taiwan, human rights, religious freedom, and missile proliferation. On such issues we

can have a dialogue and try to make measurable progress.

But we do not want the interests where we differ to constrain us from pursuing

those where we share common goals. And that is the basis upon which our relations

are going rather smoothly at present. That, and counterterrorism.

President Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call President Bush

and offer his sorrow and condolences for the tragic events of September 11. And in

the almost five months since that day, China has helped in the war against terrorism. Beijing has also helped in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and we hope

will help even more in the future.

Moreover, China has played a constructive role in helping us manage over these

past few weeks the very dangerous situation in South Asia between India and Pakistan. When I could call China’s Foreign Minster Tang and have a good discussion,

making sure our policies were known and understood, it made for a more reasoned

approach to what was a volatile situation. As a result, China supported the approach that the rest of the international community had taken. Beijing was not trying to be a spoiler but instead was trying to help us alleviate tensions and convince

the two parties to scale down their dangerous confrontation—which now it appears

they are beginning to do.

All of this cooperation came as a result of our careful efforts to build the relationship over the months since the EP-3 incident. We never walked away from our commitment to human rights, non-proliferation, or religious freedom; and we never

walked away from the position that we don’t think the Chinese political system is

the right one for the 21st century. And we continued to tell the Chinese that if their

economic development continues apace and the Chinese people see the benefits of

being part of a world that rests on the rule of law, we can continue to work together

constructively.

A candid, constructive, and cooperative relationship is what we are building with

China. Candid where we disagree; constructive where we can see some daylight; and

cooperative where we have common regional or global interests. These are the principles President Bush will take with him to Beijing later this month. After meeting

with Prime Minister Koizumi in Tokyo and with President Kim in Seoul, the President will spend a day and a half in Beijing and meet with President Jiang Zemin,

as well as Premier Zhu Rongji. He will have ample opportunity to put these principles to work.

As we improved our relationship with China, we also reinvigorated our bilateral

alliances with Japan, Korea, and Australia. Nowhere has this been more visible

than in the war on terrorism—where cooperation has been solid and helpful.

Prime Minister Koizumi immediately offered Japan’s strong support, within the

confines of its constitution. And he is working to enhance Japan’s ability to contribute to such global and regional actions in the future. President Bush’s dialogue

with this charismatic and popular Japanese leader has been warm, engaging, and

productive. Always the linchpin of our security strategy in East Asia, the U.S.-

Japan Security Alliance is now as strong a bond between our two countries as it

has been in the half-century of its existence. Our shared interests, values, and concerns, plus the dictates of regional security, make it imperative that we sustain this

renewed vigor in our key Pacific alliance. And we will.

With respect to the Peninsula, our alliance with the Republic of Korea (ROK) has

also been strengthened by Korea’s strong response to the war on terrorism and by

our careful analysis of and consultations on where we needed to take the dialogue

with the North. President Bush has made it very clear that we are dissatisfied with

the actions of North Korea, that they continue to develop and sell missiles that

could carry weapons of mass destruction. But we have also made clear that both

28

we and the ROK are ready to resume dialogue with Pyongyang, on this or any other

matter, at any time the North Koreans decide to come back to the table. The ball

is in Kim Jong-il’s court.

The Australians have been clearly forward-leaning in their efforts to support the

war on terrorism. Heavily committed in East Timor already, Canberra nonetheless

offered its help immediately and we have been grateful for that help. The people

of Australia are indeed some of America’s truest friends.

As I look across the Pacific to East Asia I see a much-improved security scene

and I believe that President Bush deserves the lion’s share of the credit for this success.

Another foreign policy success is the improvement we have achieved in our relations with Europe. In waging war together on terrorism, our cooperation has grown

stronger. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever on September 12. Since

then, the European Union has moved swiftly to round up terrorists, close down terrorist financing networks, and improve law enforcement and aviation security cooperation.

Moreover, President Bush has made clear that even as we fight the war on terrorism, we will not be deterred from achieving the goal we share with Europeans

of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. We continue to work toward this goal with

our Allies and Partners in Europe. While in the Balkans there remain several challenges to our achieving this goal, we believe we are meeting those challenges. We

have seized war criminals, helped bring about significant changes in governments

in Croatia and Yugoslavia, and our military forces are partnered with European

forces in Kosovo and Bosnia to help bring stability and self-governance, while European-led action fosters a settlement in Macedonia. We need to finish the job in the

Balkans—and we will.

I also believe we have been successful in bringing the Europeans to a calmer level

of concern with respect to what was being labeled by many in Europe ‘‘unbridled

U.S. unilateralism’’.

There was significant concern among the Europeans earlier last year that because

we took some unilateral positions of principle for us that somehow the U.S. was

going off on its own without a care for the rest of the world. This was particularly

true with respect to the Kyoto Protocol. So we set out immediately to correct this

misperception. Beginning with President Bush’s speech in Warsaw, his participation

in the G–8 meetings and the European Union summit, our extensive consultations

with respect to the new strategic framework with Russia, and culminating in the

brilliant way in which the President pulled together the coalition against terrorism,

I believe that we demonstrated to the world that we can be decisively cooperative

when it serves our interests and the interests of the world.

But we have also demonstrated that when it is a matter of principle, we will

stand on that principle. In his first year in office President Bush has shown the

international community who he is and what his administration is all about. That

is an important accomplishment—and one that is appreciated now everywhere I go.

People know where America is coming from and do not have to doubt our resolve

or our purpose. They may not always agree with us, but they have no doubt about

our policy or our position. We want to ensure that this policy clarity and this firmness of purpose continue to characterize our foreign policy, and not just with the

Europeans but with all nations.

Let me just note that this sort of principled approach characterizes our determined effort to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction—an effort well

underway before the tragic events of September 11 added even greater urgency. We

and the Russians will reduce our own deployed nuclear weapons substantially. In

the meantime, we are using a comprehensive approach, along with our friends and

allies, to tackle WMD elsewhere, an approach that includes export controls, non-proliferation, arms control, missile defenses, and counter-proliferation. As you heard

President Bush say last Tuesday night in the chambers of this Congress, ‘‘the price

of indifference [to WMD] would be catastrophic.’’ There are terrorists in the world

who would like nothing better than to get their hands on and use nuclear, chemical,

or biological weapons. So there is a definite link between terrorism and WMD. Not

to recognize that link would be foolhardy to the extreme.

Principled approach does not equate to no cooperation. We know that cooperation

is often essential to get things done. On our efforts to lift countries out of poverty,

for example, and to create conditions in which trade and investment flourish, we

need to cooperate. This summer in Johannesburg, we will participate in the World

Summit on Sustainable Development. There we will have an opportunity to address

such issues as good governance; protection of our oceans, fisheries, and forests; and

how best to narrow the gap between the rich countries and the poor countries of

29

the world. And that brings me to my next high mark in our foreign policy for the

past year, Africa.

Mr. Chairman, we have crafted a new and more successful approach to Africa— the success of which was most dramatically demonstrated in the WTO deliberations

in Doha last November that led to the launching of a new trade round. The United

States found its positions in those deliberations being strongly supported by the developing countries, most notably those from Africa. You may have some idea of how

proud that makes your Secretary—proud of his country, and proud of this Congress

for its deliberate work to make this possible. The Congress laid the foundation for

our efforts with the African Growth and Opportunity Act—an historic piece of legislation with respect to the struggling economies in Africa. In the first year of implementation of this Act, we have seen substantial increases in trade with several

countries—South Africa by 11%, Kenya by 21%, Lesotho by 51%, and Madagascar

by a whopping 117%, all based on the first three quarters of 2001 compared to the

same period in 2000. Likewise, we are very pleased with the excellent success of

the first U.S.-SubSaharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum which

was held last October.

A large part of our approach to Africa and to other developing regions and countries as well, will be a renewed and strengthened concern with progress toward good

governance as a prerequisite for development assistance. Where conditions are favorable, our development assistance in Africa will emphasize the vigorous promotion

of agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of Africa’s economies and must be revitalized to reduce hunger and to lift the rural majority out of poverty. In addition, we

will emphasize fighting corruption and President Bush’s new initiative on basic education. Moreover, we want to emphasize methods that directly empower individuals—methods such as micro-lending, a superb vehicle for increasing the economic

participation and security of the working poor. The people of Africa in particular

know that in many cases their governments do not deliver the health care, transportation and communication networks, education and training, and financial investment needed to create 21st century economies. They know that this must change

if there is to be hope of economic success—of job creation, private investment, stable

currencies, and economic growth.

We also know and more and more of Africa’s people are coming to know that none

of this economic success is possible if we do not meet the challenge of HIV/AIDS.

That is why I am pleased to report that pledges to the Global Fund to fight AIDS,

tuberculosis, and malaria now exceed $1.7 billion and continue to grow. Soon, the

Fund is expected to accept proposals and provide grants to partnerships in those

countries with the greatest disease burden and the least resources with which to

alleviate that burden.

We want the Global Fund to complement national, bilateral, and other international efforts to fight these dreaded diseases. Strong congressional support will

ensure that the United States remains the leader in this global humanitarian and

national security effort.

I have not exhausted the list of our foreign policy successes either. In our own

hemisphere we have met with considerable success, from the President’s warm relationship with Mexico’s President Fox, to the Summit of the Americas in Quebec, to

the signing of the Inter-American Democratic Charter in Lima, Peru, to our ongoing

efforts to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas—including, as President Bush

described three weeks ago, not only our current negotiations with Chile but also a

new effort to explore the concept of a free trade agreement with Central America.

Moreover, we have every expectation that the Financing for Development Conference in Mexico later this month will be successful. There, the importance of good

governance, trade, and private investment will be the focus. We need to keep democracy and market economics on the march in Latin America. And to be sure, there

are some dark clouds moving in now, and one of the darkest looms over Colombia

where a combination of narco-terrorism and festering insurgency threatens to derail

the progress the Colombians have made in solidifying their democracy.

Our Andean Regional Initiative is aimed at fighting the illicit drugs problem

while promoting economic development, human rights, and democratic institutions

in Colombia and its Andean neighbors. Intense U.S. support and engagement has

been the critical element in our counterdrug successes in Bolivia and Peru and will

continue to be critical as we help our regional partners strengthen their societies

to confront and eradicate this threat to their own democracies and to America’s national security interests.

There is another element to this challenge caused by our intense focus right now

and for the foreseeable future on the war on terrorism. U.S. military and law enforcement forces previously assigned to interdict the flow of drugs between South

America and the United States have been reduced by more than fifty percent. BeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:33 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 77963 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
30

cause of this reduction we have less capability to stem the flow of drugs from south

to north, thus we will be even more dependent on friendly countries in source and

transit zones to help us deal with the drug threat.

For our Caribbean neighbors, making the situation worse are the end results of

September 11—lower growth, decreased tourism, increased unemployment, decreased tax revenue, and decreased external financial flows. This economic decline

is compounded by high rates of HIV/AIDS infection and financial crime, as well as

the traffic in illicit drugs.

President Bush’s Third Border Initiative (TBI) seeks to broaden our engagement

with our Caribbean neighbors based on recommendations by the region’s leaders on

the areas most critical to their economic and social development. The TBI is centered on economic capacity building and on leveraging public/private partnerships

to help meet the region’s pressing needs.

In addition to its economic provisions, the Third Border Initiative includes 20 million dollars for HIV/AIDS education and prevention efforts. This represents a twofold increase in U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance to the region in just two years.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, our ties to the Caribbean region are as much

cultural and human as they are economic and political. The countries of the Caribbean attract millions of American visitors every year and the region is our sixth

largest export market. Large numbers of Caribbean immigrants have found their

way to America, including, I am proud to say, my Jamaican forebearers. Here people

from the region have found freedom and opportunity and have added something

wonderful to the great American cultural mix. But our primary goal must be to help

ensure that the peoples of the Caribbean find new opportunities for work, prosperity

and a better life at home.

At the end of the day, it is difficult to exaggerate what we have at stake in our

own hemisphere. Political and economic stability in our own neighborhood reduces

the scale of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, terrorism, and economic turmoil.

It also promotes the expansion of trade and investment. Today, we sell more to

Latin America and the Caribbean than to the European Union. Our trade within

NAFTA is greater than that with the EU and Japan combined. We sell more to

MERCOSUR than to China. And Latin America and the Caribbean is our fastest

growing export market. Clearly, the President is right to focus attention on this

hemisphere and we will be working hard in the days ahead to make that focus productive, both economically and politically.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the dark clouds I have described within our hemisphere, there are vexing problems that persist elsewhere, the most prominent of

which are in the Middle East. The situation between Israel and the Palestinians,

Iraq, and Iran are among our concerns.

With respect to the tragic confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians, we

will continue to try and focus the parties on the need to walk back from violence

to a political process. Our priorities have been and will remain clear: ending the violence and terror through establishment of an enduring cease-fire and then movement forward along the path outlined in the Tenet Security Workplan and the

Mitchell Report recommendations, agreed to by both sides and supported by the

international community. This forward movement would lead ultimately to negotiations on all the issues that must be resolved.

Israelis and Palestinians share a common dream: to live side-by-side in genuine,

lasting security and peace in two states, Israel and Palestine, with internationally

recognized borders. We share that hope for a better tomorrow for both peoples.

President Bush expressed this positive vision in his speech to the United Nations

last November, and I described it in my speech later that month in Louisville. And

I thank one of your Senate colleagues, Senator Mitch McConnell, for inviting me on

that occasion.

We must not become frustrated, or yield to those who would have us turn away

from this conflict—or from this critical region. As the President has said, the United

States has too many vital interests at stake to take such a step, and one of those

vital interests is the security of Israel. We must not lose sight of what we have

achieved through our hard work and diplomacy in the region and beyond. There is

a path out of the darkness, accepted by both Israel and the Palestinians—the Tenet

Workplan and the Mitchell Report. We have mobilized our friends and allies, including the UN, the European Union, Russia and others throughout the region and the

world, to speak with one voice in supporting this road back to peace.

But first things first. Our positive vision will never be realized so long as violence

and terror continue. The President and I, and General Zinni, have been unequivocal

with Chairman Arafat. The Palestinian people will never see their aspirations

achieved through violence. Chairman Arafat must act decisively to confront the

sources of terror and choose once and for all the option of peace over violence. He

31

cannot have it both ways. He cannot engage with us and others in pursuit of peace

and at the same time permit or tolerate continued violence and terror. In that regard, I have made clear to Chairman Arafat that the smuggling of arms to the Palestinian Authority by Iran and Hizballah aboard the Karine A is absolutely unacceptable. Chairman Arafat must ensure that no further activities of this kind ever

take place and he must take swift action against all Palestinian officials who were

involved.

Chairman Arafat knows what he must do. Actions are required, not just words,

if we are to be in the position of working effectively again with him to help restore

calm and forward movement. Israel too must act. Prime Minister Sharon has spoken

of his desire to improve the situation of Palestinian civilians, confronted with a disastrous economic crisis and suffering daily. We have urged the Israeli government

to act in ways that help ease these hardships and avoid further escalation or complicate efforts to reduce violence. Difficult as the present circumstances are, the

United States will remain involved. But, in the end, Israel and the Palestinians

must make the hard decisions necessary to resume progress toward peace.

With regard to Iraq, that country remains a significant threat to the region’s stability. We are working at the UN and elsewhere to strengthen international controls

on Iraq. In the last year, we successfully stopped the free fall of sanctions and began

to rebuild United Nations Security Council consensus on Iraq. The UNSC unanimously adopted resolution 1382 in November, committing itself to implement the

central element of ‘‘smart sanctions’’ by May 30 of this year. This central element,

or Goods Review List (GRL), identifies materials UNSC members must approve for

export to Iraq and ensures continued supervision and control over dual-use goods.

Its implementation will effectively lift economic sanctions on purely civilian trade

and focus controls on arms, especially WMD. This will further strengthen support

for UN controls by showing the international community that Saddam Hussein, not

the UN and not the U.S., is responsible for the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people. We are working with the Russians to get final agreement on the GRL.

At the end of the day, we have not ruled out other options with respect to Iraq.

We still believe strongly in regime change in Iraq and we look forward to the day

when a democratic, representative government at peace with its neighbors leads

Iraq to rejoin the family of nations.

With regard to Iran, we have a long-standing list of grievances, from concerns

about proliferation to Iran’s continued sponsorship of terrorism. We have been clear

in communicating to Teheran that its support for terrorism remains a serious

unaddressed concern—and this includes the case of the Karine A transporting arms.

Teheran’s latest provocation, besides the arms aboard the Karine A, has been its

apparent unhelpful activities in the post-Taliban environment of western Afghanistan. This, after being quite helpful as we prosecuted the war against terrorism in

Afghanistan and, at the Bonn Conference, being helpful with the setup of the Interim Authority in Kabul.

After citing the list of our grievances with Iran, however, I am still convinced that

we may be able to talk to Iran, that we may be able to have a reasonable conversation with Iranian leaders. With respect to the situation in Afghanistan, for example,

I believe we can demonstrate to them that it is not in their interest to destabilize

the government that they helped to create in Bonn. The other issues will be more

difficult; but I do believe constructive talks with Iran on Afghanistan are possible.

Mr. Chairman, I have not yet spoken at length about the crisis in South Asia or

the war against terrorism, both of which I know are on all of the committee members’ minds. Let me turn to those two very important matters now.

THE CRISIS IN SOUTH ASIA

The standoff between India and Pakistan is a very dangerous situation. Any situation where you have forces that are mobilized and are in proximity to one another

and are at something of a war footing with nearly a million soldiers deployed, is

a dangerous situation. One where both sides have nuclear and missile capability is

dramatically more so. As President Bush and I worked this issue over the past few

weeks, we noted however that there was an opportunity for a political and diplomatic solution—a solution that would avoid what could be a very disastrous conflict

if it came to war.

Prime Minister Blair visited the region in early January. Chinese premier, Zhu

Rongji, visited New Delhi the week of January 14. As you know, I visited New Delhi

and Islamabad three weeks ago. I talked frequently by phone with General

Musharraf and with my counterpart in India, Foreign Minister Singh. We talked at

length about how to reach a point where the two sides could say ‘‘All right, let’s

start to deescalate.’’

32

President Musharraf’s speech on January 12 was a seminal event. It not only

dealt with terrorism and extremism in a way that I believe New Delhi found constructive, it sent a clear message to Pakistanis that terrorism must end if Pakistan

is to enter the 21st century with expectations of progress and a decent life for its

people. President Musharraf showed great courage and foresight in sending such a

decisive message to his country and, by extension, to the Islamic world at large.

Now he must show equal courage in implementing his concepts in Pakistan.

From the start of this crisis, both New Delhi and Islamabad have indicated that

they want to avoid war, that they are desirous of solving the standoff through political and diplomatic means. Now, as we are seeing and as we are hoping, events

seem to be progressing toward that end. We will continue monitoring the situation,

urging restraint and dialogue, and helping where and when we can. We will encourage both India and Pakistan to refrain from provocative rhetoric and to move toward redeployment of their military forces. We need to continue carefully walking

down from the very precarious position each country has created with respect to the

other.

Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to the war on terrorism.

THE WAR ON TERRORISM

A little over two weeks ago, I was in Tokyo to join the European Union, Saudi

Arabia, and Japan in hosting the Afghan Donor Conference. Representatives from

over 60 countries attended, as well as experts from the Multilateral Development

Banks, and a number of UN agencies. The conference helped to ensure that a wide

range of countries will help the Afghans rebuild their country. The United States

pledged $296 million at the conference and others pitched in accordingly. The total

pledged at this point is around $4.5 billion with more than $1.8 billion for the first

year. I am pleased with the first-year funds, but we must do much better for the

long haul.

