S. HRG. 110–777 

NOMINATIONS OF THE 110TH 

CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 30 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

NOMINATIONS OF THE 110TH CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION 

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

48–281 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–777 

NOMINATIONS OF THE 110TH 

CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 30 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

110TH CONGRESS—FIRST SESSION

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire* 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, Jr., Republican Staff Director

*Note: Reassigned to Committee on Finance January 24, 2008. 

—————

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

110TH CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming* 

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, Jr., Republican Staff Director

*Note: Appointed February 12, 2008. 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

[Any additional material relating to these nominees may be found 

at the end of the applicable day’s hearing.] 

Page 

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 

Ameri, Goli, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural 

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 3 

Glassman, James, to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy ........... 7 

Kramer, David, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor ................................................................................................. 4 

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 

Jones, Deborah, to be Ambassador to Kuwait ....................................................... 62 

Moriarty, to be Ambassador to Bangladesh .......................................................... 58 

Scobey, Margaret, to be Ambassador to Egypt ...................................................... 52 

Thursday, February 7, 2008 

Grieco, Jeffrey, to be an Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development ................................................................................. 89 

Guevara, Ana, to be the Alternate Executive Director of the World Bank ......... 93 

Morales, Hector, to be the Permanent Representative to the Organization 

of American States ............................................................................................... 87 

Walther, Larry, to be the Director of the Trade and Development Agency ........ 94 

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 

Barrett, Barbara McConnell, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Finland ...... 119 

Ghafari, Yousif Boutrous, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia .......... 123 

McEldowney, Nancy, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Bulgaria .................. 136 

Urbancic, Frank, to be Ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus ........................... 133 

Volker, Kurt, to be the U.S. Permanent Representative on the Council of 

NATO .................................................................................................................... 127 

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 

Haslach, Patricia M., to be United States Senior Coordinator for the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum ................................................... 178 

Marciel, Scot A., to be United States Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs ............... 175 

Stephens, D. Kathleen, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Korea ............ 165 

Todd, William E., to be Ambassador to the State of Brunei Darussalam .......... 172 

(III) 

Page

IV 

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 

Callahan, Robert, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Nicaragua .............. 221 

Cianchette, Peter, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Costa Rica ............ 243 

Hodges, Heather, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Ecuador .................. 219 

Llorens, Hugo, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Honduras .................... 216 

McFarland, Stephen, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Guatemala ....... 224 

Speck, Samuel, to be the Commissioner for the United States on the United 

States-Canadian—United States-Canada International Joint Commission ... 246 

Stephenson, Barbara, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Panama ........... 239 

Monday, April 28, 2008 

Burns, William J., to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs .............. 279 

Jacobs, Janice L., to be Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs ......... 281 

McMahan, Vance, to be the U.S. Representative on the Economic and Social 

Council of the United Nations ............................................................................ 282 

Thursday, May 1, 2008 

Beecroft, Robert Stephen, to be Ambassador to Jordan ....................................... 327 

Cunningham, James, to be Ambassador to Israel ................................................ 329 

Hoagland, Richard, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan ............... 332 

LeBaron, Joseph Evan, to be Ambassador to Qatar ............................................. 336 

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 

Bernicat, Marcia Stephens Bloom, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau ............................................................................................................... 372 

Bodde, Peter W., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Malawi ........................... 395 

Booth, Donald E., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia ......................... 398 

Hawkins, Patricia McMahon , to be Ambassador to the Togolese Republic ....... 383 

Milovanovic, Gillian Arlette, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Mali ............ 374 

Myles, Marianne Matuzic, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Cape Verde .... 403 

Nolan, Stephen James, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Botswana ............ 400 

Thomas-Greenfield, Linda, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Liberia .......... 381 

Tritelbaum, Donald Gene, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana ............ 377 

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 

Ayalde, Liliana, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay .........................

Boswell, Eric J., to be Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security .....

DiCarlo, Rosemary Anne, to be Alternate U.S. Representative to the Sessions 

of the General Assembly and the Alternate U.S. Representative for Special 

Political Affairs in the United Nations ..............................................................

Jones, John Melvin, to be Ambassador to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana 

Thursday, June 19, 2008 

Beyrle, John R., to be Ambassador to the Russian Federation ........................... 462 

Chaudhry, Asif, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova ........................... 465 

Culbertson, James, be Ambassador to the Kingdom of The Netherlands ........... 447 

Girard-diCarlo, David F., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Austria ............ 450 

Kaidanow, Tina S., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kosovo ....................... 469 

Reeker, Phillip Thomas, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia ......... 473 

Silverberg, Kristen, to be the U.S. Representative to the European Union ....... 454 

Yovanovitch, Maria L., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia .............. 477 

Page

V 

Thursday, July 17, 2008 

Alemayehou, Mimi, to be the United States Director of the African Development Bank ............................................................................................................ 549 

Durkin, Patrick, to be a member of the board of directors of the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation ......................................................................... 554 

Peel, Ken, to be the U.S. Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction 

and Development .................................................................................................. 552 

San Juan, Miguel, to be the U.S. Director/Executive Director of the InterAmerican Development Bank .............................................................................. 556 

July 23, 2008—morning 

Eastham, Hon. Alan W., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Congo ................

Simon, John, to be Ambassador to the African Union .........................................

Swan, James, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti ...............................

Symington, Hon. W. Stuart, to be Ambassador to Rwanda .................................

July 23, 2008—afternoon 

Gfoeller-Volkoff, Tatiana C., to be Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan ...........................

Olson, Richard G., Jr., to be Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates ............

Pearce, David D., to be Ambassador to the People’s Democratic Republic 

of Algeria ...............................................................................................................

Sison, Hon. Michele J., to be U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon ................................

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 

Kim, Sung, to be Special Envoy for the Six Party Talks ...................................... 577 

McGann, Steven, to be Ambassador to the Republic of the Fiji Islands, the 

Republic of Nauru, the Kingdoms of Tonga and Tuvalu, and the Republic 

of Kiribati .............................................................................................................. 583 

Rodley, Carol Ann, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia .................. 587 

Thursday, September 11, 2008 

Hook, Brian, to be Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization 

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 596

Lebedev, Gregori, to be Representative of the United States to the United 

Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, and to be Alternate Representative of the United States to the Sessions of the General Assembly of 

the United Nations .............................................................................................. 598 

Reynolds, Matthew, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs .. 600 

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 

Cretz, Gene A., to be Ambassador to Libya ........................................................... 000 

Jeffrey, James F., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey ......................... 000 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Ameri, Goli, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and 

Cultural Affairs 

Glassman, James, to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy 

Kramer, David, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson, presiding. 

Present: Senators Bill Nelson, Feingold, Menendez, Cardin, and 

Lugar. 

Also present: Senators Lieberman and Smith. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator Bill NELSON. We’re here to consider the nominations of 

the Honorable Goli Ameri to be Assistant Secretary of State for 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, and the Honorable James Glassman to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, and Mr. 

David Kramer to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor. 

We’ve been joined by our colleague, Senator Smith, and I want 

to extend the courtesies of the chair to you for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Nelson. I’m honored to be 

back in the Foreign Relations Committee. I miss this committee 

very much and I thank you and Ben for your service on this committee. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did in my first term. 

It is for me both a privilege and a pleasure to be here to speak 

on behalf of Goli Ameri. She is one of the most remarkable Oregonians that it is my privilege to know. She’s a long-time friend, she’s 

been a supporter, she has been a public servant, she has been a 

distinguished businesswoman. She has a lovely family and a great 

husband in Jim. 

But her story really is much richer than that. Goli was born in 

Iran and came to the United States under very difficult cirVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
2 

cumstances, made her way through Stanford University, and distinguished herself academically. Moreover, she took that knowledge 

and built a very successful business. She’s the founder and president of eTinium, which is an international consulting and marketing research company specializing in telecommunications. Her 

opinions are regularly sought by business magazines, journals, and 

newspapers. 

Before starting eTinium, she served as a director of U.S. Leasing, 

a former division of the Ford Motor Credit, and Fleet Bank. She 

has recently completed service, played a valuable role in representing the United States internationally as a public delegate to 

the 61st session of the United States Commission on Human 

Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. 

In addition to that, she is a supporter of the Iran Democracy 

Project at the Hoover Institution, which seeks to study democracy 

and how to aid it, its development, in Iran. 

I believe she truly embodies all the best in the American spirit 

and I’m very excited at this nomination and I urge your support. 

She certainly has mine, because she has earned it over many, 

many years with a distinguished career in public service and mostly just as a great human being. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Thank you, Senator Smith. 

Senator Lugar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just make a short 

statement of greeting, if I may, this morning. I’m very pleased to 

welcome three very distinguished nominees. I have often spoken of 

the need to draw talented individuals from the private sector into 

public service. Given the potential loss of privacy, the reduction in 

pay, financial restrictions, other complications, government service 

sometimes holds little attraction for men and women who have 

built careers in the private sector. Many nominees make personal 

and financial sacrifices to pursue difficult assignments in the service of our country. 

I am grateful that Mr. Glassman, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Kramer 

have stepped forward to serve their country at this critical time. 

Understandably, during an election year the country begins to look 

ahead to the possibilities of a new administration. But irrespective 

of the upcoming election, the important business of our Government continues on, and this is especially true in the State Department, which is contending with numerous diplomatic challenges. 

With less than a year remaining in this administration, it’s essential that the Foreign Relations Committee move with dispatch 

to confirm qualified nominees so they can provide leadership as 

soon as possible. Similarly, I would urge the Bush administration 

to make decisions about vacant posts at an early date so the State 

Department does not experience gaps in its diplomatic or managerial leadership. 

I congratulate the nominees before us today. I look forward to 

your discussion with them and support of them as we try to expedite this procedure. 

3 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for chairing this meeting. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

Would each of you introduce your families that might happen to 

be joining you today? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GOLI AMERI, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS 

Ms. AMERI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to introduce 

my husband, Jim Ameri, who is sitting over there, and my oldest 

son, Darius Ameri, who is here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ameri follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GOLI AMERI, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF STATE FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. I would also like to thank Senator Smith of the great State 

of Oregon for being here today and for his kind words of introduction. 

I would like to begin by recognizing the members of my family who are sitting 

behind me for their love and support. Joining me here today are my husband, Jim, 

and my son, Darius. My second son, Sherwin, could not be here and I am proud 

to say that he is in New Orleans building homes for the victims of Hurricane 

Katrina. My parents are both elderly and unfortunately could not be here either, 

but I want to thank them for their ever-present love and support and their foresight 

in sending me to the United States for my higher education. 

It is also a great pleasure to be seated before the committee today with David 

Kramer to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor, as well as a gentleman who I’ve gotten to know well in the last few weeks 

and who I will have the pleasure to work with in the coming year, Jim Glassman, 

nominated to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. 

I am honored by the trust and confidence shown to me by President Bush and 

Secretary Rice in putting my name forward to be Assistant Secretary of State for 

Educational and Cultural Affairs. 

I believe that my background and experience will enable me to carry on the proud 

tradition of excellence at the Bureau. 

First and foremost, there is who I am—an American by choice. I was born and 

raised in Tehran, Iran, and came to the United States to attend Stanford University—one of the 100,000 international students who embarked for the United States 

in 1974. When the revolution in Iran happened in 1979, there were thousands of 

us studying in America whose futures were put in doubt. But even in our gloomiest 

moments, we knew there was a light at the end of the tunnel because we were 

armed with a first-class education we had gained right here in the United States. 

Our education not only propelled us to success, but it also taught us many valuable 

life lessons. Among the myriad of things I learned and they are too numerous to 

list, was the value of freedom and democracy, the fundamentals of critical thinking, 

the questioning of ideas, and a profound sense of empowerment. I learned that in 

America there are no constraints to one’s desire to achieve. That it’s ok to be a 

woman, its ok to be an immigrant, and most importantly its ok to be a dreamer. 

Where else in the world would an immigrant, a woman of Iranian heritage, be 

nominated as an Assistant Secretary and have the privilege to sit in front of this 

distinguished panel? 

The idea of America is alive and well and as strong as ever. Education and culture are among America’s greatest soft power assets—assets recognized around the 

world. These programs allow us to demonstrate American values, not just assert 

them. I am delighted that President Bush and Secretary Rice have emphasized that 

public diplomacy and exchanges are top priorities for the State Department and for 

foreign affairs, in general. 

I understand both personally and professionally what Secretary Rice means when 

she speaks of the transformational power of education and exchange. I have experienced it firsthand and, if confirmed, it would be not only be a tremendous privilege 

to lead the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs but to have firsthand responsibility to promote these values overseas. 

If confirmed, I am committed to strengthening the many achievements of the Department’s educational and cultural exchanges. I intend to expand our people to 

4 

people exchanges and introduce (1) more opportunities for engagement with key 

countries like Iran and North Korea where we seek better relations between our 

citizens, and (2) reach out to the more disadvantaged segments of the population 

around the world. I will encourage more women and girls to participate in our exchange programs and I would like to make sure that we institutionalize successful 

and powerful programs like the Middle East Breast Cancer Initiative and the Fortune Women’s Mentorship program. 

Coming from the private sector, I know that the challenges of the 21st century 

cannot be addressed by the government alone. I have been delighted to see that 

public-private collaboration is a significant part of the organizational culture at ECA 

with hundreds of partners among NGOs, businesses, and academic institutions. 

ECA has made significant progress in creatively expanding these public-private 

partnerships with impressive new undertakings, such as with the Edward R. Murrow Program for Journalists, the Global Cultural Initiative, American Public Diplomacy Envoys, and engagement with America’s higher education community. My goal 

is to engage and enlist the private sector and private foundations more fully to expand our No. 1 public diplomacy tool—exchanges and teaching English abroad. 

I would also like to expand our outreach to ethnic communities in the United 

States to listen to their ideas about expanding our exchanges and finding creative 

ways to have them represent us overseas. If confirmed, I will also be looking for 

effective ways to engage the 800,000-plus strong alumni of ECA programs who are 

often America’s best friends. 

Having two young sons and coming from a technology background, I have come 

to understand the incredible power of this industry in attracting youth around the 

world and one of my goals is to further harness this power in achieving the goals 

of the ECA. Our challenge is to build mass in reaching out to the world and today 

the Internet is our most significant ally. 

And, of course, last but not least, I am committed to investing in and recognizing 

the hard work and expertise of all PD professionals who are responsible for much 

of the success of our programs, and coming from the private sector, my commitment 

to you will be to ensure that the resources allocated to ECA are spent wisely, effectively, and with maximum impact. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we all know that these are challenging times for public diplomacy. But I am hopeful about our activities, because after all what we are promoting is the idea of America—our people’s commitment to freedom and democracy, 

to honesty and integrity, to trust, and most of all to tolerance. There is still not a 

day that goes by that I don’t feel a surge of joy, a thankfulness for being a part 

of this commitment. It is indeed a joy worth sharing with others. I look forward to 

working with all of you and your staff to spread the powerful message of our values 

all over the world. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today and look forward to your questions. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Welcome. 

Mr. Kramer. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. KRAMER, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN 

RIGHTS, AND LABOR 

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to introduce my oldest 

brother, Steven Kramer, who has joined us today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kramer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID J. KRAMER, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF STATE FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR

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

today to seek confirmation as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor. I am grateful to Secretary Rice for recommending me and to 

President Bush for nominating me for this position—a position central to the pursuit of the President’s global freedom agenda. 

If confirmed, I will devote my utmost energy and effort to serving as our Government’s lead representative in the worldwide defense and advancement of human 

dignity and democracy. Should you afford me the opportunity to serve, I know that 

my work will be strengthened, as that of my predecessors has been, by the active, 

bipartisan support of this committee, and indeed, of the entire Congress. 

5 

Let me also take this occasion to say, Mr. Chairman, that if confirmed, I will be 

fortunate to inherit an impressive Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau 

from my distinguished colleague and good friend, Barry Lowenkron. 

The advancement of human rights and democratic freedoms reflects the core values of the American people. As President Bush said during his visit to Prague last 

summer, ‘‘[F]reedom is the nonnegotiable right of every man, woman, and child, and 

the path to lasting peace in our world is liberty.’’ 

In his Prague speech, the President spoke about the great promise that has 

emerged with the rebirth of freedom in many parts of what used to be the Soviet 

Union, and Central and Eastern Europe. That region for many years has been the 

primary focus of my professional efforts, both during my time in government and 

before that when I worked in the foundation world, helping to establish one of the 

first independent public policy think tanks in post-Soviet Russia, the Carnegie Moscow Center. 

My commitment to promoting human rights and democratic principles is longstanding. Relatives on my father’s side were the victims of Soviet totalitarian brutality. Only one family member in Riga, my father’s first cousin, survived—after 17 

harrowing years of forced labor in Siberia. She died 5 years ago. What happened 

to her and countless millions like her is seared upon my memory. And so I am personally, as well as professionally, committed to do all I possibly can to help other 

innocent men and women who are caught in the cruel grip of oppression—from 

Belarus to Burma, Zimbabwe to Cuba, North Korea to Iran, and Eritrea to Syria. 

And, if confirmed, I also will use every tool available to me as Assistant Secretary 

to support those in every region of the world who are working to help their countries 

make the transition to accountable, democratic government. 

President Bush’s second inaugural address in January 2005 struck a deep chord 

with me and reminded me why I wanted to serve in government in the first place. 

Early in this administration, I had the privilege of serving as senior advisor to 

Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky—and I would 

look forward, if confirmed, to the pleasure of working with her in my new capacity. 

I worked intensively on democracy and human rights issues. I pressed, for example, 

for more attention to be focused on the tragic situation in Chechnya. I also played 

a role in developing the President’s unprecedented HIV/AIDS initiative—a vivid 

demonstration of the good that our compassionate country can do. This experience 

also impressed upon me the need not just to promote democracy, but also to 

strengthen the capacities of democracies so that they can deliver a better life to 

their people. Human rights and democracy assistance is not the same as development aid—both are important and they are mutually reinforcing. 

Similarly, advancing democracy cannot be pursued to the exclusion of important 

security interests, such as combating terrorism and extremism and promoting nonproliferation. At the same time, cooperation with the United States on strategic 

matters of mutual interest should not win a country a pass on pushing forward with 

political liberalization and reform. As President Bush said during his recent trip to 

the Middle East: ‘‘. . . the best way to defeat the extremists in your midst is by 

opening your societies, and trusting in your people, and giving them a voice in their 

nation.’’ 

In my current position as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, Ukraine, 

Belarus, and Moldova, I have made sure that democracy and human rights issues 

are at the top of the agenda. The collapse of the oppressive Soviet empire opened 

the possibility for nearly 400 million people to live in freedom, many for the first 

time in their lives. This opportunity, I know, has not yet been realized for all in 

this region. Time and again, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I have been deeply 

moved by the courage of human rights defenders, independent journalists, NGOs, 

religious and minority rights advocates, and labor activists striving—some even sacrificing their lives—to secure the blessings of liberty for their fellow citizens. Indeed, 

much of my work and that of my colleagues has been focused on the defense of 

human rights and democratic processes in this part of the world. 

I have been told that I am not allowed into Belarus anymore because of my advocacy for freedom in that country and my leadership in imposing sanctions against 

that dictatorial regime due to its human rights abuses. I guess I have been doing 

something right. 

For the first time in a long time, there may be some reason for hope in Belarus. 

In the past 2 weeks, the government has released several political prisoners—a 

cause that my colleagues and I in the U.S. Government have been pressing for 

years. While the Government of Belarus needs to do much more, we may be seeing 

our policy of pressuring the regime through sanctions combined with support for the 

democratic opposition finally paying off. If confirmed, I will continue to press hard 

for reform in Belarus. 

6 

When governments veer from the democratic path, it is our responsibility to speak 

up for the people who are being denied their rights, to urge the governments to return to the path of democracy, and, when necessary, to take appropriate punitive 

action. As the President said in his speech last summer in Prague, ‘‘Freedom can 

be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, the goal of the Bush administration’s democracy promotion efforts 

is not to impose America’s ways on others, it is to encourage adherence to international principles and help others effect positive change so that they have the freedom to choose. As Secretary Rice has said, we seek ‘‘to expand the circle of wellgoverned states that enshrine liberty under the rule of law, that provide for their 

people, and that act responsibly in the international system. America cannot do this 

for other countries. Nor should we. It must be their choice, and their initiative. But 

we can help and we must help. This is partnership, not paternalism.’’ 

If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I will continue to concentrate DRL’s diplomacy and programs on the core components of democracy that must be present in 

countries around the globe if human rights are to be effectively exercised and protected: (1) Free and fair electoral processes, with a level playing field to ensure genuine competition; (2) good governance, with representative, transparent and accountable institutions operating under the rule of law, including independent legislatures and judiciaries; and (3) robust civil societies, including independent media 

and labor unions. 

These components are central to our efforts to help the people of Afghanistan and 

Iraq to assume their rightful places in the global democratic community. As the 

President said in his State of the Union speech on Monday, over the past 7 years, 

‘‘We’ve seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban and choose a new 

president and a new parliament. We’ve seen jubilant Iraqis holding up ink-stained 

fingers and celebrating their freedom. These images of liberty have inspired us.’’ 

At the regional level, we will continue to deepen work with the Organization for 

Security and Cooperation in Europe, the African Union, the Organization of American States, and the Association of South East Asian Nations. These bodies already 

have established or are in the process of establishing human rights and democracy 

standards, institutions, and mechanisms. At the global level, we seek to strengthen 

the institutional capacity of the Community of Democracies. And we will continue 

to work in partnership with like-minded countries at the United Nations to defend 

human rights and democratic principles, for example by marshalling international 

efforts to press for democratic reform in Burma and an end to the Darfur crisis. 

Partnerships with NGOs—indigenous and international—are essential to the development and success of free societies and play a vital role in ensuring accountable 

government and peaceful, democratic change. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, I will regularly reach out to civil society representatives here and abroad for their valuable ideas and insights. There also is 

much that we can do in partnership with the private sector, for example, to promote 

corporate social responsibility and uphold international labor standards. 

Mr. Chairman, outstanding, dedicated men and women serve in the Bureau for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. I see my job, if confirmed by the Senate, as 

helping them to do their vital work by ensuring that DRL has a strong voice at the 

policy table and that issues of human rights and democracy are fully integrated into 

the decision making process here in Washington and at our foreign posts. 

