U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

65–054PDF 2011

OVERVIEW OF U.S. RELATIONS WITH EUROPE

AND EURASIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EURASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 10, 2011

Serial No. 112–20

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

VACANT 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EURASIA

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Robert O. Blake, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Central and 

South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................. 9

The Honorable Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European 

and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State .............................................. 21

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

of Indiana, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

The Honorable Robert O. Blake: Prepared statement .......................................... 12

The Honorable Philip H. Gordon: Prepared statement ........................................ 24

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 48

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 49

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: Questions submitted for the record ........................................................ 50

(1)

OVERVIEW OF U.S. RELATIONS WITH EUROPE 

AND EURASIA 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EURASIA, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. BURTON. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia is holding its first 

oversight hearing entitled Overview of U.S. Policy Toward Europe 

and Eurasia. 

First I would like to welcome our witnesses: Assistant Secretary 

Philip H. Gordon, who is the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs; and Assistant Secretary 

Robert O. Blake of the State Department’s Bureau of South and 

Central Asian Affairs. I want to thank you for your service to our 

Nation. And I want to thank you for your patience today, because 

we were stuck in our office without any idea of when we would get 

started. 

As chairman it is my desire to work with the administration and 

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address security and economic challenges facing the United States and our allies in Europe. 

I sincerely look forward to working with my good friend from New 

York, Ranking Member Greg Meeks, if he ever gets here. And I 

also want to recognize Tim Griffin who is going to be the vice chairman of the subcommittee. Tim is meeting with the Speaker right 

now but he will be here shortly. 

It is a real pleasure to work with these gentlemen and I think 

the committee is going to have a lot to do over the next few 

months. I think we have four scheduled trips throughout Europe 

and Eurasia and we will look forward to working with you folks. 

Today, I will ask both witnesses to identify what they see as the 

most pressing issues and relationships that they believe require 

and deserve the most attention in Europe, Eurasia, and Central 

Asia. Last week, Secretary Clinton told the committee that the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request proposes to cut economic assistance to Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, 

and Central Asia by 15 percent. I applaud the fiscal spirit of eliminating wasteful spending and encourage the Department to look at 

ways to trim more because of the economic situation this country 

faces. 

2

In the upcoming months we will hold many oversight hearings 

and we will focus on ways to reduce spending and make aid more 

productive. In particular, we will look at reasons for reducing assistance to some countries while increasing aid to others. It would 

help to understand your plans to engage the countries which might 

receive less assistance in the future, but still have pressing issues. 

History has taught us that when the United States disengages, 

others fill the void. And we are very concerned about who might 

do that. This becomes a problem if other actors don’t share our values. However, we can’t just continue to throw money at a problem 

and think it is going to solve it. Although we do not agree on every 

issue, the transatlantic community has worked together for decades 

to address matters of mutual concern. Even as the security environment and economic conditions have changed, we continue to cooperate to foster prosperity in the Balkans, fight terrorism through 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Afghanistan, 

halt proliferation of missiles and nuclear weapons in Iran and 

North Korea, and promote democracy and human rights to the east 

of the European Union’s borders as well as around the world. 

This subcommittee will champion a similar agenda. We would be 

interested in your brief assessment of what opportunities exist to 

do better on these issues with the governments and societies in the 

region under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

In addition to being interested in what the administration’s priorities in the region are, it would also be illuminating to know how 

the administration is reaching out to Europe to achieve all of these 

goals. Between the bilateral ties, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, NATO, and the European Union, one could 

spend too much time in meetings and await consensus that may 

never be attained. 

To avoid that, what is the status of the State Department’s adjustments to our mission to the European Union to work more actively and effectively with the post-Lisbon European Union institutions, as called for on page 47 of the State Department’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. 

Given our fiscal constraints, the United States should better coordinate with the EU to develop economic opportunity and the rule 

of law in Central Asia. The ranking member and I met with 

Kyrgyzstan’s President earlier this week. We discussed their transition to democracy, the importance of the U.S. Transit Center at 

Manas as well as the enormous resource potential of the Central 

Asian region. Now it would be great to find out how the administration is assisting the business community to foster opportunities 

for business development there while balancing human rights and 

security. 

Other countries important to the U.S. interests are in the Balkans where our work is not finished until they are integrated into 

the European Union and NATO. I just got back from the Balkans 

and I know we still have problems there, but we are anxious to 

solve those. I think once they become part of the EU, it will be a 

lot better as far as making sure we don’t have conflicts in that region. 

I see Mr. Meeks has arrived. Had to start without you because 

we may have some votes here, my buddy. 

3

We believe that the Baltics deserve more attention as well. Many 

feel that the administration has pursued the policy of resetting relations with Russia at the expense of allies like Lithuania, Latvia, 

and Estonia and we don’t think that is acceptable. 

The Caucasus are still a security concern and the tensions between Georgia and Russia have not rescinded. The Winter Olympics are to be held in Russia, a short drive from the tension zone, 

and will take place in early 2014. I know our witnesses have 

worked tirelessly to reassure governments in the Baltics and 

Caucasus. And I am less certain about the value of the reset policy 

to the long-term U.S. national interest globally and in the Europe 

and Eurasia region. 

As we move forward, we will examine these and other strategic 

issues in greater detail through a robust hearing agenda, we are 

going to have a robust traveling agenda as well, we will work to 

restore our proper oversight duties and to engage the Obama administration on the challenges and priorities of U.S. policy toward 

Europe Eurasia, and Central Asia, 

I believe Congress should not simply rubber-stamp State Department policies, no reflection on you guys, but you know what I 

mean. And I look forward to working with the ranking member, 

Mr. Meeks, on these issues I have mentioned and the items he is 

interested in. 

And with that, I recognize Mr. Meeks for his opening statement. 

Great to have you here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]

4


65054c_1.eps
5


65054c_2.eps
6

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again in our first 

meeting, I look forward to working with you and traveling with you 

as we go about doing our work on the subcommittee, and I think 

we can do some good work together. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, we have traveled together before and we get 

along pretty well. 

Mr. MEEKS. Absolutely. 

Let me first of all welcome Assistant Secretary Gordon and Assistant Secretary Blake for being with us today and providing basically what I believe will be a tour of Europe, Eurasia, and Central 

Asia and the priorities and challenges that the State Department 

policymakers and implementers will confront in the year ahead. 

I also want to thank you for your unflagging efforts to advance 

U.S. interests abroad. Both of you cover such a broad swath of the 

world and manage complex bilateral and multilateral relationships. 

It is by dint of your nimble, skillful diplomacy, and that of the 

teams of officers and specialists you lead, that the U.S. maintains 

the productive relationships throughout these vast regions. Even 

with countries, sometimes neighboring countries, that have serious 

points of conflict with one another, such diplomatic successes often 

requires to us take part or even take the lead at mediating disputes or negotiating resolutions to conflicts from far away. 

It is clear to me that the State Department’s skilled leadership 

in building alliances, resolving conflicts and crises makes the world 

a safer place. As Secretary Gates says, though, our investment in 

diplomacy not only achieves results, it does so on the cheap compared to the cost of military intervention to keep or restore peace. 

Our dynamic relationship with the countries and institutions of 

Europe are complex, to say the least. Transatlantic trade and investment bind us together in mutually beneficial relationships, creating jobs and wealth. Europe and the United States depend on one 

another’s political support and leadership to address natural and 

political crises, participating through the EU and NATO or bilaterally to address concerns for our field. 

Not surprisingly, therefore, of particular interest to me is our 

transatlantic partnership and how we and NATO and the EU 

members are coordinating efforts and influence to resolve crises 

that threaten global security. I will also be interested in hearing 

your views on the prospects of the frozen conflicts in the regions 

you cover. 

As the world watches with both excitement and trepidation of potential transformation of Northern Africa and the Middle East, 

questions arise about the effect that the movement for freedom and 

open societies might have in a place like Belarus, where Europe’s 

last dictator still holds sway. We want to assure our partners in 

Europe that they continue to be important to us and that we need 

each other to prosper and that we need one another to ensure global stability. 