The heavy-lifting with respect to Afghanistan is only just beginning. We have

helped the Afghans remove the oppressive Taliban regime from their country. We

have destroyed the al-Qaida network in Afghanistan, with our troops mopping up

some of the remnants as we speak. We have made possible the delivery of humanitarian aid, including massive amounts of food. We have avoided the wholesale starvation that many predicted. Moreover, we have helped the people of Afghanistan establish a multi-ethnic Interim Authority in Kabul, led by Chairman Karzai. One of

its ultimate goals is to oversee an agreed process that will lead to a broad-based

Afghan government—one that represents all the people of the country, people of

every background and region, women as well as men.

We also have a rare chance to disrupt seriously the flow of opium in the world,

as Afghanistan has been the world’s largest source of this drug which is the base

for heroin. A government that is headed toward reconstruction, toward building a

new and better life for its citizens, and a government that is concerned with feeding

its population and giving them adequate education, good roads, clean water, and

other needed services, will not be a government that permits the selling of opium

to the world. And such a government needs to be secure as well.

Many of our key allies and partners are contributing to the International Security

Assistance Force in Kabul to help ensure a secure environment for Mr. Karzai to

build a new Afghanistan. We are reviewing whether or not more forces might be

needed for this force and we will continue to look closely at the security needs as

we move forward. We want to do everything possible to prevent the rise of any alternative power to the Interim Authority, until a permanent government can be established and begin to take care of that challenge on its own.

Much remains to be done and admittedly a lot of what remains will be difficult

to accomplish. But we believe that at long last Afghanistan is on a positive track.

There is no question that this is a time of great challenge for the Afghan people,

but it is equally unquestionable that this is also a time of great hope. And, as President Bush pledged last week during Chairman Karzai’s visit to Washington: ‘‘The

United States is committed to playing a leading role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.’’

Mr. Chairman, you and several other Senators have been to Afghanistan. You

have seen at first hand the desperate need but also the hope for the future. You

know from your visit how important it is to provide the needed funds for reconstruction. We must have a long-term commitment, from America and from the other

countries dedicated to this process. If we can ensure such a commitment, and if we

can achieve proper accountability and use of these funds, then I believe there is a

good chance of making significant progress in bringing a new future to AfghaniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:33 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 77963 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
33

stan—and ending the days of warlordism and political chaos that bred the Taliban

and made a fertile ground for terrorists.

And as reconstruction begins in Afghanistan, the war against terrorism continues.

As President Bush said last week in his State of the Union Address, ‘‘What we have

found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror

is only beginning.’’ The administration is working together in new ways never before

envisioned. And that’s what this effort is going to require. FBI, CIA, INS, Treasury,

State, NSC, the Attorney General and Justice Department, and others, are all coming together. This campaign is transnational, cross-border, even global in a way we

have never contemplated.

What we are trying to do on the foreign policy side is to help analyze where alQaida cells might seek refuge. A country that immediately comes to mind is Somalia

because it is quite a lawless place without much of a government and because it

has been this sort of terrorist haven in the past, providing training camps, communications links, and financial cover.

We are watching Somalia very closely. Terrorism might find fertile ground there

and we do not want that to happen. No plans have been made—yet. But if we find

al-Qaida there, you can rest assured we will take the appropriate action.

We have also had a good dialogue with President Ali Abdallah Salih of Yemen

and we believe that actions he is taking are a good first step toward the goal of

uprooting the al-Qaida network there.

There are other countries we are working with as well, some of whom have their

own sort of terrorist problem that has spillover into our own problem. The Philippines has the Abu Sayyaf, who in the past have had connections with al-Qaida.

But this is not just a campaign against al-Qaida—it is a campaign against terrorism

throughout the world.

So we are working with President Arroyo in the Philippines to assist that country

in combating its terrorists—who as you know right now hold two American citizens

as hostages.

We are also working with the Sudan, a country with whom we have had major

difficulties in the past few years. Even before September 11 we had been working

with the Sudanese, asking them ‘‘What do you get for this? What do you get for letting people like these terrorists have safe haven in the Sudan? What does it do for

you except bring down the condemnation of the world?’’ And they have been somewhat responsive. The problems in the Sudan are not solved by any means. But some

new opportunities have opened up.

As you can see, then, part of our approach to this extended campaign against terrorism is to work with countries such as the Sudan. We are not being naive, not

being unmindful of the challenges that exist, but using diplomacy, using good people

like Senator Danforth and others, and at the same time cooperating together on intelligence and law enforcement activities to put a stop to easy passage or safe haven

for terrorists.

We have not made any recommendation to the President about the major use of

military force and the President has made no decision as yet with respect to such

use of force. But there are many other actions that are taking place—actions of a

law enforcement, political, diplomatic, financial, and intelligence-sharing nature.

A sizable portion of the President’s budget request is dedicated to these

counterterrorism efforts, as you will see as I turn to the specific priorities of our

budget request for Foreign Operations.

THE BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR FY 2003: FOREIGN OPERATIONS

The President’s FY 2003 request for Foreign Operations is a little over $16.1 billion. These dollars will support the continuing war on terrorism, the work we are

doing in Colombia and the Andean region at large, our efforts to combat HIV/AIDS

and other infectious diseases, the important work of the Peace Corps and the scaling

up of that work, and our plan to clear arrearages at the Multilateral Development

Banks.

War on Terrorism

As the war on terrorism expands, it will remain the top U.S. foreign policy priority. To fight terrorism as well as alleviate the conditions that fuel violent extremism, we are requesting an estimated $5 billion. In addition to the initiatives outlined previously under the budget for the State Department and Related Agencies,

this funding includes:

• Foreign assistance—$3.5 billion for economic and security assistance, military

equipment, and training for front-line states and our other partners in the war

on terrorism.

34

• $3.4 billion from Foreign Operations accounts such as the Economic Support

Fund, International Military Education and Training, Foreign Military Financing, and Freedom Support Act.

• $88 million for programs in Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union

to reduce the availability to terrorists of weapons of mass destruction. Ongoing

programs engage former weapons scientists in peaceful research and help prevent the spread of the materials expertise required to build such weapons.

• $69 million for counterterrorism engagement programs, training, and equipment to help other countries fight global terror, thereby strengthening our own

national security.

• $4 million for the Treasury Department’s Office of Technical Assistance to provide training and other necessary expertise to foreign finance offices to halt terrorist financing.

And Mr. Chairman, while in the FY 2003 budget request there is no money identified at the moment for Afghanistan reconstruction, I know that President Bush, the

Congress, and the American people recognize that rebuilding that war-torn country

must be and will be a multi-year effort. The Administration will be working closely

with this committee and with the Congress to sustain our contribution in future

years.

Andean Counterdrug Initiative

We are requesting $731 million in FY 2003 for the multi-year counter-drug initiative in Colombia and other Andean countries that are the source of the cocaine sold

on America’s streets. ACI assistance to Andean governments will support drug

eradication, interdiction, economic development, and development of government institutions. Assisting efforts to destroy local coca crops and processing labs there increases the effectiveness of U.S. law enforcement here.

Global Health and HIV/AIDS

In FY 2003, we are requesting $1.4 billion for USAID global health programs. Of

this amount, we are requesting $540 million for bilateral HIV/AIDS prevention,

care, and treatment activities, and $100 million for the Global Fund to fight AIDS,

tuberculosis, and malaria, to which I referred earlier. All of this funding will increase the already significant U.S. contribution to combating the AIDS pandemic

and make us the single largest bilateral donor to the effort. I should add that the

overall U.S. Government request for international HIV/AIDS programs exceeds one

billion dollars, including $200 million for the Global Fund.

The Peace Corps

All of you heard the President’s remarks last Tuesday evening with respect to the

USA Freedom Corps and his objective to renew the promise of the Peace Corps and

to double the number of volunteers in the Corps in the next five years. We have

put $320 million for the Peace Corps in the FY 2003 budget request. This is an increase of over $42 million over our FY 2002 level. This increase will allow us to

begin the scaling up that the President has directed. In addition to re-opening currently suspended posts, the Peace Corps will establish new programs in eight countries and place over 1,200 additional volunteers worldwide. By the end of FY 2003

the Peace Corps will have more than 8,000 volunteers on the ground.

MDB Arrears

The FY 2003 request includes an initiative to pay one third of the amount the

United States owes the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) for our scheduled

annual commitments. With U.S. arrears currently now totaling $533 million, the request would provide $178 million to pay one third of our total arrears during the

fiscal year. The banks lend to and invest in developing economies, promoting growth

and poverty reduction. We need to support them.

Summing Up

Mr. Chairman, you have heard from me as CEO of the State Department and as

principal foreign policy advisor to the President. I hold both responsibilities dear.

Taking care of the great men and women who carry out America’s foreign policy is

as vital a mission in my view as helping to construct and shape that foreign policy.

As I told this committee last year and as I have already reminded it again this

year, the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy suffered significantly from a lack of

resources over the past decade. I have set both my CEO hat and my foreign policy

hat to correct that situation. But I cannot do it without your help and the help of

your colleagues in the Senate and across the capitol in the House. I believe we have

demonstrated in the past year that we are worth the money. I believe we have demVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:33 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 77963 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
35

onstrated that we can be wise stewards of the people’s money and put it to good

use in the pursuit of America’s interests abroad. I also believe that we have demonstrated conclusively that we are essential to that process of pursuing the nation’s

interests. With your able assistance, we will continue to do so in the months ahead.

Thank you, and I will be pleased to take your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We will try

to go through these rounds fairly quickly. And I know that we have

many, many questions for you.

Let me begin by one housekeeping matter. We are going to have

some very serious and prolonged hearings on AIDS, with the strong

support of the ranking member and leadership of the Senator from

Wisconsin, as well as Senator Kerry, our colleague from Tennessee

and others. There is a consensus here that it must not go unattended. It is not. And toward that end, we will be having the first

hearing on the 13th, next Wednesday. And toward that end in that

afternoon, Kofi Annan feels this is such an important thing to continue the tradition started by the Chairman, Senator Helms, we

have jointly invited him to come down and not to testify because

it is not particularly appropriate, but to come at 3 o’clock to the

committee and we are inviting other Senators as well to participate. And so that will be at 3 o’clock in the afternoon on the 13th

as well. So that is, we share your view.

The last, not housekeeping but generic point I wish to make is

if anyone doubts the resolve of this generation of young people, I

hear it so often about this generation, they ought to follow you or

me or others of us around the world, and be in that bunker or sit

in the basement of that embassy which is in God-awful shape and

the buildings and the structures there and see these young kids.

I mean, they are incredible, absolutely incredible.

I know you know the stories you heard when our one star, Bob

Grim was telling us, he brought me in without staff and let me listen to some of the intel they had picked up and I have to tell one

story.

He tells us about a story, you know, we have, as you know,

young Marines, the Special Forces folks, going out with a dozen or

a couple of them going out with a dozen or more Northern Alliance

people and, we are going, we are looking in those caves and we are

in Tora Bora, we are in Jalalabad, we are going around trying to

root these guys out.

They tell me this one story where this group gets ambushed and

all of the Northern Alliance guys take off and you hear a young

sergeant say, I won’t use exact language, but a young gunny saying

I will be darned if I am leaving and the young captain with him

saying I think we can take these guys. There were close to 50 of

them. These two kids hunkered down. You can then hear the

Northern Alliance guys saying, I won’t use the vernacular, but as

translated to me but hey, these guys are pretty tough and they go

back with them and they defeat this group.

And then that same group comes to me in the afternoon and says

after another briefing, says Senator, these same kids are out there,

we need help, you know, there is a group, there is a children’s hospital in Kabul. There is no heat. We sent our engineer over there,

we need $320 in parts. Defense did not have it, State did not have

it. I said how did you do it? ‘‘We passed the hat.’’

36

The same kids are out there getting shot at. They passed the hat

for $325, went out and bought on the black market the material

to fix the children’s hospital to put heat in there. So I want to tell

you, my dad’s generation may be the greatest generation because

they had the greatest challenge they were facing. This generation

of kids has the capacity, if called upon, to be the greatest generation. They are something else. So I hope, I just wish people would

see what they are doing.

Secretary POWELL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I have been asked how many minutes. I have already trespassed on the minutes. Since it is close to 12, we will

make it 7 minute rounds, is that good with you, Senator?

Secretary POWELL. You make the point, Mr. Chairman, there is

greatness in every generation.

The CHAIRMAN. There really is, and these kids are amazing, absolutely amazing.

At any rate, on the ‘‘axis of evil.’’ You have spoken to the same

people and many more than I have spoken to and Senator Hagel

has spoken to being over at the Wehrkunde conference, and I was

up at the World Economic Forum, and it may be understood by the

administration but to say the least, it has confused our friends and

angered some of our allies. They are confused not because they

think these guys are good guys, but they wonder why if the criteria

for calling North Korea evil, why do we not call China evil?

China is exporting—we are sanctioning them—the same material. China is building, increasing their nuclear arsenal. Why Iran

if not Syria. Assad in Syria has made the most inflammatory remarks I have heard anybody make at all in the world about the

United States so far, except for bin Laden. And the list goes on.

So my question is was it meant to stake out the general notion

that we know these guys are bad guys, they are not the only bad

guys or is it meant to be an all inclusive list or was it, I am not

being facetious, was it a rhetorical connection between Roosevelt

and or Reagan, axis and evil. These folks are not allies, they are

not on the same page. Can you talk to me a little bit about that?

Secretary POWELL. What the President wanted to do was to, and

remember the context in which he used the term, he was talking

about terrorism, he wanted to make the point that even if we finished with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, even if we got al-Qaeda everywhere that is in the 50-odd countries that it is located, we still

have a problem, the civilized world has a problem.

The problem is there are still regimes out there that not only are

supporting terrorist organizations as a matter of state policy, but

they are also developing weapons of mass destruction and means

to deliver them that might then allow them to become a terrorist

state because they could do that, or they could provide the wherewithal to terrorist organizations to use these sorts of things against

us. So I think it was a clear statement that these three particular

countries, if not identical to each other with respect to their policies, have enough to link them with respect to their attitudes to the

rest of the world and the kinds of things they are doing. And they

are probably not the only ones we could have put into the club.

37

With respect to your reference to China, we called China to account for their proliferation activities. We just put two more Chinese companies under sanction.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not suggesting you add them, I am just

wondering why you—— Secretary POWELL. We have a dialog with China. We can talk to

China. We have ways of dealing with China in a sensible way.

With North Korea, no. With Iraq, no. With Iran, no. And they continue to pursue these policies which frankly are dangerous to us.

And the President wanted to make sure that everybody understood

that.

Now, the response that has come back has been mixed. Some

people have said they understand exactly what he was talking

about. I think most people understand exactly who he is talking

about. But for some in the foreign policy community or editorial or

journalistic community found it a bit too shocking and it rankled

them too much. I think when you settle down, the President did

not announce any new policies with respect to them because we

have a set of policies in place with respect to each and every one

of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, just so you know what people have said to

me, including Foreign Ministers of our major allies, is that big nations cannot bluff. The President said that we weren’t going to wait

for these dangers to get worse. They raised the question of whether

or not we have changed our policy about using preemptive force to

take out, for example, any of the facilities that the North Koreans

we believe are using to develop these weapons, and whether we

have decided that we have the right under international law or

without international law to preemptively strike Iran as they continue to try to enhance their missile capability, which would be a

change in policy. It would be—well—

Secretary POWELL. I am not aware of a policy of no preemption

ever.

The CHAIRMAN. No, no, but I mean, well, they, let me be more

precise. They are asking whether or not the policy is now that we

are just saying to them unless they cease and desist in these efforts

now, we will use whatever force is necessary now to take out their

capacity to develop these weapons.

Secretary POWELL. That is not what the President said, and if

they would listen to what he said, that is not what he said, nor did

he announce any new policies the next day nor did we.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, proliferation is of great concern to all of us

and I, and to the extent that Iraq is a problem, and I think it is.

I happen to be one that thinks that one way or another Saddam

has got to go and it is likely to be required to have U.S. force to

have him go and the question is how to do it in my view, not if

to do it, but I won’t in my short time here, pursue that. But with

regard to nonproliferation efforts, if Iraq is a concern and North

Korea is a concern about proliferating the capability for individual

terrorist groups to act, the virtual candy store that is out there is

Russia, not because Russia wants to, but because Russia based on

the Baker report and many other reports has everything that any

terrorist could possibly want from fissile material lying around to,

as Senator Lugar has forgotten more about this than I am going

38

to know, but chemical munitions that are potentially available, not

very much under guard to the attempts to get actually a nuclear

capacity, and I am talking about of the ilk of the al-Qaedas of the

world.

And we are going to spend this year in this budget $8.3 billion

on what the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the national intelligence estimate, judges to be the least likely threat, that is an

ICBM striking the United States and yet we are going to spend

only 1 point—if you add everything up, it is less than $1.3 billion

on dealing with the proliferation of this capability. Do you think

that is the right balance?

Secretary POWELL. You can always find two items and make a

judgment as to whether the balance is correct or not. And $1.3 billion is a significant amount of money.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a very, very small increase over what we

had done last year.

Secretary POWELL. And there is also an absorption issue as well.

In the past week I have discussed this with the Russian Prime

Minister. I have also discussed it with the Russian head of the

their chemical weapons holdings. It has now been moved from the

Ministry of Defense to a civilian organization, where we can get a

little better insight into what they are doing. We are looking at

other ways of increasing the funding for these kinds of programs

perhaps through some kind of debt relief.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to be a win-win circumstance if we

could do it.

Secretary POWELL. Absolutely. But you are right. What impresses me is that the Russians also recognize this as well.

The CHAIRMAN. That is clear to me. I will come back to ask about

Iraq in the second round here if we have time. Senator Helms.

Senator HELMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been a member of this committee about as long as anybody.

The CHAIRMAN. We came the same day.

Senator HELMS. I have never heard a more comprehensive report

by a Secretary of State, and I have heard a few.

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, sir.

Senator HELMS. And I have been your friend for a long time and

I just want to compliment you, man to man.

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, sir.

Senator HELMS. I was pleased what you said about the President

with respect to the ‘‘axis of evil,’’ that is to say, Iran, Iraq and

North Korea. And I know you are aware but I want to make a

point of it there have been two recent national intelligence estimates, they call them NIEs down in your shop, about each one of

these countries making aggressive efforts to acquire weapons of

mass destruction and ballistic missiles.

Now, that is more than a minor interest to the United States and

I am glad the President said what he did. He meant it and I agreed

with him and I mean it.

I am confessing how old I am. I think I may be the only guy in

this room who remembers December 7, 1941. Now I remember it

well because I went up to the Navy recruiting station after we put

out an extra of my newspaper and volunteered for the Navy.

39

I am a little bit disappointed. I am about to get over this situation with Japan, but there is a matter involving a lot of states in

this country of ours, poultry producing states and are you aware

of the ban on United States poultry by Japan?

Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir.

Senator HELMS. Howard Baker is working on it and doing a good

job but I want to continue to be friends of the Japanese, but if they

are going to take crazy positions like this, because there is one

county in Pennsylvania where there was poultry disease, avian influenza, one county in Pennsylvania and that is all, and nowhere

else in this country and yet they have banned our poultry. Now,

I know you are going to look into that for us and I appreciate it.

Now, last June, our President called for NATO enlargement from

the Baltic to the Black Sea. There is no down side to broadening

and strengthening the Atlantic alliance of free nations in my judgment, because it is a part, as you have stated this morning that

we will enhance the security of our own country.

But I am a little bit worried that NATO enlargement is taking

a back seat to other priorities, and you have reassured me, but can

you fully reassure me that it is going to be on the front burner?