Mr. Chairman, if this committee and the Senate see fit to confirm me, I will make 

the most of each and every day as Assistant Secretary. The brave men and women 

around the world who are striving against great odds, often at great risk, to advance 

human rights and democracy deserve nothing less. I am acutely aware that this is 

a time when NGOs, the independent press, labor activists, and other human rights 

and democracy defenders are under siege in every region of the world in countries 

as various as China, Russia, and Zimbabwe. In many countries, those in power 

wield unjust laws like weapons, or dispense with all pretense of legality and employ 

brutal extrajudicial measures against people who try to peacefully exercise their 

rights. As long as men and women around the globe are deprived of their most fundamental freedoms of belief, expression, association, assembly and movement, we, 

who live in liberty, can never do enough. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look to work closely with this committee and with 

your other congressional colleagues on the full range of human rights and democracy concerns in furtherance of the goals set forth in the Advancing Democratic Values Act. I also am determined to ensure that when my term is ended, I will leave 

the DRL Bureau in strong shape for my successor in the next administration. Working for freedom’s cause transcends politics. It is part of what it means to be an 

American, and that is why I would be deeply honored to serve the American people 

as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 

7 

1 Changing Minds, Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for US. Public Diplomacy in the 

Arab & Muslim World, Report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and 

Muslim World, Oct. 1, 2003, submitted to the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, p. 8. 2 Ibid, p. 13. 

And now, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will be happy to try 

to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Welcome. 

Mr. Glassman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES K. GLASSMAN, NOMINATED TO 

BE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to introduce my uncle, 

Bernard Glassman, who’s seated behind me. Unfortunately, my 

wonderful wife, Beth, is recovering from emergency surgery on 

Monday. She’s doing well, but she couldn’t be with us. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glassman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES K. GLASSMAN, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on October 1, 2003, the Advisory 

Group on Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World, mandated by Congress 

and chaired by Ambassador Edward Djerejian, produced a powerful report that concluded, ‘‘At a critical time in our nation’s history, the apparatus of public diplomacy 

has proven inadequate.’’1

The report pointed to our ‘‘unilateral disarmament in the weapons of advocacy 

that has contributed to widespread hostility toward Americans and left us vulnerable to lethal threats to our interests and our safety.’’2

I was one of the 13 members of the Djerejian Group, and it is not hard to sum 

up our conclusions: get serious and strategic about public diplomacy, rebuild the institutions, modernize them, provide interagency leadership and coordination, increase resources, get the President and the Congress fully behind the effort. 

That was 2003. Times have changed. There is today a broad, bipartisan consensus 

that soft power, smart power, public diplomacy—that is, the arsenal of persuasion— 

are absolutely critical to counter and defeat the violent extremists who threaten 

America and the freedom of people around the world. 

The will is there. The President and Congress are more engaged. Many of the recommendations of the Djerejian Group have been adopted over the past 2 years 

under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Under Secretary Karen Hughes—not 

only programs but what the report called a ‘‘culture of measurement,’’ a rigorous 

examination of how well public diplomacy is ‘‘moving the needle’’—that is, enhancing understanding and changing minds. 

The rebuilding is well underway. Indeed, I believe that American public diplomacy, after a bipartisan period of neglect in the 1990s, is now poised to move beyond the successes of the cold war, beyond anything envisaged by the Djerejian 

Group. 

This is the background, Mr. Chairman, for today’s hearing. I am honored by the 

nomination of President Bush and the support of Secretary Rice, and I seek your 

confirmation as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. 

I am proud to introduce my wife, Beth Glassman. Much of the rest of the family 

is far-flung: My daughter, Zoe Miles, and her two children, Violet and James, live 

in New Orleans; my daughter, Kate Bennett, and her daughter, Tess, live in Las 

Vegas; and my stepchildren are in college: Michael Rocks at the University of Virginia and Hilary Rocks at Vanderbilt. My mother is nursing a knee injury. I want 

also to recognize the support of my stepmother, Betty Glassman; my brother and 

sister, Peter and Betsy; and my uncle, Bernard. My father, Stanley, who died in 

2005, would have loved to have seen this day. 

I also want to take this time to thank Senator Lieberman for his kind introduction. I have been an admirer of Joe Lieberman even before he was elected to the 

United States Senate. He is a man of principle and vision. 

Just 8 months ago, this committee and the United States Senate confirmed me 

as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees taxpayer-fundVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
8 

3See http://www.bbg.gov/bbglaboutus.cfm. 4The budget of the BBG is greater than that of all educational and cultural exchange programs supervised by the State Department, but the total public diplomacy budget of the State 

Department is greater than that of the BBG by about $200 million for fiscal 2008. 5 Robert Gates, Landon Lecture, Nov. 26, 2007. See http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/ 

speech.aspx?speechid=1199. 6The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks 

Upon the United States (W.W. Norton & Co., 2004), p. 363. 7Stephen Hadley, Memorandum, ‘‘Establishment of the Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications Policy Coordination Committee,’’ April 8, 2006. 8Michael Doran, ‘‘The Pragmatic Fanaticism of al Qaeda,’’ Political Science Quarterly (Summer, 2002), p. 187. Quoted by William Rosenau in The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook (2005), p. 1132. 

ed international radio, television, and Internet networks. This remarkable electronic 

platform, built over 65 years, now directly touches the lives of 155 million people 

each week in 57 languages.3 In Arabic alone, BBG radio and TV broadcasts reach 

35 million people—more than 10 times as many as were reached in 2002. In recent 

months, our broadcasters have provided a lifeline to people seeking the truth in 

such places as Somalia, Syria, Burma, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Tibet, and Pakistan. 

As just one example, one in every five Iranians watches VOA Persian television 

at least once a week. U.S. taxpayer-funded broadcasting beams 7 hours of TV a day 

into Iran, including a popular call-in show that allows Iranians to talk directly with 

American policymakers and Iranian exile dissidents. Taken as a whole, U.S. international broadcasting—including such venerable institutions as Voice of America 

and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—is our largest single civilian public diplomacy 

program by far.4 If I am confirmed, I will, of course, step down as chairman of the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors, but I will remain on the board as the Secretary 

of State’s representative. 

In addition to my service on the Djerejian Group and on the Broadcasting Board, 

I have spent nearly 40 years as a professional communicator—a writer, publisher, 

editor, TV public-affairs show moderator, and Web site host. I have founded two 

media businesses and rejuvenated two others. My respect and admiration for this 

institution was nurtured during the time I was editor of Roll Call, the congressional 

newspaper, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

Additional preparation came from a deep immersion in the world of ideas, which 

began when I was publisher of The New Republic and president of The Atlantic 

Monthly and continued through my 11 years in the think-tank world, at the American Enterprise Institute, where I am now a senior fellow and editor of AEI’s magazine of economics, The American. 

If I am confirmed, it is my intention to focus on three areas: 1) Leading the war 

of ideas, 2) building on our current public diplomacy strengths in educational and 

cultural exchanges, and 3) bringing fresh and vital technologies to bear on all of our 

efforts. 

LEAD THE WAR OF IDEAS

The war against al-Qaeda and other extremist threats to peace, freedom, and justice is not only military. It is a war of ideas. Secretary of Defense Gates made just 

this point when he extolled ‘‘soft power’’ in a lecture at Kansas State University in 

November.5 As the 9/11 Commission put it: Eliminating al-Qaeda requires ‘‘prevailing in the longer term over the ideology that gives rise to Islamist terrorism.’’6

In this war of ideas, the White House in April 2006, gave the State Department— 

and specifically the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy—the lead. The Under 

Secretary is charged with ‘‘leading our strategic communications efforts to promote 

freedom and democracy and to counter extremism.’’7

If I am confirmed, this will be the main focus of my attention: The war of ideas— 

perhaps better expressed as global ideological engagement. ‘‘Al-Qaeda,’’ as Michael 

Doran, a scholar of Middle East politics at Princeton and now a Pentagon official, 

has written, ‘‘is the ideological organization par excellence.’’8 The organization disseminates its messages through mass media and the Internet, and our job is not 

merely to explain and advocate American values and policies but to counter the disturbingly persuasive ideology of the enemy. 

Let me give you an idea of what we are up against. A poll last April by 

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a project of the University of Maryland, found that about 

four out of five respondents in Muslim nations surveyed agreed with the proposition 

that the goal of the United States, in its global policies, is to ‘‘weaken and divide 

9 

9WorldPublicOpinion.org, Program on International Policy Attitudes, University of Maryland, 

‘‘Muslim Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda,’’ April 24, 2007. A press release summarizing the study began, ‘‘An in-depth poll of four major Muslim countries has found 

that in all of them large majorities believe that undermining Islam is a key goal of US foreign 

policy.’’ See http://worldpublicopinion.org. 10 Ibid. 11 America’s Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project, Testimony 

of Andrew Kohut, Pew Research Center, before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House 

of Representatives, March 14, 2007. 12Mary Habeck, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology in the War on Terror (Yale University 

Press, 2006), p. 4. 13The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2002. See http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss9.html 14From $244 million in fiscal 2003 to $501 million in fiscal 2008. 

the Islamic world.’’9 Roughly two-thirds of those polled in Muslim countries said 

that a U.S. goal was to ‘‘spread Christianity to the Middle East.’’10

A Pew survey found that 80 percent of Indonesians were ‘‘very’’ or ‘‘somewhat’’ 

worried that the United States could be a military threat to their country.11

Where do such notions come from? Straight from the doctrine that is at the foundation of al-Qaeda ideology. 

The fact that so many people adhere to these beliefs is testimony to the effectiveness of the radicals, who, as Mary Habeck, a historian at Yale who now is with the 

National Security Council, writes, comprise a ‘‘faction—generally called ‘jihadi’ or 

‘jihadist’—[that] has very specific views about how to . . . return Muslims to political power and what needs to be done about its enemies, including the United 

States. The main difference between the jihadis and other Islamists is the extremists’ commitment to the violent overthrow of the existing international system.’’12

Certainly, the many millions in the Muslim world who believe that the United 

States seeks to destroy their religion do not themselves adhere to jihadist ideology. 

But that they buy into major tenets of the ideology presents an enormous challenge 

to our national security. 

How do we counter such notions? How do we counter the widespread 

misperception that America does not allow mosques on its soil? Or that we are not 

a religious or family-oriented people? Part of the answer lies in ideological engagement—directly entering the conversation to confront lies and distortions with truth. 

At the time of the Djerejian Report, that was barely happening. Now, the efforts 

is gaining momentum, through institutions that Ambassador Hughes inaugurated, 

like the State Department’s media hubs in London, Brussels, and Dubai, which rapidly deliver voices that advocate for United States policy on Arabic and other important international media, and the Digital Outreach Team, which began engaging 

with Arabic Internet sites in November of 2006, and expanded to include Persian 

and Urdu sites in December of 2007. 

What makes the current war of ideas so difficult is that jihadist ideology is built 

on a religious base—which means that non-Muslim Americans are not the best messengers in countering its appeal. As President Bush has said, ‘‘The war on terrorism 

is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however, reveal a clash inside a civilization, 

a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas, and this 

is an area where America must excel.’’13

Ideological engagement is the job, of course, not only of the State Department. 

Other agencies of government are hard at work. If confirmed, my intention will be 

to coordinate closely with these agencies and with our allies—especially in Europe, 

where the traditions of the Enlightenment and critical thinking were born and 

where the extremist threat today is intense. 

BUILD ON THE FOUNDATION OF EXCHANGES

Another way to counter the ideas of the extremists is personal engagement 

through educational and cultural exchange programs. Funding for these programs 

has more than doubled since fiscal 2003 14—and with good reason. Exchanges are 

the crown jewels of public diplomacy. We are fortunate that a talented Iranian-born 

American, Goli Ameri, has been nominated by the President to head these programs 

as Assistant Secretary of State. 

We should never forget that, to the rest of the world, education is America’s great 

brand. In my preparation over the past few weeks, I have learned that the total 

number of international students in the United States is on track to rise to a record 

high in the 2007–2008 academic year. This is big news, and welcome. 

We will also look for new ways to spread the benefits of educational and cultural 

exchanges to less advantaged youth to study in the United States. In particular, we 

will work to fulfill the President’s vision to expand the Partnership for Latin AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
10 

15 Changing Minds, Winning Peace, op. cit., p. 13. 16The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2006. See http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/intro.html. 17 ‘‘Islam and the West: Searching for Common Ground,’’ Testimony of Andrew Kohut, Pew 

Research Center, before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, July 18, 2006. For 

example, in Jordan, the proportion saying that suicide bombing against civilian targets is ‘‘often’’ 

or ‘‘sometimes’’ justified dropped from 57 percent in 2005 to 29 percent in 2006. See http:// 

pewglobal.org/commentary/print.php?AnalysislD=1009. 18For example, proportions of those with favorable views of the United States, according to 

a June 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project Survey, were 88 percent in the Ivory Coast, 80 percent in Ghana, 59 percent in India, 61 percent in Japan, 30 percent in Germany, and 21 percent 

in Egypt. In Nigeria a majority of Muslims views the United States favorably. 19See, for example, a study conducted between November 30 and December 5 by Terror Free 

Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion and D3 System. It found that 40 percent of respondents in Saudi Arabia had a favorable opinion of the United States, compared with just 11 percent in May 2006. See http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/template.php?section=WN. 

ican Youth, a program which will increase access to English language teaching and 

provide thousands of young people in our own hemisphere a greater chance to study 

here in the United States. 

BRING NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO BEAR

The truth is that ordinary Americans are superb citizen ambassadors. They live 

our values: Generosity, tolerance, compassion. The problem is that the vast majority 

of people in the world have never met an American. The challenge is how to amplify 

our exchange programs. Research shows that the Fulbright program is highly effective. Through video technology and the Internet we can magnify the life-changing 

experiences of nearly 7,000 Fulbrighters and 2,000 Flex and YES high school students who come here each year so that such experiences are shared not simply by 

the families and friends but by millions. 

New technologies also will play a larger and larger role in the war of ideas, 

through innovations such as the Digital Outreach Team. 

After I was nominated, I read a great deal in the press about my job. People speculated on what I would do to burnish America’s image, to increase our popularity 

ratings—as if the United States were a brand of soft drink or an entrant in ‘‘American Idol’’ seeking global votes. 

Let me offer a different perspective. Public diplomacy’s role is to help achieve the 

national interest by ‘‘informing, engaging, and influencing people around the 

world.’’15 It is a tool, a means, to achieve specific ends. One of those ends—the first 

goal as defined by President Bush’s National Security Strategy in March 16, 2006, 

is ‘‘promoting freedom, justice and human dignity—working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies, and to extend prosperity.’’16 And why do we do that? Not 

just for moral reasons, but because free governments, since they are accountable to 

their people, tend not to attack other free nations. ‘‘Peace and international stability,’’ says this National Security Strategy, ‘‘are most reliably built on a foundation 

of freedom.’’ 

What does all this have to do with popularity? It matters that people in other 

parts of the world trust us and respect us. Their leaders are sensitive to public opinion, and when we ask nations to support our aims in the world—to send troops, to 

impose sanctions, to assist in humanitarian relief—those nations are more apt to 

respond if their publics are favorably disposed toward the United States. 

On the other hand, isn’t it better that more and more people in the Arab and 

Muslim world today reject suicide bombing as a tactic 17—even if their love for 

America has not necessarily increased? 

I have spent a good deal of time since my nomination in an attempt to gain a 

deeper understanding of the data on attitudes toward the United States. I met for 

2 hours with Andy Kohut of the Pew Research Center and have conferred with experts at the State Department and read practically all the surveys. Here are some 

conclusions: 

1. Animosity toward the United States is real, and it must concern us. 

2. Different countries have different views of the United States. In Africa, 

Japan, and India, for example, most people favorably disposed toward the 

United States.18 In much of Western Europe and nearly all the Arab and Muslim world, they are not. 

3. Much of the animosity is not deep. Even people who say they dislike us 

want to have strong bilateral relations with us, and attitudes are not set in 

stone.19 As Secretary Rice said last year, the United States is ‘‘still the place 

where people like to send their kids to school, where people want to start a new 

11 

20 ‘‘A Resolute Condoleezza Rice,’’ by Maria Bartiromo, BusinessWeek, July 23, 2007. See 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07l30/b4043101.htm. 21This is the finding of many surveys. For example, in the June 2007 survey cited in the footnote above, respondents were asked how much the United States ‘‘takes into account the interests of countries’’ like yours in ‘‘making international policy decisions.’’ The total proportion answering ‘‘not too much’’ or ‘‘not at all’’ was 79 percent in the Czech Republic, 75 percent in Turkey, 79 percent in South Korea, and 61 percent in Chile. 22See http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/murrow/snow.htm. 23These results and those that follow are from ‘‘Muslim Americans: Middle-Class and Mostly 

Mainstream,’’ published by the Pew Research Center on May 22, 2007. See http:// 

pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans. 

life. Sometimes we overstate the degree to which America is not popular, even 

if sometimes our policies are not.’’20

4. The animosity of foreigners has three sources: 

a. They understand that we are a powerful nation and will ultimately set 

policies with our own interests in mind, but they believe we do not listen 

to them, do not act as a reliable partner, and do not respectfully take their 

views into account.21

b. In the Arab and Muslim world, especially, they have major misconceptions about America, our aims, and our policies. Remember the examples 

I cited before, such as a belief that we want to supplant Islam with Christianity in the Middle East. 

c. They disagree with our policies, especially our presence in Iraq and 

what they see as our bias in the matter of Israel and the Palestinians. 

The first two sources of animosity, I believe, we can address effectively through 

public diplomacy. We can listen better and more respectfully and through exchanges, information programs, and ideological engagement, we can address and 

rectify the lies and misconceptions. 

As for policy: Edward R. Murrow, when he was USIA director, famously said that 

public diplomacy should be in on the takeoffs, not just the crash landings.22 In other 

words, public diplomacy should have a place at the table, to advise policymakers of 

the potential reaction of foreign publics to policies. But never, in my view, should 

global public opinion polls determine the foreign policy of the United States. 

Can we do a better job explaining our policies? Yes. Will those policies be universally embraced? No. 

In the early 1980s, the United States and our allies agreed on the placement of 

cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. It was a decision that was aggressively opposed by much of Europe’s public opinion, but it was a policy that helped bring 

down communism. 

Consider Muslim Americans. A Pew study in May found that foreign-born American Muslims, by a 70 to 3 percent majority, have an unfavorable view of alQaeda.23 By 78 to 18 percent, they are happy with their lives in America. They are 

optimistic, by a four-to-one margin, that a way will be found for Israel and the Palestinians to coexist. In all of these measures, Muslim Americans differ not only from 

Muslims in the Middle East and much of Asia but from Muslim immigrants in Europe. 

Yet American Muslims, by a margin of more than six to one, say that the war 

in Iraq was wrong. That compares to a split of roughly 50–50 at the time among 

the entire U.S. public. 

In other words, Muslims in America embrace U.S. values and participate actively 

in U.S. society, yet they differ with other Americans and with the U.S. government 

on policy. That is to say, policy is not the determining factor in their view of America. This is precisely the condition we should strive for in the world. People in other 

countries will not agree with our policies all the time, but we want them to have 

an accurate picture of those policies and the motivations behind them, and we want 

the disagreements to be constructive. 

Since I was nominated as Under Secretary on December 11, many friends have 

congratulated me and perhaps just as many have offered condolences. They were 

half-joking, I suppose, in their reference to how difficult this job must be. 

Public diplomacy requires seriousness, dedication, imagination, and hard work, 

but no condolences are in order. This is a position for which I have prepared all 

my life. My focus will be leading the war of ideas, building on the strong foundation 

provided by Karen Hughes, especially in the area of educational exchanges, and 

bringing new technologies to bear, in large part to amplify the effects of our programs. 

The task ahead is to tell the world the story of a good and compassionate nation 

and, at the same time, to engage in the most important ideological contest of our 

time—a contest that we will win. 

12 

In closing, I want to thank the men and women working in the area of Public 

Diplomacy around the world. This includes our Foreign Service officers, Civil Service colleagues, and Foreign Service Nationals. I am honored to have you consider 

my confirmation and I look forward to working closely with the committee and your 

staff. Thank you. 

Senator Bill NELSON. We wish her a speedy recovery. 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Senator Lieberman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I am honored to be here with my colleagues Senator Lugar and 

Senator Nelson. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce James K. Glassman formally—I think you’ve already met 

him—to this committee and urge its members to favorably consider 

his nomination to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. 

I’m pleased to make this recommendation based on my great admiration for the work that Jim Glassman has done and, beyond 

that generic interest, I have a more parochial interest because Jim 

has been a long-time resident of the great State of Connecticut. 

The Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy is the closest 

thing in the United States Government to what might be called a 

supreme allied commander in the war of ideas, responsible for rallying our Nation’s resources so that we can prevail in the most critical and unconventional of battlefields. It is therefore one of the 

most important posts, I believe, in Washington and in our worldwide struggle against the forces of Islamist extremism and terrorism. 

I believe that the members of this committee will find Jim Glassman to be a highly qualified person to lead this fight. He brings 

considerable knowledge and depth of experience about this particular area of activity, public diplomacy. In 2003, he served as a 

member of the congressionally mandated Advisory Group on Public 

Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, which was chaired by 

our very respected Ambassador Edward Djerijian. For the last 7 

months, Jim has served with great effect and energy as chairman 

of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Unanimously confirmed in 

that position by Congress last year, Jim has overseen all U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting, covering 57 languages and producing for more than 150 million viewers and listeners. 

I believe that the committee will be especially encouraged as it 

looks into Jim’s record of leadership at the BBG, the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors, and the spirit of nonpartisan, not just bipartisan but nonpartisan, cooperation and consensus that he brought 

to his decisionmaking. I know that he will bring the same qualities 

of leadership to his work at the Department of State and to his 

dealings with this Congress if confirmed in this position. 

Because the mission of this position is, of course, in no sense partisan, it is a quintessentially American mission, and for that reason 

I very much hope that you will favorably report on the nomination 

of Jim Glassman to lead us in the war of ideas. 

Thank you very, very much. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

13 

I will submit my statement for the record, as we will for each of 

you. We’re going to get right into questions, so I turn to the Senator from Maryland. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bill Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

This hearing of the Committee on Foreign Relations will now come to order. 

Today, the committee meets to consider the nomination of three individuals for key 

leadership positions in the administration. 

The President has nominated James Glassman to be the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Goli Ameri to be the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and David Kramer to the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor. 

I want to congratulate each of you on your nomination and welcome you and your 

families here today. 

I also welcome our colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Smith, who have 

joined us to introduce two of the nominees today. 

Mr. Glassman has been asked to manage the critical effort of public diplomacy 

for our Nation. An integral part of state-to-state relations, public diplomacy is a way 

to engage foreign audiences about the United States on a personal level: It involves 

people-to-people programs like educational, cultural, and sports exchanges. 

America’s public diplomacy has been widely criticized since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Within months of those attacks, international opinion of this country changed from one of admiration, respect, and empathy to one of distrust and 

misunderstanding. Our damaged image abroad, even among our closest friends, has 

hindered our ability to work with allies toward our shared objectives, and it is imperative that we correct international misperceptions about America. 

If confirmed, Mr. Glassman would be responsible for this monumental task. 

As Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, he would be the principal adviser to the Secretary of State for shaping the international community’s perception 

of this country. Mr. Glassman would oversee and manage three important bureaus 

within the Department of State: The Bureaus of Information Programs, Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, and Public Affairs. 