Turning briefly to Central Asia, I accept the argument that Central Asia matters to the United States. This is most obvious in 

Pakistan and Afghanistan. And we appreciate all that Central 

Asian countries do to support the Northern Distribution Network. 

In my role as the ranking member, I look forward and know I 

will work together with Chairman Burton and do my best to deepVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EE\031011\65054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

en these relationships through engagement with parliamentarians 

and government officials. 

Finally, in the course of advancing the U.S. interests and securing peace and stability and in opening markets for U.S. trade and 

investment, in the past we sometimes forged unholy alliances. That 

is, we looked the other way at a government’s domestic policies regarding human rights, particularly minority and women’s rights or 

freedom of speech. We need to be sure, going forward, that the reliable partners with whom we seek to do business are also respectable partners; that along with our economic and political agenda, 

we advance and insist on respect for human and civil rights. 

So this committee has broad jurisdiction and indeed we are living 

history today. The camera of history is rolling on us. And I look forward to working together again with my colleague, Mr. Burton, on 

the other side of the aisle and my colleagues on our side, working 

together to make this place we call Earth a better place because 

we work together with our allies in Europe and Central Asia. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. 

Do any of the other members have opening statements they 

would like to make? You are recognized. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me compliment 

the staff for getting this room together in such a short period of 

time. They ran around pretty good to try to get this done. 

Thank you very much for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman, to 

assess American relations with Europe and Eurasia. Europe has 

and will continue to be a vital partner of the United States in addressing critical global challenges. On practically all major U.S. 

economic and foreign policy concerns, we have European allies for 

cooperation and leadership, U.S.-European cooperation in countries 

such as Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle East and Russia, and on 

counterterrorism will play an important role in our decision regarding future policies affecting these areas. 

While we may not agree on every aspect of every issue, our 

transatlantic partnership thrives due to our shared values, overlapping interests and similar goals. For this reason, the U.S. has long 

supported European efforts of political and economic integration. A 

stronger European Union is both in the best interest of America 

and the greatest way to force a stable and prosperous Europe. 

Moving forward, I think it will be critical for this subcommittee 

over the course of this Congress to evaluate such topics as transatlantic secured relations in respect to NATO and the effectiveness 

of such Europe-Atlantic security institutions, as well as focus on 

developments within Europe that undoubtedly have a profound effect on transatlantic relations such as the Eurozone debt crisis, the 

evaluation of the EU and reform efforts in the Balkans and states 

of the former Soviet Union. And I thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Eliot? 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you and welcome you as chairman. I am glad 

that I am serving on this panel. You and I have had many years 

together on this committee and, in fact, on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee where you were the chair and I was ranking, 

and then I was the chair and you were ranking, and we worked 

together. And one of the things that has always been the case is 

8

that we have shared so many common goals in terms of the way 

we would like to see the United States relate to our friends and 

neighbors, and even our adversaries as well. So I know you are 

going to do a great job. 

I want to welcome our Secretaries, both of whom do excellent 

jobs and both of whom I have had the pleasure of working with. 

And, you know, every region is important, but if there is a region 

that the United States has had a special relationship with through 

the years, it certainly has been our allies in Europe. And that is 

why we care so much about what goes on in Europe, we care so 

much about what happens in the European Union, even though we 

are obviously not members of the European Union. And I firmly believe that without the strong United States presence in Europe, we 

can’t always count on everyone, without us, to do the right thing. 

You know, as I have had discussions on one of my particular 

areas of concern, Kosovo and the Balkans, and I really just want 

to stress how important it is that I believe the United States has 

a presence at these meetings with the Kosovo-Serbia talks every 

step of the way. I think if the United States is not involved—I am 

not so sure we saw in Bosnia years ago, and then in Kosovo in 

1999, when the United States didn’t get involved, things tended not 

to go right. 

I also want to mention something that is on everyone’s mind; of 

course, that is Libya. And we know that anything that the United 

States does or doesn’t do in Libya should absolutely be coordinated 

with our allies in the region. It can’t be the United States doing 

something and looking again like it is off on its own. 

So I would be interested in hearing your comments which I am 

sure you will have on Libya, and also on the Balkans, with Kosovo 

in particular. 

Mr. Chairman, again I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chair—I want to call you Mr. 

Chairman again, Eliot. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, once was and hopefully will be again, you 

know. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. We are still looking for a few good people. 

Mr. BURTON. All right. Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary for 

South and Central Asian Affairs. His term of appointment was 

from May 2009 to now. He is a career Foreign Service Officer. Ambassador Blake entered the Foreign Service in 1985. He served at 

the American Embassies in Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria and Egypt, 

those troubled areas. He held a number of positions at the State 

Department in Washington, including senior desk officer for Turkey, Deputy Executive Secretary and Executive Assistant to the 

Under Secretary for Political Affairs. Ambassador Blake served as 

Deputy Chief of Missions at the U.S. Mission in New Delhi, India, 

from 2003 to 2006; as Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives, from 

2006 to 2009; as Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian 

affairs, from May until now. Mr. Blake earned his B.A.—why didn’t 

you go to a Big 10 school instead of Harvard? You have to settle 

for second rate? 

Ambassador BLAKE. Oh, dear. The oversight is starting already. 

Mr. BURTON. He went to Harvard and got his B.A. in 1980 and 

an M.A. in international relations from Johns Hopkins School of 

9

Advanced International Studies in 1984. And we will start with 

you Mr. Blake. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT O. BLAKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CENTRAL AND SOUTH ASIAN 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

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

members of the committee. I am really delighted to be here today 

to talk a little bit about our policy in Central Asia. At the outset, 

let me say that we really welcome both of your comments about 

working with us to deepen our engagement in Central Asia, which 

is such an important region for us in the world. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement, and I will just make 

a very short one and I will submit the longer one for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States has an important interest in 

promoting a stable, secure, democratic and prosperous Central 

Asia. These interests shape our core U.S. policy objectives which 

are encouraging Central Asia’s help in stabilizing Afghanistan, protecting democracy, combating narcotics trafficking, promoting balance to energy policies in nonproliferation, and fostering competitive market economies. 

Over the past 2 years we worked to broaden the atmosphere of 

trust and strengthen relations with the governments and people of 

Central Asia through annual bilateral consultations that we have 

instituted with each country. These constitute face-to-face structured dialogues based on a jointly developed comprehensive agenda 

that addresses the full spectrum of our bilateral priorities. 

We have conducted a thorough review of our assistance programs 

in Central Asia to ensure that they are closely linked with our priorities. The President’s fiscal 2012 budget request includes a 6 percent decrease in funding for the Central Asian region compared to 

budgeted levels for Central Asia in Fiscal Year 2010. 

Mr. Chairman, Central Asia plays a vital role in our Afghanistan 

strategy. The Northern Distribution Network is an important route 

for getting nonlethal supplies into Afghanistan for U.S. and coalition forces. In addition, the great majority of our troops in Afghanistan pass through the Manas Transit Center that you discussed 

with President Otunbayeva. 

This year we have focused on expanding the capacity of the 

Northern Distribution Network to offer multiple alternate routes 

for transiting our cargo into Afghanistan. 

Several Central Asian countries have also maintained their own 

assistance programs such as Kazakhstan’s effort to educate Afghan 

students and Uzbekistan’s and Turkmenistan’s provision of muchneeded electricity to Afghanistan. 

Let me briefly highlight key issues in each of these countries. 

Starting with Kazakhstan, our relationships with Kazakhstan 

are perhaps our deepest and broadest in Central Asia, with cooperation across a broad range of fields as diverse as nonproliferation, support to Afghanistan, energy and health. Kazakhstan has 

been a global leader on nuclear nonproliferation since its earliest 

days of independence and as Central Asia’s economic powerhouse. 

Kazakhstan will account for one of the largest increases in nonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EE\031011\65054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
10

OPEC supply to the global market in the next 10 to 15 years as 

its oil production doubles to reach 3 million barrels a day by 2020. 