Secretary POWELL. It is on the front burner and I am absolutely

sure that a number of nations will be invited at the Prague summit

to become members of NATO. I am not prepared to say today how

many of the aspirants will be invited. But I think it is going to be

a pretty good size addition to the membership, and the standard

will be: do they contribute to the alliance? Have they met the

standards of the membership action plan? And nobody will have a

veto over whether they are in or out. It is up to the members of

NATO to decide how to expand the club.

At the same time, the NATO-Russia at 20 piece of it will give

Russia some reassurance about the expansion of NATO as being

something that is not threatening to them because it gives them a

voice in NATO without any veto over NATO activities. And so that

is why we are anxious to put together NATO-Russia at 20 by the

time of the Reykjavik Ministerial in May to set ourselves up for the

President’s trip to Moscow, also in May, and then the Prague summit in the fall.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Secretary, this is almost a personal matter.

A Hong Kong businessman, Li Guangqiang, was sentenced last

week to 2 years in prison in China for transporting Bibles into

China. Are you aware of that?

Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir. And we find it a deplorable sentence

and deplorable charge.

Senator HELMS. It just occurred to me this morning when were

you talking about the President and you going to China, this is a

matter of importance to a lot of people in this country, and I wonder if the President and you would take up this matter with the

Chinese because that is reprehensible. That is censorship at its

worst, as far as I am concerned.

Secretary POWELL. The President called us about it as soon as

he saw it a few weeks ago and he raised this kind of thing with

President Jiang Zemin when he was in Shanghai last fall and I am

sure it will come up again later this month.

40

Senator HELMS. I am sure it will, too. But this is just reprehensible.

Finally, I am concerned about reports from Venezuela last week

that President Chavez is consorting with narco-terrorists in Colombia. Physical evidence, namely a videotape and a memorandum establishes beyond any doubt, I think, that he is supporting the

narco-terrorists in Colombia. Presuming all of that is so, what do

you think ought to be the United States’ position in the face of

President Chavez’s continued behavior both at home and abroad,

and then a related area while I am at it, while I am encouraged

to see the President’s proposal to train Colombians in pipeline security, that is a necessity, how else can we increase help to the Colombian Government in their war against the narco-terrorists. I did

not leave you much time.

Secretary POWELL. Briefly, we have been concerned with some of

the actions of Venezuelan President Chavez, and his understanding

of what a democratic system is all about. We have not been happy

with some of the comments he has made with respect to the campaign against terrorism. He was not as supportive as he might

have been and he drops in on some of the strangest countries to

visit. I am not sure what inspiration he thinks he gets or what benefit it is to the Venezuelan people dropping in or visiting some of

these despotic regimes. We have expressed our disagreement on

some of these policies directly to him and he understands that it

is a serious irritant in our relationship.

Senator HELMS. What did he say when you——

Secretary POWELL. He gets quite defensive. We have had our

Ambassador go in on a couple of occasions and he becomes quite

defensive. And we have also gone to some of our friends in the region to also suggest to President Chavez that there are perhaps

better ways to deal with a campaign against terrorism and better

ways to deal with the challenges his country is facing.

With respect to the specific issue on the videotape and support

of narcotraffickers, I saw those reports, but I think I had better

wait until I get a complete analysis before I comment on any particular charges.

With respect to the Colombian pipeline, as you know, this is a

program that we are supporting to the tune of $98 million in our

budget. Because it is a critical pipeline for Colombia, they do need

to find a way to protect it in order to support their economic development and to keep their economy moving forward. But our principal focus with the Andean Initiative is on the counter-narcotics

and not counter-insurgency.

Senator HELMS. Thank you again, Mr. Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Feingold.

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

I am pleased to welcome Secretary Powell here today. Since the Secretary last appeared before this committee in October, I recognize that he has worked tirelessly

to bring together an effective international coalition to fight terrorism. And as the

President and the Secretary of State have made clear on any number of occasions,

the current coalition effort to fight terrorism must be waged on a variety of fronts.

I believe the President’s foreign affairs budget request for fiscal year 2002 begins

41

the important but difficult process of defining a broad range of diplomatic, military

and foreign assistance priorities for the next stage of our global effort to confront

terrorism.

The President’s budget clearly recognizes that appropriate military actions, under

the authority of the War Powers resolution, must be balanced by efforts to restrict

terrorist financing, augment the reach and effectiveness of our foreign assistance

programs, and improve our public diplomacy. I commend the President for giving

careful consideration to the complicated, multi-faced nature of these foreign commitments. But in the coming months, as we shape the final budget, we must all struggle to ask whether these budget priorities meet our national security needs in this

new and complex international environment.

One striking aspect of the President’s budget request is the significant expansion

it proposes in military spending, including through expanded military relationships

with other countries. Over the coming months we must ask whether these new military commitments respond most effectively to the security needs around us. In reviewing the proposed budget, I will seek to highlight the shared constitutional responsibilities of both the President and the Congress in making critical decisions

concerning our international military commitments. The Joint Resolution adopted

by Congress and signed into law by the President in September provided the President with statutory authorization to use all necessary and appropriate force against

those responsible for the September 11 atrocities. But to preserve our constitutional

framework and the popular resolve that has lent so much to our success to date,

the President must recognize that as laudable as it might be for the U.S. to root

out all bad actors around the globe, such action is outside the scope of the use of

force resolution that Congress passed, and beyond the means of our current budget

resources. As a result, we must work closely with the Administration to design an

effective and cost-efficient response to the global threats that confront us.

We must also ensure that these military commitments leave sufficient foreign aid

resources to build safer, healthier democratic societies around the world. For we

must all now recognize that economic development and global health are indeed important and long neglected components of a comprehensive national security strategy. The budget must similarly offer adequate support to promote human rights, the

rule of law and democratic reform, particularly within coalition countries with weak

governmental institutions and difficult human rights records that have nonetheless

made the choice to side with us in the fight against terrorism. Indeed, we must demand attention to human rights and democracy as a basis for building a mature

relationship with these new coalition partners, and our foreign affairs budget must

provide the resources to accomplish this important objective.

The President’s budget also recognizes that we must ensure that our close strategic partners are not ignored as we move forward in building a new and unprecedented coalition against terrorism. We must act to reassure those states, although

we must simultaneously recognize that there are few areas or regions of the world

that have not been touched by the devastating events of September 11.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I will also carefully follow

the budget process as it affects our relationships with African states. And while I

recognize that urgent needs in South Asia will require significant foreign assistance

resources this year and in the years ahead, I will work to ensure that sub-Saharan

Africa, a region with tremendous needs, will not be left short in an effort to free

resources for other parts of the world. I also urge the Secretary to seize the public

diplomacy opportunities that exist within these new budget priorities to reach out

to African Muslim communities, and to use the new Peace Corps expansion to promote health and development across the African continent.

We all have much work to do to craft a final budget that responds adequately and

responsibly to the complex new environment around us. I look forward to working

with Secretary Powell and the Administration to accomplish that task.

Senator FEINGOLD. Let me first thank you for your leadership in

general but especially for your comments and your leadership on

the HIV/AIDS issue. I am greatly looking forward to the hearings

next week and I can’t think of anything that is more pressing for

the committee and you have devoted a lot of your effort to it and

I thank you for that.

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your statement and I can safely

speak for the people in my state in saying we are grateful for your

tremendous leadership.

42

I am eagerly awaiting the release of the annual Human Rights

Report from the State Department later this month.

In advance of the release, I wonder if you could describe how you

might respond to some of the rather delicate diplomatic dilemmas

that are often raised by the annual reports. If the previous years

are any measure, and I think they will be, I believe that we can

expect that the current reports will highlight significant concerns

over the human rights practices of even some of our new partners

on the war against terrorism.

How difficult will it be in your opinion to engage in constructive

dialog over human rights practices with some of our partners, particularly in Central and Southeast Asia and the Middle East without also then alienating our coalition partners or undermining the

seriousness of the human rights concerns?

Secretary POWELL. I think over the years, we have established in

that report that we are going to call it the way we see it. And last

year, the first year that I had responsibility for it, the staff did it.

They worked with the embassies. They called it the way they saw

it. We looked through it carefully as it came up. But when it came

to me, it was done. I did not try to change a single word of it in

anything that had been submitted to me.

A number of our friends were unhappy with the characterization

of their society and their political system. We will talk to them

about it, and show them where improvement is necessary and show

them the standards required by the report.

We have a number of new friends, but we are not unmindful that

a number of these new friends, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,

Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, do not have the kind of political systems

yet that we think are appropriate to the 21st century. And we have

no reservation about saying that to them.

I had a Foreign Minister of one of those countries in our office

yesterday and we talked about this very candidly. Corruption,

human rights, religious freedom, all of these things are important

in a relationship with the United States. And do not ever expect

to have a meeting where we do not talk about these issues, even

though I am complimenting you in the next sentence about what

you have done in the war against terrorism.

Senator FEINGOLD. You do not anticipate any diminution in the

use or the utility——

Secretary POWELL. I will have some difficult moments on the

telephone or in meetings but that comes with the job. We will point

out human rights failings, deficiencies, as we have detected them

and so you can expect a human rights report that will be in the

same tone and tense as last year, Senator, even though we have

found some new partners to work with. We are pushing them in

the right direction.

Senator FEINGOLD. I thank you for that answer. Obviously urgent needs in South Asia will require significant foreign assistance

resources this year and in the years ahead and given the very

stark budgetary realities that I was reviewing over in the Budget

Committee today, I fear that sub-Saharan Africa, which you have

already discussed, will be shortchanged in order to free up resources for other parts of the world.

43

Can you assure me that this is not the case and it is not the administration’s intention that the portion of the foreign assistance

budget devoted to Africa be decreased in the year ahead?

Secretary POWELL. It is not our intention. As you know, as you

go through the year, things happen, requirements come along. I

will do everything I can to protect what we have in the budget for

sub-Saharan Africa because the need is so great.

I think you’ll note that we have done pretty well by HIV/AIDS

with another $100 million from the State Department and another

$100 million from the Health and Human Services account to make

a contribution of $500 million to the Trust Fund within the last

year alone.

Senator FEINGOLD. Perhaps I could pursue that a little bit. I am

not certain that I am pleased with the level of funding for the Global AIDS Fund from the United States. I was concerned by press reports indicating that the administration is proposing the United

States make a $200 million contribution to the Global Fund for

AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria this year.

I understood that was the same pledge as last year. The administration, at the time when some of us indicated that wasn’t enough,

recognized the problem and we were told that the contribution was

only the beginning.

Could you explain how that $200 million is arrived at and is

there something beyond that I am not aware of?

Secretary POWELL. The initial commitment last year to get the

fund started was $200 million. And then in the course of the year,

with the assistance of the Congress, another $100 million was

added for a total of $300 million. And then in this year’s submission, there is $200 million, $100 million out of my account, $100

million out of Tommy Thompson’s account, for a total of $500 million over a period of about a year and a half.

I would love to have made it a lot more in fiscal year 2003 in

the request. But in light of all of the other things that have to be

dealt with, $200 million was deemed an appropriate contribution,

and the Global Trust Fund is off to a good start with $1.7 billion.

So we thought an additional $200 million in 2003 was appropriate

in light of all of the other constraints that exist within our accounts

and within the overall Federal budget.

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, I certainly hope you are right. It is my

sense that it is not adequate and I will be pressing for more, but

I appreciate your answer.

Finally, Secretary Powell, I have read reports of terrorist networks in Southeast Asia obviously with interest and alarm. I noted

that Indonesia is coming up again and again in these reports. But

I have been a bit puzzled to see some in the administration suggest

that these reports should prompt the United States to abandon restrictions on military assistance to Indonesia, something I think

you and I discussed at the time of your confirmation.

I think that we can all agree that encouraging greater stability

in Indonesia is unquestionably in the United States national interest but there is some disagreement about how to get from here to

there. I am concerned that if the United States abandons efforts to

encourage reform and respect for human rights and responsibility

44

in the Indonesian military, we will in fact be encouraging greater

instability in that critically important country.

Do you agree that the United States should continue to pursue

policies that push for reform and accountability from the Indonesian military?

Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your mentioning the African Growth

and Opportunity Act and the good results that have come from it.

I think they are very important. The emphasis that you are placing

on that is exemplary. Likewise the additional moneys for the ISTC,

the International Science Technology Center seems to me funds

well placed in dealing with Russian scientists who were involved

in Soviet nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. This

is perhaps one of the most important efforts in responding to the

threat of proliferation as well as establishing relationships with

these people. I want to commend that addition.

I want to mention the Biden-Lugar debt-for-nonproliferation

swaps with Russia. The chairman mentioned that in a speech he

gave here in Washington yesterday, and I noted the press accounts

of that. It is a difficult proposition in part because the Russian debt

to us is much less than, for example, their debt to Germany.

When I was visiting with Germans, they’re very sensitive about

the proposal. But at the same time, it makes good sense. I just

trust that you are thinking about that, and potentially employing

it. I know in my visit with Miss Rice that she had given some

thought to that and I just want to underscore the utility. Likewise,

you have visited with former Russian Prime Minister Kiriyenko

about the elimination of chemical weapons, which was very important.

One disturbing aspect of this, and perhaps this was part of your

discussions and negotiations, is the inability of the United States

to sign off on certifications that are required for the release of

funds that had been appropriated by Congress. Now it has been a

struggle as you know for us to work out with our House colleagues

support for this project at Shchuchye, which is critical, and to

which now Germany, Great Britain, Norway and Canada have

committed resources.

I know you share my concern for this problem, and without

knowing the particulars as to your conversation with Kiriyenko, I

am hopeful progress can be made in the near term to start the destruction of these dangerous weapons.

Last month I visited NATO headquarters in Brussels. While

there I gave a speech in which I advocated the compilation of two

lists of threats. One, the list of countries that have al-Qaeda or

other terrorist threats that the President has now outlined in the

State of the Union. The second list includes countries that have either materials programs or weapons of mass destruction. As the

President has pointed out, the intersection of any of the participants in these two lists is potentially fatal to our NATO allies,

quite apart from the serious blow to us. I think they understand

that.

45

You have heard the concerns that our NATO allies have expressed on whether they have been passed by or ignored in Afghanistan, but the point that I tried to make was there are many things

they can contribute: intelligence, good police work, and interdiction

of funds. A number of things can be done that do not require strategic lift capacity, smart weapons, or other military assets.

In other words, as opposed to grousing about being passed by,

there are instrumental things they can do to contribute to the war

on terrorism. Many understand this and are making tremendous

contributions. But I want to stress that we diplomatically work

with our NATO allies to point out how important they are, not how

irrelevant they are and I heard both sorts of testimony by administration officials at Brussels. I tried to weigh in on the side of importance of the alliance, as I know you would.

Let me just mention one more thing. That is I saw that the Russians are back in Afghanistan, New York Times had a story about

Foreign Minister Ivanov there. Not a surprise. And Iran reportedly

denied any activity in the Herat area and so forth but the neighborhood is still a rough one. The President told, as you quoted

today, Chairman Karzai, the United States is committed to playing

a leading role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Our chairman, Chairman Biden has spoken out on this issue

both during his visit there as well as subsequently. I would like to

also. I really believe this is a critical moment in United States’ foreign policy. This is a tough issue and I know the administration

is still debating the proper policy and that is why this is not an

adversarial comment.

It simply appeared to me that Chairman Karzai was confident

that the United States military was going to be in Afghanistan for

a while. I believe that everyone in the region has confidence that

the United States is going to be there, that others are not going

to meddle or waiver, namely Russia, Pakistan, Iran and others that

have been difficult in the past.

Now, our military assistance providers apparently are going to be

there and I have great hope in that thought. But it seems to me

that although we are sending a good sum of money $290 million,

to Afghanistan, and maybe more to come, we really need a comprehensive plan to make that a success. I thought Michael

McFaul’s article in the Washington Post today was right. This

needs to be the next Germany. We need to send a signal to that

part of the world that supports human rights, democracy, economic

success as opposed to a basket case, which I fear it will become

even with Chairman Karzai, a leader of great stature. So with all

these thoughts, I have exhausted most of my time but I would like

your comment.

Secretary POWELL. If I could just touch each one rather quickly.

On the debt swap, I have repeatedly offered up German debt but

the Germans are not quite biting. Seriously, we are in serious conversations with the Germans and Chancellor Schroeder.

Senator LUGAR. They understand that, too.

Secretary POWELL. Oh, they understand that, yes. We are looking

for some creative ways to do exactly what you describe, use our

debt and the German debt, and see if that can be converted in a

way that makes sense to fund some of these destruction activities

46

within Russia. On Shchuchye, I think we finally got the certification cleared up.

I can not tell you this morning whether or not all the papers

have been signed, but I assured Mr. Kiriyenko that we are almost

there. And that will release $50 million if my memory serves me

correctly. The contribution of NATO, I could not agree with you

more. The fact that we did not take everything off the menu that

they offered should not be a condemnation. It was an embarrassment of riches, that the alliance was offering all it had.

There were limits to what General Franks could use and put into

the theater and what he really needed. It should not be seen as

criticism of NATO that everything they offered was not taken up.

When you look at what NATO offered and what the whole EU offered, it was considerable. As you noted, Senator, it was just as important a contribution for them to go after financial infrastructure,

intelligence sharing, and all of the things that did not require a

smart bombs or a C–17 airplane. And they are doing that, and they

are doing it well, and we should applaud them and not snipe at

them, because they are making that contribution in that way.

With respect to Russia and Afghanistan, I did see a picture of my

good friend, Igor Ivanov, getting off the plane at Bagram. The

chairman did not mention it this morning. I saw Colonel Bigelow

10 days later and I congratulated him, by the way.

The CHAIRMAN. He was stunned when I told him the Secretary

of State was on the phone.

Secretary POWELL. In any event, Ivanov told me he was going,

I knew he was going. I am sure he will call me tomorrow to tell

me how the trip was. But I can also tell you that the great game

is not going to startup again. We cannot have that. And everybody

is trying to cooperate, to make sure that the interests of Afghanistan and the Afghan people are served and not any of the neighbors.

All the neighbors are best served by a stable Afghanistan moving

in a direction you described. They want our presence there. We

contributed $297 million in this first year and it will be a recurring

cost every year.

It is not in the budget this year because we do not know what

that number will be yet, but they want our U.S. military presence.

General Franks and some of his people will be there for a while

hunting up al-Qaeda and Taliban. The International Security Assistance Force is coming in with U.S. enabling. We have to help

them get there. So there will be a U.S. presence. But the President

is quite determined that we not put U.S. combat units on the

ground to essentially perform military police and security kinds of

functions. There are other units of other nations that can do that.

The big challenge, Senator, is to assist them in every way possible to create their own national army and their own national police force because those are the people who are best able to provide

security in Afghanistan, and not trying to saturate the whole country with infantry battalions. There are not enough infantry battalions in the U.S. Army or in the International Security Assistance

Force to do that. So the IASF should take care of the hot spots or

difficult areas that might be there while the Afghan Army and national police force are being built as rapidly as possible.

47

The major contribution we can make to Mr. Karzai is to help him

with building up that national army and national police force. The

Germans have also volunteered to play an active role in the national police force construction.

Senator LUGAR. A framework long enough for them to succeed.

Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to have you here. Nice to see you.

I am very strongly supportive of your budget. In fact, I don’t

think it is adequate but it seems to me that in this challenge we’re

now confronting that there is a whole range of programs and activities under your jurisdiction that are extremely important in terms

of whether we are going to be successful.

Do you agree with that?

Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir.

Senator SARBANES. Not only in the immediate effort to deal with

terrorism but also in advancing U.S. interests around the world.

You have been the leader, I think, in making the point that we

have to build these coalitions because if we are going to dry up this

environment, we need the support of many others around the world

in order to do that and therefore need to support a whole range of

programs.