One of those three bureaus, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs would 

be directed by Ms. Ameri. Her primary responsibility would be implementation and 

oversight of international exchange programs. 

We are all familiar with the importance of public diplomacy, and specifically cultural exchanges, especially in times of great misperception and misunderstanding. 

As a young boy during the cold War, I myself had the opportunity to participate 

in public diplomacy by representing the youth of America and going to the Iron Curtain at the German-Czechoslovakian border. 

There in the little village of Tillyschanz in the midst of the cold war, I got to 

speak over Radio Free Europe to the young people behind the Iron Curtain. At the 

age of 17, what I saw at that border made a lasting impression on me not until then 

could I have understood what it means for a people to be enslaved and shut off from 

the world behind machine gun nests, guard towers, and mine fields. 

Although the times have changed, the importance of interacting with people 

throughout the world has only increased. 

We also consider today the nomination of Mr. David Kramer to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 

In this position, Mr. Kramer would lead U.S. efforts to promote democracy, protect 

human rights and international religious freedom, and advance labor rights around 

the world. 

He would report to the Secretary of State on countries’ human rights records. Because a country’s human rights record is considered in the decision to provide U.S. 

foreign and security assistance, vigilant reporting is enormously important to our 

foreign policy. 

I look forward to a thorough discussion with all of the nominees about their plans 

for providing leadership to our efforts to shape America’s global image and pursue 

the highest standards of democracy and human rights. Again, I would like to recognize each of them for their distinguished careers and thank them for the continued 

personal commitment necessary to undertake these challenging assignments. 

14 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let 

me thank you for convening this hearing, and I want to thank all 

three of the nominees for their willingness to serve in the public 

sector. I agree with Senator Lugar, it’s really helpful to our Nation 

when people with strong backgrounds in the private sector are willing to come forward and help their government in the public sector. 

It’s not easy. It’s not easy on you as far as your rights of privacy. 

It’s not easy on your families. And we thank you for being willing 

to serve your country. Quite frankly, I’m impressed by all three of 

your backgrounds. 

I just want to spend one moment, if I might, with Secretary Kramer, who is no stranger to me because of his close association with 

the Helsinki Commission. I am honored to be on this committee, 

but I’m also honored to be the Senate chairman of the Helsinki 

Commission. It’s interesting, the Helsinki Commission predates the 

Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, and it’s been 

an unusual entity in that it’s a cooperative effort between the Executive and Legislative Branches. 

Your position, once confirmed, will be most likely the designee of 

your agency to the Helsinki Commission. So, first, I want to thank 

you for your past help. You testified before our committee on 

Belarus. You’ve been very helpful to our staff. And really an invitation to work very closely with us in the Helsinki Commission so 

that we can advance the portfolio that comes under the position 

that you’re seeking confirmation and we can work closer together, 

the Members of Congress and the administration, to advance U.S. 

interests internationally in human rights. I welcome your comments in that regard. 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator Cardin, thank you very much for that invitation to continue to work very closely with the Helsinki Commission. I have valued my opportunities to engage with you and certainly the staff members, with whom I worked very closely on a 

range of issues. In addition to testifying before the commission on 

Belarus, I also testified on the negotiations and discussions we’ve 

had with Russia on the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 

Treaty, and appreciated very much your comments and thoughts 

during that session. 

I certainly pledge to you, sir, that if confirmed, I look forward 

very much to a close working relationship with the commission. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I thank you for that, and I do look forward to your confirmation and I look forward to having the full 

complement within the commission, and I think you can add tremendous strength to our work. I know I speak for all the members. 

Mr. Chairman, this is one area where there has been no partisan 

differences at all. It’s a commission that works in very close harmony. It’s interesting, it’s also one where there is virtually no division between the executive branch and the legislative branch. We 

work in very close unity, which has made, I think, our effectiveness 

within an organization which is basically Europe and Central 

Asia—it includes North America; don’t get me wrong—but it’s 

15 

given us an extraordinary impact in that organization to advance 

the causes, our interests in Europe and Central Asia. 

So I thank you for that answer and I look forward to working 

with you. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for recognizing me. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Glassman, during the last few years of this administration, 

we’ve had numerous hearings about public diplomacy and in due 

course people have been sent forth to do that work, the most recent 

being Karen Hughes. At the same time, those who come into our 

hearings from the outside world keep pointing to surveys that indicate that the United States is held in less and less regard by more 

and more countries. Sometimes it’s in support of a particular cause 

or position they have, to indicate that we’re on the wrong foot. But 

on the other hand, the pervasive nature of these adverse surveys 

is certainly dispiriting to committee members. 

You’ve watched all of this from various vantage points for many 

years and now have an opportunity to make a substantial difference. What strategies do you intend to employ or what kind of 

program, or at what point could the committee be apprised of how 

you will make a difference in this situation? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Thank you for that question, Senator Lugar. I’ve 

actually spent the last 6 weeks poring over a lot of the data on exactly this subject. I’ve met with Andrew Kohut of the Pew Center 

and I’ve looked at his surveys as well as internal surveys that have 

been done by the State Department, and I’ve come to a number of 

conclusions. 

The first is that the animosity toward the United States is real, 

it should concern us, but it’s not monolithic. For example, in Africa 

we do quite well in the surveys. In parts of Latin America that’s 

also true; in India, Japan. But there is a great deal of animosity, 

especially in the Arab and Muslim world and in Europe. 

What are the sources of that animosity? I think there really are 

three. One is that there is a perception that we are not listening 

and respectfully taking the views of other people into account. People seem to understand in the rest of the world that we’re the big 

dog, that we are ultimately going to make decisions in our national 

interest, as we should. But they feel that they’re not being heard. 

The second thing is that there are a lot of misperceptions and, 

frankly, outright lies that are being told about us. Some of them 

are based on a particular framework that the ideology on which al 

Qaeda’s doctrine is based comes from. Those are serious. For example, majorities of people in the Middle East, in the Arab world, believe that our engagement in that area is to destroy Islam and to 

supplant it with Christianity. I mean, that is just wrong and we 

have to address that. 

Finally, there are people who just don’t agree with our specific 

policies, such as those in Iraq, and we need to do a better job of 

explaining those policies, but global public opinion should absolutely not set our foreign policy. 

So my feeling is that the first two areas are ones that we can 

absolutely work on, and I believe we can work on the third one as 

well and explain our policies better. But this is a major concern of 

16 

mine. I believe that we are making headway already and I am very 

happy to report back to this committee after a few months of work 

and tell you where we stand. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, that would be very helpful, because clearly 

this is a crucial area which you’ve discovered. Mr. Kohut and the 

Pew Foundation have done a lot of work in this area and sort of 

flood us with material of this sort, all of which is pretty sad news. 

Do you have any particular strategies in terms of changes in 

broadcasting or in contacts with newsmen? Or really, how would 

you proceed, having noted these deficiencies? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. One of the things I think we need to do better 

is amplify what we’re doing in our exchange programs. These are 

fabulous programs. They’re really the crown jewels of what we do 

in public diplomacy. But you take a program like the Fulbright programs, which are great. Currently 7,000 people a year are participating in Fulbrights and that’s a good number historically. But 

how do we get the rest of the world to know about these programs 

and, let’s say electronically, come into contact with more Americans? 

Most people in the world have never met an American and ordinary Americans are our best ambassadors. So one of the things 

that I want to try to do, especially in concert with Goli because 

both of us have a background in telecommunications and Internet, 

is to amplify what we’re doing. 

The second thing is quite simply to engage in a much more vigorous way. We’re already doing that, but we need to do more of it 

in the war of ideas, explaining what we’re doing, pushing back 

against the lies and misperceptions. 

Senator LUGAR. That leads me to a question for Ms. Ameri, because clearly the exchange programs are an extraordinary aspect 

of public diplomacy, but they’re really much more than that. Now, 

one of the problems that you will face, I suspect, although you may 

be more optimistic, is the Congress has not increased the ECA 

budget and so rapidly you’re going to come up against barriers, 

which you may already have discovered even as you begin to move 

into this thing. 

Have you given any thought just creatively as to how the Department of Defense budget or other budgets might be utilized? I mean 

that sincerely, not as an invasion into their territory, but again and 

again our committee is trying to think through in the constructive 

work, for instance in Iraq, how if we are going to be successful in 

nation-building defense funds could be utilized. Secretary Gates is 

very much in favor of this sort of collaboration. 

It just occurs to me that some good diplomacy on your part, given 

the short framework here, would be important. But have you 

thought about, how do you do the Lord’s work with exchanges with 

very little money and what kind of plans do you have? 

Ms. AMERI. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Actually, the 

President’s $501 million budget for ECA in 2008 will certainly 

allow the bureau to expand exchanges, and particularly its English 

language programs and international visitors. Clearly, the President and the Secretary of State have mentioned on a number of occasions their support for all the exchanges that the bureau does. 

17 

In addition, I would actually like to extend my gratitude to Congress and yourself in particular for having always been such a big 

supporter of the programs of the ECA. 

Having said that, as you mentioned, we can always clearly use 

more funds. One of the ideas that I had, which Jim and I have discussed, is, No. 1, we need to get the private sector more involved 

and more engaged. Both of us coming from that kind of background, we’ve talked about it. I’ve talked to a couple of NGOs regarding this, talked to a couple of contacts, just briefly, to kind of 

get some feedback and ideas. If confirmed, that will be one of the 

main items on my agenda—to make sure that we bring the private 

sector in to fund more of our exchanges, more of our incredibly successful English language teaching programs, English Access Microscholarship Program, which has taught English to 32,000 young 

kids, especially in Muslim countries. 

We’ve done, ECA has done, an evaluation on this and the results 

are phenomenal—close to 90 percent say that they have a more favorable view of the United States. Ninety-six percent of parents, for 

example, say if they had another child they’d put them through the 

program. This is a program that clearly moves the needle. 

On your question regarding the Defense Department, this was a 

very brief conversation that Jim Glassman and I had yesterday. I 

know he’s had a meeting over there, and that is certainly an issue 

that I think we both need to take into consideration, concerning 

Secretary Gates’ recent announcement on this subject. We welcome 

your input on that as well, Senator. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you very much. I came to this hearing from a wonderful meeting with 10 students from St. Petersburg 

University. These are all future diplomats, and they are deeply interested and very sophisticated about foreign policy in our country. 

These things occur every day in Washington, thank goodness. I 

hope for many more, because I was telling them about a group of 

young Georgians that came here 15 years ago, including the nowPresident, Mr. Shakashvili. They were graduate students then. 

They went back to Georgia and a while later the Rose Revolution 

occurred. Thus, this is serious business in terms of our public diplomacy and likewise the right outcomes of history. 

So I appreciate very much your leadership and your collaboration 

with Mr. Glassman. 

Ms. AMERI. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

Senator Feingold. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I want to thank all the witnesses for their commitment to public service. Your dedication to supporting U.S. foreign policy goals is commendable, particularly since you would be 

taking on these positions with only a year left in the current administration. 

Let me just ask a few questions. First for Mr. Glassman. In our 

meeting earlier this week you mentioned your intent to work to improve the structure of the Bureau of Public Diplomacy and Public 

Affairs, and I appreciate your attention to strengthening this Bureau, particularly since it has undergone many changes since the 

18 

U.S. Information Agency was folded into the Department of State 

operations. 

To your predecessor’s credit, she undertook a difficult task when 

accepting this assignment in 2005 and she should be recognized for 

her accomplishments. As you are well aware, however, this Bureau 

has been criticized for having a weak communications strategy, 

which obviously raises questions about its ability to meet its important mission. 

I’d like to hear from you if you have spoken with your predecessor first about the development of a communications strategy 

and how you’ll work to improve it; and secondly, how you see the 

communications strategy fitting into the broader ‘‘structural’’ 

changes you intend to implement? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Thank you very much for the question, Senator. 

I have indeed spoken at length with Karen Hughes and I agree 

with you, I think she did a superb job in her 21⁄2 years as Under 

Secretary and, frankly, just speaking personally, I don’t think she 

received credit, at least in the media, for all that she did. I think 

people within the Department understand it, people who know public diplomacy understand it. 

She did a number of very important things. One of the things she 

did was really help to liberate ambassadors and other public officials throughout the State Department to get out and advocate for 

American policies and American principles. You know, many of 

them are looking at their own careers and worried that they might 

say something wrong. And in fact when somebody might—in one 

case did say something a little bit wrong, she backed that person 

up and said that we all make mistakes. That was a very important 

signal to send. 

I want to, if I’m confirmed, continue on that same path. The fact 

is that we need a multiplicity of voices out advocating for United 

States policy and for American principles in the long term. 

Two other things that she did that are tremendously important, 

I think. One was establishing media hubs in London, Brussels, and 

Dubai. In fact, when I was in Dubai 2 months ago I met with the 

people there. It’s a very small staff. There are really only six people 

throughout the world who are doing this. But what they’re doing 

is getting out into the Arabic language media as well as other 

media on a very fast, very quick response basis and engaging. 

When I was on the Djerijian group 41⁄2 years ago, one of the 

points that we made was we need to get into the conversation. 

Four and one-half years ago we were not in it. We’re now in it 

more and more. 

Finally—and I got an impressive demonstration of this the other 

day—the digital outreach team, which is now I believe eight or 

nine people who are blogging, identifying themselves as U.S. Government representatives. They are on blogs, they’re on Web sites 

in the Arabic language, Farsi, Persian, and Urdu, again trying to 

get the facts out, because that’s the big problem. 

So I am deeply committed to a program of vigorous communication. In that sense I will be following in Karen’s footsteps, and I 

think my entire career of 40 years in communications is background for that, sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Glassman. 

19 

Mr. Kramer, I’d like to just ask you a question about Russia as 

we just touched on it briefly when we met. I’m concerned, as I’m 

sure you are, by the significant weakening we’ve seen in Russia’s 

democratic institutions. Promoting the rule of law and strengthening democratic institutions are an important part of United 

States foreign policy and we cannot afford to see Russian democracy backslide. 

I’d be interested to hear what you’ve done in your current position to address this backsliding and, should you be nominated, how 

would you promote democracy and the rule of law in Russia? 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator, thank you very much for the question. It 

is an issue that has occupied me both in my service in Government 

and before I joined the Government, working in the think-tank 

community. I would note that while working at the Carnegie Endowment in the 1990s I played a key role in setting up the first 

independent think tank in Moscow, the Carnegie Moscow Center, 

which continues to this day as a vibrant institution of free expression. 

In my Government service, have tried to draw attention, particularly when the Chechen War flared up again in 1999, to the plight 

of Chechens and what was happening there. In my current capacity 

as Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for Russia, Ukraine, 

Belarus, and Modova, I’ve also been outspoken on the problems 

that you’ve identified—the backsliding and the internal situation in 

Russia—even to the point where my public criticism of last December’s Duma election earned me a condemnation from the Russian 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

My intent is not simply to speak out from on high, but to actually try to make a difference. I think we have to be realistic about 

our ability to influence the situation in Russia these days. It’s a different Russia than what we saw emerge from the initial period of 

the breakup of the Soviet Union, but it doesn’t mean that we give 

up and let Russia continue without drawing attention to the democratic backsliding that you’ve identified. So Russia will remain a 

key challenge for us as we continue to try to address the problems 

there. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Finally, as we discussed briefly yesterday, there are many countries across sub-Saharan Africa that require assistance in consolidating recent democratic gains. A good example is Nigeria, which 

is an important United States ally and a leader on the continent. 

But the last Presidential election there was the latest in a line of 

troubled elections, with this most recent one heavily, if not completely, rigged in favor of the ruling party. More recently, the Nigerian President has deposed the head of the country’s anticorruption 

commission, undermining a previous commitment to fight corruption that plagues this resource-rich country. 

So although the administration has certainly paid lip service to 

democracy and good government in both cases, the State Department’s response to these inexcusable actions was, in my view, 

seemingly little more than a slap on the wrist and then back to 

business. 

20 

If confirmed, how would you in your role as head of DRL seek 

to address the significant discrepancies between our government’s 

actions and words? 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator, I greatly appreciate your involvement and 

interest in matters dealing with Africa. It is a continent of enormous importance to the United States. If confirmed in this new position, I pledge to you a great deal of attention will be focused on 

Africa by me and by the bureau. 

I also am aware of the letter you sent to Secretary Rice drawing 

attention to the concerns you have with the situation in Nigeria. 

I know when the Nigerian President came for meetings and met 

with President Bush that concerns were raised at the highest levels. Certainly the issues that need to be addressed include corruption, the problems facing democratic institutions, and the ability for 

people to associate in opposition parties. 

I would also just add that countries don’t deserve a pass just because they may be important because of energy resources or because they may contribute to peacekeeping operations. Nigeria is 

very important on both scores, but that doesn’t mean that Nigeria 

or any other country, for that matter, should earn a pass when it 

comes to being held up to democratic standards. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Mr. Kramer, is Putin the next czar of Russia? 

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the question of where Mr. Putin is 

going has perhaps been clarified by his statement saying he would 

be willing to serve as prime minister following the March 2 election. The expectation, and I think it seems more and more clear, 

that Dmitri Medvedev will be Russia’s next president. His standings are above 80 percent and given the difficulties of registering 

opposition candidates, the way seems fairly paved for Mr. 

Medvedev to become president. 

Mr. Putin has said on numerous occasions in the past that he 

would not stay as president. He now does in fact seem to be living 

up to that. But I think, in responding to Senator Feingold’s question, we have seen significant rollback on democratic progress in 

Russia in the centralization of power, the elimination of gubernatorial elections, the crackdown on NGOs, the harassment of journalists, even the murder of several journalists, including Paul 

Klebnikof, an American citizen. All of these things point to disturbing trends in Russia and President Putin has been President 

during that time. 

It is my hope, whether from my current position or if confirmed 

as Assistant Secretary for the Bureau for Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor, that we would be able to engage in a productive 

and effective and serious way with new Russian leadership on how 

to get Russia back on the right democratic path. 

Senator Bill NELSON. As prime minister, do you think he will be 

the power behind the throne? 

Mr. KRAMER. Now you’re asking me to look into my Kremlin 

crystal ball, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Bill NELSON. I’m asking your opinion. 

21 

Mr. KRAMER. Indeed. I would say, and President Putin has said 

himself, that he plans to remain an influential figure in Russian 

politics. I would not question that statement in the least. I think 

that will remain the case. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Tell me what you think about human 

rights in Cuba. 

Mr. KRAMER. Cuba stands out in the Western Hemisphere. There 

are other countries in the hemisphere that have their problems, 

but Cuba has for decades. Our policy, the U.S. focus, has been on 

getting ready for the post-Castro transition. We’ve been ready for 

quite a while, but the day is getting closer. So we want to help 

forces in Cuba that are fighting for democracy, for respect for 

human rights, for release of political prisoners. 

If confirmed in this new position I would work very closely with 

colleagues, through the inter-agency process, to make sure we are 

ready to help Cuba once it reaches that phase. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Waiting until that point or acting now? 

Mr. KRAMER. Acting now. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Doing what now? 

Mr. KRAMER. Providing the necessary support for NGOs, speaking out when there are human rights abuses and transgressions 

against democratic freedoms, and also trying to reach out to support democratic groups for when that day comes. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Do you support humanitarian assistance to 

family members in Cuba? 

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I would. Humanitarian assistance 

would fall beyond the purview of the Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor Bureau, but whenever humanitarian assistance is needed that appeals to the hearts of the American people. So my instinct would be to provide humanitarian support wherever it’s 

needed. 

Senator Bill NELSON. How do you grade the new president of Nigeria and his record of human rights? 

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the problems in Nigeria are serious—human rights abuses and corruption, the lack of ability of 

people to speak out and to organize in opposition parties. When the 

Nigerian president came to Washington last December, these 

issues were raised. So it is my intention if confirmed in the new 

position to continue a dialog. 

We want to see Nigeria succeed. It’s critically important, given 

Nigeria’s place in Africa and, frankly, on the global scene that Nigeria become a success story. So we want to do what we can to help 

Nigeria develop in a more democratic fashion. 

Senator Bill NELSON. It’s ironic that some of our best international friends are also some of the greatest abusers of human 

rights, and yet we support these allies for other reasons. So tell the 

committee, how do we strike the balance between the security interest and seeing that our commitment toward human rights is adhered to in those countries? 

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, that’s a key question that you’ve 

asked. My approach, if given the opportunity to serve as assistant 

secretary, would be to avoid tradeoffs and even avoid trying to balance things. My approach would be to try to push on all cylinders 

on all issues. Security interests, economic interests, democratic inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
22 

terests all work for the same ultimate goal, which is promoting a 

more secure, stable, democratic global community. 

So, while some issues may rise on the priority list given certain 

exigencies, it would be my goal to try to push countries to become 

more democratic, not in a lecturing or hectoring way, but in a way 

that tries to demonstrate to them it is in their own interest to do 

so. Countries that crack down on opposition forces or on religious 

minority groups run the risk of producing the very kinds of extremist activities that we don’t want to see. So to me these interests go 

hand in hand. If given the opportunity, it would be my goal to push 

and work very closely with my colleagues in the regional bureaus 

in the State Department, as well as in the inter-agency process. 

In my current capacity, I am coming from a regional bureau so 

I bring that experience. I can work to make sure that the Bureau 

for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor has the same relationship with all the bureaus in the State Department. 

Senator Bill NELSON. What would you do differently than the 

previous assistant secretaries? 

Mr. KRAMER. If confirmed, I would inherit a bureau that is in extremely good shape, and if confirmed, I thank my predecessors, 

Lorne Craner, Glen Davies, Mike Kozak, and Barry Lowenkron of 

course, and old dear friend of mine. They have positioned the bureau to become an effective vehicle for providing money to those in 

need, to support NGOs who are promoting democratic activities. 

Barry Lowenkron, the immediate predecessor, has left a bureau 

that’s in very good shape. Perhaps I would speak out a little more 

publicly on some issues, but I think Barry also has a very strong 

and proud record on that. I’m not known in the State Department 

as a shy person and, if confirmed, I don’t plan to become shy in 

this new job. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Well, kudos to you on that. Other than 

speaking out publicly, any other changes? 

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed in this job, I would 

have less than a year, and I think it would probably be not the 

wisest thing for me to do to try to turn the bureau upside down. 

I also don’t feel there’s a need to do so. My interests would be to 

ensure that focus on democracy, human rights, and labor rights remain an issue for the next presidency, the next administration. To 

me, support for democracy and human rights, freedom, liberty, justice, labor rights, those issues transcend politics. There’s bipartisan 

support for that. And so I’d want to ensure that the bureau would 

be in the best shape possible for the next team, and also make sure 

we focus on some of the crises right now that we’re looking at, 

whether it’s in Darfur, focusing on the issue of Burma, dealing 

with problems in Belarus or Zimbabwe or Cuba, as you mentioned, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Will you cooperate with your successor? 