We continue to encourage the government to enhance democracy, 

human rights and the role of civil society. Kazakhstan will hold 

early Presidential elections on April 3, 2011, and we in the international community see these elections as an important opportunity to strengthen the electoral process there. 

In Uzbekistan, over the past 2 years we have worked hard to 

build stronger relations with that important country. Uzbekistan 

remains a valued partner for its participation in NDN, its role in 

exporting reasonably priced electricity to Afghanistan and its construction of an important railway link into Afghanistan. 

We continue to encourage the Uzbek authorities to address significant human rights concerns, including ending forced child labor 

in the cotton harvest, opening up the media environment, curtailing abuses by security forces, and ending harassment of civil society and international NGOs. 

Helping Kyrgyzstan consolidate its successful transition last year 

to a parliamentary democracy remains a top priority for the United 

States. People around the region and beyond are watching closely 

and will make future judgments about the efficacy of democratic 

governance based on the success or failure of Kyrgyzstan. 

As you mentioned, President Otunbayeva just concluded a very 

productive visit to the United States this week, during which Secretary Clinton presented her and nine others with the International Women of Courage Award. We continue to monitor the potential for renewed ethic violence as tensions remain following violence in the south last June. In our actions with the government 

we have encouraged accountability, equal access to justice, respect 

for human rights and reconciliation. 

Tajikistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and a very 

fragile state in a volatile neighborhood. U.S. policy there is to support the country in maintaining stability and creating the conditions for economic and democratic development. With the resources 

that we put into our partnership with Tajikistan, we seek to help 

improve law enforcement and border security capabilities, increase 

food security, improve the health and education of its citizens, and 

build good governance. 

As our reports on human rights and on the investment climate 

and religious freedom have made clear, we have concerns about the 

pace and direction of political developments there, as well as restrictions on religious and media freedoms. These continue to be 

very important parts of our dialogue. 

Lastly, Turkmenistan is a country of growing importance as well 

to the United States. It has important hydrocarbon resources and 

is seeking alternative routes for distribution. One such project is 

the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-India-Pakistan, or TAPI, pipeline, 

which President Berdimuhamedov is taking a leading role in getting off the ground. 

We also appreciate Turkmenistan’s humanitarian help to its 

neighbor Afghanistan by providing discounted electricity, housing 

and other assistance. We continue to encourage the Turkmen Government to take concrete steps to fulfill its international obligaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EE\031011\65054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
11

tions on human rights, and we have offered assistance to help advance those goals. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion we see a future in which the United 

States and the countries of Central Asia will work closely together 

for peace, security, economic development, democracy and prosperity. Again, I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear 

today and look forward to working closely with you and your colleagues. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much Secretary Blake. I appreciate 

you giving us that comprehensive report. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake follows:]

12


65054a_1.eps
13


65054a_2.eps
14


65054a_3.eps
15


65054a_4.eps
16


65054a_5.eps
17


65054a_6.eps
18


65054a_7.eps
19


65054a_8.eps
20


65054a_9.eps
21

Mr. BURTON. We probably will have votes here in an another 15 

minutes. I want to apologize because we will have to break for 

votes. We will go ahead and go as far as we can, and then we will 

come back as soon as we get through the issues on the floor. 

Phil Gordon. Philip Gordon is the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. He was appointed in 2009, 

May. He was nominated as Assistant Secretary on March 6th of 

2009 and took the office in May. From 2000 to 2009 he was a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington where he focused on a wide range of European and U.S. foreign policy issues. 

Prior to joining Brookings, Dr. Gordon was director for European 

affairs at the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. At the NSC, he played a key role in developing and coordinating NATO policy in the run-up to the Alliance’s 50th anniversary summit in Washington, DC. He has also held teaching and research posts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 

London; the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington; INSEAD in Fontainebleau, 

France, and Singapore; and the German Society for Foreign Affairs 

in Bonn. 

Dr. Gordon has a Ph.D. and an M.A. in European studies from 

Johns Hopkins University and a B.A. in French and philosophy 

from Ohio University. His working languages include French, German, Italian and some Spanish. 

You are going to have to help me with some of that. My wife 

speaks four or five languages, and when she gets angry at me I 

never know what she is saying. 

He has published a number of books and articles on international 

relations and foreign policy and has been a frequent contributor to 

major publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, 

International Herald Tribune and Financial Times. Welcome. Dr. 

Gordon you have the floor. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHILIP H. GORDON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am also delighted to be here and I want to thank you and the rest of the comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EE\031011\65054 HFA PsN: SHIRL

65054a_10.eps
22

mittee for holding these important hearings. I have in the past, my 

bureau worked very closely and well with this committee, and I 

look forward to doing so under your chairmanship. I have also submitted a longer statement for the record. 

Mr. BURTON. Sure. 

Mr. GORDON. With your permission, I will just make a few brief 

remarks to kick us off here. I will start with a very simple point, 

which is that our engagement with Europe begins with the idea 

that the United States has a very daunting international agenda 

and we cannot possibly deal with it alone. And as we meet the 

challenges that we face, we have no better partner than Europe, 

where we work with democratic, prosperous, militarily capable allies who share our values and share our interests. As President 

Obama recently put it, Europe is ‘‘the cornerstone of our engagement with the world.’’

There are three basic objectives that stand out in our efforts for 

Europe. And I would like to talk a little bit about each. 

First, we work with Europe as a partner in meeting global challenges. No matter what the issue, whether it is the war in Afghanistan, efforts to contain the Iranian nuclear challenge, the situation 

in Libya that is evolving before our eyes today, Europe is a critical 

partner. 

Second, we are still working with Europe on Europe. That is to 

say, working to complete the historic project of helping to extend 

stability, democracy, and prosperity to the entire continent. Our 

work in promoting European integration is not yet done and the effort continues today in the Balkans, in Europe’s east, and in the 

Caucasus. 

Finally, we have sought to set relations with Russia on a more 

constructive course. Our goal has been to cooperate with Russia 

where we have some common interests, but not—let me be clear—

at the expense of our principles or our friends. 

When I look back at the last 2 years, the 2 years of the Obama 

administration, I think we can point to some significant developments and progress in each of these priority areas. On working 

with Europe on global challenges, we have pulled together as never 

before with our European partners. 

Just some specifics. In Afghanistan European countries now provide nearly 40,000 troops and the total European financial contribution to Afghanistan since 2001 comes to around $14 billion. 

In Iran, we have maintained unity in our efforts to engage and, 

at the same time, seen the strongest set of sanctions adopted by 

the U.N. Security Council and even more robust set of follow-on 

sanctions adopted by the European Union. 

On missile defense, NATO allies decided to develop a capability 

that will provide full coverage and protection from ballistic missile 

threats for all NATO European territory, population and forces. 

In North Africa and the Middle East, we are consulting and cooperating very closely with our European partners on a daily basis 

as the situation rapidly evolves. Working together in multilateral 

fora, we have joined with others to impose a U.N. arms embargo 

on Libya, to suspend Libya from the Human Rights Council, and 

we have closely coordinated at NATO, and we have coordinated adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EE\031011\65054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
23

ditional sanctions on Libya with the European Union and its member states. 

In the second area, extending the European zone of prosperity, 

stability and democracy, we have had some important successes 

but we are cognizant that important challenges also remain. 

In the Balkans, the United States and Europe strongly share the 

view that Europe will not be complete until all of the countries of 

the Western Balkans are fully integrated into Western institutions. 

On all of the issues in the region, including the dialogue between 

Serbia and Kosovo that began this week, but also on the question 

of the future of Bosnia, on Croatia’s path to the European Union, 

we continue to consult closely with Europe on what really is a joint 

project. 

In Belarus, we have had a joint response to the recent crackdown. Together, we have made very clear that business as usual 

will not continue as long as the suppression of civil society, the opposition, and independent media continues. The United States and 

the European Union have called for the immediate and unconditional release of all detainees and we have tightened sanctions, 

while at the same time reaching out to support the aspirations of 

civil society and the people of Belarus. 