On the face of it, the HIV/AIDS effort in Africa may not seem

to be connected. Of course, the basic rationale for that is very much

a humanitarian one but it also affects the perception of us by a significant number of players in an important continent, not only in

this continent, but elsewhere as well. Doesn’t it? Doesn’t it have

that spillover effect in terms of the U.S. posture?

Secretary POWELL. Yes, it does. People are looking to us to help

solve this catastrophe in the sub-Saharan Africa.

Senator SARBANES. On many other issues as well, and if you do

not have the resources with which to address these questions, it

seems to me we are going to be markedly handicapped in exercising that leadership.

Secretary POWELL. I agree. I could use very effectively any additional moneys that were made available to me in almost any account on my list of accounts. But within the constraints of the Federal budget and the priorities of the President, I am pleased that

we were able to get an almost 5 percent increase in our foreign operations and State operating accounts. But I could use whatever

else the President or the Congress would choose to give.

Senator SARBANES. Now, is it really the proper balance that your

accounts go up by about 5 percent, not taking into account inflation

as I understand it. And the defense budget is going up 15 percent.

Now, it seems to me there is a disproportion here. Of course,

your budget is a lot smaller than their budget, so you could get a

bigger percentage increase. It doesn’t cost as many dollars. But

what’s the underlying rationale? I know the defense budget is important, and I’m obviously along with many others are going to be

supportive of it but what’s the underlying rationale for such a disproportion?

48

It seems to me if you had a little bit of that, if some of that

money that was going into defense were shifted over to your budget, the benefit to us would be greater, because you gave some programs that are sort of limping badly. And if you could give them

a boost, the benefit to the national security and the national interest would be greater by a little better proportion between the defense budget and your budget.

Secretary POWELL. One could, of course, make that argument to

any account in the Federal budget. In this case, because of the lack

of investment in the Defense Department in recent years, they

have a large need to replenish accounts, to build new fleets of

equipment, and to deal with the transformation effort that is so

badly needed that Secretary Rumsfeld has designed. And so looking

at all of the needs, all of the departments of the Federal Government, the President made his judgment that he had to give priority

within the total budget amount to be allocated. He had to give priority to the needs of the Defense Department, and was not able to

give as much to the State Department as he might have wished or

I might have desired.

Senator SARBANES. Well now what’s the total amount of your

budget?

Secretary POWELL. Roughly $25 billion.

Senator SARBANES. And the Defense budget is what, $379 billion?

Secretary POWELL. I do not have it in front of me. I think that

is about right.

Senator SARBANES. So that is about 15 times larger than your

budget. It seems to me that you really do not have the resources

with which to do the job that is in front of you.

There are many opportunities for an effective use of resources by

the State Department if you had the resources. It could significantly advance America’s interests. I am not arguing that the Defense people ought not to get an increase. I think the case can be

made for that, but it seems to me there is just a real disproportion

here, particularly given how much smaller your budget is, so that

a little bit of extra money on your side, as opposed to the Defense

side, will go a long way in terms of achieving these objectives. It

is not as though your budget were anywhere near theirs. As I said,

their budget is about 14 or 15 times larger than yours, so just a

tiny fraction shifted over to you would make a big difference.

Secretary POWELL. I am in a terrible position because I used to

argue against this vociferously in a former life that I had. I do not

think you should make that kind of comparison. I could make that

comparison against the Social Security accounts or any other account. It is not necessarily that you buildup State at the expense

of Defense.

The President has to go through with his Cabinet, and with his

OMB, and with his advisors, to make a judgment that within this

amount of dollars that is going to be available for the Federal Government, this is how it is going to be allocated. And if somebody

wished to increase the size of the State Department account, it

does not necessarily have to be at the expense of the Defense Department accounts. It can be at the expense of the overall top line

of the Federal budget or somebody else’s.

49

Senator SARBANES. Well I was really putting it in that context

because you both are working in the national security field. In

other words, the State Department is also a front line for the national security interests, just like the Defense Department, so you

are both working, in a sense, under the same rubric. And then the

question becomes is the allocation a proportionate one in terms of

trying to achieve our objectives and it just seems to me that it is

clearly disproportionate. I see that my time has expired.

Secretary POWELL. The CIA is also in this position. What the

President is faced with is looking at the requirements of each of the

Departments and determining how best to serve those requirements within the constraints of the overall top line and how to

prioritize the allocation of the money available to him as he sees

it. And in the judgment he made, I am pleased that I was able to

get an increase.

Senator SARBANES. Presumably seeing the allocations, you have

not been moved to want to shift Cabinet positions?

Secretary POWELL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hagel.

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Secretary, welcome. I want to at the outset congratulate you,

your team, the President, the administration for a remarkable

year. You have not only given the leadership in a cohesive relevant

way to this country and to the world, but in fact, you have begun

something that is in my opinion very much in a historical way a

major redefinition of relationship’s coalitions that sets the course

for the world, that rarely come along in the history of man, and for

that, you all deserve great credit.

I think as you have laid out very clearly this morning that the

difficult part of this is yet ahead. Not that what you accomplished

over the last 5 months was easy, but I believe the great challenges

lie ahead and you laid them all out and you laid them out very

clearly.

One of the points that you made which has continually been

made by the President and others is the importance of our coalition. As Senator Biden articulated in some detail, and you of all

people understand it quite well, the military, the training, the commitment of our people is again of historic proportions.

In the history of man, I doubt if there has ever been a military

or leadership of that, that is so professional and driven by a goal

of making the world better and more just. As much of the success

in Afghanistan and central Asia so far that can be attributed to

that and a great deal can be, the relationships with our partners

I think also play a very significant role in that and if we are to

move on and do other things, and take advantage of the noble

cause, that is ours, in my opinion it is going to require even more

of a cohesive coalition.

Your good friend and former colleague, General Scowcroft said

yesterday that in his opinion the war on terrorism will be much decided by intelligence and by cooperation. You know this and you

have been on both sides of it.

Where I am going with this is in your definition and explanation

of what the President said the other night, ‘‘axis of evil,’’ as you

said a very clear statement, but you also know because you are one

50

of the very few in this administration who ever has really known

war, not known war firsthand but the consequences and once you

get started down a track, you take a nation down a track, you cannot in State Department parlance, walk it back.

Words have meaning. Symbols have meaning. You, too know that

very well. There are expectations that come with words, there are

consequences that come with words. There is a follow-through and

a commitment that has to come with words. ‘‘Axis of evil’’ is not

a throw away speech line. Maybe some think it is. I don’t.

I think a lot of people in the world are serious about that as well,

or they should be. I was a little concerned at somewhat of a cavalier attitude that I have heard from this administration and I have

known you too long to know that you do not play that way, but

here this morning, one of your comments about something of the

effect that if it was too shocking for some, well, that is just the way

it is.

This is serious business, as you know. I want you to succeed. I

want the President to succeed. I think everybody in the Senate and

the Congress wants this President to succeed. We do not want to

see you unravel what we have done. Senator Lugar’s point about

commitments and resources and all the rest that must go into Afghanistan, we have just begun.

You also articulated clearly, we are probably in, my words, the

most dangerous time in the Middle East since 1973. We have two

nuclear powers eyeball to eyeball over Kashmir. You laid out all

the other or some of the many other troubled spots in the world.

You also said that we cannot field enough divisions to take care of

all of it. And then with the President’s statements, new definition

of the category of evil, which Chairman Biden asked some relevant

questions, what about Russia being one of the great suppliers of

this and China and Syria and others.

I think, Mr. Secretary, we have to be very careful here what we

are doing. I just finished and I know you do not have time to read

these things anymore, because you are trying to run a lot of parts

of our world. I just finished the new book that Michael Beschloss

wrote, of which you may have seen parts, called ‘‘Reaching for

Glory: Lyndon Johnson’s Secret White House.’’

And you know because you served two tours in Vietnam and

were wounded there and commanded troops there and saw much

of the folly in the conduct of the war, not the purpose of the war,

not the noble cause of the war, but the conduct of it. That consumed Johnson, and why did it consume him? It consumed him because he did not know how to get out. He got us onto a course. It

wasn’t only Johnson, we recognize that. But we got into something

that we couldn’t get out of. It destroyed Johnson, destroyed his

Presidency, reshaped American politics for a generation.

We could continue to debate that war but the point is this. When

we say things and we set the Nation on a course and we say we

are going to do this no matter what, that makes people uneasy because there is some expectation that falls in behind that. This is

not an issue, Mr. Secretary, of whether you agree with the governments of Iran or Iraq or North Korea, they are all bad governments. That’s not the issue, that’s the easy argument here.

51

The tough argument is what do you do about it, how do you influence it? The behavior of those nations with coalitions, with your

partners. I made a speech and I recognize that, but I also wanted

to convey something that to many of us, Mr. Secretary, this is not

a cavalier, funny business here. I know you did not mean to say

that but there is some in this administration that I think are taking it that way, and so what if our sissy European allies do not like

it.

Actions and words have consequences that are very dangerous at

a time in the history of man when there is very little margin of

error left. As I’ve said, I have known you for a long time and respect you too much not to be very direct with you on the concern

I have. And with that I know I have trespassed on my time and

your patience, Mr. Secretary, but thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Please.

Secretary POWELL. It was not a rhetorical flourish. He meant it.

He did set the Nation on a course. He was trying to make the point

to our friends and allies, coalition partners and like-minded people

around the world, that these are very dangerous regimes. And it

is not enough just to say they are dangerous regimes, that action

is going to be required.

It does not mean the war is going to start tomorrow or that we

are going to invade anybody. In fact, it may mean, in the shortterm we focus on the policies that we have in place with respect

to each of the three countries he mentioned and other countries

that might have been mentioned. And it was not with a cavalier

attitude of dismissing the contributions made by our alliance partners. We value them. And I have spoken to a lot of my alliance

partners since the speech was given to make sure they have it in

perspective.

But it was not just a rhetorical flourish. You heard President

Bush speaking in a way that was intended to rally the forces of civilization against these kinds of regimes and to put us on a course

that would eventually cause them to change or to be changed, and

not necessarily by an invasion or by cruise missiles going in but by

the weight of this alliance that you spoke of being brought to bear

against these kinds of regimes and the actions they are taking.

We are not unmindful of the proliferation possibilities and the

things that are happening in Russia and China, but we know how

to work with them. We know how to deal with them. There are

ways to have dialogs with these countries that show that they are

moving in the right direction, and as Senator Lugar knows and you

know so well, sir. But with the regimes the President spoke about,

you do not have quite that same opportunity.

If they want to take that opportunity, if they want to have a dialog, if they want to stop supporting terrorist activities, if they want

to start feeding their people and not developing longer range missiles which they intend to sell to others, then let that dialog begin.

They have nothing to fear from America’s Armed Forces because

we can solve them politically and diplomatically in concert with our

alliance partners. And I never dismiss or am I dismissive of our alliance partners. I spend most of my time making sure they are part

of the alliance, like-minded nations applying a set of values to the

kind of challenges we are facing.

52

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Chafee.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary it is

good to see you. Thank you for all you are doing for the country.

I’d like to commend Senator Hagel for his statement. Very courageous.

Yes, there is little margin for error and I do think we need

friends in the world. We don’t want enemies obviously. Sometimes

rhetoric can drive wedges rather than bring people together and

Senator Hagel knows from whence he speaks having served in a

situation of war.

I’d like to also followup on Senator Sarbanes’ questions about

balancing the ER funds and you did say that if you received more

money, you could put it to good use. And how could you do that

if you were fortunate enough to receive more money as the process

comes to Congress?

Secretary POWELL. I could start at the top and run down. But I

would love to have more international military education and training to get more of these officers in nations that are now moving in

our direction into our military school system, working with the

Pentagon to expose these officers to values and start to change the

nature of their armed forces and what an armed force is supposed

to do in a democratic nation.

I would love to put more into HIV/AIDS. I would love to have

more money available for economic development activities. I would

put more into our food accounts. There is no limit to the opportunities I would have to spend money wisely. But money is tight. We

have our budget problems. The President determined what the Nation can afford at this time. And also we are in a deficit. He heard

from all of the Cabinet departments. He knew our needs and he

made what he considered was an informed and balanced allocation

of the resources that he thought the Nation made available to him.

Senator CHAFEE. I certainly do respect that and since the President’s budget, now the process comes over to our side of the branch

of government, and do you submit a request to the administration

or to OMB?

Secretary POWELL. Yes.

Senator CHAFEE. Is that a public document?

Secretary POWELL. No. I do not think so. We go through our internal—nice try.

Senator CHAFEE. Why not?

Secretary POWELL. We go through our internal process within

the Department. We get more requests than we know we can fund.

So we have to do our own pruning within the Department. Then

we submit our request for the two accounts that fund the operations of the Department of State—Commerce, State, Justice and

then Foreign Ops—and we submit it to OMB and the fight begins.

I have been in OMB. One of my earlier incarnations in life was

to serve in OMB for a year. So I know what they go through down

there. They have to handle a lot of different requirements, often

competing and making their recommendations to the President as

to how he should allocate what he believes should be available to

them. And that is a process we go through. They have a pretty

good understanding of what our needs are. The OMB analysts that

53

work with us, they know these accounts as well as my people do.

It is a good dialog of equals.

Senator CHAFEE. And if, again, to followup, if you were so fortunate again to receive more funds, certainly the Congress would

want to make sure we are addressing the areas that your Department has prioritized. I am sure that members here have their own

priorities but you would want them in some kind of concert and so

I will look forward if that were to happen to occur, because I certainly do agree with Senator Sarbanes in fighting the war in terrorism. It’s important to fight the despair and poverty and lack of

health and education that breeds the disenfranchisement that

leads to discontent and hatred and unfortunately ultimately for

whatever reason is steered toward us and is at the top of the heap.

I do think there is a balance, to fight the war, perhaps more resources should be as some of the civilized countries are saying toward a new Marshall Plan, or at the bottom of the 22 developed

countries in percent of GNP toward foreign aid. I think we have to

address that as part of the war on terrorism.

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Senator. Should the Congress in

one form or another see fit to determine that the State Department

accounts should receive more in either the budget or the supplemental process later, I can assure you we would apply it in a very

effective way to achieve the goals you just described.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you agree with me on the success of the war

on terrorism should include more of, I do not want to use the cliche

too often but new Marshall Plan involvement in the poorer countries of the world?

Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir. I am not sure I would use the Marshall Plan image because the Marshall Plan was essentially loan

guarantees to rebuild industrialized societies. But I think a new

kind of plan would be appropriate for some of these poverty stricken countries. It has to be something that matches political and economic developments within the country and not just money down

the rat hole to corrupt countries that have not made the fundamental choices of moving to market economies and moving to

democratic systems and having transparent political organizations

in their financial and law enforcement sector, resting it all on the

rule of law. To put money into places like that is frankly not wise

in my judgment.

You may have to help them with food because their people are

starving. But you cannot, we can no longer invest in places that

cannot use the investment in a sensible way, nor can we encourage

private investment to go to places where the rule of law does not

exist or corruption is rampant. If they do not have transparency in

their system their political democracy and economic democracy is

not mature enough, then you cannot be sure the money will be well

spent.

Senator CHAFEE. Of course the difficulty there is even walking

away from even trying to find out how we can invest in these countries just because of the fear that it is going to end up in some

Swiss bank account, our hard earned tax dollars by some despot

and meanwhile we are not joining with the other civilized countries

that are trying to find a way, realizing that some of it might not

54

be as effective as we would like to be but hopefully designing some

kind of a mechanism to help these countries.

Secretary POWELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. With your permission, it is about 12 minutes before 1 o’clock. Can we keep you another 10 minutes or so, and I

will share the time with all of our colleagues here. But I want to

ask you, with regard to your budget, in fact, you may be up to a

quarter billion dollars short of what you are asking for, mightn’t

you, because we pledged $296 or $297 million at Tokyo, and because it occurred after the budget requests, that is not in this

budget.

Do you know whether or not it is going to come out of your budget, or is it a supplemental?

Secretary POWELL. The $297 million is out of 1902.

The CHAIRMAN. Out of 1902, and you are able to get all $297 million out of 1902.

Secretary POWELL. Yes. My experts assure me.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I’d like for the record, if you would, not

that I doubt it, I’d like to see it.

Secretary POWELL. I have an exhibit that shows the source of the

$297 million.

The CHAIRMAN. You need not do that now; you can submit it for

the record.

[The following information was subsequently received:]

AFGHANISTAN FUNDING (TOKYO ANNOUNCEMENT)

[In millions of dollars]

In FY 2002, we are going to provide Afghanistan reconstruction assistance totaling

$296.75 million. Funding breakout is:

Emergency Response Fund Supplemental .................. $107.60

P.L. 480 Food Assistance ....................................... 30.00

International Disaster Assistance ......................... 22.00

Migration and Refugee Assistance ........................ 52.60

NADR Demining ..................................................... 3.00

FY 2002 DOD Appropriation ........................................ 50.00

International Disaster Assistance ......................... 50.00

FY 2002 International Affairs ...................................... 139.15

Development Assistance ........................................ 12.00

Transition Initiatives ............................................. 6.00

P.L. 480 Food Assistance ....................................... 47.00

Agriculture 416(b) Commodities ........................... 44.90

Economic Support Fund ........................................ 17.25

NADR Demining ..................................................... 4.00

International Counter-Narcotics ........................... 5.00

International Organizations & Programs ............ 3.00

Grand Total .................................................................... 296.75

Secretary POWELL. But it is an open item right now for FY ’03.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I was, for a second pledge——

Secretary POWELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I got you. The recurring costs associated with

that. And I, to the extent you can enlighten us on that, it would

be useful for the record. Second, I think you have probably sensed,

I suspect there is a consensus, at least on this committee that with

all the great effort in Afghanistan so far, spending a billion dollars

55

a month, or is it a week now? A billion dollars a month pursuing

what we have been doing, that the hard part is really coming now.

And I see no way, Mr. Secretary, and I think my colleagues, Senator Lugar and, well, a number of Senators and the chairman can

speak for himself, I see no way that Karzai has any shot of implementing the Bonn plan and 2 years from now there being in a

democratic government after a Grand Council is called, without the

extension of a multilateral force to other areas within the country,

other municipal areas.

And if we can do that without the United States having two feet

on the ground and men in uniform, great, but if we cannot, if our

allies say as the Brits said to me when I was there, how long do

you think my parliament is going to let me stay here, if in fact you

guys are not here? Whatever formula you come up with, I strongly,

strongly, strongly urge that we not get hung up on this nation

building malarkey. I promise you, as one Democrat, I will never

call it nation building as long as the President does not. Because

there is a need for the United States to be involved in a security

force, whether it is guaranteeing extraction capability, whatever

you divine, we have got to keep multinational force there and extend it to Herat and Mazar and other places, in my humble opinion.

I am not asking you to comment.

Secretary POWELL. All of that is under consideration, Senator,

and in our conversations with the Brits, and the Germans and the

Turks and others.

The CHAIRMAN. You are incredibly well respected, as is the President, and I am confident that you can get it done. But I am also

confident if we do not get it done, this basically is a lost cause.

Let me skip quickly to START II. The deal when the Russians

ratified START II was that if we abandon ABM, START II was out.

I realize you have other discussions going on, I realize we are talking about lower numbers, I realize you are talking about the fact

of codifying that somehow. And we will have plenty of time to discuss that, hopefully.

But one of the things that START II did which everyone thought

as such a gigantic breakthrough, that Reagan tried, the first President Bush had tried and succeeded in getting agreed to in principle, was no MIRV’d ICBMs. Our folks in the intelligence community are telling us now, I think I can speak this publicly, that they

are contemplating keeping MIRV’d weapons, and even working out

their financial crunch by emphasizing MIRV’d weapons, which you

as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs know, they are the first

things you aim at because they are the most dangerous and somewhat destabilizing.