Mr. KRAMER. Absolutely. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Regardless of party? 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Do you have a history of that? 

Mr. KRAMER. I’ve only been serving in the Government since the 

start of the Bush administration, but I certainly had extensive contacts and dealings with people in the Clinton administration when 

23 

I worked in the think-tank community, and many of those friendships and relationships have carried over into the current administration. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Well, tell me what you think about the 

United Nations human rights organizations? 

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, you raise a very important point 

here. The Human Rights Council has been a serious disappointment. Its predecessor was not a great organization and the current 

institution is not a good one either. When you have countries like 

Saudi Arabia and China and Russia on the commission, that’s a 

problem. 

We work with other U.N. mechanisms, the third committee, as 

it’s called, in trying to bring attention to problems, whether it’s in 

Belarus or in Cuba. I will say that the Human Rights Commission 

did draw attention to the problem in Sudan last fall. But there has 

been an extremely unhealthy focus on Israel in the current Human 

Rights Council. 

So we try to work with it, make the best of it. We’re not a voting 

member, as you know. We also look to the possibility when universal periodic reviews start in a few months to use that as a 

mechanism to focus some attention where it so far has not occurred. 

Senator Bill NELSON. What do you think it takes to stop them 

being an Israel-bashing club? 

Mr. KRAMER. A sense of shame. They seem to focus on Israel to 

an unhealthy degree, while overlooking problems elsewhere in the 

world. I would hope that there would be a greater sense of balance 

brought to the agenda of the HRC. So far, alas, I have not seen 

that. 

Senator Bill NELSON. If we make some progress in the settlement 

in a two-stage solution, should that help? 

Mr. KRAMER. I would hope that would contribute to a more productive HRC, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure it will, but certainly that 

would be a positive step in and of itself, regardless of the impact 

it may have on the Human Rights Commission. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Who do you think in the State Department 

or elsewhere ought to make the decision about whether or not the 

United States would join the Human Rights Council? 

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, that would be a matter decided at 

the highest levels of our building, I’m sure in full consultation with 

our colleagues at the NSC and the White House. I think we have 

not been hindered by the decision not to be a full voting member. 

We have participated in informal meetings as well as formal meetings. We have an opportunity to speak out in those. 

So it’s my intent, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, to continue to do 

what we can while recognizing that we’re dealing with an institution that does not have a good track record at all. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Do you recall who was the most recent 

country to be put on the council? 

Mr. KRAMER. I don’t, Mr. Chairman. I’d be happy to get back to 

you on that. I apologize; I don’t have that answer. 

Senator Bill NELSON. No, I should have that answer, and maybe 

we’ll have it here in a minute. 

24 

Last November, the Secretary of Defense made a very insightful 

statement, Mr. Glassman. Secretary Gates said, quote, that ‘‘The 

U.S. is miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what 

we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals. It’s just plain embarrassing 

that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.’’ End of quote. 

Do you agree with that assessment? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. I think that assessment’s a little on the extreme 

side, but I generally agree with its spirit. I think there’s an important history here, which is that in the 1990s this country unilaterally disarmed [our public diplomacy apparatus], for reasons that I 

think were understandable. We had won the cold war, so why did 

we need the greatest public diplomacy apparatus in the world any 

more? And we got a rude awakening 6 years ago, and since then 

we have been rebuilding [our public diplomacy apparatus]. 

I think that absolutely in the last 2 years that there is a new 

spirit and I think a successful beginning at rebuilding that apparatus so that it can do the kinds of things that Secretary Gates and 

I myself and many others want it to do is underway. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Well, this is January and that was 2 

months ago that the Secretary of Defense said that. You think that 

it’s been fixed. What else would you do to fix it? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. I think it’s on the way to being fixed. What else 

would I do? Well, in many parts of the Government, including the 

Department of Defense, including the intelligence community, 

there is an effort under way in ideological engagement or the war 

of ideas. That effort, however, is not coordinated and it is not led 

to the degree that it should be. The President has given the lead 

to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and 

my main focus will be to lead the war of ideas. 

So it’s not just a matter of getting the right words or the right 

messages. It’s a matter of leadership and getting that out, and I 

think if I’m confirmed in the year that I have that will be my focus. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Well, let me tell you one thing that Secretary Gates said ought to fix it. When he made that statement, 

he called for increased funding for the foreign affairs budget and 

diplomacy. Do you support that suggestion? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. In the past 5 years the budget for Education and 

Cultural Affairs has doubled, and I think that is an excellent indication of the concern that the Congress and the administration 

have. 

My general feeling is this, and I certainly expressed it when I 

was on the Djerijian group. Resources are important, absolutely; no 

doubt about that. But we need the leadership and the structure to 

put those resources to work properly. I think we’re there now. I 

don’t think we were there 4 years ago or maybe even 2 years ago. 

Absolutely the Department of Defense has a great deal of resources 

and they’re spending some of their resources, and certainly they 

have a great deal more resources than the Department of State. 

Senator Bill NELSON. So when I see Secretary Gates next week, 

do you want me to tell him that he should fund it? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. No, I want you to give us his money and we’ll 

take care of it. 

25 

Senator Bill NELSON. Well, that’s what I mean. So you want the 

DOD to fund DOS? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. No, I don’t want DOD to fund DOS. However, 

DOD does provide some funding that is very important in the overall ideological engagement struggle, and that money is very, very 

useful. Let’s put it that way. 

Senator Bill NELSON. All right, we’ll leave it that way. But I’m 

going to ask him to talk to you. 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Because he’s torqued up about this. 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Absolutely. I want to talk to him. I’ve read his 

Landham Lecture that you referred to at Kansas State University 

last November. I thought it was an excellent speech. He extolled 

soft power. I agree with that. He also understands the roles that 

the different parts of government have. He knows that the State 

Department has been given the lead in the war of ideas, and there 

may be some concern at DOD, in the intelligence community, and 

in other areas of government, about the commitment to the war of 

ideas by the State Department. I can tell you that if I’m confirmed 

there won’t have to be any doubts about that, and I want to work 

very closely with DOD and the other participants. I’ve already 

spent the 6 weeks since my nomination talking to many of the key 

players in that area. 

Senator Bill NELSON. The Pew Charitable Trust did a survey between 2002 and 2007. They found that favorable views of the 

United States fell and fell considerably. For example, in Germany—this is from 2002 to 2007—fell from 60 percent to 30 percent; in Indonesia, fell from 61 to 29; in Turkey fell from 30 to 9; 

and in Egypt three out of four Egyptians and Turks and Palestinians all express unfavorable opinions of the United States. 

Now, you say that what has happened in the past couple of years 

has improved, but that being a difference over that 5-year period 

of 2002 to 2007, what are you going to do to try to change that? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Favorable views of the United States are tremendously important. Our job in public diplomacy is to help achieve 

the goals, the national interest goals of the United States of America, and that’s a lot easier to do if people are favorably disposed to 

us. Now, I don’t know if it’s a question of liking us or loving us. 

It’s more trust and respect. You’re absolutely right, Senator. Those 

numbers are disturbing. 

A lot of the numbers are quite unstable. You know, we’ve seen, 

for example—I’m looking at the same table—in Jordan in 2002 

there was 25 percent approval for the United States. Then it 

dropped to 1 percent the next year. Now it’s back up to 20 percent. 

These numbers are low, but they are somewhat unstable. It’s also 

true that in other parts of the world, such as Africa, Latin America, 

parts of Europe, we do have much more favorable ratings, if you 

want to call them that. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Would you agree that Germany definitely 

has fallen? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Germany has definitely fallen, as has most of Europe. Italy is still 53 percent. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Okay, what can you do? You’ve only got a 

year to do this. 

26 

Mr. GLASSMAN. I think there are a number of things we can do. 

No. 1, as I said earlier, I think it is important that this perception 

that the United States doesn’t care or does not take into account 

the views of people of other nations really needs to be dispelled or 

worked on. I think there are a lot of ways we can do that and show 

that we’re listening more. So that’s No. 1. 

No. 2, we have got to fight back against the lies that are being 

told about us. That is more in the Arab and Muslim world. That’s 

not so much in Europe. But there are a lot of misconceptions in Europe as well. 

Finally, there’s the policy question. If you look at the Europe 

numbers, you see that they took a dive when the Iraq war began. 

They don’t like the Iraq war. I’m not telling you anything you don’t 

know. But policies come, policies go. I support the administration’s 

policy in Iraq. Lots of people in Europe clearly do not. We need to 

explain those policies better, but we also have to understand that 

people will disagree with our policies. 

Let me just give you one example from another Pew survey. In 

May Pew looked at Muslim Americans, especially at foreign-born 

Muslim Americans. Here’s what they found. Muslim Americans do 

not like the Iraq war by a 6-to-1 or seen to one margin. There is 

huge opposition to the war, compared at the time to about 50–50 

view within the United States. However, Muslim Americans completely support American values, American principles. A majority 

of them are optimistic about the settlement of the PalestinianIsraeli conflict. They are ideal citizens. 

That seems to me to be the paradigm that we need to go for 

throughout the rest of the world. People will disagree with our policies and we should never set policies based simply on global public 

opinion. But people need to understand what those policies are and 

also have the kind of feelings about American principles that Muslim Americans have. That should be our goal. 

Senator Bill NELSON. The war aside, what new tools would you 

use to improve our image in the Muslim world? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. I think that a lot of the new tools have to be 

through technology. As Secretary Gates said, to some extent our 

enemies are—and this is my term—eating our lunch when it comes 

to getting their word out on the Internet. But we are coming back 

and we are coming back forcefully. The digital outreach team that 

I talked about earlier, where actually we are, as far as we can tell, 

the only government that’s actually participating in blogging, is 

going online and saying, here’s the truth, we’re pushing back. We 

need to do that more and more. 

YouTube is being used at the Broadcasting Board of Governors. 

We’re using more and more of the tools that exist on the Internet 

to get our word across. That will be a major focus of my attention, 

as well as, if I’m confirmed, as well as if she is confirmed, Goli 

Ameri’s attention, because both of us have a background in the 

Internet and in telecommunications. 

Senator Bill NELSON. One of the problems that this Senator sees 

is that a bastardized version of Islam is being promoted by folks 

like al Qaeda. What should we do to show that for what it is? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Senator, that’s a tremendously important question and it raises a difficult problem. The ideology of al Qaeda is 

27 

based on a distorted view of a religion, and it’s very difficult for us 

as Americans or as non-Muslims to say to them or to their followers, you know, this is what the Koran really says, it’s not what 

you say it says. We’re not particularly credible in that sphere. 

It’s important to have credible Muslim voices. I believe that is an 

area that we need to do better in, in encouraging Muslim voices to 

step forward and say exactly what you’re saying, that [al-Qaeda 

has] built an ideology—which is a violent and vicious ideology—on 

top of a religion that is not like that at all. 

Senator Bill NELSON. So have we identified one of your new 

tools? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. That is definitely a tool, absolutely. 

Senator Bill NELSON. All right, tell me about Cuba? How are you 

going to increase communication with Cuba? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Our major means of communication with Cuba is 

through what’s being done at Radio Marti and TV Marti. I’m proud 

to say that this is a major—and as far as we can tell, successful— 

effort of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. We are beaming into 

Cuba through shortwave, through medium wave, and by television, 

now 6 hours a day, the truth about not only what the rest of the 

world is saying and the United States is saying about Cuba, but 

what’s going on within that island itself, because the people who 

live there have no way of finding out what the truth is. 

So we’re doing that and we’re doing it very vigorously. I think 

that’s the most important thing we can be doing. 

Senator Bill NELSON. What do you think about the visits of family members as a means of communication? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. I have to say, Senator, that this is not an area 

of knowledge that I have, and I will look into that certainly. But 

I’m really not up to date on exactly what the policies are in that 

regard. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Do you think that TV Marti gets through? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. As far as we can tell, TV Marti definitely gets 

through. We can’t do the kind of research that obviously we can do 

in many other parts of the world. We gather as extensive research 

as we possibly can from people who have left Cuba, from help that 

we have within Cuba, and we have anecdotal evidence that people 

are watching TV Marti. As I think you know, one of the first things 

that I did when I became chairman of the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors was to go down to Key West and see our operation 

there, which is quite impressive. We put up a plane that is able 

to beam signals from United States waters into Cuba much more 

effectively than previous means, and we believe that people are 

watching. 

Senator Bill NELSON. How frequently does that plane fly? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. The plane flies, I believe, every night. There may 

be one day that it doesn’t fly. I’m not sure. But I think it’s every 

night, from 6 to 11 p.m., or maybe 6 p.m. to midnight. I’ve been 

in the plane although I haven’t been up in it. You know, people in 

corporate life like to brag about their G4s and G5s. This is a G1. 

This is the first Gulfstream. It’s a two-engine plane. It’s a very impressive operation, done very much on a shoestring. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Well, at least it’s not a Piper Cub. 

28 

Mr. GLASSMAN. No, at least it’s not a Piper Cub. It’s a very well 

equipped and very well maintained plane and, from what we can 

tell, it’s effective. 

Senator Bill NELSON. I wish you would provide for the committee, please, the frequency of the flight and the estimate of the 

degree of penetration, along with the hours of broadcast, the estimate of the penetration, because that’s been the problem on the TV 

Marti in the past, is ability to penetrate his jamming. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I have two short questions for 

Mr. Kramer. 

Senator Coleman of our committee has visited with me specifically about the decision of Canada not to send representation to the 

Second World Conference on Racism, which is now scheduled for 

2009, to be held in Durbin, South Africa. We note that the United 

States cast the lone ‘‘no’’ vote against the latest proposed United 

Nations budget, specifically because it included costs for the 2009 

Durbin conference. 

Obviously, the Durbin conference in 2001 failed to live up to its 

potential. The United States walked out. I’m just simply curious. 

Canada has already decided not to attend. We apparently have not 

made that decision at this point, although we walked out of the 

last one. 

What is your overview of the Durbin conference, the 2009 affair? 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator, I appreciate your flagging this issue. As 

you rightly point out, there were huge problems with the first Durbin conference, to the point where we certainly made the right decision in walking out. From what I understand so far, we have similar concerns about how the second one is shaping up and certainly, 

if confirmed, would take a very close look at this issue and the 

question of attendance and would be happy to discuss this matter 

further with you at the appropriate time. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, good. It would be good to keep the committee informed, because questions will be raised, for obvious reasons, given the previous experience and our vote on the U.N. budget. 

My second question concerns legislation that I offered a while 

back, which has passed, fortunately, to establish the Center for 

International Media Assessment, CIMA, as a part of the National 

Endowment for Democracy. Your Department, the Department of 

Human Rights and Labor, made a grant to CIMA, and they have 

had I think very good success during the past year, and have reported to all stakeholders on their remarkable results. 

So I am hopeful as another grant request comes from CIMA to 

your Department that you would give it high priority in terms of 

consideration. It appears to me, having witnessed some of the 

meetings, press conferences, and what have you, that they have 

done a good job on behalf of their mission in terms of public diplomacy. 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator, I appreciate your raising this issue and I 

think as of now I wouldn’t be in much of a position to give you a 

response, but certainly if confirmed on the job would pledge to you 

to give this very serious consideration. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much. 

29 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

Ms. Ameri, in this fiscal year, Congress is providing a little over 

a half a billion dollars for exchanges, and that was an increase of 

some $75 million in the last 2 years. How much of that money 

would you like to see for educational and cultural exchanges for 

next year, 2009? 

Ms. AMERI. Senator, are you asking what is the increase that 

we’d like to see? 

Senator Bill NELSON. In the past 2 years we’ve had a 17 percent 

increase. 

Ms. AMERI. Right. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Now, of that total amount of money for exchanges, how much of it would you like to see go into educational 

programs? 

Ms. AMERI. Right now, Senator, in the 2008 budget, which is 

about $501 million if I remember correctly, about $280 million is 

spent on academic programs, of which the majority is Fulbright. 

What I would like to see happen more this year, Senator Nelson— 

and that’s why I brought the help and support of the private sector 

in—is for us to be able to increase our sponsorship and activities 

in these very successful micro-access scholarship in the English 

language programs that we have overseas, especially in the Muslim 

world. 

The evaluation of ECA clearly shows that that’s a program that 

moves the needle. So I want to make sure that we put a tremendous amount of emphasis on that. Of course, you know our international visitor leadership program, the ECA’s international visitor 

leadership program, is incredibly successful. And as you very well 

know, as Senator Lugar mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, 

over 270 heads of state, current or former heads of state, have been 

a part of that program, including Hamid Karzai, Tony Blair— 

you’re aware of the names—and about 1500 cabinet-level ministers. 

Forty-four alumni of this Department are Nobel Prize winners. 

So we need to make sure that that’s an area that we focus on 

as well. That’s why I brought up the topic of getting more help and 

support from the private sector to make sure that we can really 

create a certain level of mass in these activities. 

Senator Bill NELSON. How would that work, over and above the 

Federal money? 

Ms. AMERI. Well, if confirmed, Senator, I’ve given a bit of 

thought to this issue and we’ve had some discussions with Jim 

Glassman—we would like to be able to reach out to the private sector, to corporate America, to other NGOs, possibly to the U.S. 

Chamber. These are all preliminary thoughts, Senator. We haven’t 

done any of those right now. Possibly to the rotaries and to local 

organizations. The Rotary Club, for example, already sponsors 

some exchange programs. We’d like to really—I’d like for us to really go all out and to reach out to a large segment of the private sector and potentially bring them together in a summit to be able to 

announce a significant program by which the private sector becomes involved in a big way in all our exchange and English language activities. 

30 

In addition, Senator, one of the ideas that I have—and I certainly welcome the committee’s feedback on this—is getting some 

of the private sector involved overseas. For example, with our Fulbright programs right now the governments provide 40 percent of 

our contribution to these programs. That’s one of the reasons that 

our Fulbright programs are as successful as they are. 

In my conversations with some private sector individuals, particularly in the Arab world—these are folks that are doing a lot for 

their communities right now. They’ve done well in life. The majority of them have been educated in the United States. They understand that spirit of philanthropy that is so prevalent in this country and they like to do more of that. And they are interested in 

Fulbright, and they are interested in the English language. 

So one of my ideas, with feedback from you, of course, and making sure that we follow all the rules and regulations that we need 

to, is to reach out to them and to see if we can make a partner 

with them as well. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Now, one of the problems with some of 

these exchanges is that there’s been a lot more of the exchanges 

with European and Asian countries and less so with Africa, the 

Middle East, various Muslim countries. Tell me what you think 

that we can do about that? You mentioned you want to reach out 

to the Muslim world. 

Ms. AMERI. Absolutely, Senator. That’s definitely another one of 

the top items on my agenda. Let me just tell you a little bit about 

what ECA has done up to now with the Muslim world. We have 

more than 700 students from the Muslim world, high school students, that are in the United States todayu and are staying with 

wonderful, generous host families here. Our Fulbright scholarships 

have tripled in the last few years. Pakistan, for example, is one of 

our largest programs. The Government of Turkey has doubled their 

sponsorship of our Fulbright scholars. 

Our international visitors have increased from the Muslim world. 

In fact, I had the privilege to meet with four Muslim scholars/leaders from Africa. When I was in Oregon, I served on the board of 

trustees of the World Affairs Council of Oregon. They were very interested in Islam in America and they were interested in learning 

more about the whole electoral process in America. I guess I was 

sort of a natural candidate for them to meet with. 

I tell you, after that meeting was over, that was a good meeting. 

I had a much better understanding of some of the issues that they 

brought up. To them, it was just amazing that a person of Iranian 

heritage, of Islamic heritage, can—has been able to accomplish 

what this country has allowed me to accomplish in this country. So 

we sort of had a moment of enlightenment on both our parts. 

These are very powerful programs. But clearly we need to do 

even more in Islamic countries. I think you asked some very good 

questions from my colleague, Jim Glassman. One of the issues that 

I see, Senator, is that the American people are a very humble people. Despite the great accomplishments of this country, we are not 

very good at talking about the wonderful things that this country 

does for the rest of the world. I think we need to talk a little bit 

more about that. 

31 

I think my nomination in itself, Senator, sends a tremendous 

message to the rest of the world about the level of tolerance and 

open-mindedness that exists in this country. We need to take advantage of this. We need to talk to the rest of the world about this, 

especially to the Islamic world. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Well, and that’s why I ask about the Islamic world. You’re only going to have a year, so what can you do 

about it, to rev it up, to increase these, what has been imbalanced 

in the past? 

Ms. AMERI. You know, Senator, I’m actually painfully aware of 

the fact that I only have 11 months to do the job that I want to 

do. So clearly, as Jim said, one of the first things that we need to 

do is to build upon the successful programs that we already have. 

Our English access micro-scholarship programs work. It moves the 

needle. I gave you some statistics at the beginning. Close to 90 percent of the participants, their attitude changes about the United 

States. 

If we want to increase that, we have to create mass. The way we 

create mass is to bring in partners, so private sector is one important thing. 

We need more technology. We live in the Internet age and, as 

Jim said, both he and I have a technology background. We need to 

bring our activities into the 21st century. We need to be able to get 

more on YouTube. Jim and I have talked on a very preliminary 

basis on how can we put some of our English language programs 

for free on the Internet. This is just in the talk phase. I don’t really 

know about the logistics yet. But it’s a program that worked, that 

moves the needle, that changes values. We need to do that. 

My goal is to reach out more to the Muslim American community 

because I know they are our best friends. Just like Jim said, they 

understand and like and admire American values. We need to get 

more of them to go overseas. We need to reach out more to our 

alumni, which are our very good friends, because these folks have 

understood what’s happening. 

If I may, Senator, just to give you a very brief anecdote here. I 

had the opportunity to meet with a couple of our Fulbright teaching language folks that have been brought here, about 300 of them. 

These were Iranians. One of them teaches at Emory, the other one 

teaches at Portland State University. I had an opportunity to meet 

with both of them, and one of them was this wonderful young lady, 

practicing Muslim, fashionably dressed, who clearly did not have a 

lot of information about the United States, and here she was in 

Portland, OR, teaching Farsi at Portland State. 

I wish you were there, Senator, and heard the things that she 

was saying. She has seen nothing but kindness and graciousness 

from her American hosts. She’s blown away by our election process. 

She loves what she’s learning. Needless to say, it’s been a life-altering experience for her. 

I know it’s been the other way around as well, because her colleagues, her students, the people around her, are seeing this young 

Islamic woman that is very different from the image that they see 

from al Qaeda. 

So these exchanges work. We just need to find a mechanism to 

make more of them happen. 

32 

Senator Bill NELSON. Well, one of the problems you’re going to 

encounter is that there are 63 separate entities that run these exchange and training programs and there are 243 of them. Now, I 

don’t expect you to have an answer for that now. But since you 

only have a little less than a year, would you try to get your arms 

around that? 