In the Caucasus, our efforts with the European Union in the region have resulted in some progress, but disputes over territory remain and there is an ongoing need for further political and economic reform. 

In Georgia, steadfast engagement and generous assistance have 

aided in transforming Georgia into a developing democracy and an 

important partner to NATO in Afghanistan. Together, we will 

maintain our support for integrity and sovereignty within internationally recognized borders. 

Finally, in one of the most important parts of our European 

agenda, our reset with Russia, the policy has paid significant dividends. We think the results speak for themselves. We have completed a new START treaty, advancing our goals in the area of nonproliferation. We have signed an agreement for the transit of troops 

and materials across Russia in support of our efforts in Afghanistan. We have secured Russia’s cooperation in dealing with Iran 

and North Korea’s nuclear programs. We have done all of this, I 

will stress again, without compromising our principles; in particular, our steadfast commitment to the sovereignty and territorial 

integrity of all of the nations of Europe. 

Clearly there remains much work to be done on all of these 

issues. None of them is easy, particularly at a time of budgetary 

austerity. I am confident that the partnership between the United 

States and Europe, which has achieved so much and has received 

such welcome bipartisan support over the past decades, will 

achieve even greater things in the decades to come. I look forward 

to discussing it with you here today. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Dr. Gordon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

24


65054b_1.eps
25


65054b_2.eps
26


65054b_3.eps
27


65054b_4.eps
28


65054b_5.eps
29


65054b_6.eps
30

Mr. BURTON. I want to confine everybody to 5 minutes, including 

myself, because of the time constraints we are under. 

You just indicated, Secretary Gordon, or Dr. Gordon, that allies 

like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia haven’t been hurt because of 

our relationship with Russia. And there is a great deal of conjecture about that. So I would like for you to respond to that question. 

I would also like to know if you could give us an update on the 

tension between Georgia and Russia, since that whole area is of 

great concern to us. And with the Olympics coming up, we would 

like to see what the future holds. 

Mr. GORDON. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I mean, the Baltic states should obviously speak for themselves 

and their views of the reset and our relationship with Russia, but 

our sense is that they are satisfied that as we pursue a better relationship with Russia, there are benefits to their security as well. 

And I said in my statement that we have pursued this relationship 

with Russia out of our common interests. We feel that we do have 

some overlapping interests with Russia on nonproliferation, terrorism, containing Iran, Afghanistan, and that is to our mutual 

benefit. 

The part of it that we are equally insistent on is that none of it 

compromises in any way the view that Vice President Biden outlined when he first publicly used the word ‘‘reset’’ at the Munich 

Security Conference in 2009; that the states of Europe have the 

right to join the security alliance that they choose, and that the 

Baltic states have chosen to join NATO; there should be no spheres 

of influence within Europe. And we have exercised that policy 

through our strong support for Georgia. 

I mentioned our support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial 

integrity through our determination to continue to support the defense of Europe through missile defense deployments and NATO 

enlargement. 

Mr. BURTON. Your meetings and the Secretary’s meetings with 

the Russians, have they gone specifically into the issues that we 

just outlined? I mean, because the information that I get is there 

is continued tensions and pressure there, and that Russia continues to push these countries pretty hard. 

I just wondered, is the administration doing anything to let Russia know, especially in exchange for some of these treaties that we 

have made—some are questioned by many of us in Congress—that 


65054b_7.eps
31

they do not try to expand their sphere of influence like they did 

back in the old USSR days. 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can assure you that both 

publicly and directly, privately with the Russians, we make the 

same points. 

Mr. BURTON. Are you making any progress? 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, I think so. I think that the overall atmosphere 

with Russia is better. I think there is less of a zero-sum attitude 

among Russians. I would encourage you to look at some of the very 

interesting public opinion polling coming out of Russia about Russian views of the United States and Russian views of NATO. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, since I want to ask you some more questions 

during my time, if you could forward any information like that, 

that I could read, I would really appreciate it. 

Russia continues, as I understand it, to give Iran technology that 

is of great concern to us and has been doing it for a long time, and, 

you indicated, that Russia was working with us in a more compatible way. It still bothers me that they are doing business with Iran 

at a time when we have got sanctions against them and most of 

the free world does. 

Mr. GORDON. I did note that cooperation of Russia with Iran was 

one of the things that we felt was moving in a positive direction 

over the past year or so. 

Mr. BURTON. What does that mean? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, it means that they supported and voted with 

us on the Security Council Resolution 1929, which is the most aggressive set of sanctions that the international community has ever 

put on Iran; that whereas in the past, my bureau they had signed 

a deal to send S–300 air defense systems to Iran, which we have 

considered a potential threat, they stood down on the sale and publicly announced that in the wake of the U.N. Security Council Resolution that they joined us in supporting, that they won’t do that. 

We feel that is very important progress. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, it does sound like progress. Are they still 

doing business with and selling technology to Iran and other materials that might be of interest to us? 

Mr. GORDON. In terms of anything that would assist the Iranian 

nuclear program, we believe that they have absolutely abided by 

Resolution 1929. 

Mr. BURTON. You believe; you don’t have any guarantee of that? 

Mr. GORDON. We don’t have any evidence that they have——

Mr. BURTON. Does our intelligence indicate that—our intelligence 

agencies indicate——

Mr. GORDON. We don’t have any evidence that they have not 

been abiding by——

Mr. BURTON. Well, if you do have any, could we have that forwarded to the committee, especially if it is classified. 

I have one more question and then I will yield to my colleague. 

What is the status of the no-fly zone regarding Libya as far as our 

allies are concerned? Are they willing, able, and ready to assist us 

if we need to impose that kind of a situation on Libya? 

Mr. GORDON. As Secretary Clinton has pointed out, this is something that has been under active consideration both within the 

United States and with our allies. Just today in Brussels was a 

32

NATO Defense Ministers meeting. Last week NATO agreed to proceed for planning for a potential no-fly zone should our leaders decide that it would be effective in our interest to pursue, and Secretary Gates and his counterparts discussed that at NATO today. 

No decisions were taken and no decisions were meant to be taken. 

Mr. BURTON. Well—I will yield to my colleague. Let me just end 

by saying people are getting killed over there every day because 

they are fighting against Ghadafi for freedom. So I hope we will 

speed up the process. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. Again, thank you for your testimony, 

and you have a very ambitious, I think, agenda and priorities. And 

one of the questions I have: Are we able to provide the support to 

strengthen these developing democracies, especially in Central 

Asia, or to encourage the democratic initiatives in Belarus and others; especially given what had been proposed in cutbacks through 

the CR and in the budget next year? 

One of the things that we have noticed is that our allies in Britain have done, and they are suffering from the same kind of fiscal 

problem that we have, they have not cut their foreign budget at all 

and continue to move forward. So how are we going to do all of 

these things we are talking about given what the budget realities 

may be that we are looking at right now? 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Congressman Meeks, for raising that 

question which is vitally important, and it allows me to say how 

important it is that we maintain our assistance programs to these 

parts of Europe. 

As the chairman pointed out in his opening statement, we have 

indeed proposed for the 2012 budget a 14 percent cut. The President has asked all agencies to tighten their belts. We know how 

rigorous the budgetary picture is and we have done just that and 

are really looking very carefully at our assistance across the board 

in Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia, and we have proposed what 

we think is a significant cut. 

But we also need to underscore how important it is to maintain 

these assistance programs. It is not simple generosity, but it is in 

the core U.S. national interest to sustain the democracies that we 

have promoted for 20 years and who are now our partners. 

If you just take the countries in the part of Europe that are receiving our assistance in Central and Eastern Europe, they are 

contributing some 10,000 troops to Afghanistan because they are 

now more stable, democratic and capable allies who have joined the 

EU and NATO, and that investment is paying off. It is also part 

of the world where there are ongoing risks of narcotics trafficking, 

trafficking in persons, nonproliferation, and our assistance there 

helps secure our national interest by helping us to fight those problems as well. 