Does any part of this new discussion underway relate to trying

to preserve the two things I thought most valuable about START

II, no MIRVs, and two, enhanced verification? Are they part of the

equation?

Secretary POWELL. Let me answer in two ways. One, the strategic framework discussions we have ongoing now are off to a pretty good start. Under Secretary Bolton and his administration colleagues met with Ambassador Mamedov last week and had a good

set of discussions as to what should be in this new, legally binding,

56

codified agreement. And we are looking at how to bring forward

from START I the verification and transparency features that we

do not want to lose and what modification of various rules have to

be made. And we are also looking at how to deal with START II,

an unratified treaty; in other words, a treaty not in effect and in

force. And we are seeing what we should do there. And so all of

that is under consideration. The answer to your question is yes.

But here is a more interesting answer. President Bush has said

to President Putin, ‘‘You want MIRV? Go ahead.’’ And the point he

was making is that it is a different framework. He is thinking

about it differently. As you well know, we have been without an

agreement that is legally binding. You do what you have to do to

defend yourself. We will do what we have to do to defend ourselves.

We have made a judgment, independent of what the Russians do,

that between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed warheads,

and some things that might be in reserve that could be generated,

was enough for the United States to defend itself. And we were

confident about that no matter what you did. If you feel you have

to do something quite different, we are no longer in this lockstep

symmetry that drove so much of the cold war period. And if the

Russians had decided well, we are going to pick a different number

and we do not want a legally binding agreement, that would have

been fine with the President. It would have been fine with me.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there is a difference between lockstep

and what stabilizes and destabilizes.

Iraq, very quickly. I said to you earlier, and I have been on

record for sometime as saying I cannot imagine a safer, newer

world 5 years from now with Saddam still around, and to me it is

not a matter of if but how. But toward that end I would hope that

at some point the President would not only indicate why Saddam

is such a bad deal, but what is his vision for Iraq? Because as you

know, one of the, and you were in the middle of the decision process at the time, one of the decisions President Bush made, and I

am not second-guessing him, in the gulf war, was what happens if

and when we take him out? What happens, what do the Kurds do,

what do the Shiites do, what does Iran do? So I hope we are beginning to articulate this for our allies. One of the things they most

wonder about is whether this administration has thought beyond,

it is understandable, and whether I thought beyond when I talked

about it, getting rid of the bad guy. What happens after that?

And I am confident knowing you, you have been speaking to the

Turks and have been speaking with others. But I hope at some

point, I respectfully suggest to the extent we paint a vision for the

world to understand what we are looking for,—not dictating, not

demanding, how we see a Iraq after Saddam. It may help on the

second part, which I think is at some point getting consensus that

we have to be much tougher on Saddam than we have been. And

this is my final point. I mentioned this to you earlier. There was

a very interesting article by Mr. Wines of the New York Times yesterday which you know a lot about, and we all do.

Lukoil, which is the outfit in Russia that has control of oil, has

a very lucrative contract that was signed back in I believe 1997,

I am not sure, maybe 1998, for the most promising oilfield in Iraq,

that they believe is worth about $20 billion to them. They have inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:33 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77963 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
57

dicated at least on the circuit, whether they have indicated to you

or not, that part of their reluctance to be as helpful as they very

well could be on smarter sanctions with Iraq has to do with the

amount of money Iraq owes them plus the opportunities that are

available.

And as one person I met with up in New York at the World Economic Summit said, and I am just telling you what I was told, I

am repeating a comment, this administration being an oil administration would give all those contracts to American oil companies

and Russia would be out. But they expect to be some total close to

$40 billion worth of contract opportunities as the article lays out.

My question to you is this seems like a win-win proposition here.

We ought to be able to work something out here. First, do you

think that the Russian reluctance thus far, notwithstanding their

beginning to cooperate more, has anything to do with the assertion

that they have economic interests there that they think they will

lose if Saddam is taken down? And if you do think it has something

to do with it, have you begun to even explore possibilities with the

Russians about that issue?

Secretary POWELL. On the last question, yes, economic opportunities in Iraq, plus the $8 billion roughly of debt owed to Russia, has

been a factor in their response to our efforts to achieve the smart

sanctions policy. Also, the contracts that are currently in the queue

that they are trying to process, we have taken all of this into account. We have had many discussions with the Russians about this

and I think we are satisfying their concerns. I do not have a specific answer with respect to Lukoil. I do not think we have gotten

into oilfield allocation issues yet. And I have not heard this commercial problem expressed in the terms of the Lukoil statement

that you just made.

But I do know that there are a number of businesses in Russia

that are concerned about their commercial opportunities with this

regime, as opposed to the next regime. And that is part of our dialog with Russia.

With respect to your first point about thinking into the future,

yes. What do we want to see in Iraq after? Who replaces him or

them or it, if it is the whole regime? Another group of thugs from

Tikrit? Or where? Or who? One country? Three? Bigger problem?

Smaller problem? All of these issues we dealt with once before, as

you noted, and a lot of people said, ‘‘Well, why did you make the

decision not to go to Baghdad?’’ It was not made at the end of the

war. That decision was made before the war. We were never going

to Baghdad. The U.N. resolution said nothing about going to Baghdad; we would not have gotten a U.N. resolution if it had. This

body, this Senate, this Congress passed a resolution that supported

the U.N. resolution. Nothing in that resolution said anything about

going to Baghdad.

The CHAIRMAN. I was not being critical.

Secretary POWELL. I know that. I just want to go through the

history. So I have to think about that, and we are in the process

of thinking through what Iraq would look like. Because it does remain U.S. policy to try to achieve regime change. That is separate

and distinct from the sanctions policy, which is a U.N. policy.

58

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. To the extent the regime changed

and the picture of what we looked for it to change to, not who, but

a whole new lineup. For example, I am meeting today with the,

what they call themselves the Iraqi National Congress representatives. And the first thing I am going to tell them is the same thing

one of your generals, one of your emissaries to Israel told them,

come up with the declaration of purpose. What do you see that

country looking like? They have not done that yet. To the extent

that that is done, you may find we have much less hostility about

it. Senator Helms.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Chairman, I was thinking about years ago

when Ronald Reagan was in office, and very often some of us met

with him, and I remember one day you made a presentation in

your uniform and you looked like a million bucks. You had an

easel, you knew exactly what you were talking about, and you almost mesmerized all the Senators there. I do not remember if you

remember that occasion or not. But anyway, President Reagan, he

had a big thing about a pad that he would write a little something

to me and slide it over and I read it and in that case it said, ‘‘He

was pretty good, huh?’’ I said, ‘‘Greatest.’’ He said, ‘‘Next job for

him?’’ I said, I thought just a minute, I said, ‘‘Joint Chiefs,’’ and

slid it back to him. And he wrote ‘‘Chairman?’’ With a question

mark. I said ‘‘Yep.’’ And how prophetic that little old pad was that

afternoon. But Mr. Secretary, you have done a great job throughout

your career. You have done a great job this morning. And I thank

you, sir.

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll conclude with Senator Hagel.

Senator HAGEL. Only to state that the Secretary gets very mean

if he does not get lunch, so I have no further questions. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I was about to call you Mr. Chairman.

[The hearing adjourned at 1:05 p.m.]

STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today. You have a tremendously daunting

job and I want to commend you and your staff for the dedicated and thoughtful way

you address the multitude of difficult problems in today’s foreign policy arena. Our

nation needs your service now more than ever.

There are a number of topics we are all very interested in today: the war on terrorism, Afghanistan’s re-construction and the tensions with Pakistan and India to

name a few. But in addition to these specific areas, I want to elicit your thoughts

on some of the ways in which we can put into practice the eloquent themes laid

out by President Bush in his recent State of the Union Address.

Specifically, I was pleased to see the President illustrate the importance of democracy development and education outreach in parts of the world that have traditionally fomented anti-U.S. sentiment. I hope the foreign affairs budget will prioritize

these areas along with military efforts to route out terrorist cells.

Another important tenet our foreign policy should pursue is economic development

and expanded trade with countries in transition toward democracy. As we drain the

swamps that breed tomorrow’s terrorists, we must also lend a hand to those who

want a better life, more freedoms and a stable economy for their people. In turn,

this investment will provide benefits to the U.S.—not only by creating new markets

for our high end goods, but also in creating new strategic allies around the world—

in regions which have traditionally only seen America through the twisted lies they

have been taught since childhood. We must have an active presence in regions like

59

Central Asia—countries that demonstrated their value and willingness to help during our fight in Afghanistan. Yet, many of these countries face fundamentalist, antiWestern factions in their own countries. Like Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf, there

are leaders in these countries who are now willing to take a stronger stance toward

democracy and open markets. We can not afford to fail to take advantage of this

opportunity.

Just as we have agreed that the presence of open markets and trade will be a

positive political force for nations like China, we must also look at preferred trade

with Central Asia as a means of stabilizing a very important part of the world—

and as an example to the Arab world that America can have a positive, peaceful

and constructive partnership with Muslim countries.

One final point I would make to the Chairman and my fellow colleagues on this

committee—I am pleased that the Senate has finally confirmed Ambassador to the

Philippines, Francis Ricciardone. As many of you may know, the terrorist group Abu

Sayf is holding 2 Americans hostage—Martin and Gracia Burnham of Rose Hill, KS.

We need to have our Ambassador officially in place to do all we can diplomatically

to aid in their return. I understand that nominations can become political pawns—

but this was not appropriate when Americans lives are on the line.

Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your testimony—and thank you again, for your

dedicated service to our country.

RESPONSES OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL TO ADDITIONAL

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR

THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.

NON-PROLIFERATION CONTROL

Question 1. Following disclosures of illicit nuclear weapons activities in Iraq and

North Korea in the early 1990s, the international Atomic Energy Agency proposed

enhanced inspections of non-nuclear weapons states under a model protocol that 55

states have signed so far. To encourage all non-nuclear weapons states to accept

these stricter safeguards, the United States and the IAEA signed a narrower Additional Safeguards Protocol in 1998. This agreement has yet to be submitted to the

Senate for its advice and consent. Last year, the State Department indicated in

writing to this committee that the administration’s objective was to have this protocol submitted by the end of 2001. When will the protocol be submitted?

Answer. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) international safeguards system, which provides confidence that nuclear materials are not diverted

from civilian to military explosive purposes and that nuclear facilities are not misused to support covert nuclear weapons programs, serves vital U.S. security and

nonproliferation interests. Additional Protocols strengthen the capability of the

IAEA to deter undeclared nuclear activities in non-nuclear-weapon states and detect

such activity should any occur.

The administration strongly supports wide-spread ratification and entry into force

of Additional Protocols. The administration is engaged in an intense examination of

the impact on U.S. national interests of the U.S. IAEA Additional Protocol signed

in 1998. The administration hopes to have a decision shortly on submitting the Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.

Question 2. When do you expect that Russia will have met the preconditions that

the United States and other NATO allies set at the Istanbul OSCE Summit for acting to ratify and bring into force the CFE Adaptation Treaty?

Answer. The administration is currently reviewing this issue. We are in the process of assessing Russia’s compliance with the flank limits, based on inspections and

other means of verification, and Russia’s progress concerning the Istanbul commitments on Georgia and Moldova. We will continue to consult closely with the Senate

as our review proceeds.

The Russians have made significant progress toward fulfillment of the commitments made at Istanbul regarding withdrawal of excess Russian equipment from

the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) flank region, and equipment withdrawal and closure of Russian bases in Georgia and Moldova. Russia

claims, as of January 1, 2002, to have reduced its CFE equipment in the flank region to the levels set in the adapted CFE Treaty. The U.S. has a number of questions about the data and is working with NATO allies to verify the Russian claims.

Meanwhile, important elements of the commitments with regard to Georgia and

60

Moldova have not yet been fulfilled. NATO Allies have agreed that they will seek

ratification of the adapted CFE Treaty only when Russia has verifiably reduced its

forces in the flank to adapted flank levels, and under conditions consistent with the

commitments on Georgia and Moldova.

Question 3. At last November’s annual conference of signatories of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), Russian presidential adviser Marshal

Igor Sergeyev stated that Russia was open to: ‘‘additional verification measures for

nuclear test ranges going far beyond the Treaty provisions. This could include . .

. installation of additional sensors. . . .’’ What is the administration doing to pursue

this opening? Would it not be in our national security interest—treaty or no treaty— to work out confidence building measures that would improve substantially our ability to tell whether an event that Russia asserted was a sub-critical experiment was

in fact that?

Answer. The previous administration tried several times to engage Russia in discussion of nuclear test site transparency measures but without result. Sergeyev’s statement was made contingent upon the entry into force of the CTBT, which this

administration does not support. The administration does, however, see potential

value in transparency measures that would help avoid or reduce any misunderstandings about test site activities. We are working with the National Nuclear Security Administration to identify specific transparency measures that we can support

under the current moratorium.

NUNN/LUGAR PROGRAMS FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Question. Last year as part of the Defense Appropriations bill, a proposal was

adopted in the Senate urging the administration to study the advisability of implementing Nunn/Lugar nonproliferation programs in India and Pakistan where the

potential threat of these materials or technology getting into the wrong hands is

perhaps even greater than the Russian case. What are your thoughts on the feasibility of undertaking such efforts with these governments?

Answer. We share your concern and continue to stress to both governments how

important it is that they not become a source of sensitive material and technology.

We know they take this issue seriously and are confident they are taking strong

measures to ensure the security of their programs.

As we consider the questions you raised in the Defense Appropriations bill, we

will need to take into account a number of factors, including how best to address

the potential proliferation problem and what steps are consistent with U.S. law and

international treaty obligations.

Question. Does the President’s State of the Union speech signal a change in our

policy toward Iran? What is our current policy? Can you describe the role that official Iranian entities played in the recent attempt to smuggle weapons to the Palestinian Authority via the Karine-A?

Answer. U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed in any way on the fundamental

issues of concern to us. We have serious and long-standing differences on Iran’s support for terrorism and for groups violently opposed to the peace process, its development of WMD and ballistic missiles, and on human rights.

Since September 11, we have had limited coordination in established channels

with the Iranians on Afghanistan, with mixed results. Iran contributed to the success of the Bonn Conference, but recent Iranian actions with regard to both Afghanistan and the Middle East raise doubts about the regime’s commitment to follow a

moderate course. The Karine-A episode, about which the U.S. has compelling evidence of Iranian involvement, former President Rafsanjani’s comments on a nuclear

attack on Israel, and Iran’s aggressive assertion of influence in Afghanistan, have

been particularly troubling.

The U.S. will continue to seek Iranian cooperation in achieving stability in Afghanistan, but we will not ignore the reality before us. While Iran remains the most

active state sponsor of terrorism, it has the capacity to be a positive force in the

region. We hope it makes the choice to become one.

MULTILATERAL EFFORTS ON WEAPONS INSPECTIONS

Question. Can you update us on the latest diplomatic developments with respect

to Iraq? Has the administration decided upon a course of action with respect to

Iraq? How would we respond if Iraq agrees to allow weapons inspectors in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions?

Answer. We remain fully committed to working at the UN to fashion an effective

multilateral approach that focuses effective controls on preventing the Iraqi regime

from developing weapons of mass destruction and rebuilding its military. However,

61

we cannot ignore Iraq’s development of WMD and ballistic missiles or accept a multilateral system with ineffective or unenforced controls.

We have called on Iraq to allow the resumption of UN weapon inspections, but

we will reject any attempt to compromise the inspectors’ authority or reduce Iraqi

obligations. Iraq must fulfill all its obligations under UN resolutions, including cooperating fully with inspections, accounting for Kuwaiti missing persons/property,

and complying with the UN oil-for-food program.

COORDINATION OF IRAQI OPPOSITION GROUPS

Question. What specific efforts is the administration making to encourage the various Iraqi opposition groups to better coordinate their efforts? What steps have the

groups taken to plan for the period following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime?

Answer. The State Department is currently planning a broad based conference of

Iraqi opposition groups and emigres that will focus on the future of a post-Saddam

Iraq. This conference will serve the dual, complementary purposes of bringing together the full range of the Iraqi opposition in a cooperative forum, and preparing

for the challenges that will face Iraq following the fall of the current regime. Discussion will focus on the future of the justice system, legal system, civil society, economy, public health, military, education, environment and building a free press.

Additionally, we plan to give grants to various Iraqi-focused NGO’s, who, in consultation with U.S. and international experts, will prepare plans for post-Saddam

efforts to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. This will include steps a new Iraqi

government will need to take to prosecute Saddam Hussein and his top associates

for crimes against humanity; to create a justice, police and prison system in accordance with democratic norms; to improve public health and health care, especially

in areas underserved by the present regime; to improve Iraqi education so it promotes values of peace, justice and tolerance; to remedy the damage done to the Iraqi

environment by the regime; to build a free press; to promote an end to corruption;

to make the Iraqi military a unifying force in Iraqi society that can defend the country but does not threaten any of Iraq’s neighbors; and to rebuild Iraq’s economy so

that it can provide jobs for the Iraqi people and spur and diversify the regional economy. We are consulting with a wide range of Iraqis, both in the opposition and those

who are non-political, in the framing of these issues and in generating practical

ideas that can be used by a new Iraqi government.

TRAINING OF IRAQI OPPOSITION GROUPS

Question. Has the administration provided any training to Iraqi opposition groups

so that they are capable of carrying out the basic functions of the state? If so, please

describe such training in detail.

Answer. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 authorized the Department of Defense

to provide $97 million in ‘‘drawdown of defense articles defense services . . . and

military education and training . . .’’ to the Iraqi National Accord, the Iraqi National

Congress, the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Democratic

Party, the Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan,

and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. To date, training has

been provided to only the Iraqi National Congress in a broad variety of areas, including international defense management, water systems, public sanitation, public

affairs, and war crimes. Future courses to be offered to the Iraqi National Congress

and other Iraqi opposition groups include leadership management, disaster preparedness, and international communications. I refer you to the Department of Defense for further details on the trainig.

ALLIED AND REGIONAL SUPPORT

Question. What has been the response of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and our

NATO partners respectively toward potential U.S. action to change the Iraqi regime?

Answer. We consult regularly with friends in the region—including Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia—and elsewhere regarding Iraq. We believe our friends share

the view that the people of Iraq deserve a better future in which the Iraqi government is committed to justice, the rule of law, and the rights of its citizens; lives at

peace with its neighbors; abides by UNSC resolutions; and maintains Iraq’s territorial integrity. We will continue to consult with them as we examine developments

regarding Iraq and consider our policy options.

62

MULTILATERAL EFFORTS ON WEAPONS INSPECTIONS

Question. What steps has the United States Government taken to plan for contingencies in the event that the regime of Saddam Hussein were to fall? Wouhd the

United States be prepared to use its military forces as part of a multinational effort

to preserve Iraq’s borders and to prevent internal strife in a post-Saddam environment?

Answer. We are working closely with a variety of Iraqi opposition groups and nongovernmental organizations to prepare the way for a secure, peaceful, and smooth

transition to a post-Saddam Iraq. As we have repeatedly expressed, we support the

continued territorial integrity of Iraq. To speculate at this time on specific steps that

the U.S. might take would be premature.

ASSISTANCE TO POST-SADDAM HUSSEIN IRAQI GOVERNMENT

Question. What specific types of assistance would the United States be prepared

to provide a post-Saddam government?

Answer. It is premature to address that question until we see whether a post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government is prepared to commit to and uphold the principles

of a government committed to justice, the rule of law, and respect for the rights of

all the Iraqi people; that lives at peace with its neighbors; that complies with all

U.N. Security Council resolutions; and that maintains Iraq’s territorial integrity.