Ms. AMERI. Senator, are you referring to the private sector entities or are you referring to the different programs at the bureau? 

Senator Bill NELSON. The different programs at the bureau, the 

U.S. Government. 

Ms. AMERI. Right. In fact, Senator, that’s an excellent question. 

Indeed there are 60 different programs at the bureau, and I have 

asked that question as well. The thing that I know is that clearly 

the bureau reaches out to a very diverse audience. That’s a fact. 

Having said that, and coming from the private sector, Senator, I’m 

very focused on making sure that we only commit resources to programs that move the needle. You have my commitment that that 

will be an important item on my agenda. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Thank you. 

Ms. AMERI. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Mr. Kramer, just to complete that question 

of the recent appointees, paragons of virtue and human rights such 

as Bolivia and Nicaragua are recent appointees to the U.N. Human 

Rights Council. 

Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me welcome you all. I want to start off with Mr. Glassman. 

First of all, I want to acknowledge your service on the board of governors, the Broadcasting Board of Governors. I do believe, in response to the chairman’s questions on Cuba, I think we have made 

progress on using a process that penetrates into giving the Cuban 

people an opportunity for an outlet to the rest of the world, and I 

want to salute you on the work that’s been done in that regard. 

I want to raise the concern—this past December, Senator Reid— 

the Majority Leader—I, and a few other Members took a trip to 

Latin America, including some countries that in fact had not received delegations from the Senate in the past. One of the things 

that we heard in the five countries that we visited overwhelmingly 

was the incredulousness of the leaders of those countries as to how 

difficult it is to have students from Latin America come to the 

United States, particularly when Cuba invites their students to 

come in very significant numbers to study, when Chavez is doing 

the same thing. 

It is a tremendous challenge to us in a hemisphere in which we 

have invested so much money and effort in Central America, to 

now see many countries moving in the opposite direction, where 

they do not believe that democracy brings good things to life. 

I had been enthused when I read the President’s comments in 

March of last year about the Partnership for Latin American 

Youth. However, I am disappointed in having information that basically says that that wasn’t submitted for funding and therefore 

we are doing relatively very little in that regard. The goal was to 

have $75 million for 5,000 Latin American young people to improve 

their English and study in the United States. 

33 

If you are approved by the committee and by the Senate, confirmed by the Senate, will you be an advocate within the administration to try to move some of our resources to ensure that the 

President’s own initiative becomes a priority and making sure that 

we see more Latin American youth come to the United States? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Thank you, Senator Menendez. You know, one 

thing that I want to say to everyone on this committee is that 

we’ve been concentrating on the Arab and Muslim world to a great 

degree, but we can’t forget our own backyard. I’m very happy that 

you brought this issue up. 

I also thank you for the kind words about broadcasting into 

Cuba. We’re also broadcasting through Voice of America 40 hours 

a week into Latin America in general, and we are doing our 

darnedest to get into Venezuela. We are broadcasting in Venezuela, 

but it’s an extremely difficult environment, as you can imagine, including television. 

As for your question about the Partnership for Latin American 

Youth, I have taken a look at the initiative and I know the President’s commitment to it, and it appears to be exactly the kind of 

thing that we should be doing. I will do my best to get this program rolling. We already have, I’ve been told, the initial funding 

for fiscal 2008. If I’m confirmed, this is definitely the kind of thing 

that we should be doing and that I will dedicate myself to. 

I can also tell you probably more broadly that if I’m confirmed 

I will look at the regional allocations of all of our public diplomacy 

money. I realize that it’s possible that this is a job that if I’m confirmed I’ll only have for 11 months to do, but we’re going to hit the 

ground running and this is what we have to do. Job one is to make 

sure the money is being allocated to the right places and also, as 

Goli Ameri said, to make sure that we apply a ‘‘culture of measurement’’—my mantra when I was on the Djerijian group, to every 

program that we have and only use and focus the resources on the 

ones that work. 

But Latin America has been a focus of attention certainly in the 

past year of this administration. The President took a five-country 

trip there with the First Lady. We had the naval hospital ship 

COMFORT in Latin America. We are doing our best on exchanges. 

The visa situation is difficult. I’m happy to say, though, that this 

year, the academic year 2007–2008, we will almost certainly set a 

record of 600,000 foreign students coming to the United States to 

learn. Education is our best brand. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, let me follow up on your answer. First 

of all, I would urge you, when we speak about Latin America in 

the future as part of public diplomacy, I like to think of it as our 

front yard, not as our backyard, and you might want to consider 

that phrasing. 

But the bottom line is, you know, our problem is there’s a difference between words and actions. That’s our problem in Latin 

America. We have seen an occasional blip on the radar screen over 

the last 7 years about some words, but we haven’t seen a hell of 

a lot of action outside of narcotics interdiction, which is important, 

and some trade agreements, which are important. But when you 

only deal with Latin Americans in that context, you run a great 

34 

risk of having them believe that they are marginalized to those 

issues. 

So therefore it is nice to have the COMFORT down there, but it 

almost seems like we’re chasing Cuban doctors at the end of the 

day. What is real, what will be real, is if the President’s words are 

matched with action. So when we talked about $75 million over 3 

years, that would have been approximately $25 million a year or 

so. The reality is from the information that we finally received from 

the Department we’re talking about that, since this wasn’t pursued 

as part of the 2008 fiscal year budget request, that there may be 

the moving of some money around. 

I hope, even though you have a short period of time, that we can 

begin to move on the road in which Latin Americans understand 

that we are fully engaged with them. This is probably—of all those 

things those presidents said, that they could have said to us in 

terms of our engagement with them, it’s interesting that so many 

of them raised the issue of having their students be able to come 

to the United States. So I hope you’ll be a strong advocate of that. 

We have challenges in this hemisphere—Venezuela, Bolivia, 

Nicaragua, Ecuador, just to name a few. So while I know we are 

engaged in the rest of the world, here in our own front yard we 

have a real challenge. 

I appreciate both your comments and Ms. Ameri’s comments 

about the Internet and that is very important. But there is no substitution for person to person, people to people engagement. The reality is that’s why members of the Congress seek to visit both leaders and civil society in other parts of the world. We could have teleconferences, but we in fact seek to engage people in a direct context. So while that’s a good dimension, I don’t want to undercut the 

very essence of what I hope will be more people to people diplomacy as a critical soft power tool of the United States, and I hope 

that you will be a strong advocate, as well as Ms. Ameri will be 

a strong advocate, in that respect. 

Let me ask you an overarching question, if I may, about public 

diplomacy, in general. It seems to me that to a certain extent 

there’s a simple fundamental question in almost any discussion of 

public diplomacy. Put simply, do we put a priority on developing 

a following for the United States or do we tell it like it is? In effect, 

do we broadcast what people want to hear or what they need to 

hear? Are we in fact honest in our engagements with others in the 

world or are we willing to move from that direct honesty on both 

what our positions are and our expectations are and therefore move 

from there? 

I’m wondering, how is it that you view it in terms of public diplomacy and how would you—well, let me start there. How do you 

view it? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Well, that’s an excellent question, Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I’m waiting for an excellent answer. 

Mr. GLASSMAN. You’ll have to judge the excellence. 

The answer is that we have to be honest. We live in a world in 

which people are very sophisticated. They have numerous sources 

of information. If we tell them lies they’re going to figure that out 

pretty quickly. 

35 

You know, Edward R. Murrow famously said when he was the 

head of USIA: ‘‘The news may be good, the news may be bad; we 

shall tell you the truth.’’ That has been the watchword of the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors. We don’t do propaganda. We’re 

not allowed to do propaganda, but one of the reasons we don’t do 

it is it’s not particularly effective. People have more than one 

source of information. We can’t really fool them very well. 

I think part of the big problem in public diplomacy, in fact, has 

been that we have not aggressively enough countered the lies that 

our enemies have been telling. So I don’t think it’s a question of 

twisting the truth. It is a matter of being honest, but being aggressively honest, being advocates that are out there unabashedly telling our story, which is a good story. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So in that respect, let’s talk about a challenging part of the world for us—I think the chairman referenced 

it—the Middle East. Should we be talking about the need for civil 

society, for democratization, civil rights for women, minority groups 

and their rights in that society? Should we convey our views of 

those who support terrorism and incitement? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. We should and we do. Maybe we should do more 

of it, but we absolutely should. We should never shrink from advancing our—they’re not only our own and the global principles of 

democracy and freedom. We should be out there doing that. 

Now, sometimes in an official diplomatic sense that becomes difficult. That may be difficult in certain circumstances. Public diplomacy is different. Public diplomacy is people to people. There’s no 

need for us to shrink from advocacy of our own principles. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So to the extent that we have, for example, 

in the Arab world talked about our interest in having good relationships with the Arab world, but also talking about how very 

often those, several of those countries are undemocratic, face autocratic regimes, and do not respond to the aspirations of the Arab 

street and its people, you feel we should be direct about that, as 

well? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. I do, absolutely, in public diplomacy we should 

be direct. At the Broadcasting Board of Governors we had a big 

problem in Egypt in that we can’t get a radio station to broadcast 

Radio Sawa, an Arabic language radio network which is quite effective. We’ve been doing our best to try to get that. There’s no reason 

in the world for us to back down on that or not to support—and 

I was recently in Egypt—not to support people who are advocating 

for freedom there. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, one more line of questions, to Mr. Kramer. 

I have a great interest in, as the chair of the subcommittee that 

deals with all of our foreign assistance, as to how effective we are 

about that foreign assistance. In September of 2007, the GAO 

issued a report that found that—and I’m going to quote from it— 

that ‘‘The State Department did not have an accurate picture of the 

number and type of staff responsible for overseeing and monitoring 

foreign assistance responsibilities.’’ 

The amount of money that the Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor Bureau has available to program has increased substantially 

36 

over the last several years, and since DRL provides grants, not contracts, from Washington instead of from the field, how does the Department manage these programs and ensure that they are coordinating with other parts of the U.S. Government? If you were to be 

confirmed, what would you do to improve the coordination with 

other parts of the U.S. Government, particularly USAID, in the implementation of these grants, and what would you do to improve 

the Department’s ability to monitor these grants when they are all 

managed from Washington, DC? 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator, thank you for raising this issue, and I am 

aware of the GAO report. As you rightly point out, sir, the amount 

of money that has been provided for the Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor Bureau has increased significantly. My sense, in 

talking with folks and colleagues in the bureau, is that the bureau 

is in a position to handle those moneys appropriately. 

My hope, if confirmed, would be to ensure that the bureau is an 

organization that can provide money in a timely fashion, that can 

get money out, do it quickly, provide support to the vital work that 

NGOs and activists are doing. Obviously, the bureau would need 

to ensure proper oversight and management of the funds, and 

grant oversight is a major responsibility. 

Coordination within the Department and with other agencies is 

vital. We want to avoid duplication. We want to ensure that we are 

covering the issues that really matter. Funds are not limitless and 

so we want to make sure we get the biggest bang for the buck. 

As I mentioned to the chairman when he asked me, I currently 

work in a regional bureau in the Department, and I think the European and Eurasian Bureau is a perfect example where there is 

assistance money available through the assistance office in that regional bureau, but it’s a bureau that also works very effectively 

with the Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau. I would, 

if confirmed, work very hard to ensure that that continues throughout the Department and maintain the EUR, the European and 

Eurasian Bureau, as a good example of that. We should all be 

working for the greater good here, and it’s my view that the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor should be the bureau that many organizations go to for the necessary support they 

need to carry out the work they do. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, let me just close on that and say that 

I understand there’s no one in the bureau’s chain of command that 

works in these embassies. So the bureau needs to rely on informal 

or ad hoc assistance to ensure that programs are being implemented in the best possible way. I’m not sure that that’s a good 

way to manage what is rather complex and context-specific programs. 

It seems to me that one of our challenges is making sure that 

your staff in Washington and any staff that helps you overseas are 

qualified to manage these kinds of programs. It’s just like, a little 

bit I guess, what we do in a Senate office. We’ve got so many 

things going on that we grab the staff assistant and before you 

know it they’re writing letters and everybody else is doing something else. 

The question is, when we are talking about large amounts of 

money, for which there is a purpose in terms of foreign diplomacy 

37 

of the United States, that to ad hoc grab somebody at an embassy 

for the purposes because you have no person in your bureau who 

is in the line there at the embassy on the ground where these 

grants are being implemented—it seems to me if that’s going to 

continue to be the case for the next year, there needs to be an 

alignment at least of those individuals who have within the embassy context the best expertise to be able to pursue that specific 

grant. I often find that isn’t the case. It’s something that I hope you 

will pay attention to should you be confirmed. 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator, I certainly promise to you that, if confirmed, that is an issue I will look at very closely. To state the obvious, I would want to assure that there are no problems with oversight and monitoring of grant moneys. So I would be happy to engage with you and your staff on how that looks, if confirmed, once 

I would be in the job. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Bill NELSON. We want you to be successful and so we 

want to encourage you as you tackle this task within a short period 

of time. So within a few months, what I’d like is to have a visit 

with you personally, without staff, privately, and find out how your 

progress is coming along. Will you do that, Mr. Glassman? 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Mr. Kramer? 

Mr. KRAMER. Without hesitation, sir, yes. 

Senator Bill NELSON. Ms. Ameri? 

Ms. AMERI. It would be a pleasure, Senator. 

Senator Bill NELSON. We are going to keep the record open for 

2 days so that members of this committee can submit further questions for the record, and the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF DAVID J. KRAMER TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

LABOR

Question. What is your view of the role of labor in our democracy promotion agenda? How can the Department best advance labor rights? What measures do you 

think are necessary, if any, to strengthen labor diplomacy? 

Answer. Like any other freedoms such as association for political parties, the freedom of association for worker organizations is essential to building grassroots democracy. Supporting worker organizations is not just a matter of supporting democracy, it is a matter of human rights. 

The Department of State can best advance labor rights by continuing to engage 

governments, worker organizations, and employers, individually and collectively, on 

issues such as freedom of association, prohibitions on child labor and forced labor, 

and the promotion of acceptable working conditions. 

The Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau (DRL) already engages governments on labor rights in bilateral human rights dialogs, such as those with Vietnam 

and Azerbaijan, as well as in multilateral forums like the International Labor Organization. DRL also provides technical assistance to worker organizations and NGOs 

dealing with labor rights in countries where they can open up democratic space. 

DRL has consistently committed to use a portion of its Human Rights and Democracy Fund to provide this assistance to build the capacity of worker organizations 

to advocate for and protect their rights. 

DRL’s Office of International Labor and Corporate Social Responsibility engages 

multinational corporations in promoting the respect of labor rights throughout their 

38 

supply chain, including in operations which they outsource. DRL also engages these 

stakeholders collectively through multi-stakeholder dialogs that bring representatives from government, NGOs, and companies together to determine how to address 

specific labor issues in a country. 

The Department also works through labor rights mechanisms signed in conjunction with Free Trade Agreements; trade preference programs, such as the Generalized System of Preferences; OPIC financing; and ExIm Bank financing to promote 

greater respect for internationally recognized worker rights. 

Labor attaches have a long and distinguished record in the Foreign Service. The 

Department’s Labor officers and other Foreign Service officers with labor responsibilities are critical to labor diplomacy. It is important that the Department has 

these positions at posts where labor diplomacy can most effectively contribute to the 

promotion of democracy and human rights. Last year, the Department undertook a 

review of labor-designated positions overseas, and 45 labor-designated positions 

were formally recognized by the Human Resources Bureau and the regional bureaus. The review also resulted in new operating procedures regarding the labor 

function; it formalizes the need for officers assigned to labor-designated positions to 

take the Foreign Service Institute’s Labor officer skills course and ensures DRL a 

role in filling all labor-designated positions. 

I noted the importance of labor rights in my statement to the committee, and at 

the January 30 hearing I pledged that, if confirmed, I would take an active role in 

the promotion of labor issues. The ‘‘L’’ in ‘‘DRL’’, after all, is just as important as 

the first two letters. 

Question. In recent years, the Congress has repeatedly expressed concern that the 

Department of State does not adequately reward, train, and promote officers who 

chose to serve in the DRL Bureau or to otherwise place a high priority on human 

rights and democracy. Will you make it a priority to address these concerns? If so, 

how? Do you believe that there is a need for expanding Foreign Service training programs in human rights and democracy promotion tradecraft? 

Answer. The Department is committed to excellence in democracy and human 

rights training. Improving the incentives and rewards for service in the Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor Bureau (DRL) and strengthening training in Human 

Rights and Democracy promotion has been a DRL priority, and I will continue to 

make this a priority, if confirmed. 

DRL has been working with the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) on an ongoing 

basis. FSI has been steadily expanding the number and content of Human Rights 

and Democracy training modules and courses to ensure the integration of human 

rights, religious freedom, labor rights, democracy building, and conflict resolution 

into a broad range of FSI courses and seminars. 

DRL is working with FSI now to increase training on grants management for program officers. Special training for Labor officers was introduced last year, in conjunction with the annual DRL Human Rights officers conference. The Department 

recently submitted a report to Congress on Democracy and Human Rights training. 

Finally, DRL has established a Democracy and Human Rights Training Working 

Group, along with FSI, USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian 

Assistance, and the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, to review, assess, and recommend further strengthening of our training. 

If confirmed, I will work with the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs and the Director General’s office to review promotion and performance pay criteria with an eye toward increasing the incentives for Foreign Service officers to 

take on these challenging issues. 

Question. In passing the Advance Democracy Act, Congress strongly urged the Department to work to increase the percentage of Foreign Service officers serving in 

the Bureau. While the civil servants in the Bureau are talented and dedicated, an 

effective Bureau needs a good mix of employees, including a substantial percentage 

of Foreign Service officers who have served abroad and are familiar with counterparts and processes in other Bureaus. Do you agree that it is an important priority 

to increase the number of Foreign Service officers serving in the Bureau? What 

steps will you take to encourage talented FSOs to serve in the DRL Bureau, if confirmed? 

Answer. A good mix of Foreign Service and Civil Service officers is important for 

a strong and effective Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau (DRL). For the 

first time ever, DRL has two overseas positions, established last September and located in Baghdad. Other functional bureaus such as the Bureau of Populations, Refugees, and Migration, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 

Affairs, and the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental Scientific AfVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
39 

fairs have overseas positions and this has proved to be an effective way to attract 

more Foreign Service officers to serve in these bureaus domestically. I expect the 

new overseas positions for DRL will have a similarly positive effect for the Bureau. 

Changing the ratio of Civil Service to Foreign Service in DRL will be a long-term 

effort, especially given the resource constraints under which DRL operates. Unfortunately, since the Foreign Service has a shortage of employees in relationship to the 

demand for positions, and the Department has critical foreign policy priorities and 

mandates requiring service abroad, the Department’s emphasis has been on filling 

overseas positions. 

If confirmed, I will work with the Office of the Under Secretary for Democracy 

and Global Affairs and the Director General’s office, as well as with other bureaus, 

to identify additional measures to attract Foreign Service officers into the valuable 

work of the bureau. I want DRL to be as competitive and sought-after a bureau in 

the Foreign Service bidding process as any other bureau in the Department. 

Question. Prison conditions in many countries around the world are far below acceptable minimum humane standards. Do you agree that this is a serious problem? 

If so, what will you do to insure that the Bureau places an appropriately high priority on investigating inhumane prison conditions and working to ameliorate them? 

Answer. Yes, inhumane and life threatening prison conditions around the world 

are a serious problem. The attention of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor (DRL) to prison and detention center conditions is ongoing and is an inseparable part of U.S. efforts to promote democracy and respect for human rights. 

Prison conditions are highlighted in section 1.c of the annual Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices, where DRL describes prison conditions in each country in 

straightforward language. In requiring this information from all posts, it is clear 

that many embassy officials visit prisons personally, meet with prison officials, talk 

with released prisoners, their families and attorneys, and consult with local and 

international NGOs to closely track conditions and put together a complete picture. 

DRL plays an essential role in ensuring that the United States remains active on 

this issue bilaterally. DRL works to ensure U.S. representatives consistently encourage governments to grant access to our embassy personnel and to international experts such as the ICRC. For example, DRL last year raised the issue of prison overcrowding and poor sanitation during its Human Rights dialog with Vietnam, and 

urged that members of the diplomatic community be allowed the opportunity to visit 

prisons. Subsequently, United States political officers were able to visit two prisons 

in southern Vietnam. So it is important that DRL continue to raise the issue in future bilateral dialogs with Vietnam and other countries. 

In multilateral fora, the United States supports the work of the Human Rights 

Committee and the Committee Against Torture, the treaty bodies charged with 

monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, respectively. We follow closely reports from the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which last year visited Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Norway. 

DRL is also funding a successful program in Morocco designed to enhance the 

ability of the Moroccan Observatory of Prisons, a local NGO, to process and monitor 

prisoner complaints, raise awareness of the treatment of prisoners, and conduct advocacy on behalf of prisoner rights. 

While there are other bureaus (such as the Bureau of International Narcotics and 

Law Enforcement and the Bureau of Consular Affairs), departments (such as the 

Department of Justice), and organizations (such as OSCE and the Council of Europe) involved in work to improve prison conditions, DRL should remain at the forefront of U.S. efforts to promote improved prison conditions. 

COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES

Question. Section 116(d) of Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 provides that the Secretary of State ‘‘shall transmit’’ the annual human rights report to the ‘‘Speaker of 

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 

by February 25 of each year.’’ The committee has been informed by the Department 

that it does not intend to meet this statutory deadline this year. 

a) Is that in fact the case? If so, please elaborate why that is so. 

b) Do you think it makes sense for the bureau charged with promoting adherence 

to the rule of law abroad to ignore a statutory requirement in U.S. law? 

Answer. The annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices is a document 

important not only for the information it contains. Its value lies also in the manner 

in which it is presented to the press, the NGO community, and to the many worldVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
40 

wide readers of the report. To have full impact, the Secretary of State in recent 

years personally has presented the report, followed by a press conference that is reported prominently in the local press of many diverse countries abroad. Secretary 

Rice believes fervently in the advancement of human rights worldwide, and she is 

determined to use the presentation of the report as a tool to help the United States 

Government achieve this goal. 

The Secretary’s launching of the human rights report and highlighting those cases 

of severe abuses, and the cases where progress has occurred serves as a powerful 

message to world leaders that we will not compromise on human rights to advance 

our other national interests, and that human rights abusers will be held to account 

for their actions. 

The Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor takes statutory requirements very seriously and acknowledges that it would miss the statutory deadline 

of February 25 by delaying the rollout until March 11, the closest date possible to 

the statutory deadline when the Secretary will be available to preside over the rollout. 

RESPONSES OF DAVID J. KRAMER TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

INDONESIA

Question. I have been informed that the administration has ended prohibition on 

training and other assistance to Indonesia’s special forces, the ‘‘Kopassus,’’ and the 

Brigade Mobil (BRIMOB). These forces continue to abuse human rights and senior 

officials of both continue to evade justice for past crimes, as noted by the State Department’s annual human rights reporting. Why has this policy changed? How can 

the State Department justify such cooperation with an organization whose record 

of abuse amounts to state sponsored terrorism directed against peaceful political 

dissidents and human rights advocates? 