And finally, our assistance to these areas as they contribute to 

stability and prosperity helps create the growing economies that 

end up buying our goods and allowing us to export. So we want to 

be careful, even as we do tighten our budgets and make sure that 

all assistance is well spent, that at the same time we don’t sacrifice 

long-term interests for the sake of short-term cuts. 

33

Ambassador BLAKE. Let me just add on Central Asia, I think it 

is just to echo what Phil said, I think it is absolutely critical that 

we maintain our assistance to Central Asia at this particular moment. 

Let me give you a few examples of how our aid is really helping. 

First, as I mentioned in my testimony, all of these countries are 

providing assistance. Many of them are helping the Northern Distribution Network. Others are providing electricity in Afghanistan, 

which is a very, very important part of the stabilization effort. And 

then others are providing things like scholarships and so forth. 

Secondly, several of the central Asian countries are quite unstable and face internal threats, particularly Tajikistan. That is our 

second largest form of assistance in Central Asia, and our assistance directly addresses the roots of poverty and the roots of instability and the isolation, the poverty, the degraded health and education systems, the poor governance, corruption. I think all of these 

will really make a difference. It is very, very important to continue 

those programs. 

Lastly, I think our assistance was quite important in one of our 

signature democratic successes, which was the emergence of a parliamentary democracy last year in Kyrgyzstan. And our assistance, 

I am really proud to say, played an important role in that. We 

funded candidate debates, we helped the police to understand how 

to better manage the whole process so that they could do this in 

a way that peaceful democratic elections would result. That did 

happen. 

We provided extensive training and monitoring in vote tabulation. As a result of that, these elections came off very peacefully 

and they were judged free and fair. Our assistance is well spent, 

well targeted, and definitely should be maintained. 

Mr. MEEKS. Let me just ask this question real quick in the time 

I have left. And I think, as Mr. Engel has stated earlier, one of the 

things that I think is important when we talk about what is happening in Northern Africa is that previously we got stuck with 

going it alone and disregarding our allies. In fact, that is the last 

time that we had trouble with a number of our longstanding allies 

in Europe, because we didn’t consult them and they looked at us 

as though we don’t consider them or they became valueless to us. 

So my hope is, and I think that as we are doing this, have we 

talked with our NATO allies now, trying to figure out what they 

are doing and what we can do together for the betterment of all 

of us? 

Ambassador BLAKE. Well, let me just speak for the Central Asia. 

Last year, when we ramped up our democracy assistance to 

Kyrgyzstan to help prepare for the elections, we closely coordinated 

with the EU, with the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and with other key donors to make sure that 

we weren’t duplicating efforts and, in fact, we were all working together as one team. I think that was very, very effective. And we 

are doing that across the board. We are doing that in Tajikistan 

as well, where we found that in fact Tajikistan on a per capita 

basis gets less assistance than many of the sub-Saharan African 

countries. 

34

Mr. BURTON. If you could send additional information to Congressman Meeks, it would be helpful. 

Ambassador BLAKE. Sure. 

Mr. BURTON. I am trying to make sure everybody gets to ask 

questions. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I have one question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you so much for your important testimony today. As cochair 

of the Hellenic Caucus and as a strong advocate of the State of 

Israel, I have been working enthusiastically to enhance the bonds 

between the two countries. As such, I was pleased that Cyprus and 

Israel signed an agreement delineating the exclusion of economic 

zone just last year. The agreement allows these two neighbors to 

forge ahead in the search for energy sources in the eastern Mediterranean. 

Recently discovered evidence of major gas finds off the shores of 

Israel and Cyprus have been very promising. Given the importance 

that we all attach to the need for the diversification of sources and 

routes of energy supplies, this is a significant and timely development. I am sure you will agree. 

Not everyone was pleased, however, after the EEZ was made. 

Turkey expressed dismay and suggested that such a bond between 

Israel and Cyprus was not lawful. Will you confirm that it is the 

right of the two countries to proceed with exploration without interference from a third party? 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you. We are also encouraged by the development of ties between Cyprus and Israel. I was in Athens just this 

week and heard about those positive developments, and I was in 

Nicosia the week before and heard much about the energy developments, which we think are a positive thing. 

We are also encouraged that an American firm is playing a major 

role in renewable energy in this development, and we support such 

development to promote energy diversity in Europe and relations 

between Cyprus and Israel. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The two countries have the right to proceed; is 

that correct? 

Mr. GORDON. As far as I understand the two countries have the 

right to proceed. 

Mr. BURTON. We have been 71⁄2 minutes on the clock. Do you 

have a question? 

Mr. SIRES. Could you describe to me to what extent European 

countries are implementing their sanctions on Iran? 

Mr. GORDON. As I noted in my testimony, Iran is one of the examples of how our cooperation has progressed. As I noted, in addition to supporting the additional—the U.N. Sanctions on Iran, 

UIVSCR 1929, the EU separately passed complementary sanctions. 

And all evidence we have is that they are implementing those sanctions vigorously and cooperating with our own national legislation 

in terms of sanctions on Iran. 

Mr. SIRES. Can you talk about the impact that the EU defense 

budget cuts are going to have on NATO and our relationship? 

Many people are concerned it will wind up on us to carry NATO. 

Can you talk a little bit about that? 

35

Mr. GORDON. We have consistently underscored the importance 

of maintaining significant defense spending as we face all of these 

challenges. We talk about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, 

Egypt. The world faces significant instability and it is not a time 

for countries to be getting out of the defense and security business. 

We have encouraged NATO allies to spend around at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. And I have to say not a whole lot, 

or many of them, are falling short of that goal. So we are in constant discussions with them, and I can assure you that Secretary 

Gates, today in Brussels, will have raised that issue as well. 

Mr. SIRES. Is there concern about the U.K. and Germany to carry 

the brunt of it? 

Mr. GORDON. Even some who have traditionally been in the forefront, everyone is facing tight budgets, and obviously we understand that. We are, too. We are looking carefully at our defense 

budget. But we are also collectively reminding ourselves that in 

this unstable world, countries need to maintain capabilities. 

Mr. BURTON. We have about 5 minutes. We will come back after 

the votes. I hate to keep you gentlemen here. We will probably be 

about 25 or 30 minutes. I apologize for that, but we shall return. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURTON. First of all, I apologize because we had so much 

going on over there. There is one thing about being in the Congress, like being in the agencies of government, your life is not your 

own. Why does everybody want this job? I don’t understand it. 

While we are waiting, maybe you can elaborate on where our allies stand on the no-fly zone. I know there has been discussions. 

But every day that we wait, those people are firing into the air 

with weapons that won’t reach a jet. And I also would like to know 

where those planes are coming from. I have been told by some people in the military that those planes are coming from Syria, that 

Syria is providing some of the jets that are doing the attacking of 

the civilians on the ground. If you could give me a little enlightenment on that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. GORDON. Picking up on what we were discussing earlier, I 

did say that this was something under active consideration both 

here and with our allies. At NATO today, defense ministers agreed 

on certain principles as we think about options before us, and they 

agreed that for NATO to act there would have to be a demonstrable 

need for NATO, there would have to be a clear legal basis for action, and there would have to be regional support. And that is one 

thing that we have put a significant emphasis on as well. We want 

to do this together with partners and we don’t want to go it alone. 

The regional partners and our NATO allies would be critical in any 

type of enforcement operation. 

So on the specific question of the no-fly zone, as I said, it is something we are actively studying and NATO is actively planning for 

so that our leaders, if they choose to move in that direction, will 

know what the options are. 

As for Syria, I have no information of outside planes, but I would 

defer to colleagues covering the Middle East and North Africa on 

that question. 

Mr. BURTON. We will check on that. When we talked the other 

day, Secretary Blake, about Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and all 

36

the area out there, there is only one democracy, true democracy, 

and that came about as a result of the revolution. I think it was 

last April. 

Ambassador BLAKE. Correct. 

Mr. BURTON. Eighty-nine people were killed. And the President 

was very engaging, the lady. 

Can you give us an update on those other surrounding countries? 