So long as a post-Saddam Iraq commits to these principles, the United States is

prepared to work with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to help make a

better future for the people of Iraq. While Iraq has considerable resources in its people and its oil, there will need to be a period of transition before a post-Saddam

Iraqi government will be able to draw upon these resources to put those four principles into practice. The Iraqi people face a daunting series of problems caused by

Saddam Hussein’s regime, including in the areas of justice, health, education, a free

press, role of the military in a free society, environment, and the economy. Iraqi

civil society will need to be rebuilt almost completely. The Iraqi people will play the

most important role in rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, drawing on the talents and

resources of Iraqi e ́migre ́s around the world. The United States, together with our

allies in the region and the world community, should be prepared to assist in ways

to be determined with a post-Saddam Hussein government committed to the principles described above.

IRAQ

Question. Does the executive branch believe it is legally required to obtain authorization of the use of force against Iraq? If not, why not?

Answer. Any decision concerning the use of force is a momentous matter, and has

to be dealt with in the context of the specific circumstances of a proposed action.

It bears noting, however, that Congress has previously addressed the use of force

in Iraq for certain purposes, beginning with P.L. 102–1 (January 14, 1991) which

remains in effect, and subsequently in a number of additional laws and resolutions.

(See, P.L. 102–190, Sec. 1095 & Sec. 1096 (FY 92/93 National Defense Authorization

Act); P.L. 105–235 (Aug. 14, 1990); H.J.Res. 75, (Passed the House Dec. 12, 2001).)

In addition, the President enjoys constitutional authorities to commit U.S. forces to

protect U.S. national security interests in appropriate circumstances. Be assured,

however, that the administration will continue to work closely with Congress on all

phases of the war on terrorism.

MIDDLE EAST

Question. Press reports indicate that some in the administration would like to

withdraw nearly all U.S. troops participating in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. What impact would a U.S. withdrawal have on the MFO? How

have Israel and Egypt reacted to the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal? Where does

this matter now stand?

Answer. The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and its security provisions, monitored

by the MFO, are a cornerstone of U.S. policy and presence in the Middle East. The

U.S. is especially mindful of its responsibilities and obligations to the MFO. As such,

there are no plans to reduce our role in the MFO at this time.

The Israelis and Egyptians are both on record in insisting that the U.S. continue

its military presence in the MFO. They and we are concerned that any draw-down

of U.S. troops, if not carried out in close consultation with all concerned parties,

could prompt other contributors of both troops and finances to reevaluate their continued participation. If other contributors were to follow our lead, it could severely

weaken the MFO, increasing tensions between Israel and Egypt during an already

63

volatile time. It also could undermine our credibility as a guarantor of future IsraeliArab security arrangements.

U.S. participation in the MFO places a considerable burden on the U.S. Army. We

are reviewing ways to lighten this burden without undermining the critical role and

effectiveness of our troops in the MFO. We would review such modifications with

the parties before taking any action. We will also keep Congress informed of any

developments in this area.

LIBYA UPDATE

Question. Could you update us on the latest development’s with respect to Libya?

What has been discussed in meetings between U.S. and Libyan officials?

Answer. Fulfillment of Libya’s obligations relating to the Pan Am 103 bombing

continues to be the main focus of U.S. policy toward Libya. Since September 11,

Libya has continued its efforts to improve its image with the international community, most notably by condemning the attacks and confirming the U.S. right to retaliate. Nonetheless, it has yet to fulfill its obligations under the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions on Pan An 103, including acceptance of responsibility and

payment of compensation.

U.S. and UK officials met with Libyan delegations in October 2001 and again in

January 2002. The focus of these meetings was to urge Libyan compliance with

these obligations. We have told the Libyans that there is no way around their Pan

Am 103 obligations; the first step in any movement forward with the United States

is to address this terrorist incident in accordance with the UNCSR requirements.

MEXICO

Question. Does the Bush administration still consider the U.S.-Mexico relationship

to be an important one? Can we expect to see a comprehensive agreement on some

of these issues, including the migration issue, this year?

Answer. Our bilateral relationship with Mexico is one of the strongest and most

important in the world. There is perhaps no other nation that has the impact of

Mexico and Mexicans on day-to-day life in the United States. Mexico is our NAFTA

partner and second leading trade partner. Over $235 billion worth of commerce

crossed our common border in 2001. Approximately 350 million people cross the

land border with Mexico on an annual basis.

The Fox administration continues to be a special friend in the hemisphere and

Mexico plays a key role in promoting our common values throughout the Americas.

Concrete examples of the importance the administration attaches to Mexico as a

neighbor and friend are the upcoming scheduled visits to Mexico by the President

(March 21-23) and by Governor Ridge (March 4-6).

We continue to discuss a broad range of issues on the bilateral agenda with Mexico. At this point, we cannot speculate as to where we will be at the end of the year

in our discussions with Mexico on migration and other issues.

Migration is an issue that is of great importance to the administration. We will

strive to create, in partnership with Congress, a framework for migration that is

fair, humane, takes into account the needs of people of both nations, and promotes

the legal and orderly movement of people across our common border.

REINSTATEMENT OF SECTION 245(i) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

Question. Until 1997, U.S. immigration law contained a provision, Section 245(i)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allowed individuals who qualify for

a permanent visa, commonly called a ‘‘green card,’’ to obtain their permanent visa

in the United States if they were already in the country. The law allowed people

to continue to work and to stay with their families during the final step in obtaining

their green card and recognized that it makes no sense to force those already in the

country and in the last stages of obtaining an immigrant visa to leave their families

and jobs to have their visa processed in their home country. In 1997, Congress allowed Section 245(i) to expire. In 2001, Section 245(i) was temporarily reinstated

until April 30, 2001. Does the administration have a position on this provision of

immigration law? Would it like to see Section 245(i) permanently extended?

Answer. The Department strongly supports the restoration of INA Section 245(i)

on a permanent basis. The Department experienced significant savings in manpower

and resources under the previous law and would expect to again see such savings.

Further, while the expired provision does grant a benefit to aliens who some believe

may not deserve it because of their violation of our immigration laws, it still is a

practical solution to a tough problem. Practical because it would not require, as is

the case now, whole families who may have been in the United States for many

64

years to bear the expense and disruption to their lives of returning to distant places

where they no longer have a home in order to process their immigrant visas for the

purpose of immediately returning to the United States, or in some cases not being

able to return for three to ten years, if they have remained illegally in the United

States. Although a substantial fee is involved in obtaining adjustment of status in

this manner, the fee is much less than the cost of return travel to a foreign country.

Thus, it makes it more likely that families, especially poor families, will obtain the

status to which they are legally entitled without suffering a major financial loss. We

believe that, without 245(i), many of these ‘‘illegals’’ will stay in the United States

illegally rather than return home and face the expenses and uncertainties of applying for their visas in their home country. With 245(i), they may come forward and

apply to INS, thus allowing their eligibility to be reviewed and their status to be

regularized, if eligible. The Department recognizes, however, that the burden of administering section 245(i) falls exclusively on the Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS) since only the INS has the legal authority to process applications for

adjustment of status. Therefore, in order to obtain a more complete picture of the

current attitude on the question of 245(i) we strongly suggest that the Committee

seek the views of that agency.

ARGENTINA

Question. The Government of Argentina has been in serious economic crisis for

some weeks now. Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill may or may not be correct when

he says that we don’t need to worry about the financial instability in Argentina

spilling over to infect its neighbors, but that does not mean we should not be concerned that political instability in Argentina could have a negative impact throughout the region. On February 2 the Argentine Supreme Court complicated the

Duhalde administration’s efforts to manage the financial crisis by declaring that the

actions by the government were unconstitutional. Now the Duhalde administration

and the Congress are moving to unseat members of the court. We have seen what

popular dissatisfaction with traditional government structures and political parties

has meant for other countries in the region, most notably Venezuela. What is the

United States doing to assist President Duhalde manage the current crisis?

Answer. We consider Argentina to be a valued friend and ally and we are engaging with the Argentines frequently, at a high level, and across a wide range of

issues including the economy, law enforcement, military cooperation and trade. We

believe that the ultimate solution to the social tension lies in finding long-term answers to the deep structural problems in the Argentine economy.

In recent meetings with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Economy,

the Secretary for International Economics and government, we have emphasized the

need for Argentina to find its own solutions to its economic problems. While we have

publicly stated on numerous occasions that the U.S. stands ready to assist when Argentina develops a sustainable economic plan, we believe that any solution ultimately must come from Argentines and have the support of Argentines.

We are encouraging the Argentine government to work with the International

Monetary Fund to craft a credible, sustainable economic plan to resolve the crisis.

We remain in constant contact with our other regional allies, and are working cooperatively with them on ways to assist Argentina. We believe that most countries in

the region view Argentina’s troubles as having uniquely Argentine origins. We do

not anticipate significant political fallout among other countries of the region, and

have been encouraged by the constitutional process that has guided political developments in Argentina.

COLOMBIA: $98 MILLION FMF TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE COLOMBIAN MILITARY

TO PROTECT A MAJOR OIL PIPELINE

Questions:

1. Where will training be conducted and by whom?

2. Which Colombian units will receive training?

3. Does the training of the Colombian units have any relationship to counternarcotics purposes?

4. What restrictions will be placed on the use of the equipment provided by

the United States? Will it be limited to pipeline security?

5. What are the U.S. private sector interests in this pipeline?

6. Why was this particular pipeline singled out for protection?

7. What are the estimated revenue losses to Colombia resulting from sabotage

of its oil pipelines? How are these estimates derived?

8. Are there other U.S. oil or commercial interests elsewhere in Colombia

which have been, or likely to be, targeted by the guerillas?

65

9. Are proposals under consideration designed to assist Colombia protect

other parts of its economic infrastructure?

Answers. The administration’s FY 03 budget request includes $98 million in FMF

for Colombia to provide training and equipment to enhance the Colombian military’s

ability to protect a major oil pipeline which has been the target of:

1. Overall management of this program will be by the Military Group (MilGp) in

the U.S. Embassy, Bogota. Current planning is to provide training at Colombian

military bases in Saravena and Arauca, both in Arauca Department. Future assessments may suggest other sites. Training will be provided by several different units

of the U.S. military, as was the case in training the three battalions of the Colombian Army’s first counterdrug brigade, but a major portion of training will be by elements of the U.S. Army’s Special Forces.

2. Training is planned for both the existing 18th Brigade of the Colombian Army,

headquartered in the city of Arauca, and the new Fifth Mobile Brigade, which Colombia has recently established. Elements of the Colombian Marines and Colombian

National Police will also receive training. Human rights vetting will be done for all

units receiving U.S.-provided training before it begins.

3. The Government of Colombia has designated these two brigades to provide

pipeline security as their primary responsibility although they are also not precluded from supporting counternarcotics missions.

4. Restrictions on the use of equipment provided by the United States will be in

accordance with all applicable regulations and law, including, for example, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (‘‘FAA’’) and Section 556 and Section 567

of the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, P.L. 107–115. Equipment

provided by the United States under this request will be for the use of those units

whose primary responsibilities are pipeline protection. The concept of operations

calls for the 16th Brigade and 5th Mobile Brigade to protect the pipeline by effectively exercising area control. Rather than static, fixed-point defense, the units will

try to detect and counter potential threats before they reach the pipeline. This approach will also enhance protection of the civilian population and of other infrastructure. The U.S. Milgroup will monitor use, as it does for equipment provided to

other Colombian military units.

5. The Cano Limon-Covenas pipeline is a joint venture of Occidental Petroleum

and Ecopetrol, a Colombian state-owned enterprise. The bulk of the petroleum

transported in this pipeline is from the Cano Limon field, which is also a joint venture involving Ecopetrol, Occidental Petroleum and a Spanish oil concern, Repsol.

6. This pipeline was selected in consultation with the Colombian Government in

view of its important contributions to that country’s economy and the serious effects

caused by the nearly 170 attacks on the pipeline in 2001 (an increase of 48% over

the previous year) which resulted in production stoppages for over 260 days, as well

as significant environmental damage from oil spills.

7. Terrorist groups’ attacks on the pipeline in 2001 resulted in the Colombian central government, Arauca Department and various municipal governments losing

nearly $500 million in revenue. These estimates were derived from several sources,

including the U.S. Embassy, the Government of Colombia and Occidental Petroleum.

8. The Drummond Coal Company has extensive operations in Colombia and has

suffered serious attacks, as has the gas pipeline used by Texaco. Over 250 other

U.S. businesses have offices in Colombia and in many cases have been the targets

of extortion and violence.

9. The situation in Colombia is under constant review but there are not now any

specific proposals to assist Colombia to protect its economic infrastructure other

than the Cano Limon-Covenas pipeline. Consultations with Congress would clearly

be undertaken in the event additional proposals were to be considered.

COLOMBIA: PARAMETERS FOR IN-COUNTRY TRAINING BY DOD PERSONNEL

Question. Prior U.S. military training in Colombia for the counter- narcotics brigades was governed by two memos from Secretary of Defense Cohen (dated October

6, 1998 and March 9, 2000) which set forth parameters for in-country training by

DOD personnel, and bar the use of any DOD funds, personnel or equipment for any

training program ‘‘involving a Colombian unit that engages solely in

counterinsurgency operations.’’

Are these memoranda still applicable to U.S. military training in Colombia? Have

subsequent memoranda been issued by the DOD leadership applicable to such training? If so, please provide them. Will training of military personnel for pipeline security be governed by the above-mentioned memoranda? If not, what limits will apply?

66

Answer. The Department of Defense has informed us that the above-referenced

memoranda are still applicable to U.S. military training in Colombia and that no

new memoranda governing this training are being proposed at this time. The details

of the administration’s proposal to train Colombian military personnel for security

of the Cano Limon pipeline are still being formulated. At the present time, the

above answer applies for pipeline security training as well.

PHILIPPINES COUNTERTERRORISM TRAINING

Question. What role will U.S. forces play in the Philippines? How long will U.S.

combat and combat service support units be deployed to the Philippines? Will U.S.

forces be placed under the Philippines command while accompanying Philippine

forces in the field? How are our joint efforts against Abu Sayyaf linked to the larger

question of Mindanao separatism and the long-running insurgency there? Is there

any risk that U.S. forces will get drawn into a counterinsurgency role not directly

connected to the war on terrorism? Will there be notifications pursuant to the War

Powers Resolution of this deployment to the Philippines? If not, why not?

Answer. The purpose of the deployment of U.S. forces is to help the Armed Forces

of the Philippines (AFP) defeat international terrorism in the Philippines, which affects both U.S. and Philippine interests. Training will continue to be at the core of

our counterterrorism cooperation with the Philippines. U.S. forces will work closely

with their AFP counterparts in activities focused on planning; gathering and disseminating intelligence; command, control and communication; and assessing AFP

capabilities and neds.

NORTH KOREA

Question. The President named North Korea as part of an ‘‘axis of evil’’ in his

State of the Union Address, and subsequently put North Korea ‘‘on notice’’ that it

must abandon its pursuits of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver

them, or face the consequences. South Korea, Japan, and U.S. European allies reacted to the ‘‘axis of evil’’ remarks with concern, taking note of a widely held belief

that engagement with North Korea offers the best hope of fostering peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula. Has the administration decided to abandon the

approach the President articulated on June 6, 2001, when after a lengthy policy review, he pledged U.S. support for South Korea’s engagement strategy?

Answer. As the President reiterated during his February 19-21 trip to Seoul, the

USG continues to support North-South engagement and remains willing to have a

serious dialog with North Korea. Eliminating threats to peace posed by missiles and

weapons of mass destruction is a critical task. This makes it all the more imperative

for North Korea to respond to our repeated offer to undertake serious discussion on

these and other issues of concern, including conventional force issues, terrorism, and

humanitarian concerns, at any place, at any time, and without preconditions.

Question. Last November, after the latest round of U.S., South Korean, and Japanese consultative talks, the three nations issued a joint statement which, ‘‘took positive note of North Korea’s signing of two UN Terrorism Conventions’’ and welcomed

additional steps which North Korea might take to demonstrate its oppositions to terrorism.

Could you say that North Korea is generally moving in a positive or negative direction with respect to its involvement in international terrorism? Is there any evidence linking North Korea to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United

States?

Answer. North Korea has not distinguished itself in international efforts to combat terrorism. The DPRK reiterated in a statement released after the September 11

attacks its policy of opposing terrorism and any support for terrorism. It also signed

two United Nations counter-terrorism conventions and told a visiting European

Union delegation it would sign the remaining five. However, we have urged further

DPRK steps to cooperate in international efforts to combat terrorism, and we remain ready to engage the DPRK on this and other issues of concern. According to

the Global Terrorism Report for 2000, some evidence suggested that the DPRK

might have sold weapons directly or indirectly to terrorist groups in 2000. It also

continues to harbor several Japanese Red Army hijackers of a Japanese Airlines

flight to North Korea in 1970. The report cited statements from Philippine officials

that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front had purchased weapons from North Korea.

In our past talks with North Korea, we have made clear what actions the DPRK

must take to be considered for removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

There is no evidence to date linking North Korea to the September 11 terrorist

attacks on the United States; however, as the President noted in his State of the

67

Union Address, there are two primary forms of danger and instability in the world

today, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These threats

directly overlap as many of the states that are seeking nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are also on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Question. A key aspect of U.S.-North Korea relations is the Agreed Framework.

Is North Korea currently in compliance with its obligations under the Agreed

Framework? Does the United States remain committed to implementing the Agreed

Framework, including the provision of two light water reactors to North Korea, provided that North Korea fulfills its obligations under the Framework?

Answer. The administration has not yet concluded the review process of whether

the DPRK is in compliance with all its obligations under the Agreed Framework.

I expect we will soon do so, and we will provide our findings to Congress.

I will say that the DPRK’s nuclear freeze of its three graphite-moderated reactors

and related facilities at Yongbyon and Taechon remains intact under IAEA monitoring.

The IAEA maintains a permanent presence at Yongbyon and, based on its monitoring activities, the IAEA believes that the DPRK has been complying with the

freeze provisions of the Agreed Framework from November 1994 on.

The Agreed Framework is an important mechanism for bringing the DPRK into

compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

To do that, North Korea must: fully cooperate with the IAEA, accept implementation of its full-scope safeguards agreement, and permit the IAEA to verify the completeness and correctness of the DPRK’s initial safeguards declaration, which should

cover all nuclear facilities and nuclear material, including separated plutonium.

Apart from maintaining the freeze, the DPAR has not taken these steps. We believe the DPRK must begin to act.

Under the terms of the Agreed Framework, ‘‘when a significant portion of the

light water reactor (LWR) project is completed, but before delivery of key nuclear

components, the DPRK will come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement

with the IAEA.’’

It could take several years for the IAEA to complete its work. That makes it imperative for the DPRK to start the process or risk delays in the LWR project.

The U.S., under the Agreed Framework, provides the DPRK 500,000 tons of heavy

fuel oil (HFO) annually to offset the foregone output from North Korea’s frozen

graphite-moderated nuclear reactors. KEDO’s monitoring arrangements, along with

other means, indicate the HFO has largely been used in the manner prescribed by

the Agreed Framework.

Question. A key aspect of U.S.-North Korea relations is the Agreed Framework.

Is North Korea currently in compliance with its obligations under the Agreed

Framework? Does the United States remain committed to implementing the Agreed

Framework, including the provision of two light water reactors to North Korea, provided that North Korea fulfills its obligations under the Framework?

Answer. The administration has not yet concluded the review process of whether

the DPRK is in compliance with all its obligations under the Agreed Framework.

I expect we will soon do so, and we will provide our findings to Congress.

I will say that the DPRK’s nuclear freeze of its three graphite-moderated reactors

and related facilities at Yongbyon and Taechon remains intact under IAEA monitoring.