Answer. Our goal, working with the Government of Indonesia, is that United 

States interaction with the Indonesian military would promote the adoption of 

democratic norms such as greater transparency, respect for human rights, and increased civilian control of the military, as well as build capacity to address immediate threats such as terrorism and natural disasters. 

As the elite units within their respective forces, KOPASSUS and BRIMOB must 

be part of this transformation. The Department is currently considering on what 

terms and how to best engage both KOPASSUS and BRIMOB, and looks forward 

to consulting with Congress so that we can accomplish our twin goals of advancing 

our human rights interests and professionalizing these key parts of the Indonesian 

security forces. Indonesia’s human rights record has improved in recent years as the 

Indonesian Government has sought to reform its security forces. Reform of the security forces has been an important part of Indonesia’s overall reform of the military. 

We share your concerns regarding ongoing challenges Indonesia faces in bringing 

past human rights violators to justice. The Department continues to raise accountability as an important element of our bilateral relationship. 

Question. When Secretary Rice in November 2005 exercised a national security 

waiver to resume full military cooperation with the Indonesian military despite the 

absence of significant reform, she noted that future assistance would be ‘‘calibrated’’ 

on the basis of measurable reforms. Human rights groups have raised concerns that 

the military continues to commit abuses and are concerned that the assistance has 

not been ‘‘calibrated’’ to address the lack of reform. What criteria does the administration use in evaluating the provision of military assistance to Indonesia? What 

steps are in place to monitor the impact this assistance has on human rights and 

reform in Indonesia? What military assistance is currently being withheld because 

of human rights concerns? 

Answer. All Indonesian soldiers now receive human rights training. In recent 

years, the Indonesian military has made progress in reform. The military is under 

greater civilian control and out of politics. However, there is still much to be done 

in professionalizing the Indonesian military and accounting for past abuses. 

All Indonesian security forces who receive United States training are checked for 

allegations of past human rights abuses, in compliance with the Leahy law. Individuals with credible allegations of past human rights abuses do not receive training. 

In the past 3 years, the Department has denied training for 122 Indonesian applicants after finding credible allegations of past human rights abuses. 

41 

LGBT

Question. I have supported greater equality for the LGBT population in the 

United States [and] am pleased that the State Department has taken steps to identify human rights abuses committed against the LGBT community throughout the 

world in its annual Human Rights Report. I am, therefore, interested in what further actions you intend to take to address violence and discrimination against LGBT 

communities across the globe. 

Answer. Several years ago, the Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau 

(DRL) took the initiative to add information to its annual Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices regarding discrimination and violence against the LGBT 

community worldwide. The information in the reports has been praised by representatives from the community in meetings with DRL. At our request, in the past 

year, the LGBT community has compiled for DRL information from authoritative 

sources on discrimination and violence on a country-by-country basis. We will consult with the community as we develop more precise instructions to pass to our embassies in garnering information on this subject. 

HUMAN RIGHTS GENERAL

Question. Just over a year ago, Secretary Rice reaffirmed that protecting and supporting human rights defenders is a ‘‘central component’’ of U.S. foreign policy and 

announced a set of Guiding Principles on Non-Governmental Organizations and a 

fund to support defenders. How have the Principles guided DRL decisions? How has 

the fund supported human rights defenders? What steps can the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor take to ensure that these measures have an impact 

on the ground and that support for human rights defenders is integrated into foreign policy more broadly? 

Answer. Last year, amid crackdown on human rights and democracy NGOs and 

human rights activists in various parts of the world, Secretary Rice responded in 

several specific ways to defend these NGOs and individuals. 

First, she announced 10 core NGO Principles which guide our own treatment of 

NGOs. We actively encourage other governments to respect these principles, which 

distill and complement existing U.N. and European Union documents. Second, the Secretary established a $1.5 million emergency fund to protecting and 

assisting human rights defenders who advance democracy and promote human 

rights, women’s rights, fair labor, anticorruption, independent media and journalism, rule of law, and other issues where defense of such issues might result in 

personal and safety risks. The fund became operational in October 2007 and thus 

far has provided assistance to over 30 defenders. 

DRL routinely uses the NGO Principles as a foundation for discussions with foreign governments, and indeed, President Uribe of Colombia has publicly embraced 

the NGO Principles. Another good example of the use of the NGO Principles took 

place at the last OSCE Human Dimension (HDIM) meeting in October when Acting 

Assistant Secretary Jonathan Farrar made an intervention on the need for NGOs 

to operate freely, to participate in open dialog with each other and governments, 

and to be recognized as an essential component of any free society. 

Also in preparation of this year’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices we 

asked posts, in particular, to report on restrictions and/or repression of NGOs and 

other human rights defenders. 

These principles will continue to be an important tool for the United States and 

other governments in measuring governmental treatment of NGOs. I also hope they 

will also be a useful tool for civil society groups and the media as they monitor the 

treatment of NGOs across the globe. 

RESPONSES OF HON. GOLI AMERI TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. Cultural Property Protection: On May 27, 2004, China submitted a request to the United States that we restrict the import of artifacts and archaeological 

materials subject to looting in China under the Cultural Property Implementation 

Act (CPIA). In July 2005, the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee made its recommendation to Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and 

Cultural Affairs Dina H. Powell with regard to China’s request. It is my understanding that, to date, the State Department has not made a final decision with regard to China’s request. What do you consider an appropriate timeframe in which 

to render a final decision in cases such as these to ensure that delays within the 

State Department do not result in the loss of invaluable cultural material? 

42 

Answer. I have not yet had the opportunity to look into this question in detail, 

but I have been apprised of this matter and understand that the China request remains under review at this time. 

Any issue involving the bilateral relationship between the United States and the 

People’s Republic of China is of utmost significance. 

If confirmed, I will begin discussions of this matter with the relevant bureaus, including the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, and the Bureau of East Asian and 

Pacific Affairs. 

Question. Cultural Property Protection: CPAC was created to represent a diverse 

group of interests, including those of museums, archaeologists, collectors, art dealers, and the general public. I have heard from a number of constituents of mine who 

are concerned that all of these groups were not fairly represented in the recent 

State Department decision to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of Cyprus. 

Please explain the standards your office uses to determine that the diverse group 

of interests have been represented during the decisionmaking process. 

Answer. The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), appointed by the 

White House, plays a vital role in our efforts to preserve the world’s cultural heritage from pillaging and looting. The members, as you point out, represent a variety 

of interests. They provide their input at the outset of any consideration of a bilateral 

agreement so that their deliberations can inform the entire onward process. 

In addition to the statutory composition of the committee and the representation 

it provides for diverse views, the Department has taken a number of steps over the 

past several years to increase the access of members of the general public to the 

process. These steps include sessions that allow members of the public to present 

their viewpoints directly to the committee and the committee staff; solicitation of 

written comments; advance notification of such sessions on the cultural property 

Web site inclusion of all such comments in the documents provided to the decisionmaker, and a Web site that posts public summaries of incoming requests. 

The current committee includes a member who is a coin collector and dealer and 

whose views were expressed and considered. Also, a public session of the CPAC was 

held during which the views of others concerning coins were also expressed. In addition, the Department took the extraordinary step of proactively seeking further public comment from organizations representing the coin collecting community and others representing the scholarly community. 

If confirmed, I assure you I will pay close attention to this matter. 

Question. Exchanges: I am a strong supporter of ECA’s work and believe that education and cultural exchanges are critical to strengthening our public diplomacy programming. I would like to know your plans to increase ECA programming in the 

next year. 

Answer. First and foremost, if confirmed, I am committed to expanding and creating scale for the many achievements of the Department’s educational and cultural 

exchanges. My plan is to: 

1. Engage and enlist the private sector more fully in our public diplomacy efforts to ascertain that we can reach a greater audience for our successful programs including, but not limited to, the English Access Microscholarship Program, Youth Exchange Programs, and programs for women. 

2. Use new trends in technology and the Internet to expand the reach of 

ECA’s programs to youth and youth influencers and to create a connected community amongst our alumni so they can sustain a dialog years after the formal 

end of their program. 

3. Find creative ways of engaging ECA alumni and leveraging their goodwill 

and the knowledge and experience they gained during their exchange experience. 

Other than these top three priorities, I will also be focused on the following activities: 

• Encouraging more women and girls to participate in our exchange programs; 

and 

• Exploring more opportunities for engagement with the Muslim world and with 

countries like Iran and North Korea (when the time is right), where we seek 

to better relations between our citizens. Exchanges and outreach promise lasting relationships and have such extraordinary potential for positive relationship 

building and mutual understanding. 

I would, of course, be in close touch with you and your staff as any new program 

initiatives are developed and would welcome feedback from the committee. 

43 

RESPONSES OF HON. GOLI AMERI TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are your top three priorities for this position, if confirmed? On the 

assumption that you may only serve until the start of the next administration, what 

do you hope to report to the committee next January that you have achieved during 

your tenure? 

Answer. First and foremost, if confirmed, I am committed to expanding and creating scale for the many achievements of the Department’s educational and cultural 

exchanges. My plan is to: 

1. Engage and enlist the private sector more fully in our public diplomacy efforts to ascertain that we can reach a greater audience for our successful programs including, but not limited to, the English Access Microscholarship Program, Youth Exchange Programs, and programs for women. 

2. Use new trends in technology and the Internet to expand the reach of 

ECA’s programs to youth and youth influencers and to create a connected community amongst our alumni so they can sustain a dialog years after the formal 

end of their program. 

3. Find creative ways of engaging ECA alumni and leveraging their goodwill 

and the knowledge and experience they gained during their exchange experience. 

Other than these top three priorities, I will also be focused on the following activities: 

• Encouraging more women and girls to participate in our exchange programs; 

and 

• Exploring more opportunities for engagement with the Muslim world and with 

countries like Iran and North Korea (when the time is right), where we seek 

to better relations between our citizens. Exchanges and outreach promise lasting relationships and have such extraordinary potential for positive relationship 

building and mutual understanding. 

I would, of course, be in close touch with you and your staff as any new program 

initiatives are developed and would welcome feedback from the committee. 

Question. The Bureau has received substantial additional resources in recent 

years. Has the Bureau allocated sufficient resources to financial systems and grants 

management to assure accountability and oversight of these additional resources? 

Please provide specific examples. 

Answer. The Bureau has allocated sufficient resources to financial and grants 

management systems to assure accountability and oversight over its resources. Over 

the past 3 years, ECA has integrated three distinct databases into a single system 

housed in ECA’s Office of the Executive Director. The system links ECA’s congressionally mandated pre-award grants process with both the budget and grants offices 

and allows for the effective integration with the Department’s financial management 

system and Grants.gov. The system allows ECA staff members to more effectively 

monitor and manage ECA institutional grant awards through all phases of implementation and closeout. It also provides the ability to reconcile program and administrative budgets bureau-wide and provide congressional, departmental, and OMBmandated reporting on bureau activities and expenditures. 

Additionally, I understand the Bureau is building an integrated information management, analysis, and reporting capability that will track the full life-cycle of ECA 

programs and provide an executive/user dashboard for data retrieval and reporting. 

This system will then be linked to the Executive Office System so that Bureau 

grant, financial, and program data can be centrally monitored and reports tying resources to program activities can be more quickly and easily produced. This initiative will result in a fully Integrated Management System (IMS) for key ECA program, grant, and financial activities. 

Coming from the private sector and with a strong background in technology I 

know what is possible and necessary to effectively manage a complex organization 

and budget. If confirmed, I will devote my focus and expertise to accelerate the implementation of the Bureau’s internal management systems to ensure that the Bureau spends its resources wisely, effectively and with maximum impact. 

Question. Do you believe there are any existing exchange programs that are unjustified, and therefore should be discontinued? 

Answer. I have been pleased to learn in the last several weeks that the Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is a leader in the area of evaluation and 

performance measurement. ECA has an office staffed by professional evaluators and 

44 

social science researchers. It oversees independent in-depth evaluations of major exchange programs, such as Fulbright and the International Visitors Leadership Program. Coming from the private sector, this is particularly important to me. 

The Bureau recently completed an evaluation of the English Access Microscholarships Program—a groundbreaking new program for high school students in underserved communities—that showed, among other findings, that: 

• Eighty-seven percent of Access students reported a more favorable view of the 

American people due to their participation in the program; 

• Ninety-six percent of parents said they would encourage their other children to 

participate in the Access Program; and 

• Fifty-four percent of Access students reported more favorable views of the U.S. 

Government due to their participation in the Access Program. 

Moreover, the Bureau constantly innovates with its proven, tested models to 

achieve current objectives. The Fulbright Program, International Visitor Leadership 

Program, English Language Program, and Youth Exchange Programs remain flagship programs of the Bureau, but they are constantly changing as the world changes 

and as foreign policy challenges evolve. 

Here are a few specific examples: 

• The Fulbright Program now offers Fulbright’s Science and Technology awards 

that are designed to provide top-level students in science and technology with 

the U.S. Government’s most prestigious and valuable scholarship. 

• The International Visitor Leadership Program brought over 100 Iranian professionals, academics, and cultural figures to the United States last year—the first 

International Visitors since 1979. 

• Our English Language Office pioneered the groundbreaking English Access 

Microscholarship program which provides a foundation of English language skill 

to high school students from disadvantaged sectors in their countries. 

• The Bureau’s Youth Exchange Office conducts the highly successful Youth Exchange and Study (YES) program, the U.S. Government’s first-ever program designed for secondary school students from the Arab and Muslim world. 

There is more that can be done. You have my full commitment that, if confirmed, 

I intend to review the effectiveness of all of our programs. 

Question. The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the 

Event of Armed Conflict (the ‘‘Hague Convention’’), and the Hague Protocol, concluded on May 14, 1954, were submitted to the Senate for advice and consent by 

President Clinton on January 6, 1999. This administration has urged the Senate to 

act on the Hague Convention, but not the Protocol. Please provide your views on 

the Hague Convention, including whether in your view it should be a priority for 

the committee and if so, why. 

Answer. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. While I am not personally 

familiar with the 1954 Hague Convention, I have looked into the matter and learned 

that the Department has identified ratification of the Convention as a priority, and 

also supports removal of the First Protocol from consideration for ratification at this 

time, leaving open the possibility of resubmission for ratification at a future date. 

If confirmed, I will look into this matter further and would be pleased to work 

with the committee. 

Question. The United States ratified the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property on February 9, 1983 (the ‘‘1970 Convention’’). Under Article 9 of the 

Convention, a state party ‘‘whose cultural patrimony is in jeopardy from pillage of 

archaeological or ethnological materials’’ may call upon other states parties who are 

affected. Each state concerned is to take provisional measures to the extent feasible 

to prevent irremediable injury to the cultural heritage of the requesting state. How 

many requests has the United States received in the last 10 years (through 2007) 

pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 Convention? Please provide details, including the 

date of such requests and the country making the request. 

Answer. Since 1997, under Article 9 of the 1970 Convention, the United States 

has received 9 new requests for import restrictions (from Bolivia, Cambodia, China, 

Colombia, Cyprus, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, and Peru) and 13 requests for extensions of existing restrictions, including those imposed as a result of a bilateral 

agreement or of an Emergency Action (Bolivia, Cambodia, Colombia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua, and Peru). An Emergency Action differs from an agreement in that it is meant to address an emergency condition, entails action only on the United States’ side, and may be extended only once. 

Please see the attached chart for the details. 

45 

Country Emergency Action Date in Force Emergency Action Date Extended Date of Request to USG under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention Memorandum of Under- standing Date in Force Date of Extension(s) (with amendments) of MOU 

Bolivia .............................................................................................................. Mar. 1989 Sep. 1999 Dec. 2001 Dec. 2006 Cambodia ......................................................................................................... Dec. 1999 May 1999 Sep. 2003 Canada ............................................................................................................. Oct 1985, with 

supplemental info 

provided Jan 1988 

Apr 1997 (currently 

expired) 

China ................................................................................................................ May 2004 Colombia .......................................................................................................... Apr. 2004 Mar. 2006 Cyprus Ethnological ......................................................................................... Apr. 1999 Aug. 2003 Sep. 1998 Jul. 2007 Jul. 2007 Cyprus Archaeological ...................................................................................... Sep. 1998 Jul. 2002 Jul. 2007 El Salvador ....................................................................................................... Sep. 1987 Mar. 1992 Jan. 1995 Mar. 1995 Mar. 2000, Mar. 2005 Guatemala ........................................................................................................ Apr. 1991 Sep. 1994 May 1997 Oct. 1997 Sep. 2002, Sep. 2007 Honduras .......................................................................................................... Aug. 2001 Mar. 2004 Italy .................................................................................................................. Sep. 1999 Jan. 2001 Jan. 2006 Mali .................................................................................................................. Sep. 1993 Sep. 1992 Sep. 1997 Sep. 2002, Sep. 2007 Nicaragua ......................................................................................................... Nov. 1995 Oct. 2000 Oct. 2005 Peru .................................................................................................................. May 1990 Jun. 1994 Jan. 1997 Jun. 1997 Jun. 2002, Jun. 2007 

46 

Question. In accordance with the implementing legislation for the 1970 Convention, the President, upon making certain determinations, may enter into an agreement with a state party that has made a proper request under Article 9 of the 1970 

Convention, in order to apply certain import restrictions. Please provide a list of the 

agreements that have been concluded as of today’s date under the authority provided for in the implementing legislation. See 19 U.S.C. § 2602. 

Answer. Under Article 9 of the 1970 Convention, the United States currently has 

bilateral agreements with Bolivia, Cambodia, Colombia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua, and Peru. 

Question. In 2004, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an extensive report of inspection of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Have you read 

the report, or been briefed on its findings? What major recommendations remain to 

be implemented? 

Answer. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I have now read and been 

briefed on the report. It is my understanding that the Bureau responded positively 

and quickly to the findings of this report. All changes/actions necessary to comply 

with the Inspector General recommendations were completed, and as a result, the 

OIG closed the inspection report in July 2006. 

RESPONSES OF HON. GOLI AMERI TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BILL NELSON

Question. What is your position on United States sanctions and multilateral sanctions against Iran? 

Answer. I fully support administration policy on Iran including current United 

States sanctions on Iran, and the need for multilateral sanctions. We must maintain 

pressure on the current regime. 

Question. Have you ever advocated that sanctions against Iran imposed by the 

United States, any other country, or the United Nations, be lifted or reduced in 

some way? 

Answer. I have opposed lifting or reducing sanctions imposed by the United 

States, the United Nations, or any country against Iran. 

As U.S. Representative to the 60th Session of the U.N. General Assembly in 2005 

and the senior diplomat at the U.S. Desk in the chamber, I rose and walked out 

of the General Assembly Hall in protest against the policies of the Iranian regime 

as Iranian President Ahmadinejad took the podium. 

Question. What is your position on dialog with the Iranian regime? 

Answer. I fully support the administration’s position on direct dialog with Iran. 

Secretary Rice stated on January 23, ‘‘Should Iran suspend its uranium enrichment 

and reprocessing activities—which is an international demand, not an American 

one—we could begin negotiations, and we could work over time to build a new, more 

normal relationship—one defined not by fear and mistrust, but growing cooperation, 

expanding trade and exchange, and the peaceful management of our differences.’’ 

The ball is in Iran’s court. Tehran must halt its current activities that violate its 

international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and come 

clean on its past nuclear work before we can engage in further talks on nuclear and 

other issues. 

I support the President’s call to reestablish regular educational, professional, athletic, and cultural exchange programs with the Iranian people for the first time 

since 1979. Through these programs, we are promoting dialog between the citizens 

of our two countries. The Department sent the United States National Wrestling 

Team to compete in Iran in January 2007; we have also brought well over a hundred Iranian professionals to the United States since the Department restarted 

these people-to-people exchange programs in late 2006. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March, 2007, Under Secretary Nicholas Burns 

said, ‘‘Part of charting a new course for U.S.-Iranian relations is intensifying our 

engagement with the Iranian people. While it is now not feasible for us to have formal diplomatic relations with Iran, it is within our grasp to bridge the divide between our peoples.’’ 

Question. Have you ever advocated that the United States engage in direct talks 

with the Iranian regime on any matter? 

Answer. I have not advocated direct talks between the United States Government 

and the Iranian regime. 

47 

My record on this issue is clear and was stated most concisely in a 2004 ‘‘open 

letter’’ to Secretary of State Colin Powell. In that letter, I cautioned the Secretary 

that ‘‘any such dialog with the ruling clerics will only lead to more deceit and reinforce their belief that they can pursue their radical agenda without consequences.’’ 

At the same time, I support efforts by the President and Secretary Rice to reach 

out in appropriate ways to the Iranian people. It is important that we reinforce the 

message sent by President Bush in his historic 2002 radio address to the people of 

Iran that ‘‘if Iran respects its international obligations and embraces freedom and 

tolerance, it will have no better friend than the United States of America.’’ 

Question. Please provide the committee with a complete copy of the ‘‘prospectus’’ 

of the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian-Americans. 

Answer. A copy of the June 2007 prospectus of the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian-Americans (PAAIA) is attached. As far as I know, it is the final version. 

[EDITOR’S NOTE.—The prospectus mentioned above was too voluminous to include 

in this hearing. It will be retained in the permanent record of the committee.] 

As the prospectus indicates, PAAIA is a bipartisan, nonsectarian, national organization open to all Iranian-Americans regardless of ethnicity, religion, or political belief. 

Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, established under the implementing legislation of the 

1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, conducts its work in an appropriately transparent manner? 

Answer. The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), appointed by the 

White House, plays a vital role in our efforts to preserve the world’s cultural heritage from pillaging and looting. The members represent a variety of interests. They 

provide their input at the outset of any consideration of a foreign government request for assistance so that their deliberations can inform the entire onward process. 

In addition to the statutory composition of the committee and the representation 

it provides for diverse views, the Department has taken a number of steps over the 

past several years to increase the access of members of the general public to the 

process. These steps include a Web site that posts public summaries of incoming requests; sessions that allow members of the public to present their viewpoints directly to the committee; advance notification of such sessions on the cultural property Web site; solicitation of written comments, and inclusion of all such comments 

in the documents provided to the decisionmaker. 

RESPONSES OF HON. GOLI AMERI TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR NORM COLEMAN

Question. I commend the Department for their leadership on the National Security Languages Initiative (NSLI), and urge continued consideration of innovative 

ways to teach foreign languages to children at a young age. If confirmed, will you 

commit to working with innovative programs to this end, such as those offered by 

Concordia Language Villages in northern Minnesota, which offers intensive training 

in 15 languages? 