I think next week I am having a meeting with the Ambassador 

from Kazakhstan and that certainly doesn’t appear to be anything 

like a democratic country. And I would like to know your analysis 

of that while we are waiting on my colleagues. 

Ambassador BLAKE. I would say that, as you say, Kyrgyzstan is 

definitely the country that has made by far the most progress with 

these free and fair elections that took place and now has a parliamentary democracy there. I think Kazakhstan is the next furthest along in terms of progress they have made. 

Mr. BURTON. What do you mean furthest along? 

Ambassador BLAKE. I think they have a pretty active civil society 

that we meet with regularly. The civil society has a role now and 

is consulted on, for example, draft legislation. And there are elections that do take place. But the opposition is very weak. 

Mr. BURTON. What is the percentage that the winner gets? 

Ambassador BLAKE. Exactly. Very high. 

Mr. BURTON. 98 percent? 

Ambassador BLAKE. I don’t know if it is that high. We will see. 

President Nazarbayev could have an election coming up now on 

April 3rd. So we will see. But we and the OSC and others will be 

sending monitors there to try to ensure a fair electoral process. 

And I think there is a reasonably good chance there will be a fair 

process. 

In other countries, I would say there are considerably more concerns. All of these countries are still led by leaders who were part 

of the ex-Soviet Union. They are frankly suspicious of democracy 

in some cases. And many of them were, I think, concerned about 

what happened in Kyrgyzstan and afraid that it was going to cause 

unrest in their own countries. We didn’t see that. 

But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that democracy and human 

rights and religious freedom and trafficking in persons are all very 

important parts of our dialogue with each one of these countries. 

I think now we have gotten to the point where we have very good 

conversations about these things. They don’t resist having those 

talks. But I have to say we haven’t made too much progress other 

than Kyrgyzstan. And partly that is because they are afraid of the 

situation in Afghanistan as well. They feel that they need to maintain very tight controls because of the situation there. 

So this is hard. This is something that we are working hard on. 

We have tried, frankly, to try to leverage the situation in Tunisia 

and Egypt, to make the case to them that all leaders around the 

world need to study very closely what has happened in Egypt and 

Tunisia. And all of them need to be sure that their political and 

economic systems respond to the aspirations of their young people 

and that they address things like corruption. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, one——

37

Ambassador BLAKE. This is again a very important part of our 

dialogue. 

Mr. BURTON. One more thing and then I will yield to my colleague, Mr. Engel. You know we are going to go over there because 

at your suggestion, we really need to get over in that area, which 

is 9 million miles from here, but we are willing to——

Ambassador BLAKE. It is worth it. 

Mr. BURTON. I hope the food is good. 

Now, you talk about Kazakhstan. Can you tell me a little bit 

about Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, as well as Tajikistan as far 

as the totalitarian aspects of those governments? And the other 

part of that is, do the radical fundamentalist Muslims, like alQaeda and the Taliban, do they have any influence in those areas? 

And if so, how much? 

Ambassador BLAKE. I would say that there are groups that are 

affiliated with al-Qaeda, like the IMU, the Islamic Movement of 

Uzbekistan. They very much target these governments, particularly 

Uzbekistan, but also to a more limited extent Tajikistan. And there 

are other groups that are based in Pakistan particularly that are 

actively seeking to undermine these governments. So an important 

part of our dialogue also with these countries is to help with border 

security, counternarcotics, and other forms of counterterrorist assistance. Because as they are helping us in Afghanistan, they have 

become more of a target in terms of retribution from some of these 

groups. So this is an important part of our cooperation with these 

countries and you will see that reflected in our assistance priorities. 

Mr. BURTON. One more thing real quick. And that is Iran borders 

Turkmenistan and Afghanistan as well, as you know. And that to 

me sounds like it may be one of the first targets, if it isn’t already 

a target, of the Iranian Government. Do you see any indication 

that they are moving aggressively north there? 

Ambassador BLAKE. I don’t see any indication of that, in part because Turkmenistan has maintained a policy of what they call positive neutrality and they try to again stay very neutral in all of 

these various territorial disputes and maintain good relations with 

all of these countries. They do implement the U.N. sanctions 

against Iran. But at the same time, since they have a very substantial border with Iran, they have to maintain a dialogue with them. 

And for that same reason, they are more careful about what they 

do with respect to Afghanistan. As I say, they have been providing 

electricity and things like that. That is mostly what they do in 

terms of support for efforts there. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Engel, do you have some questions? 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very 

much. In my opening remarks, I mentioned the ongoing talks between Serbia and Kosovo. I frankly am happy. I hope that these 

talks will eventually be a basis where the two countries can reconcile. Last month I wrote a bipartisan letter to President Obama, 

cosigned by many members of this committee, bipartisan—I think 

Mr. Burton signed it as well. I may be wrong, but I think he did—

urging that the United States make Kosovo and the southern Balkans a priority. The letter said it is important that we play a leading role in any talks between Serbia and Kosovo and that we work 

38

with our friends in the EU to ensure that Kosovo has a future 

which will allow integration into the key Euro-Atlantic structures. 

I have no objection to Serbia joining the EU. I just want Serbia and 

Kosovo to join the EU. And I don’t want Serbia to go into the EU 

before Kosovo because then Serbia could block Kosovo, as is happening in the United Nations now. 

So could you please talk about that, Secretary Gordon? The Serbia-Kosovo talks just started and Deputy Assistant Secretary Countryman is there. So tell us all about that. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you very much for raising this issue, and I 

think I can confidently tell you it is indeed a priority of the administration, something we have focused very heavily on. You mentioned the talks that are underway this week. And like you, we are 

encouraged by this. This is the first time that the leaders—that 

representatives of these countries have sat down at a table since 

the conflict and started to work practically on the issues that they 

need to sort out to move forward. Some fundamental differences obviously remain. But the first step in the process is to engage and 

to start to take steps and improve the lives of people in both countries. 

So we are encouraged by that. We are also involved. You said 

you thought it was important for the United States to be involved. 

We have been very much engaged from the start. These are EUfacilitated talks. And that is appropriate, as you said, the big factor 

in this, an incentive for both countries to move in the right direction of EU membership. We find that appropriate. 

But as I said, in my opening statement, we work very closely 

with the EU across the board and certainly on this issue, as you 

noted, Deputy Assistant Secretary Countryman is there now. 

It is worth underscoring the background to these talks as well, 

which stem in part from the results of the International Court of 

Justice opinion last summer that ruled consistent with what we argued before the Court, that there was nothing in Kosovo’s declaration of independence that was inconsistent with international law. 

And in the wake of that opinion, which we wholeheartedly agreed 

with, the European Union took the lead and we were pleased that 

Serbia agreed in the context of a U.N. General Assembly resolution 

to have these EU-facilitated talks with strong support from the 

United States. 

So that is pointing in the right direction. We are not at all naive 

about the difficulties that remain. But getting the countries to sit 

down and start working the practical issues together is a very positive thing. 

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ENGEL. Certainly. 

Mr. BURTON. Because I don’t want to get off this subject since 

you have already raised it. We were just over there and we were 

in Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia. And one of the big concerns 

that the Serbs have is that in the northern part of Kosovo and the 

southern part of Serbia, you have some real flash points. There is 

a lot of Serbs who live in northern Kosovo and the monasteries and 

churches there have been attacked in the past and destroyed as 

they have been in Bosnia. And the reason that the Serbs have been 

so concerned is the gentleman who is in charge of security there 

39

for Kosovo, as I understand it, was one of the leaders of the movement that did some destruction of churches and monasteries. And 

the only reason I bring this up is because stabilizing that region 

is, as my colleague has just said, is extremely important. And I 

would just like to know if there has been any progress made between the two. 

I know the Serbs don’t even want to recognize Kosovo yet because that is still an undecided area, it is still in question. And if 

Serbia is going to become a member of the EU, there is going to 

have to be a resolution of that problem. And Serbia is scared to 

death that those people who live in northern Kosovo are going to 

be under attack and those churches and monasteries will. 