The IAEA maintains a permanent presence at Yongbyon and, based on its monitoring activities, the IAEA believes that the DPRK has been complying with the

freeze provisions of the Agreed Framework from November 1994 on.

MONTERREY SUMMIT

Questions. What is the United States prepared to put on the table during the

Summit? Is serious consideration [being given] to some of the very innovative approaches that have been proposed by former President Zedillo, George Soros and

other[s] for generating additional development financing, including the issuance and

use of IMF Monetary units (SDRs) to provide financing for health, educational and

environmental programs in developing countries?

Answer. We see Monterrey as a chance to turn the corner on development by

achieving a practical consensus on financing to spur growth and poverty reduction.

We do not see it as a pledging conference. The United States will focus on total resources for development: trade, foreign direct investment, domestic savings, agriculture productivity, along with effective foreign aid. Foreign assistance is by far the

smallest of the sources of development finance, though it can have a significant

catalytic role in fostering change. We will also highlight the need for strong support

68

of democratic and transparent governance and market-oriented economic policies as

proven necessary conditions to unlock and effectively use these resources.

We will urge the international community to promote more vigorously an economic growth agenda to benefit the developing countries. A part of this agenda is

to challenge developed countries to increase grant-based assistance to the poorest

countries, so these countries can make investments in critical social sectors, such

as education and health, without incurring debt burdens that such activities cannot

cover financially. We will promote increases in assistance for developing countries

that have achieved measurable results. We will urge developed and developing countries, and international organizations, to engage in greater and better efforts on

trade and investment capacity building. The Conference is also an opportunity for

us to showcase our own specific development efforts and priorities—e.g. trade and

investment support, education and health, good governance and anti-corruption and

agricultural productivity—and make clear our desire to engage and cooperate with

others on these issues.

In the already-agreed outcome document for Monterrey, the consensus did not

support any concept of international taxes (such as a carbon tax or a currency transaction tax) or use of SDR reallocations, as some have proposed. The United States

did not support such approaches, as we prefer to work directly with the public and

Congress to seek well-supported, legislatively approved sources of foreign assistance.

Obviously, we were not alone. The allocation of SDRs for development assistance is

inconsistent with the SDR’s role as a monetary asset, and with the administration’s

efforts to focus IMF efforts on its core areas of expertise. We believe the way to further increase development assistance is to show that when well-used and targeted,

it can leverage private resources and positive political change. That record and a

clear strategy should be the basis for seeking more resources for what works.

RESPONSES OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR

THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

U.S. ASSISTANCE TO THE AFGHAN WOMEN’S MINISTRY

Question. Over the last several years, the Senate, and more specifically, this committee, has been outspoken in its condemnation of Taliban policies toward women.

And, when the Taliban was ousted from power and the Ministry of Virtue and Vice

disbanded, we felt it was important to insist that women be restored to their rightful place in Afghan society- including participation in the post-Taliban Afghan Government. I am pleased that two women now serve in the Afghan interim administration under Chairman Karzai.

One of these remarkable women is Dr. Sima Samar, a vice-Chair in the interim

government and head of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Given the plight of women

in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, this military needs funding immediately to provide opportunities to women and to undo the damage inflicted by the Taliban.

Unfortunately, Dr. Samar is doing her best to restore hope in Afghan women with

just one telephone, one desk and one car. For the past several weeks, the Women’s

Ministry has not even had an office from which to operate. There is no funding for

programs, no funding for staff and no funding for equipment. As you know, Mr. Secretary, the mandate for the interim government runs out in just 5 months. Does

the administration plan to provide direct funding for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? How much does the administration plan to provide?

Answer. I met personally with Sima Samar, Vice Chair and Women’s Affairs Minister, in December. When she returned in late January, a wide range of U.S. officials received Dr. Samar. We have conveyed to her our full support for her work.

We have stressed to all elements of the AIA the importance of the Women’s Ministry being fully integrated into the new government. To assist with the urgent

needs of Afghan women, the United States is working closely not only with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs but will all Afghan ministries. In meetings in Washington

and Kabul, senior administration officials are stressing that the concerns of Afghan

women must be addressed by all elements of the Afghan Government, not just the

Women’s Ministry.

Due to widespread destruction and neglect of buildings, several ministries, including the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, have had problems obtaining suitable office

space. This matter has now been resolved for the Women’s Ministry, to Minister

Samar’s satisfaction. The building that once housed the Women’s Institute has been

transferred to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

In addition to providing funds for the Women’s Ministry through the UNDP, the

United States has contributed directly to the Ministry’s refurbishment through the

69

Agency for International Development (AID). AID has provided $64,000 toward the

renovation of the building, including office equipment and technical advisers.

$55,000 of this grant will be used to help renovate the Women’s Ministry. The refurbishment of the Ministry is now 70% complete, and Minister Samar noted her pleasure that Women’s Affairs is the first ministry in the AIA to receive a grant from

the United States Government. She is optimistic that significant renovations will be

completed by March 8, in time to host ceremonial meetings in Kabul on the occasion

of International Women’s Day.

Beyond supporting the bricks-and mortar aspects of the Women’s Ministry, the

U.S. Government is also working closely with Minister Samar to identify her specific

needs and priorities for programs. She has particularly noted women’s needs for

education, health and security. Included in the $296.75 million the United States

has pledged for Afghanistan for the current year are programs that will provide

education and health and will generate jobs for Afghans, especially women. Women

will be included as planners, implementers, and beneficiaries in all USG programs.

In addition, to our overall emphasis on targeting women, the USG has in the past

several months funded a number of specific programs in response to immediate

needs on the ground.

Security:

• The Department of State’s Bureau of South Asian Affairs has already provided

public diplomacy funds to refurbish two floor of a dormitory at the University

of Kabul for the use of women students.

Education and Training:

• AID is sending nine million textbooks to Afghanistan for the opening of school

on March 23. For the first time in years, girls will be attending these schools

at all levels.

• AID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) is funding the Afghan Women’s Network to poll Afghan women in Peshwar about their training needs, and to train

women to enhance their capabilities in political and economic skills.

• OTI is also supporting the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief to help

provide library assistance to Afghan women and girls to encourage them to

read.

• Finally OTI has just announced a small grant to assist in rehabilitating offices

for ARIANA, a women’s NGO based in Kabul, to continue providing educational

and vocational courses to women and girls of many ages. The grant will also

provide ARIANA with funds to purchase training supplies and equipment.

Health:

• AID has contributed funds to UNICEF for an inoculation programs for 2.26 million Afghan children returning to school.

Many more programs are being planned.

U.S-Afghan Women’s Council:

• To complement our U.S. Government programs, President Bush and Chairman

Karzai recently announced the establishment of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s

Council. Dr. Samar and Foreign Minister Abdullah will serve as Afghan cochairs and Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky will serve as the U.S

chair. The Council will promote private/public partnerships and mobilize resources to ensure that women gain the skills and education they were not able

to attain under years of Taliban misrule.

UN POPULATION FUND (UNFPA)

Question. Secretary Powell, last year, the Bush administration requested $25 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in its fiscal year 2002 budget.

The Congress, recognizing the importance of this funding, increased that amount to

$34 million.

Not only did the Bush administration request funding for this program, last October, the administration announced the disbursement of $600,000 to the UNFPA for

the purpose of providing emergency birthing kits to Afghan refugees. Clearly, this

is a program that works and saves lives. Unfortunately, the $34 million in fiscal

year 2002 has now been put on hold and no funding has been requested specifically

for UNFPA in the fiscal year 2003 budget.

Officials from the United Nations estimate that $34 million is enough to prevent

two million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 abortions and the deaths of 4,700 mothers and 77,000 infant children.

Mr. Secretary, what is the status of this funding? When will a decision on funding

be made? Do you still believe that UNFPA does ‘‘invaluable work’’ and ‘‘provides

critical population assistance to developing countries?’’

70

Answer. The administration continues to support broadly the important work of

UNFPA and specifically, its response to the emergency needs of vulberable populations, such as in Afghanistan. At the same time, we remain mindful of our obligations under the Kemp-Kasten amendment to the annual Foreign Operations, Export

Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, which provides that no U.S.

funds can go to an organization that supports or participate in the management of

a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

The administration is also attentive to periodic reports of abuse and coercion in

China’s family planning and recent allegations of UNFPA’s complicity in coercive

family planning practices in China. These allegations assert that UNETA’s program

in China is in violation of the Remp-Kasten amendment. While we are aware of

UNFPA’s response that they are not involved in coercive practices and is, in fact,

supporting a program that stresses the importance of voluntarism and non-coercion,

it is incumbent upon us to investigate these allegations.

The issue of UNFPA funding in light of these allegations is under review by the

administration. The modalities of this review and the final determination are with

the White House.

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

Question. There have been news reports about an ongoing reassessment of our relationship with Arafat and the PA. Have any conclusions been reached as a result

of this reassessment?

Answer. Chairman Arafat is leader of the Palestinian people, and we continue to

deal with him on that basis.

PALESTINE

Question. How do you see our relationship with the Palestinian leadership changing?

Answer. Chairman Arafat is the leader of the Palestinian people and we continue

to deal with him on that basis. Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have

an obligation to exercise that leadership and act immediately and decisively against

violence and terrorism. We have not given up hope and we will continue to work

with both sides to get to a process that will lead to a ceasefire and negotiations.

RESPONSES OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR

THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BILL NELSON

HAITI: POLITICAL STALEMATE

Question. What is the status of the political stalemate in Haiti among President

Aristide, opposition groups, and civil society? I understand the OAS is playing a key

role, but what is the U.S. doing? Are you personally involved in the process?

Answer. The Haitian parties have yet to resolve the country’s political crisis. OASmediated negotiations in 2001 reached agreement on several key election issues, but

intransigence on all sides and political violence have hampered further progress.

The U.S. supported a January OAS resolution that condemned violence, called for

an investigation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), and

strengthened the OAS mandate to help improve conditions for a renewal of talks.

I met on February 7 with my Caribbean counterparts and urged their continued

support of the OAS process. We place primary responsibility on the Government of

Haiti and the parties to reach an agreement that improves the well being of the

Haitian people.

U.S. ASSISTANCE FOR HAITI

Question. As U.S. and international assistance still cannot be directed to Haiti,

the Haitian people are suffering. I have spoken with the Alternative Executive Director of the International Development Bank, about this issue prior to his confirmation. What can the administration do to expedite funding to the Haitian people

at the earliest possible time once an agreement is reached?

Answer. Current U.S. policy opposes assistance that goes to or through the Haitian Government. However, the U.S. does provide significant assistance to the Haitian people via non-governmental organizations. In FY 2002, approximately $50 million in assistance will go to Haiti for food aid, health, education, family planning,

HIV/AIDs programs, democracy initiatives (including party support).

We will not support renewed International Financial Institution (IFI) lending to

the Government of Haiti (GOH) unless the GOH resolves the electoral impasse.

71

Once the parties in Haiti negotiate and sign an agreement, the U.S. is prepared to

work closely with other donor countries and the multilateral development banks to

move forward rapidly on the disbursement of outstanding loans as well as to explore

new projects.

HOLOCAUST-ERA INSURANCE CLAIMS

Question. Recently, Senator Fitzgerald and I wrote a letter to the former Secretary, and Chairman of the International Commission on Holocaust-Era Insurance

Claims (ICHEIC), Larry Eagleberger. We are concerned over the extremely slow

pace at which insurance claims are being resolved through the mechanism afforded

by ICHEIC. Since an agreement was reached between the U.S. and Germany in

July 2000, insurance companies have compensated less than 1% of the 77,800 claims

received by ICHEIC, an abhorrent record.

Are you personally engaged in this process? What is the State Department doing

to ensure that the remaining issues in the negotiations between ICHEIC and the

German Foundation are finalized swiftly and in a way that is fair to survivors? The

recent extension of the deadline is helpful, but I am concerned that more and more

survivors are dying before they can redeem the policies they have been fighting for

over 60 years.

Answer. The U.S.-German Executive Agreement of July 17, 2000, provides the

framework for the treatment of claims made against German insurance companies.

The Executive Agreement provides that insurance claims that come within the scope

of the claims handling procedures adopted as of July 17, 2000, by the International

Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC) and are made against

German insurance companies shall be processed by the companies and the German

Insurance Association (GDV) on the basis of such procedures and on the basis of

any additional claims handling procedures that may be agreed among the Foundation, ICHEIC and the German Insurance Association.

Reflecting the allocation agreed to among the parties during the German Foundation Negotiations, the July 2000 German law establishing the Foundation provides

DM 200 million for claims and administrative expenses, as well as DM 350 million

for the ICHEIC humanitarian fund.

Although the United States in not a party to the negotiations to implement the

insurance provisions of the German Foundation, we nonetheless have continued to

work actively, under the leadership of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L.

Armitage, to create an environment conducive to successful negotiations and to support efforts to reach an agreement quickly on outstanding issues.

The Deputy Secretary has on several occasions urged all parties to demonstrate

flexibility and work toward early agreement, and he continues to engage in intensive consultations with Secretary Eagleburger and the German Chancellor’s Special

Representative, Dr. Otto Graf Lambsdorff on these issues.

It is essential that the ICHEIC-Foundation negotiations on additional claims handling procedures and ICHEIC administrative costs be concluded quickly so that insurance claims can be paid and humanitarian funds distributed.

• Failure to reach agreement would have widespread ramifications for the claimants, the survivors, and the family members of those who did not survive.

• We continue to press all parties to focus on resolving outstanding issues so the

DM 550 million can be made available from the German Foundation.

RESPONSES OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR

THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GORDON SMITH

UN POPULATION FUND (UNFPA)

Question. Secretary Powell, you testified only a few months ago about the invaluable work that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) was doing in helping

to provide reproductive health services to women in and around Afghanistan. Yet,

the administration is seeking to eliminate the U.S. contribution to this important

organization. Even more distressing is the failure of the administration to allocate

the funds that Congress appropriated to UNFPA this year. As you know, women

in Afghanistan have suffered under the most inhuman treatment imaginable for

quite some time and their health has suffered. The average woman lives only to the

age of 42, and pregnancy related causes are among the most dire threats to their

lives. This administration has spoken often about protecting the ‘‘rights and dignity

of women’’ in that part of the world, but the budget would eliminate some of the

most important funds that help to do that. UNFPA is also working to provide crucial reproductive health care and voluntary family planning to women in nearly 150

72

other countries. Does the administration have some plan to provide the health care

that UNFPA will be unable to provide if we eliminate our contributions?

Throughout my public life I have supported policies to prevent abortion, and international family planning does just that. I strongly supported you last year when you

spoke favorably of the work the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) does

around the world, and I strongly supported your emergency grant of $600,000 to

UNFPA this past November to help them provide safe delivery kits and sanitary

supplies to Afghan refugee women. Yet, today, only 3 months after that grant, the

administration is holding up the funding that Congress appropriated for UNFPA

this year—funding that the President sought in his budget request last year—and

is seeking to eliminate our contribution in 2003. I am deeply disappointed by each

of these actions and wonder if you might address this issue.

Answer. This administration shares your belief that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services. We continue to broadly support the important work of UNFPA world and specifically, its

response to the emergency needs of vulnerable populations, such as in Afghanistan.

At the same time, we remain mindful of our obligations under the Kemp-Kasten

amendment to the annual Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, which provides that no U.S. funds can go to an organization that supports or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. The administration is also attentive to periodic reports of abuse and coercion in China’s family planning and recent allegations of

UNFPA’s complicity in coercive family planning practices in China. These allegations assert that UNFPA’s program in China is in violation of the Kamp-Kasten

amendment. While we are aware of UNFPA’s response that it is not involved in coercive practices and is, in fact, supporting a program that stresses the importance

of volunteerism and non-coercion, it is incumbent upon us to review these allegations.

The issue of UNFPA funding in light of these allegations is under review. The

modalities of this review and the final determination are with Lhe White House.

Your concerns regarding how we can otherwise address the health care that UNFPA

will be unable to provide if we eliminate our contributions will be taken into account.

CHILDREN’S HEALTH

Question. Can you highlight the ways in which the President’s proposed budget

helps to improve children’s health in developing countries?

Answer. The President’s budget responds to the global challenge of children’s

health in the developing world with $282.5 million for our ongoing core programs

for children under five (such as breastfeeding, nutrition and childhood diseases).

The budget also funds programs combating HIV/AIDS, a pandemic that besets children even before birth and also deprives them of parental care. Almost 1.5 million

children under the age of 15 are HIV-positive; another 15 million are made vulnerable by the loss of a parent to HIV/AIDS. For FY 2003, we have increased USAID’s

direct funding for HIV/AIDS to $500 million. In addition, the administration has

pledged $500 million to the newly created Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, making this country the single largest donor. In FY 2003 the administration

will increase to over $50 million its contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines

and Immunizations (GAVI), bringing new vaccines and strengthening vaccine delivery to millions of children. The President’s budget proposes $120 million for the

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), which spends approximately 60% of its

resources on child health, and approximately $15 million for the World Health Organization (WHO) for programs in child and adolescent health. In 2003, the National

Institutes of Health (NIH) will spend $222 million in international efforts on HIV/

AIDS, and the Global AIDS Program (GAP) of the Centers for Disease Control

(CDC) will spend $144 million. CDC will also invest $135 million in global immunization activities, and $13 million in malaria prevention and control. Our contribution of $10 million to the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) contributes to work

to eliminate environmental health hazards, which have their greatest effects on

pregnant women and children. Finally, the American people will again provide a

projected $1.1 billion to feed and care for victims, especially child victims, of emergency and conflict situations through USAID, the World Food Program, and the UN

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

We can be proud of these efforts, but the task ahead is enormous. Much remains

to be done to create the conditions that will make the currently unacceptable levels

of child mortality in the developing world a thing of the past.

73

CHILDREN’S HEALTH

Question. What message will the administration take to the UN Special Session

in May?

Answer. The United States strongly supports the goals of the Special Session in

the areas of child health and nutrition, education, HIV/AIDS, and protection from

exploitation and armed conflict. We believe that investing in children is key to the

eradication of poverty and economic development, with added dividends for peace

and stability. We look to the Special Session to invigorate political will, seeking in

the outcome document a global agenda which focuses on specific, achievable goals.

CENTRAL ASIAN STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE

Question. One result of the war on terrorism and our military operation in Afghanistan is the increased awareness of the Central Asian Republics and their strategic importance to the United States. Could you lay out for us the strategic importance of the Central Asian Republics and what will guide our involvement in this

increasingly important region?

Answer. In the wake of the events of September 11, the most immediate strategic

interest of the United States in Central Asia is to see that the countries of the region do not become new havens or sanctuaries for the forces of international terrorism. In what only a decade ago was the Soviet Union, the United States now has

thousands of U.S. military personnel working alongside their Central Asian counterparts in this effort. We also rely on these governments for vital intelligence that has

helped us to conduct such an effective military campaign in Afghanistan, and for

the security and well-being of our troops while they are there. Additionally, for postTaliban Afghanistan, these Central Asian frontline states represent a critical humanitarian corridor for food and emergency supplies that may save the lives of millions of people living in Afghanistan.

Our country is now linked with this region in ways we could never have imagined

before September 11. Our policy in Central Asia must include a commitment to

deeper, more sustained, and better-coordinated engagement on the full range of

issues upon which we agree and disagree. These include security cooperation, energy resource development, and internal strengthening of these countries through

political and economic reforms. At every opportunity, we discuss with them the concept that security is not only a military concept but must also, in our view, include

the economic and democratic reforms that will give their populations hope for the

future. We include in these conversations the necessity to meet internationally accepted standards on human rights.