Answer. Please let me assure you, that if confirmed, I will be a strong advocate 

of all programs that improve the opportunities for our young people to master foreign languages. This is a critical strategic need that I fully support. I know that 

through its NSLI exchanges, the Bureau is supporting opportunities for American 

high school students, teachers, and undergraduate and graduate students to study 

critical languages abroad, and is strengthening foreign language teaching in the 

United States by placing native speakers as teachers and teaching assistants in elementary through post-secondary classrooms. Participants and alumni of Concordia 

Language Villages are encouraged to apply for summer, semester, and year-long 

programs abroad for high school students, supported by the Office of Citizen Exchanges, and for university level study in the future through the Critical Language 

Summer Institutes, Gilman and Fulbright Scholarship Programs. The Bureau can 

also work with Concordia to determine whether some Fulbright Foreign Language 

Teaching Assistants might extend their academic year programs in the United 

States, and serve as teaching assistants at the Concordia Language Villages during 

the following summer, before returning home. The Bureau is also developing a study 

abroad program for high school students in certain countries in Africa, the Near 

East, and East Asia. The Bureau will be looking to organizations like Concordia for 

48 

qualified participants for these exchanges. In this sense, Concordia and other programs that encourage instruction of critical (nontraditional) foreign languages may 

be seen as important potential ‘‘feeder’’ programs for the NSLI youth exchange. 

RESPONSE OF GOLI AMERI TO QUESTION SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. Senator Feinstein and I support innovative public diplomacy initiatives 

like the Global Perspectives Project, a media exchange program funded by the State 

Department and run by the congressionally mandated Independent Television Service that promotes the international exchange of documentary films made by independent producers. The United States Ambassador to Indonesia has said that this 

program has been opening minds in my country about the America behind the headlines. I am convinced that documentary film has an important role to play in advancing cultural exchange and international civic dialog. 

What kind of impact do you think innovative media strategies such as the Global 

Perspectives Project can have on improving America’s image and standing throughout the world? 

Answer. Although I am not familiar with this project, I believe that such efforts 

can be very helpful in helping us improve the United States’ image abroad. As I 

noted in my testimony, one of the reasons behind the decline of America’s image 

is that we are not perceived as paying attention to the concerns of foreign governments and people. As we know from decades of experience, when we are able to put 

foreigners in direct contact with Americans, or aspects of America, their attitudes 

toward our principles become more favorable. To the extent that such projects as 

the Global Perspectives Project can become two-way exchanges that not only bring 

insight about America to foreign publics, but also information about other countries 

to U.S. audiences, this helps show that America is listening—and worth listening 

to. 

RESPONSES OF HON. JAMES K. GLASSMAN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. I would like to follow up on a question I asked during the nominations 

hearing relating to strengthening the structure of the PD bureau. As you are aware, 

the GAO released a report in May 2006 titled, ‘‘State Department Efforts Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Persistent Challenges (GAO–06–707T).’’ 

tactics. The report, in part, found that, ‘‘posts’ public diplomacy efforts generally 

lack important strategic communication elements found in the private sector . . . 

These elements include having core messages, segmented target audiences, in-depth 

research and analysis to monitor and evaluate results, and an integrated communication plan to bring all these elements together.’’ I am interested to know what 

the Bureau has done to address these concerns, particularly the creation of an integrated communications plan, and what you will do to improve upon the work done 

thus far in response to this report. 

Answer. I am aware of the GAO report and its recommendations. As you know, 

the U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication put 

in place by my predecessor includes a planning model for strategic communications, 

the so-called ‘‘ABCDE’’ model, which is intended for posts to use in preparing communication plans. At this point I cannot say whether this model—or any other 

model that includes the critical steps of research, evaluation, and assessment—is 

being implemented in the field, but if confirmed, I will certainly be examining this 

question. 

If confirmed, I also plan to issue implementation guidance that would flow from 

the national strategy already in place, to ensure that strategic communication planning—whether in Washington or the field—is consistent with strategic objectives. 

Question. You stated in your testimony that the main focus of your attention will 

be ‘‘global ideological engagement’’ and that part of the answer to successfully fighting the ‘‘war of ideas’’ involves ‘‘directly entering the conversation to confront lies 

and distortions with truth.’’ You identify the media hubs in London, Brussels, and 

Dubai and the Digital Outreach Team as part of this movement toward direct engagement. While improving our efforts to counter incorrect information is important, 

I also believe that direct engagement involves more than monitoring and improving 

media reporting. What other initiatives do you support to improve the U.S. Government’s direct engagement with people and institutions overseas? 

49 

Answer. I agree with you that direct engagement entails much more than monitoring media reporting and responding to distortions and inaccuracies. I believe that 

we must engage with foreign publics and elites using the broad array of programs 

and capabilities at our disposal, including academic and professional exchanges, 

broadcasting, technology-based information programs, speakers, citizen ambassadors, binational centers, libraries, American Corners, and English teaching and 

other youth enrichment programs to reach so-called ‘‘marginalized’’ or ‘‘underserved’’ 

youth populations, to name just a few. I plan to use research, including polling and 

attitude surveys, to help determine which tools make sense in different programming environments, and as I indicated, I also intend to use evaluation to measure 

the impact of these efforts, and to refine them as necessary to maximize their effect 

on our strategic objectives. 

Question. Your predecessor succeeded in increasing the number of participants in 

exchanges and increasing both the public diplomacy and education and cultural exchange budgets. How will you work to protect these advancements? 

Answer. The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $522.444 million 

for the educational and cultural exchange programs of the U.S. Department of 

State, the fourth year in a row the President has proposed an increase for these programs. Within the State Department’s budget request, $394.806 million is included 

for public diplomacy international information programs, an increase of $33.9 million over the $360.905 million provided in fiscal year 2008. 

I support the request and hope that the Congress approves it. As I have stated, 

I believe it is crucial that we gain a very solid understanding about the impact of 

these programs. To this end, if confirmed, I intend to stress evaluation and measurement, not just of program ‘‘outputs,’’ but also of ‘‘outcomes.’’ If it appears that 

a particular program is not meeting its objectives, is too costly for the results it 

achieves, or fails to address the strategic goals we have outlined for our communication and public diplomacy efforts, then I will not hesitate to recommend changes. 

If we are successful in evaluating our efforts and the impact they are having, then 

I believe we will be in a much stronger position, in future budget cycles, to recommend continuing the trend of increasing these resources. 

RESPONSE OF HON. JAMES K. GLASSMAN TO QUESTION SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. Senator Feinstein and I support innovative public diplomacy initiatives 

like the Global Perspectives Project, a media exchange program funded by the State 

Department and run by the congressionally mandated Independent Television Service that promotes the international exchange of documentary films made by independent producers. The United States Ambassador to Indonesia has said that this 

program ‘‘has been opening minds in my country about the America behind the 

headlines. I am convinced that documentary film has an important role to play in 

advancing cultural exchange and international civic dialog.’’ 

What kind of impact do you think innovative media strategies such as the Global 

Perspectives Project can have on improving America’s image and standing throughout the world? 

Answer. Although I am not familiar with this project, I believe that such efforts 

can be very helpful in helping us improve the U.S. image abroad. As I noted in my 

testimony, one of the reasons behind the decline of America’s image is that we are 

not perceived as paying attention to the concerns of foreign governments and people. 

As we know from decades of experience, when we are able to put foreigners in direct 

contact with Americans, or aspects of America, their attitudes toward our principles 

become more favorable. To the extent that such projects as the Global Perspectives 

Project can become two-way exchanges that not only bring insight about America 

to foreign publics, but also information about other countries to U.S. audiences, this 

helps show that America is listening—and worth listening to. 

RESPONSE OF HON. JAMES K. GLASSMAN TO QUESTION SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BILL NELSON

Question. What is the frequency of AeroMarti flights to broadcast television into 

Cuba? What are its hours of broadcast? What is your estimate of the Marti signals’ 

penetration into Cuba? 

Answer. The Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) has several methods to deliver 

TV Marti signals to the people of Cuba. 

50 

AeroMarti flies its broadcast missions 6 days a week, Monday through Saturday, 

from 6 p.m.-11 p.m. Cuban authorities usually attempt to jam these broadcasts. 

TV Marti is carried on Hispasat 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with each 5-hour 

programming block repeated throughout the day. TV Marti is also carried on 

DirecTV’s ‘‘TV Azteca,’’ which carries two 30-minute newscasts, Monday through 

Saturday, at 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. DirecTV is available to about 30,000–40,000 

households that have dishes, according to estimates that OCB has received and that 

they deem credible. Neither of these satellite broadcasts are jammed by the Cuban 

Government. 

Although OCB does not have the ability to carry out research inside Cuba to 

measure TV Marti’s viewership, some surveys have been conducted by telephone. 

The most recent showed a penetration rate of 0.3 percent, in a survey of 28 percent 

of Cuban households with telephones. Other methods of measurement include personal interviews with Cuban e ́migre ́s. In 2007, 410 respondents were asked about 

TV Marti viewership, and their responses suggest that TV Marti’s market share 

may be as much as 17 percent on the island. 

Neither of these methods is necessarily representative or reliable. 

OCB also gets considerable anecdotal feedback from Cuba that the TV Marti programs can be seen, including e-mails, call-ins to TV Marti talk shows, and other 

sources. For example, a Cuban governmental document presented to the International Telecommunications Union dated June 22, 2007, shows the AeroMarti TV 

signal strength to be in a range of 64 dB u-v/m to 74 dB u-v/m in Central Havana. 

In this case, the AeroMarti signal was about equal to or stronger than local Cuban 

television signals. This suggests that the signal is getting through despite Cuban 

efforts to jam it. 

(51) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Jones, Ms. Deborah, to be Ambassador to Kuwait 

Moriarty, to be Ambassador to Bangladesh 

Scobey, Margaret, to be Ambassador to Egypt 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Kerry, presiding. 

Present: Senator Kerry. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. Good afternoon. I apologize for being late. This 

hearing will come to order. 

I want to thank you all for coming before the committee today. 

Why don’t I invite you to each, individually, introduce your family, 

if you can. 

Ms. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I’m joined here today by my daughter, 

Ana, who is a sophomore at the Madeira School, here in Virginia. 

Senator KERRY. Here? At Madeira? 

Ms. JONES. At the Madeira School. 

Senator KERRY. Great school. 

Ms. JONES. And my husband, Ricole Olson, is also a Foreign 

Service officer. He is serving as Deputy Chief of Mission at U.S. 

NATO right now. And our 12-year-old daughter, Isabella, is serving 

with him there. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, very much. 

Ambassador MORIARTY. I would like to introduce my wife, Laura 

Moriarty. 

Senator KERRY. How are you? Welcome. 

Ambassador MORIARTY. A recently-retired Foreign Service officer 

who hopes to accompany me out to Bangladesh. 

Senator KERRY. Great. 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Our two children are off working in the 

West, my son is at U.H. Law School, and my daughter is working 

for UCLA. 

Senator KERRY. Fantastic. 

Ambassador Scobey. 

Ambassador, nice to see you again. 

52 

Ambasssador SCOBEY. Nice to see you again, sir 

I’m very happy to introduce my brother, Jim, who came up from 

Winter Springs, FL, today, to attend the hearing. He and my brother, Marty, have been a real great moral support in providing a 

home away from home for me. 

Senator KERRY. Fantastic, he came up from where? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Winter Springs, Florida. 

Senator KERRY. Winter Springs, Florida. Florida—about 7 days 

from pitchers and catchers, right? We’re all thirsty. We need to recoup, back in New England, you understand. 

All right, well thank you. 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Very much. 

Well, let me just say, on behalf of the committee that we are 

really blessed to have three such highly experienced, qualified individuals to serve in these positions, and we really appreciate what 

you all bring to the table. 

Ambassador Margaret Scobey, nominee to be ambassador to 

Egypt, has had a very distinguished career with challenging assignments in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jerusalem, Pakistan, 

Yemen, and Syria. And I had the pleasure of spending time with 

Ambassador Scobey during my trip to Syria in 2005, during which 

time I saw her to be a capable diplomat, and a gracious host, and 

I thank you for that visit. 

Ambassador Moriarty, nominee to be Ambassador to Bangladesh, 

brings also considerable experience to this task, and particularly in 

Asian affairs. And he has served in Islamabad, Beijing, Taiwan, 

and most recently as the American Ambassador to Nepal. I’m also 

particularly pleased, he’s a native of Massachusetts, and has received several honors, including a Presidential Meritorious Service 

Award. 

And Ms. Deborah Jones, the nominee to be Ambassador to Kuwait, comes to us from the U.S. Consulate General in Turkey. Before that, she has had several overseas postings, including the 

United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Syria, and Iraq. And I would congratulate you, Ms. Jones, on your first nomination to be an ambassador, a much-deserved honor for a distinguished record, and we 

welcome you here. 

Obviously, the relationships between the United States and 

Egypt, Kuwait, and Bangladesh are particularly significant, given 

the 21st century challenges that we’re finding with respect to that 

part of the world, Islam, and radical extreme religious fervor, and 

so forth. So, these pose real challenges for our policymakers and for 

our ambassadors. 

We have long counted on Egypt as one of our strongest allies in 

this difficult region. I have visited with President Mubarak frequently over the course of some 20 years, and consider that a 

friendship, and I have enjoyed the conversations that we have had. 

But, while we’ve maintained a strong personal partnership with 

President Mubarak, there’s a growing consensus emerging that 

that relationship with Egypt is not at its highest point, and faces 

some challenges right now. 

There are obviously concerns from some here in Congress about 

the aid package. Those have been raised, particularly over on the 

53 

House side, but here in the Senate, too. That aid averages about 

$2 billion a year, and there are concerns that it may not have been 

as targeted as effectively as it might be, particularly in the effort 

to try to promote reform. 

We all understand that Egypt faces internal challenges. And 

these are conversations that I and others have had with them. We 

also need to continue to encourage our friends to respect human 

rights, and move toward greater democratization. It’s very important for the Congress and the administration to work closely together to craft an aid program that strengthens our relationship, 

at the same time that it delivers the maximum benefit to Egypt, 

and Egyptian people, by fostering programs that strengthen the 

civil society and the rule of law. 

And I might add, both Egypt and other countries in the region— 

I’m not sure what the figures are for Bangladesh, but I know Saudi 

Arabia and Jordan, I think about 60 percent of the population is 

under the age of 25, and 50 percent is under the age of 21, and 

40 percent is under the age of 18. And so the issue of education 

and jobs and disenfranchisement looms large in a world where people are waiting to snatch up fertile minds, and idle minds, and put 

them to other uses. And we need to think hard about that. 

We welcomed Egypt’s participation in the recent Annapolis Peace 

Conference, and look to them to make significant contributions in 

moving that process forward in the coming months. And nothing 

could be more important for our security interests or for stability 

in the region. 

One key element of the peace process is controlling the flow of 

arms into Gaza. And for quite some time, we’ve heard concerns 

over the lack of enforcement at the Rafah border checkpoint. These 

fears were validated in the last days, when tens of thousands of 

Palestinians overran the border—a troubling development that 

may even have contributed to the first suicide bombing in Israel in 

over a year. We know that $100 million in United States foreign military financing is currently suspended until the Secretary of State certifies 

that Egypt has cracked down on smuggling and tunnels into Gaza. 

So, this is a big issue in the relationship and will be going forward. 

This is also a trying and troubling time for Bangladesh, now having been ruled by the military for over a year. We have a very 

strong interest in maintaining strong relations with Bangladesh, 

but we also hope that Bangladesh is going to continue as a moderating voice in the Islamic world. 

We also can’t lose sight of the fact that we need to restore full 

civil and political rights to all the citizens of Bangladesh. In May 

of 2007, I wrote a letter with Senators Biden, Lugar, and others, 

urging Chief Advisor Ahmed, the civilian head of the current caretaker government, to immediately lift emergency rule, and announce a timeline for free and fair elections. And although emergency rule is still in place, the government has announced elections 

by the end of 2008. It’s very important these be transparent and 

held as scheduled. 

And instituting reforms to end the country’s notorious corruption 

is also a challenge, and vital to restoring popular confidence in the 

government. 

54 

We have a very strong bilateral relationship with Kuwait that 

dates back over 20 years. In early 2004, we designated Kuwait as 

a major, non-NATO ally. 

Today Kuwait hosts some 50,000 United States military personnel as they rotate in and out of Iraq, and some 10,000 are permanently based there. That raises important questions about the 

role that Kuwait may or may not play, as our military redeploys 

from Iraq. And particularly, as a staging point, for an over-the-horizon presence that many of us here in the Congress envision. 

Kuwait also remains a key strategic partner in fighting Islamic 

extremists, countering the influence of Iran, and promoting stability in the region. And we’ve shown our desire to further 

strengthen this partnership with significant new arms sales. 

We also must express concern over the fact that Kuwait did not 

participate in the Annapolis conference. And, to date, they have 

provided only $135 million out of $500 million that they pledged for 

Iraqi reconstruction. These will be important issues for our ambassador to address. 

So, with that, I invite each of you to make your opening statements. If you could mostly summarize them, the full statements 

will be placed in the record in full, and I think you know that procedure, and we’ll look forward to then having a chance to question. 

Thank you very much. 

Do you want to begin, Ambassador Scobey? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SCOBEY, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Mr. Chairman, I’m deeply honored to appear before the committee as President Bush’s nominee as the new 

United States Ambassador to the Arab Republic of Egypt. I’m 

mindful of the confidence and the trust placed in me by the President and the Secretary and, if confirmed, will do my utmost to fulfill my responsibilities. 

I’ve had the privilege of representing the United States in many 

Middle Eastern capitals, and look forward to doing so again in a 

country where we have built a vital strategic partnership based on 

many mutually shared goals of peace, security, and prosperity—not 

just for the United States and for Egypt, but for the entire region. 

Sir, Egypt, as you know, is the most populous Arab country in 

the world. Its leaders promote peace and stability in a region that 

has often known conflict. Its forces protect the canal, combat terrorism, and participate in important peacekeeping operations. Its 

press and cultural vitality influence the entire Arab world, and it’s 

the only Arab country with a global diplomatic reach. 

Egypt’s regional role has clear implications for United States policy. The United States must sustain and strengthen the bilateral 

security cooperation that we have depended upon for years, and the 

United States must encourage Egypt to take the lead in economic 

and democratic political reform in the region. 

Successive administrations with Congressional support have recognized Egypt’s role with significant military and economic assistance that underlies the relationship between the United States and 

Egypt today. 

55 

The United States Ambassador to Egypt oversees a broad range 

of important activities, including the protection of our citizens, outreach to all sectors of Egyptian society, and management of a very 

large mission. 

I’d like to highlight three of the most important elements as I see 

it: The search for peace and countering extremism; the promotion 

of democracy and human rights; and the advancement of United 

States-Egyptian economic ties and continued development assistance. 

Egypt’s contributions to shared regional objectives, such as the 

establishment of a Palestinian state, living in peace and security 

with Israel, their support for our aims in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

their countering of terrorism and support for the U.N. mission in 

Sudan, are no less important today than the signing of the Camp 

David Accords in 1979. 

Recent breaches in the Gaza-Egyptian border have posed new 

challenges. If confirmed, I will seek to maintain and deepen our 

ability to cooperate in all of these areas, and more, with a muchappreciated partner. 

Egypt’s strong economic performance and reform measures are 

transforming an economic relationship from one based on assistance, to one based on trade. Gains in literacy, life expectancy, access to clean water and electricity have all been advanced by U.S. 

assistance, and the administration believes a strong need remains 

for some continued U.S. assistance to support essential work in 

health and education. 

If confirmed, I will work to expand United States and Egyptian 

trade, and work with you, other agencies of the United States Government and the Egyptian Government to develop the most constructive use of continued United States economic and military assistance. 

Mr. Chairman, I know the members of Congress share the administration’s serious concerns about the condition of human rights 

in Egypt and the limitations placed on political activity and freedom. Egypt has taken important steps over many years in opening 

its society with a vibrant press and civil society, and many advancements in Egypt in women’s rights. 

However, the government’s respect for human rights remains 

poor, and serious abuses continue. Progress on political reform has 

slowed, with limitations on political pluralism, and major obstacles 

to opposition parties taking their rightful place in the political life 

of Egypt. Recent indictments against newspaper editors, the continued incarceration of Ayman Nour, private lawsuits against Saad 

Eddin Ibrahim, the prosecution in military tribunals, rather than 

civilian courts of some Muslim Brotherhood members, and restrictions on NGOs illustrates some of these limits that have been 

placed on political freedom. 

Sir, I fully understand the importance of Egypt moving forward 

with meaningful democratic political reform that does reflect 

Egypt’s culture and traditions. The administration is committed to 

pressing Egypt on reform, and if confirmed, I will take every opportunity to support and advance civil and political liberties in Egypt. 

I look forward to working with the government and to meeting, 

learning from, and working with, leaders of Egypt’s civil society. I 

56 

will do all in my power to assure that U.S. support is both coordinated and available to all of those who are working for the advancement of democracy and human rights, and who would welcome our encouragement. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Scobey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SCOBEY, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deeply honored to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as President Bush’s nominee as 

United States Ambassador to the Arab Republic of Egypt. I am mindful of the confidence placed in me by the President and Secretary Rice and will do my utmost 

to fulfill my responsibilities. I have had the privilege of representing the United 

States in many Middle Eastern capitals and look forward to doing so again in a 

country where we have built, over the past three decades, a vital strategic partnership based on mutually shared goals of peace, security, and prosperity, not only for 

our own citizens but also for the people of the entire region. 

I am also happy to introduce my brother, Jim, who came from Winter Springs, 

FL, to attend the hearing. He and my brother, Marty, who could not be here, have 

always provided me moral support and a home in between my assignments. 

Egypt is the most populous Arab country in the world. Its leaders promote regional peace and stability throughout the Middle East and Africa; its security forces 

assure free navigation through the Suez Canal and combat terrorism; its press and 

cultural vitality influence the entire Arab world; and it is the only Arab country 

with global diplomatic reach. The implications for United States policy are clear: 

Continue to strengthen the United States-Egyptian partnership in advancing peace, 

and encourage Egypt to take the lead in economic and political reform in the region. 

We recognize that reform must follow an Egyptian vision and proceed in an Egyptian manner. President Bush expressed in Sharm el Sheikh his firm hope that, 

‘‘Egypt can play a role in the freedom and justice movement . . .’’ and that the 

Egyptian Government would build on its economic and democratic reforms to its 

people to give them ‘‘a greater voice in [their] future.’’ 

During the President’s recent visit to Sharm Al Shaykh where he met with Egyptian President Mubarak, he also recalled the longstanding friendship between the 

United States and Egypt and the respect we have for the Egyptian people, their culture, history, and traditions. Above all else, this friendship has been strengthened 

by our shared objective of concluding a comprehensive peace between Israel and all 

its Arab neighbors in a manner that advances the interests of all and that liberates 

the human potential of this region by removing the fear of war. No Arab nation has 

done more to advance this fundamental goal. Egyptian courage opened the door to 

peace in 1979. Since then President Mubarak has persistently worked with us, the 

Israelis, and other Arab states in search for a just and lasting peace. Most recently, 

Egypt played a central role in the Annapolis conference, and now continues to seek 

ways to facilitate its aims. 