So as a follow-up to my colleague—and I will yield back to him—

I would like to know what we are doing and what can be done to 

make sure that there is stabilization in that area? 

Mr. GORDON. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an 

important issue to us and to the parties. You are right that there 

are significant numbers of ethnic Serbs who live in northern 

Kosovo. It has always been our view and it is the view of the Government of Kosovo that there should be a significant amount of 

self-government and also—and this was critically important from 

the start—that all of the Serb religious and cultural sites should 

be preserved and protected. And we have played a role, the international community in our presence has played a role in that process, but we also think the Government of Kosovo is committed to 

that as well, ensuring that these sights—that Serbs have access to 

these sites and that, as I say, they are preserved and protected. 

That has been a fundamental premise of ours going in and it remains so. 

Mr. BURTON. If I might follow up just real quickly and then I will 

yield back to my colleague. I think it is important that while we 

are involved in negotiations, even though we are not part of the 

EU, we do have some influence and we are going to be going over 

to Brussels before long to talk to our counterparts in the EU. But 

it seems to me that there ought to be a provision that is raised by 

the EU members that if there is violence—and there has been attacks on the Serbs in northern Kosovo and more destruction of 

churches and monasteries—that will weigh heavily on the decision 

to become a part of the EU. 

I yield back to my colleague. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I would just like to mention that I agree 

with Mr. Burton and I disagree. First of all, attacking anybody’s religious institutions is abhorrent and should be condemned by everybody. I have been a supporter of Kosovo independence for the 22 

years I have been in Congress. And early on, I was talking about 

monasteries in Kosovo have to be protected just the way frankly 

mosques needed to be protected when Milosevic, the head of Serbia, 

ruled Kosovo because you can point out tit-for-tat that is the Balkans. I think that these should all be preserved. And just the way 

there are Serbs in northern Mitrovica, which is at the northern 

part as you mention, Mr. Burton, there are also a number of Albanians in the Presheva Valley, which is in Serbia, which is just 

below. Unfortunately, in the Balkans, you always have a situation. 

And my feeling is once you start transferring authority in the BalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EE\031011\65054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
40

kans, where does it end? You have got Republika Srpska, you have 

got the Croats together in Bosnia, you have got a huge Albanian 

presence in Macedonia. And where does it end? I would hope that 

Kosovo will remain a multi-ethnic community with an Albanian 

majority, of course with minority rights. And the new government 

that was formed in Kosovo just recently, the Serb parties are an 

integral part of that majority in that government. And we have 

found that the majority of Serbs in Kosovo don’t live on the northern stretch. They actually live throughout the country and they are 

participating more and more in the fabric of Kosovo’s democracy. 

So I would hope that would be true ultimately for the Serb population in North Mitrovica, that they would see that there is room 

for them to participate democratically in Kosovo because after all 

that is where they live. But when we talk about the Balkans, it always goes back generations and generations. 

So the point I wanted to make, Secretary Gordon—you and I 

have talked about this. And I really just want to commend you and 

the administration for being on top of it—is that I have felt—and 

I know Mr. Burton agrees with me because we have talked about 

this—that when the United States is sort of not totally engaged 

suddenly in Europe—it happened in Bosnia, as far as I am concerned because we weren’t engaged until we had the bombing, and 

it happened in Kosovo in 1999. And our strong presence just needs 

to be there. And again, I want fairness for Serbs and fairness for 

Albanians and fairness for Croats and everyone else. But I think 

we have to be there. Because if we are not, we are not going to get 

fairness. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you very much. I would like to say, first of 

all, thank you for your support on these issues. We have made 

progress on the issue of international recognition, in part, thanks 

to your vigorous efforts, which match ours. I also want to say that 

what you have described in terms of representation for the Serbs 

in Kosovo is our policy. We were encouraged when Kosovo—because we want to support a multi-ethnic democracy in Kosovo and 

elsewhere—when Kosovo moved to organize voting in municipalities that were majority Serbs, as you know very well, there was a 

lot of skepticism about whether the Serbs would vote. They did 

vote. They elected mayors. And I have had the chance to meet with 

those mayors, as has the Vice President and the Secretary of State, 

on trips to Kosovo. And it was very encouraging to see that in this 

country, a minority ethnic group can feel it was represented and 

have a voice in the democracy. And that is exactly what we wanted 

to see. And, so it is what we would like to see in North Mitrovica 

as well. 

My last point, if I might just again agree with you on the question of engagement, even with lots of other important things going 

on in the world, the United States needs to be present. And I made 

a reference to the Vice President traveling there, the Secretary 

traveling there, to Deputy Secretary Steinberg, a number of times 

and I have been there multiple times, including with them, we are 

very much focused and engaged. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I am wondering if I could switch to another topic. And that is Turkey. I know it was mentioned before 

by—Mr. Bilirakis had mentioned some concerns. And I do have a 

41

concern about Turkey’s switch when it comes to Israel. Turkey at 

one time, as we know, was aligned very strongly both in terms of 

military and other ways with Israel, and lately Turkey has been 

very hostile. I wondered if you could just comment on that. We all 

know what has happened. Some of us met with the Turkish Foreign Minister a couple of months ago. It was very unsatisfying, I 

must say. And it just kind of annoys me with what I view as hypocrisy—it is not a very good diplomatic word. But Turkey condemns 

Israel for attacking terrorists in Gaza when Turkey feels it can just 

go over the border into Iraq and get at what they feel are Kurdish 

terrorists. They condemn Israel for what they view as occupation 

of lands. Turkey has occupied Northern Cyprus since 1973. And 

that Turkey talks about apologies for the flotilla. They want apologies from Israel. We can’t get Turkey to apologize for the Armenian 

genocide. 

So I think that the policies of Turkey and their actions are very 

troublesome, particularly since they are a NATO member. 

Mr. GORDON. Congressman, we regret the recent deterioration in 

relations between the two countries. A positive development in relations between Turkey and Israel in the 1990s is one of the more 

encouraging things we saw in the Middle East throughout that period. The majority Muslim country, the Jewish state reaching 

across and expanding military cooperation, intelligence cooperation, 

economic cooperation, tourism was all flourishing. And that was a 

real signal throughout the reason that countries, regardless of the 

majority of religion or ethnicity, could cooperate. 

Relations have taken a significant turn for the worst. They were 

already afraid somewhat over differences in the region and on 

Turkish position on Gaza and on Iran, but they really took a turn 

for the worse, as you pointed out, over the Mavi Marmara incident. 

And we have encouraged both sides to talk directly. They have a 

very different view of what happened. But they shouldn’t let that 

different view stand in the way of—as I say, it was a historic relationship. And we have encouraged the two sides and they have had 

direct talks, which they need to do, to not let this incident stand 

in the way of a critically important relationship in the region. 

Mr. ENGEL. My last question, if I might, involves—when the Soviet Union fell, I was one of the people on the committee, and again 

as was Mr. Burton, because I remember talking about it, that we 

encouraged NATO to expand. And I thought that the sooner NATO 

did that, the better because in X amount of years you don’t know, 

with Russia, whether it would be possible. And it seems like the 

last two countries that have been talked about possibly getting in 

NATO were the Ukraine and Georgia. I know there has been 

changes in Ukraine and Georgia. And, of course, now with the situation with Russia, it seems almost like an impossibility. If we 

hadn’t brought the Baltic countries, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia 

into NATO when we did, does anyone think that we would have 

been able to bring them into NATO now? It would have been impossible. 

So I just wanted to ask you for your assessment of both Georgia, 

I just met with the new Georgian Ambassador, and Ukraine, and 

what is going on there. I know Georgia is helping us in a lot of different ways. I believe in Afghanistan and in other ways. And the 

42

Ukraine seems to be a country that is sort of ripped in half. I wonder if you can comment on those two. 