Question. What principles will guide the administration in its deliberations with

our NATO allies on a new NATO-Russia relationship?

Answe. Russia’s recent positive stance toward the West, as reflected in its substantial cooperation in the war against terrorism, demonstrates that we have a real

opportunity to bring Russia into a more open, cooperative relationship with NATO

that will further enhance European stability.

In developing the new NATO-Russia body, we are looking to explore and develop

new, effective mechanisms for more constructive cooperation between Russia and

NATO, while preserving NATO’s right to decide and act at 19 on all issues.

The key to the success of the new body will be the development of serious, wellthought out, practical projects in areas where there is potential for joint cooperation

between NATO and Russia, such as counterterrorism, civil emergency preparedness,

airspace management, and joint training and exercises.

However, the NATO-Russia Council will not provide Russia the ability to veto

NATO actions in any areas. In developing this mechanism, we will insist that there

must be a NATO consensus to place any item on the agenda of the new body. NATO

must have the right to decide whether particular issues should be discussed or

worked at 20 and to what extent allies should coordinate positions. NATO also

needs to preserve the right to take a decision on any issue at any time, whether

or not that issue is the subject of discussion with Russia. Any ally must also be able

to remove an issue from the agenda of the new mechanism at any time.

RESPONSES OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR

THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Question. Last Sunday, in response to Yasser Arafat’s statement condemning terrorist acts against Israeli civilians and pledging to crack down on these terrorist

groups, you prudently responded that you were pleased to see the statement, but

74

the U.S. needs to see action. Has the U.S. done enough to convey this sentiment

to Arafat? It appears that Arafat is finally concerned with America’s increasingly

negative view of his actions. How is the administration leveraging this for furthering the peace process?

Answer. Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority must take strong, resolute, irreversible action immediately to halt the violence. In a range of meetings and

communications with PA officials, including Arafat, we have been very clear and

specific about what we expect from the PA with regard to ending the violence and

terrorism which undermine their authority and the hopes of the Palestinian people

for a better life. Arafat knows what steps he has to take. Palestinian security performance remains the essential first step to an improvement in the situation and

a return to a political process.

ASSISTANCE TO THE IRAQI OPPOSITION

Question. What is the status of our assistance to the Iraqi National Congress and

other opposition groups within the country? Will the U.S. ramp up its investment

and support of these groups, especially in the absence of Iraq’s allowance of UN inspections?

Answer. We continue to support the Iraqi National Congress (INC), and other

Iraqi opposition groups, as they work to become a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraqi people, and build support for the forces of change in Iraq. Since

March 2000, the U.S. has provided $14.6 million in funding to the INC. That funding has supported the production and distribution of the INC’s newspaper, satellite

TV broadcasts into Iraq, diplomatic outreach, information collection program, drawdown of Department of Defense training, three London offices, one DC office, and

offices in Tehran, Damascus, and Prague. We also have provided $11.7 million in

support to other groups doing humanitarian and war crimes research work. We are

actively engaged in developing programs of increased support for Iraqis who are opposed to the current regime in Baghdad.

ANTI-AMERICANISM

Question. Many of our Arab allies in the Middle East have strong anti-American

factions within their countries. Are we monitoring the type of anti-American education that occurs in these countries? Will the U.S. take stepped-up action to provide basic education development in this region?

Answer. Anti-Americanism in the Middle East is a problem that we are addressing head-on through our public diplomacy. We pay especially close attention to educational issues, and have worked for years to enhance educational exchanges and

institutional linkages, increase the teaching of English as a second language at all

levels, and encourage the development of American studies programs.

Middle Eastern leaders recognize the need for reform and improvement of their

educational systems in order to meet the needs of their youth for a place in the

world of the 21st century. To play a productive role in their societies, youth must

have a new set of skills and understanding of their role in a global economy. We

are working on a number of new initiatives and proposals in this regard that respond to requests for cooperation and assistance we have received from these countries. Our aim is to assist in efforts to better prepare students from that part of

the world for the new global economy, and lessen the propensity for the development of anti-American attitudes.

EDUCATION ASSISTANCE FOR PAKISTAN

Question. Is the administration’s investment in education assistance for Pakistan

sufficient enough to help break the stranglehold of the radical madrassas?

Answer. We believe the level of funding the administration is proposing for this

fiscal year will help Pakistan as it continues to reform its educational system.

In the current fiscal year, our $600 million grant in balance of payments and

budget support has enabled approximately $107 million equivalent in Pakistani rupees to support Pakistan’s education programs. In addition, through an interagency

effort, we will provide $34 million this year in bilateral assistance programs to support education reform in Pakistan. We hope this is the beginning of a $100 million

multi-year program. Other donors are also focusing a good amount of resources on

education, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Germany, Norway and

UNICEF.

Question. Is the administration willing to accommodate Pakistanis request for tariff relief on textile and apparel imports?

75

Answer. The administration is acutely aware of the hardship suffered by Pakistan’s textile and apparel industry due to our ally’s staunch support of the U.S. in

the war on terrorism. We recently completed an assistance package, valued at $142

million in potential new market access, that provides quota enhancements for Pakistani apparel exports to the United States. The package was developed in extensive

consultation with Congress to minimize its impact on our domestic textile industry.

Early in our consultations with Congress, we found significant opposition to tariff

relief, and there appeared to be no legislative vehicle available for such action by

Congress. At this time the administration does not intend to provide further unilateral preferences for imports of textile or apparel products from Pakistan.

We have serious market access issues with Pakistan that will need to be addressed in any further discussions with them. We would only consider future assistance on a reciprocal basis and after extensive consultations with Congress.

INDO-PAKISTANI TENSIONS

Question. What action is the administration taking to de-escalate tensions between Pakistan and India? Are these tensions taking away from Pakistan’s ability

to assist the U.S. in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan?

Answer. Defusing tension between India and Pakistan has been a major focus

since December 13, when the tragic terrorist attack on India’s parliament prompted

India to take a series of actions—including mobilizing its forces on the border, downgrading its diplomatic relations with Islamabad, and closing air, bus, and train links

with Pakistan—that created a very real possibility of war. The President, Dr. Rice,

and I have been in regular contact with the leaders of both countries to urge caution

in terms of rhetoric and public comment; the redeployment of forces away from the

border or Line of Control; and the launching of a productive, substantive dialog. We

delivered the same clear message during my visit to the region in mid-January and

during the visits here of senior Indian and Pakistani officials. It is in this context

that we strongly pressed President Musharraf and his government to take firm action against extremists using their territory to attack India. These contacts are continuing and will continue until we have fully ‘‘locked in’’ the progress achieved so

far.

Heightened Indo-Pak tension clearly has added a major new burden onto the

shoulders of the Pakistani authorities. So far, however, it has not diminished Pakistan’s unstinting support for Operation Enduring Freedom.

ASSISTANCE TO AFGHANISTAN

Question. The U.S. is committed to helping Afghanistan recover from decades of

war. What steps is the administration taking to ensure accountability for the distribution of humanitarian aid to ensure that it is delivered to the local level without

being used for illicit purposes by warlords? What steps is the administration taking

to ensure that the loya jirga meets to form a national government? What conditions

are placed on the aid to ensure accountability while empowering interim leader

Karzai to develop effective political institutions at the local, regional and national

level to assist in democratization?

Answer. We view the recovery and reconstruction effort in Afghanistan that the

international community has undertaken with our leadership as a continuation of

the international campaign against terrorism. The military campaign has been successful, but it needs to be supported by an effort to stabilize Afghanistan economically to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists and drug traffickers again.

We are committed to ensuring accountability of U.S. humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for Afghanistan. We have conveyed this to the Afghanistan Interim Authority (AIA), and received clear signals that they understand the recalcitrant provincial or local authorities who are tempted to defy the Bonn principles

and appropriate policies of the central government.

Deciding which conditions to apply to which areas of assistance is a complicated

task. The administration is currently working to define a mechanism by which conditionality will be applied. Some areas—humanitarian assistance—will clearly be

delivered without regard to the cooperation of local political leaders: we will always

work to feed starving people, for example. In addition to carefully designed bilateral

measures, we will coordinate our actions on conditionality and accountability with

other donors and the UN SRSG. If well-coordinated and intelligently implemented,

conditionality can successfully leverage reconstruction assistance in ways that

meaningfully further our national interest.

76

CENTRAL ASIAN AMERICAN ENTERPRISE FUND

Question. Do you know about the current status of the Central Asian American

Enterprise Fund? What should be our foreign assistance priorities for the region?

Answer. Our assistance priority in Central Asia is to address the causes of potential instability in the region. These threats include ineffective border controls, drug

smuggling, poverty, lack of economic and democratic reforms, isolation from the outside world, and decrepit local infrastructure. To address these problems we requested and received additional funding for our Central Asian assistance programs

in the Emergency Response Fund. We have also increased assistance funding for the

region in our regular FY 2002 assistance budget and plan a further increase in FY

2003.

The State Department and USAID have conducted a review of the past performance and future prospects of the Central Asian American Enterprise Fund. We have

conveyed the conclusions of this review to the CAAEF Board. As matters of commercial confidentiality are involved, we would be happy to discuss this in greater detail

in a private session.

CENTRAL ASIA TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT

Question. What opportunities for trade and economic development do you foresee

for the region? Is your Department engaged in putting together education and economic development packages for Central Asia?

Answer. By driving the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, Operation Enduring

Freedom has improved the climate for expanding trade throughout Central Asia and

linking it to South Asia. Indeed, part of our policy toward stabilizing and developing

Afghanistan is to encourage a North-South trade corridor with improved roads,

bridges, and infrastructure to facilitate access to markets.

Economic development and trade, however, can only develop if the Central Asians

governments have the political will to pursue meaningful economic and democratic

reform and reduce harmful barriers to trade within the region. Sustained economic

growth will ultimately depend upon these countries’ ability to cooperate and expand

their market base in order to compete in the world market for international investment.

Toward that end, the U.S. is urging the Central Asian governments to redouble

their economic reform efforts and renew their relationships with the IMF. Where

they show commitment to do so, we are providing technical assistance to support

their efforts as well as programs designed to cushion the effect on the most vulnerable members of society.

In addition, the U.S. provides technical assistance and credit to develop small and

medium private enterprises; and is helping to develop local infrastructure, which in

the process provides jobs. The U.S. also funds projects focusing on the key areas of

access to water for drinking and irrigation and public health to address the needs

of the predominantly rural and impoverished population of Central Asia.

We are also very much involved in efforts to improve education in Central Asia

through support for higher education institutions such as the American University

of Kyrgyzstan, curriculum development and teacher training for school-based civic

education, and exchanges for teachers and students at the secondary and post-secondary levels. In FY 2002 we increased funding for academic exchanges that bring

future leaders from throughout Central Asia to study in the U.S., and we intend

to increase these programs further in FY 2003.

CENTRAL ASIA/CAUCASUS

Question. Related to the Caucasus, specifically, I believe that the President

showed great leadership when he waived the Freedom Support Act section 907 sanctions against Azerbaijan. Doing that will allow Azerbaijan and the United States to

further their relationship. Since the terrorist attacks, how has Azerbaijan contributed to our operations?

Answer. Azerbaijan historically has an outstanding record of cooperation with the

United States on counterterrorism issues, assisting in various investigations (including the 1998 Embassy bombings in East Africa) and helping protect Embassy Baku

against suspected terrorist threats. Shortly after September 11, Azerbaijan offered

‘‘whatever means necessary’’ to the United States for the war on terrorism. These

included but were not limited to blanket overflight rights, full intelligence cooperation, and the use of Azerbaijani bases. Azerbaijan is crucial to our air bridge into

Afghanistan, and more than a thousand critical overflights have occurred since September 11. Azerbaijan is party to eight of the twelve UN counterterrorism conventions, having ratified the 1999 International Convention on the Prevention of the

77

Financing of Terrorism on October 1, 2001. Azerbaijan is currently preparing national legislation to implement this convention and has requested U.S. assistance

in drafting that and other anti-terrorism legislation. In the interim, the Government

of Azerbaijan is utilizing a Presidential decree to investigate and freeze potential

terrorist assets.

Before the waiver, section 907 hindered our ability to take full advantage of Azerbaijan’s offer of support. Among other things, it prevented assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan in drafting and implementing anti-terrorist legislation, in building up Azerbaijan’s ability to fight terrorist financing, and in helping Azerbaijan

strengthen and secure its borders to prevent terrorist infiltration and exfiltration.

Thanks to the leadership of Senator Brownback and Senator McConnell, Congress

granted the President the authority to waive section 907 in Title II of the Kenneth

M. Ludden Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Act, 2002.

The President exercised this authority on January 25. Various technical assessment

assistance teams have visited Azerbaijan since January to discuss cooperation on

terrorist financing, law enforcement, border control and other subjects. The Department of Defense plans to conduct its first-ever bilateral working group with the

Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense in late March, following an assessment visit in late

February. The State Department will brief the Appropriations Committees as required under Title II before the second week in March. Once the briefing is done,

we can begin new assistance to and work in cooperation with Azerbaijan to meet

our objectives in the war on terrorism.

The waiver of section 907 allows us not only to develop our relationship with

Azerbaijan but also to develop our relationship with Armenia and engage both countries more deeply than we have been able to do in the past.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND OUR ALLIES ON TERRORISM

Question. Secretary Powell, could you please speak to how, and how well, the

United States is reconciling our need to recruit allies with our obligation to promote

respect for human rights and religious freedom?

Answer. The President has made it absolutely clear that the war on terrorism will

not place our advocacy for human rights and religious freedom on hold. Indeed, the

two priorities are mutually supportive. Our campaign to defeat international terrorism is a campaign to protect fundamental human rights, including religious freedom.

Nowhere is this convergence of goals clearer than in Afghanistan, where the Bonn

Agreement includes protections for human rights and religious freedom. In Pakistan, our partnership has already yielded results that, if carried through successfully, may be of profound importance for religious minorities, including the reform

of electoral laws to abolish the discriminatory separate electoral system for religious

minorities and government efforts to reform madrassas. In China, the President will

raise religious freedom as a core element of our relationship. Our engagement with

countries on counterterrorism affords us more opportunities in which to raise our

human rights concerns.

We recognize that our campaign against terrorism has increased our involvement

with some countries whose records on religious freedom and human rights are disappointing. We are not ignoring these problems. On the contrary the campaign

against terrorism has provided us with the opportunity for more active engagement

with political leaders and civil society, and the fact that it is clear that we are committed over the long term increases the possibilities for moving countries in the

right direction.

SUDAN

Question. Sudan has long been a particularly troublesome part of the world for

human rights abuses—not the least of which include human slavery and religious

persecution. I have heard conflicting reports of progress with the North and a potential easing off of American pressure to ensure self-determination and support of the

South. I would urge the administration to remain aggressively involved in Sudan—

particularly now as we are clamping down on world terrorism. Could you clarify the

U.S. policy position in Sudan?

Answer. Sudan has indeed had a tragic history, and the suffering of its people

continues. There has been no easing of pressure by the United States on the parties,

and particularly on the Government of Sudan, to stop targeting civilians, end the

practice of slavery and abductions, cease hostilities in the Nuba Mountains, provide

for the safety of humanitarian workers, and commit itself to ending the war. In fact,

pressure on these matters has been mounting. We are also demanding from the government a coalition partners in the global war on terrorism. There is no quid pro

78

quo—Sudan must improve both its cooperation on terrorism and bring an end to domestic abuses and the civil war if it wishes to improve relations with the United

States. We remain hopeful that the modest beginnings made by the efforts of Special Envoy Danforth will soon grow into a sustainable, just peace for Sudan. To a

large extent, however, the actions by the Sudanese Government over the next few

months will determine the direction that U.S. policy will take.

We will continue to pursue a just and lasting peace in Sudan. We recognize many

points will have to be negotiated in order to reach a solution acceptable to the aggrieved party; the southern Sudanese. Although the exact formula of a peace settlement remains to be resolved by the parties to the conflict—which could be concluded

under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agency on Development (IGAD) Declaration of Principals (DOP)—no specific points, including self-determination, confederation or unity, have been taken off the negotiating table. No agreement, regardless of who brokered it, would last unless all parties agree that a just and equitable

solution has been reached.

HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Question. Secretary Powell, I commend you, President Bush, and the First Lady

for your leadership in making the needs and human rights of women a priority for

current U.S. foreign policy on Afghanistan. Women and children are frequently the

first victims in conflict situations. Are there further plans to integrate our efforts

to promote the human rights of women and children into our war on terrorism and

promotion of democracy abroad?

Answer. Ensuring women’s human rights and those of their children strengthens

democracy. It is at the core of building a civil, law-abiding society, which is an indispensable prerequisite for true democracy.

In times of conflict, women disproportionately bear the brunt of the atrocities. At

the same time, women are excluded from access to power structures and participation in decision-making with regard to armed conflict, leaving them powerless to

draw attention to difficulties they. experience in conflict situations and voiceless to

recommend any preventive action. The USG advocates participation of women in all

activities aimed at assisting or protecting them, from design to implementation ot

a program.

There is need for much greater emphasis on gender-related issues, such as the

human rights of women in conflict situations. We have supported initiatives (the

Kosovar Women’s Initiative; the Bosnian Women’s Initiative, the Rwandan Women’s

Initiative) that aim to empower women to be able to rebuild their lives. There

should be greater emphasis placed on addressing the protection and assistance

needs of women in armed conflict and in the recovery from conflict as well. We have

encouraged international organizations such as the ICRC to put greater focus on

women conflict victims.

We are proposing to promote women’s welfare and political participation as a key

objective in a regional strategy for the Middle East and South Asia including, of

course, Afghanistan. This includes educating women not to idealize and raise martyrs; providing them with literacy and education to make informed judgements, and

become economically productive, therefore leaving them less vulnerable to messages

from extremists and radicals; and providing women with sufficient opportunities for

participation in public life to give them a stake in the system.

We have recently provided $60,000 for leadership training for women from the

Middle East. In Syria this interactive training and participatory training focused on

leadership, NGO development, strategic planning and mediation and conflict resolution. In addition, the International Visitor Program, the Fulbright Scholarship Program and the Humphrey Fellowships all promote democratic and economic development and closer ties between the U.S. and countries around the world participating

in the programs. The Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’

budget for FY 2002 is approximately $240 million for worldwide academic and professional exchanges, many of which involve women participants. For example, 50

percent of the Humphrey Fellows are women.

The United States plans to resume a broad range of educational and cultural exchange programs with Afghanistan, including programs focused on education and

training for women. Under the auspices of the Fulbright Teacher Exchange programs, the Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs proposed to organize a one-year multi-phase program this year to enhance the skills of Afghan

women teachers working in basic education. The program will bring ten women

teachers to the United States to prepare them to become master teachers and teacher trainers. They will be trained in basic education, curriculum development and

computer skills. Following their return to Afghanistan, they will train at least 100

79

more teachers in basic education skills, potentially impacting thousands of Afghan

children.

The annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices is one of our major tools

for raising awareness and promoting the human rights of women. These cover sexbased discrimination stemming from laws, regulations, or state practices that are

inconsistent with equal access to housing, employment, education, health care, or

other governmental benefits. Among the topics covered are societal violence against

women, e.g., ‘‘dowry deaths,’’ ‘‘honor killings,’’ wife beating, rape, female genital mutilation and government tolerance of such practices. Also covered is the extent to

which the law provides for, and the government enforces, equality of economic opportunity for women. Additionally, the Department has strengthened the Office of

the Senior Coordinator for International Women’s Issues that raises awareness of

women’s issues and is the focal point for the development and implementation of

our pro-women agenda.

We will continue to promote inclusion of the concerns and human rights of women

and children in our programs abroad, including those in war-torn countries and in

our promotion of democracy around the world.

Æ