Mr. GORDON. Looking back, I couldn’t agree with you more that 

NATO enlargement is a positive thing. We did the right thing. We 

brought these countries into the alliance. There were questions 

about it at the time, but I think we can confidently say, first of all, 

it didn’t, as many feared or speculated, ruin our relationship with 

Russia. But on the contrary, it has helped stabilize and consolidate 

democracy throughout Europe’s East. It is true for the Baltic 

states, for the Central Europeans and those who have joined NATO 

since the end of the Cold War, most recently Albania and Croatia 

expanding NATO’s—under this administration—expanding NATO’s 

reach into the Balkans. 

Ukraine and Georgia, I think, are very different cases. Both have 

relationships with NATO. There is a commission for each, and we 

have a process going on with both countries to help them with defense reform and strengthen their relationship with the alliance 

and their contributions, particularly in the case of Georgia, to Afghanistan, which we very much welcome. Ukraine is now less interested, under this government, in joining NATO than it was 

under the previous government. And our view is simple. We are 

very clear that countries in Europe have the right to choose their 

own security alliances. And when they meet the criteria, if they are 

interested and NATO would be strengthened by their membership, 

they should join. But if they are not interested, it is the prerogative 

of the government to decide not to pursue that. 

So we still have a NATO-Ukraine Commission that meets regularly. It is going to meet in April at the ministerial in Berlin. And 

the same is true on Georgia. The NATO-Georgia Commission will 

meet in Berlin. We support Georgia’s aspirations. And when Georgia has met the criteria and allies have a consensus to bring Georgia in, it should be allowed to join NATO as well. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Engel, you asked some 

very good questions and I want you to know that because of your 

eloquence, we allowed you triple what the other members were getting. 

Mr. ENGEL. You are a good man, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Yeah. Thank you. It is easy to get accolades from 

him, isn’t it? 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of that, I will 

claim a third less time. 

Secretary Blake, I would like to discuss the influence of Iran—

it is widely known they are trying to gain influence—there was a 

meeting just days ago, I think, between the Kazakh Ambassador 

and the Iranian Prime Minister. Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are 

the places where it has widely been reported that the Iranians 

exert some influence. If you could speak to the extent of these efforts and the extent to which they have been successful as well? 

Ambassador BLAKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutch. I would 

say that Iran is actually not a major player in Central Asia. By far, 

the more influential countries are Russia and China and now I 

would say the United States as well. I think it is partly because 

43

Iran is very focused on kind of challenges inside its own country. 

But I will say that all of the countries in Central Asia share our 

concern about Iran’s potential acquisition of nuclear weapons, and 

I think they would consider that a very destabilizing development 

were that to occur. 

So I think they quietly support what we are trying to do. Iran 

has some historical ties to Tajikistan, so you will see from time to 

time visits taking place between those two countries. But again, I 

think in terms of our own diplomacy, we are focusing very much 

on coordinating very closely with the Russians, and I think that 

there has been quite good cooperation between the United States 

and Russia in Central Asia. 

And then we are trying to do more with the Chinese as well. I 

am going out myself to China to have consultations about Central 

Asia and South Asia with the Chinese to hopefully get them to particularly help our efforts in Afghanistan, but also just to learn more 

about what their policies and plans are in Central Asia. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Let me come at it in a different direction then. I 

understand that the focus is on Russia and that the Iranians are 

concerned about what is going on in their country. So let us talk, 

then, about the support we are getting from those countries and 

the concern that you expressed, that they share with the United 

States about the Iranian nuclear program. 

Ambassador BLAKE. I cannot really say that they are too actively 

involved in pushing this issue. I think they are content to let the 

P5-plus-1 and others carry the ball on this. They have a strong 

view that other countries should not get involved in the internal affairs of other countries on matters like this. But again, I think they 

have been—all of them have respected and implemented U.N. Security Council Resolution 929. This is something that we follow 

very, very closely. 

And we are encouraging developments like the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline because that is a very good alternative to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. So this is something 

that has just come about. You may have heard that the 

Turkmenistan President, President Berdymukhammedov hosted a 

meeting in December where they had achieved an intergovernment 

memo agreement on this pipeline and they are moving ahead on 

that. So again, I think that could be a very welcomed development 

for the region and can provide a much needed source of gas for 

India and its growing economy. 

Mr. DEUTCH. One more question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Gordon, last summer, the EU adopted this series of sanctions to confront Iran’s intransigence. In September, the Treasury 

Department sanctioned the Iranian Bank, EIH, which is incorporated in Germany. To this point, it is my understanding the Germans have failed to act against EIH. 

Can you tell us whether they are pressing Germany to act and 

will the United States sanction foreign banks and companies that 

continue to do business with EIH? 

Mr. GORDON. We have raised this matter with the German Government, which under its laws has no basis for shutting EIH. But 

we believe that as a general matter they are fully cooperating with 

44

us on stopping banking transactions with Iran and that EIH, while 

not closed in Germany, has significantly been contained. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BURTON. Let me make one real brief comment, and then I 

yield for one more question from my good buddy here, Mr. Meeks. 

You said Iran is mainly concerned with problems inside of their 

borders. 

Ambassador BLAKE. With respect to Central Asia. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, I don’t buy that. They are working with Chavez. They have got flights going back and forth every week. Supposedly they are talking about buying uranium from Venezuela. 

There is also indications from sources I have—I talked to Ollie 

North last night, who is over there all the time. And there is indications that Syria at the behest and with Iran’s blessing is working 

over in Libya with their weapons, with their airplanes. And so it 

is hard for me to believe that Iran, who has I think not only regional but possibly global goals, that they are not concerned about 

that entire region. 

Ambassador BLAKE. Sorry. I wasn’t clear, Senator—Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. You can call me Senator. Well, I don’t want to be 

compared to the lower House over there on the other side. But I 

was a state Senator. So I will allow that. Go ahead. 

Ambassador BLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I meant that they were not 

involved really in Central Asia at all. Obviously, we have tremendous concerns about Iran’s support for terrorism around the world 

but particularly in the Middle East. We have tremendous concerns 

about their destabilizing efforts in many, many parts of the world, 

but not in Central Asia. They really aren’t that big——

Mr. BURTON. Well, I am going over there. I hope you are right 

and I hope you go with me. Are you going to go with me when I 

go over there? 

Ambassador BLAKE. It depends on when you go, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. I was going to have you buy dinner. Can he buy 

me dinner? I don’t think he can. The rules won’t allow that. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. One quick question. I just think—and I also thank 

you for your testimony and for your time and patience today. The 

one area that we may have missed and I just wanted to ask that 

quickly is the question of democratization in the Ukraine. And we 

know that since the last election, there has been some selective 

prosecutions of individuals who were with the minority at that 

point. It was a narrowly won election, some rollbacks of freedom of 

the press and other things. Could you just give us a quick update 

on what is going on in the Ukraine? 

Mr. GORDON. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. It is something 

we are watching very carefully. The Ukraine is a big and important 

country in Europe and when we talk about our desire to see democracy and prosperity spread throughout Europe, Ukraine is a critical 

piece of that. And I have to say that we have concerns about the 

direction Ukraine has been heading on the democracy front. The 

government that came in last year was freely and fairly elected, 

and it showed that Ukraine could have a transition of power based 

on democracy and the will of the people, which is exactly the right 

45

thing. And that government stressed the priority and emphasis it 

would put on democracy. 

But there have been questions about reform of the electoral law, 

about recent municipal elections and also about the issue raised 

which is the perception of potentially selective prosecutions, and we 

raised that directly with the Ukranian Government. We have a 

good and open and transparent relationship with them. We just 

had a meeting of the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership Commission, where Secretary Clinton was able to sit down directly with 

Foreign Minister Gryshchenko and have a good and frank discussion of this very issue. But I can tell you, Mr. Meeks, she did raise 

it because it is something we are concerned about and we really 

need to see Ukraine doing the right thing on democracy. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, I want to thank you very much for your patience, first of all with a broken door and waiting in my office and 

then coming over here and having to wait for at least an hour for 

us to get back. I want to thank everybody in the audience for their 

patience as well. We will be back in touch with you and really appreciate your testimony. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

48


65054n.eps
49


65054m.eps
50

[NOTE: No responses were received by the subcommittee to the above questions 

prior to printing.]

Æ


65054d.eps