Egyptian-United States cooperation on regional security and its contributions to 

regional stability go beyond the Israeli-Arab conflict. In recognition of this, successive administrations have made significant investments in security and economic assistance to Egypt, including $1.3 billion a year in military assistance. The United 

States-Egyptian military partnership is a powerful force for regional stability in the 

Middle East and Africa. Our current military operations in the Middle East would 

not be possible without the overflight rights and facilitated Suez Canal passages afforded by the Egyptian Ministry of Defense. 

Egypt is the largest contributor of peacekeeping troops to UNAMID—the U.N. 

peacekeeping force in Darfur. Egyptian diplomatic leadership helped persuade the 

Sudanese Government that this force would be in its best interest. 

Egypt does face challenges. On January 24, Hamas operatives destroyed the border wall separating Gaza from Egypt and encouraged an influx of tens of thousands 

of Gazans into Northern Sinai. Egypt has sought to manage this difficult situation 

with a minimum of violence. Senior United States officials have remained in regular 

contact with Egyptian, Israeli, and Palestinian leaders who are consulting on ways 

to find a solution that will restore order at the Rafah border. Egypt is also spending 

FMF assistance to procure equipment to help combat smuggling via tunnels beneath 

the Egypt-Gaza border. 

The United States benefits from Egypt’s regional diplomatic leadership. Egypt 

hosted the first expanded neighbors’ conference with Iraq in Sham Al Shaykh and 

57 

supports continued United States military engagement in Iraq until the Iraqi military can safely handle its security duties. Egypt is at the very center of seeking to 

resolve the impasse over Lebanese presidential elections. 

Like the United States, Egypt has suffered terrible human and economic losses 

from terrorism and has long been a stalwart ally in the war against terror. United 

States-Egyptian security cooperation has saved lives throughout the region and will 

continue to do so. 

The President and the administration will continue to seek Egypt’s advice and 

support; if confirmed, I will do everything possible to facilitate communication and 

collaboration. 

Much has changed in the decades since Camp David. The United States can be 

very proud of its contribution to economic and social development in Egypt at all 

levels, thanks to efforts and investment of USAID and its Egyptian partners. As a 

result of United States assistance programs, 99 percent of all Egyptians now have 

access to reliable electricity; 22 million Egyptians in 11 governorates have access to 

clean water and sanitary sewage collection, greatly reducing infant and child diseases. Since 1975, infant mortality has decreased from 132 per thousand to just 33; 

child mortality has decreased 80 percent. Polio has been eradicated, and life expectancy has been extended from 55 to 70 years old. Similarly, adult literacy has grown 

from 39 percent in 1975 to 60 percent now. Girls attending school has risen from 

56 percent to 95 percent. 

Egyptian economic reform is another success story. Prime Minister Nazif’s economic team, has reformed and streamlined Egypt’s economy—retiring many vestiges 

of the old statist economy—to achieve record levels of growth—reaching nearly 7 

percent in 2007. Egypt is attracting increased levels of foreign direct investment— 

$11.1 billion in 2007, up from just $5.3 billion in 2005. The World Bank in 2007 

declared Egypt the ‘‘top reformer’’ in the world. Now the government is eyeing strategies for redistributing the benefits of nearly $8 billion in annual subsidies on food 

and fuel to the poorest poor. 

Again, the United States is playing a central role in Egypt’s economic expansion. 

The United States is Egypt’s No. 1 trading partner: United States foreign direct investment in Egypt exceeds $5 billion and trade is sharply up—nearly 50 percent in 

3 years. United States’ exports to Egypt increased 33 percent in 2007; United States’ 

agricultural exports to Egypt doubled. 

The Qualified Industrial Zone program, which allows certain exports to enter the 

United States tariff and duty free, provided they contain 11.7 percent Israeli content, has produced more than $700 million in exports in 2007 and sustains more 

than 100,000 jobs. Exports from these zones grew 141 percent from $266 million in 

2005 to $643 million in 2006, and the impact of this unilateral trade benefit now 

exceeds the economic impact of our economic assistance. 

But much work remains to be done. Forty percent of Egypt’s population lives on 

less than $2 per day. The government has identified major challenges in education 

and health reform. The United States intends to support these efforts in order to 

ensure a prosperous and stable future for this crucial Middle Eastern state. 

As Egypt’s economy has grown and matured, United States economic assistance 

has gradually declined, from $815 million a year in the 1980s to just over $400 million in fiscal year 2008. And in the current budget situation we can anticipate further adjustment. I look forward to working with you, other interested agencies of 

the United States Government, and our Egyptian counterparts to continue to develop the most productive and constructive use of United States assistance. 

The transformation of Egypt’s economy required patience and political courage. 

The gains we see today reflect the Egyptian leaderships’ willingness to look beyond 

the needs of today to position Egypt to meet the needs of its people in the 21st century. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that Members of Congress share the administration’s serious concerns about the condition of human rights in Egypt and the limitations 

placed on political activity. 

Egypt has taken important steps over many years in opening its society. Egypt’s 

press, including new independent newspapers and television stations, engage in serious political debate, and Egyptian civil society, with countless NGOs, provide 

Egyptian citizens the opportunity to address many of the problems facing Egypt. In 

2007, for the first time in Egyptian history, 30 female judges took their place on 

the bench. The Egyptian Government has acted to eliminate female genital mutilation—outlawing it in state hospitals and working at the grass roots to discourage 

this dangerous and debilitating practice. First Lady, Suzanne Mubarak has personally undertaken this campaign as a priority for the protection of young girls. In the 

second half of 2007, the state prosecuted three police officers for physical abuse of 

detainees. 

58 

However, as documented in our annual report, the government’s respect for 

human rights remains poor and serious abuses continue. Progress on political reform has slowed, with limitations on political pluralism and major obstacles to opposition parties taking their rightful place in the political life of Egypt and to debate 

freely, government policy and actions. The recent indictment against seven newspaper editors, the continued incarceration of Ayman Now, the many private lawsuits 

pending against Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the prosecution in a military tribunal, rather 

than civilian court, of some 40 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and restrictions 

on NGO’s illustrate the ways in which the government limits political freedom. 

Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the importance of Egypt moving forward with 

meaningful political reform. The administration is committed to pressing Egypt on 

reform, and if confirmed, I will take every opportunity to support and advocate the 

advancement of civil and political liberties in Egypt. I look forward both to working 

with the government and to meeting and learning from the leaders of Egypt’s civil 

society. I will do all in my power to assure that U.S. support is both coordinated 

and available to all those who are working for the advancement of democracy and 

human rights and who would welcome our encouragement. 

Over 200,000 Americans visited Egypt last year for business, education, and tourism. No embassy has a more important duty than extending protection and service 

to our citizens overseas, and I promise to make this a high priority. Likewise, over 

45,000 Egyptians sought visas last year to visit the United States for similar reasons. While fully implementing necessary screening for all visitors, I want every 

Egyptian visitor to our embassy to feel welcomed and to anticipate the hospitality 

and positive experience he or she would have in the United States. We can also do 

more to encourage Egyptians students to study in the United States. Nothing can 

replace the opportunity to live and study in the United States. And we all know 

that the students who return to their home countries after that experience, come 

home with an admiration and affection for America that no overseas program can 

instill. I pledge to make this a personal priority. 

If confirmed, I promise that the mission staff and I will give the great attention 

to getting our message out to the widest possible Egyptian audiences. Egypt enjoys 

a vibrant press and its opinion makers influence thinking far beyond Egypt’s borders. Getting out to meet Egyptians throughout the country, promoting people-topeople exchanges, especially for students, academics, and religious leaders, bringing 

distinguished Americans to talk to Egyptian audiences, and engaging the Egyptian 

public at every opportunity and by every means possible will contribute to the improved mutual respect and understanding that we seek. 

The United States’ mission in Egypt is one of the largest in the world. If confirmed, I will have the great privilege of leading a team of talented Americans and 

Egyptians, from many different United States agencies but working together to advance our interests. I pledge to maintain the highest standards of accountability for 

the resources given to us and to assure that the U.S. mission takes care of its people. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if confirmed, I would hope to welcome 

you and many of your colleagues from the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, to visit. Your sustained interest in and oversight of our mission in 

Egypt is one of the most critical elements of any success we may have and helps 

assure that we are truly representing the American people in a country not only 

of strategic importance to us, but also one where we have enjoyed and benefited 

from great friendship. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Madame Ambassador. 

Ambassador Moriarty. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. MORIARTY, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to appear before you today as 

President Bush’s nominee to serve as the Ambassador to Bangladesh. I deeply appreciate the trust that President Bush and Secretary Rice have shown in nominating me for this position. 

I also want to thank the State Department desk officers for Bangladesh, Sandeep Paul, Marcella Szymanski, and their administrative assistant, Alexis Olive—for all that they have done to help me 

prepare for my proposed assignment. 

59 

Would you stand up? 

Senator KERRY. Thank you all very much. 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Thank you. 

I want to note the attendance here today of an old friend, the 

Ambassador of Bangladesh, Dr. Humayun Kabir. 

Senator KERRY. Welcome, Mr. Ambassador, thank you. 

Ambassador MORIARTY. And most importantly, I wish to express 

my personal gratitude to my wife of 25 years, Lauren. In addition 

to being my soul mate, she was the best Foreign Service officer I 

have ever met. She has made a heavy sacrifice, oh—current company, you know. [Laughter.] 

She has made a heavy sacrifice in deciding to retire in order to 

accompany me to Bangladesh, if I am confirmed. 

Mr. Chairman, I have served my country as a Foreign Service officer for more than three decades—in South Asia, Africa, the Near 

East, and East Asia. Most recently, I spent 3 exciting years as chief 

of mission in Nepal, as that country attempted to return to democracy. 

My tour in Nepal followed a stint as Special Assistant to the 

President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council. If confirmed, I will rely on the experience gained 

throughout my career to advance United States interests in Bangladesh. 

I look forward to what promises to be a challenging assignment. 

In Bangladesh, our interests revolve around three intertwined 

D’s—democracy, development, and denial of space to terrorism. The 

seventh most populous country in the world, Bangladesh, is overwhelmingly Muslim, and has—in the recent past—been grindingly 

poor. 

If, under such conditions, it succeeds in building a tolerant, prosperous democracy, it will serve as a shining beacon for much of the 

world. If it fails in these tasks, it could become a nation of 

ungoverned space, and a potential safe haven and crossroads for 

international terrorism. 

Mr. Chairman, over the years, the people of Bangladesh have 

overcome many daunting obstacles in their search for better lives. 

I feel strongly that it is in the United States’ national interest to 

work with them, to help build a Bangladesh where democracy 

flourishes, where no child goes to bed hungry, and where no terrorist can find safe haven. If confirmed, I will work closely with 

Congress in pursuit of these goals. 

Let me also assure you that, if confirmed, I will zealously protect 

the welfare and safety of American citizens and interests in Bangladesh. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity of addressing you today. 

I would be happy to answer any questions later on. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Moriarty follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. MORIARTY, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR

TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before 

you as President Bush’s nominee to serve as Ambassador to Bangladesh. I deeply 

appreciate the trust President Bush and Secretary Rice have shown in nominating 

me and, if confirmed, I will serve to the best of my abilities. I also wish to express 

my personal gratitude to my wife of 25 years, Lauren. In addition to being my soul 

60 

mate, she was the best Foreign Service officer I ever met and her wise counsel has 

helped shape my career. She has made a heavy sacrifice in deciding to retire in 

order to accompany me to Bangladesh, if I am confirmed. 

Mr. Chairman, I have served my country as a Foreign Service officer for more 

than three decades in South Asia, Africa, the Near East, and East Asia. Most recently, I spent 3 exciting years as chief of mission in Nepal, as that country attempted to return to democracy. My tour in Nepal followed a stint as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security 

Council. If confirmed, I will rely on the experience gained throughout my career to 

advance United States’ interests in Bangladesh. 

I look forward to what promises to be a challenging assignment. Bangladesh is 

a country in transition in an area of the globe vital to United States’ interests. In 

Bangladesh, our interests revolve around three inter-twined ‘‘D’s’’: Democracy, development, and denial of space to terrorism. The seventh-most populous country in 

the world, Bangladesh is overwhelmingly Muslim and has in the recent past been 

grindingly poor. If, under such conditions, it succeeds in building a tolerant, prosperous democracy, it will serve as a shining beacon for much of the world. If it fails 

in these tasks, it could become a nation of ungoverned space and a potential safe 

haven and crossroads for international terrorism. 

DEMOCRACY

Since winning independence from Pakistan in 1971, Bangladesh has struggled to 

build a viable democracy. Its democratic performance has been mixed, and its brief 

history has included periods of military rule and civil disorder. On January 11, 

2007, Bangladesh’s President declared a state of emergency in the face of an opposition boycott of scheduled national elections and widespread political violence. In accordance with Bangladesh’s constitution, the President appointed a caretaker government comprised of 11 nonpartisan advisers; that caretaker government in turn 

embarked upon an ambitious agenda to rid the country of endemic corruption, reform institutions necessary for a sustainable democracy, and hold free, fair, and 

transparent elections. In a country that Transparency International described in recent years as ‘‘perceived to be the most corrupt in the world,’’ the anticorruption 

campaign quickly led to the arrests of a number of prominent individuals—politicians and businessmen alike. At present, two of Bangladesh’s former Prime Ministers are in prison facing corruption charges. 

Bangladesh’s state of emergency continues today, more than a year after the current caretaker government assumed power. Under the state of emergency, the Bangladesh Government placed a ban on freedom of expression and the right to engage 

in political activity. In August 2007, the caretaker government received a jarring 

wake-up call when the country erupted in violent protests. The government, with 

the strong support of the military, quickly restored order by imposing a curfew in 

the areas hit by rioting. But the demonstrations showed what can happen when legitimate means of expressing grievances are unavailable. 

Before and after the protests, the United States has consistently urged Bangladesh’s caretaker government to lift the restrictions on basic rights, and on September 9, 2007, Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed announced a partial relaxation 

of the ban on political activity. The United States has welcomed this announcement 

and urged the caretaker government to move as quickly as possible to take additional steps to restore civic freedoms and democracy. In particular, the United 

States has called upon Bangladesh’s caretaker government to adhere to the electoral 

roadmap it announced in July 2007. That roadmap promises national elections by 

the end of 2008. 

I am heartened by indications that the electoral roadmap remains on track. In 

an address to the nation on the anniversary of January 11, the chief adviser reiterated his commitment to hold elections that will restore, not replace, Bangladesh’s 

democracy. Bangladesh’s Chief of Army staff has underscored that the military supports the caretaker government and that he does not personally seek political office. 

Bangladesh’s efforts to register 90 million voters remain on track despite disruptions from cyclone Sidr that left much of the southern part of the country in ruins 

last November. There are encouraging signs that the caretaker government is cracking down on human rights abuses. Meanwhile, though, the United States continues 

to insist the Bangladesh Government investigate allegations of extrajudicial actions 

by the security forces, mistreatment of members of ethnic and religious minorities, 

or wrongful detention of individuals. The anticorruption campaign remains popular, 

although the government must carefully follow due process. 

Meanwhile, reformers within Bangladesh’s major political parties are pushing to 

democratize the parties. The caretaker government has also responded positively to 

61 

the parties’ call for dialog. While these are ultimately matters for the Bangladeshi 

people to decide, the United States is actively following these developments. We also 

continue to monitor the court cases brought against those detained during the state 

of emergency, including the two former Prime Ministers. The United States—along 

with like-minded partners—has advised Bangladesh’s caretaker government that it 

must meet international standards for due process, transparency, and respect for 

human rights in all cases. 

DEVELOPMENT

With respect to the United States goal of fostering development, Bangladesh has 

enjoyed several years of strong economic growth, despite perennial struggles against 

flooding, overpopulation, and poverty. Bangladesh needs sustained growth, if it is 

to escape from the jaws of debilitating and destabilizing poverty. The caretaker government has attempted to take some positive economic steps. Encouragingly, the 

Bangladesh Government has worked to expand power generation and to improve infrastructure. For example, the government has streamlined operations of Bangladesh’s largest port, cutting transit times through the port from 9 or 10 days to 

3 or 4 days, and reducing cargo handling costs by at least 40 percent. In the nearterm, the caretaker government faces the daunting task of reducing inflation: Prices 

have soared due to high international commodity prices, devastating monsoonal 

floods and widespread crop damage from cyclone Sidr. Recent surveys and anecdotal 

evidence show that the people of Bangladesh worry more about feeding themselves 

than about political reforms. 

This is one reason why foreign assistance plays such a vital part of United States 

Government efforts to promote stability and development in Bangladesh. We have 

provided roughly $5 billion in assistance to Bangladesh since its independence. That 

assistance has, among other accomplishments, contributed to a 50 percent drop in 

Bangladesh’s population growth, provided electricity to scores of millions of villagers, helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands during the most recent severe 

cyclone, and helped establish the conditions for three consecutive free and fair national elections. It has also built for the United States a degree of goodwill among 

the populace virtually unmatched in any other Muslim-majority country. 

Currently, the U.S. Agency for International Development manages a large food 

aid program that targets the poorest of the poor, especially in the countryside where 

the effects of floods and other disasters are most severe. USAID also manages a 

broad-based program focusing on democracy and governance, public health, education for the country’s poor, and expanded economic opportunity and competitiveness. These programs help provide a basic social safety net and a way out of poverty 

for their beneficiaries. 

Late last year, the U.S. Government provided emergency relief to the millions of 

people whose livelihoods cyclone Sidr destroyed. USAID immediately provided $19.5 

million in aid and the U.S. military immediately provided desperately needed airlift 

to deliver food, water, and clothing to remote areas during Operation Sea Angel II. 

The United States’ response to the crisis received widespread and exceedingly favorable media coverage in Bangladesh. This has helped cement the friendly ties between our two countries. 

The damage from cyclone Sidr has been estimated at billions of dollars, and the 

Bangladesh Government has asked donors to help rebuild agriculture and aquaculture industries, to reconstruct rural electrification networks, and to mitigate future disasters. Bangladesh also needs help from donors to ensure that the most vulnerable of its citizens have adequate food security. The nation’s grain stockpiles 

could be dangerously low by spring as Bangladesh struggles to meet the needs of 

its cyclone victims. 

DENIAL OF SPACE TO TERRORISTS

Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to the United States interest in denying 

terrorists the use of Bangladesh’s territory. Despite a long and admirable history 

of religious tolerance, Bangladesh has become a target of extremists in recent years. 

Poverty and political turmoil have provided some space for terrorists. Home-grown 

terrorists called the Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) simultaneously exploded over 400 small bombs throughout Bangladesh in August 2005; shortly thereafter, the JMB embarked on a terror campaign of suicide attacks against judges, 

other prominent figures, and crowded markets. The subsequent execution of six 

JMB leaders appears to have left the terrorist organization on the run. 

A number of press reports also indicate, however, that Pakistan-based militant 

groups are using Bangladesh as a staging area and transit point to facilitate attacks 

directed at targets in India, and at least one of these groups, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba 

62 

(LT), has been able to tap into resources provided by local militant groups such as 

Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami, Bangladesh (HUJI–B) to support their operations. Indian 

press reports allege that Bangladeshi HUJI–B members and individuals affiliated 

with the LT are involved in an active terrorist network, operating from Pakistan 

and Bangladesh. Press reports also suggest that this particular network is responsible for a string of attacks in India, including the October 2005, May 2007, and 

August 2007 bombings in Hyderabad and probably the October 2007 bombing of a 

shrine in Ajmer, Rajasthan as well. 

That said, Bangladesh is committed to partnership with the United States in the 

global war on terror, and the vast majority of Bangladesh’s citizens appear to have 

little sympathy for the terrorists. The caretaker government has identified counterterrorism as a top priority and has actively pursued extremists. If confirmed, I will 

make it a priority to work with Bangladesh to help it counter the internal terrorist 

threat, while strengthening control of its borders and various ports of entry. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, in closing let me say that I look forward very much to the challenges I will face if confirmed as United States Ambassador to Bangladesh. Over 

the years, the people of Bangladesh have overcome many daunting obstacles in their 

search for better lives. I feel strongly that it is in the United States’ national interest to work with them to help build a Bangladesh where democracy flourishes, 

where no child goes to bed hungry, and where no terrorist can find safe haven. If 

confirmed, I will work closely with Congress in pursuit of these goals. 

Let me also assure you that, if confirmed, I will zealously protect the welfare and 

safety of American citizens and American interests in Bangladesh. 

Thank you again for the opportunity of addressing you today. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

Ms. Jones. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH K. JONES, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF KUWAIT 

Ms. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I also welcome this opportunity to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the next 

United States Ambassador to the State of Kuwait. I am also deeply 

honored by the confidence shown in me by the President and Secretary Rice in making this nomination and, if confirmed by the 

Senate, I look forward to working closely with this committee and 

with others in Congress to continue to advance the vital interests 

of the United States in Kuwait, and in the broader Middle East region. 

I’m also grateful today for a number of friends who have joined 

me from various countries in the region, as well as my daughter. 

I’m so proud of my husband, my family, and grateful for their 

steadfastness and encouragement as we have often served, particularly in later years, at different posts, not necessarily together as 

a family, in the world. 

Mr. Chairman, as you’ve already noted, the State of Kuwait has 

been a reliable partner and friend in a turbulent and transitional 

region of utmost importance to United States’ interests. Because of 

this, as you noted, Kuwait was designated a major non-NATO ally 

in 2004. 

Since Kuwait’s 1991 liberation from Saddam Hussein’s brutal occupation, whose painful remnants remain visible to this day, 

United States military forces and our coalition partners have relied 

on Kuwait’s indispensable material and logistical support for our 

policy priorities in Iraq, Iran, and the global war on terror. 

If confirmed, I will work to consolidate and expand that support 

into broader political, social, and economic arenas, to build and susVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
63 

tain a stable and democratic Iraq, and Iraq at peace with its neighbors, and also to maintain throughout the region. 

We share with the Government of Kuwait a common interest in 

combating the spread of extremist ideologies, and in rooting out 

terrorist elements that threaten our peace and security. 

If confirmed, I will seek to build even stronger and more robust 

counterterrorism cooperation to ensure the best possible force protection for our troops in Kuwait, as well as the safety of our mission employees, our family members, and the larger American community. 

Kuwait continues to build positively on a proud indigenous tradition of boisterous political discourse, somewhat unusual in that region. In 2005, women were granted the right to vote, and subsequently, nearly 60 percent of those eligible to do so participated in 

their June 2006 parliamentary and municipal elections. 

Since then, Kuwait has witnessed further democratic advancements, including increased press freedoms, and a much-needed redistricting law. If confirmed, I will endeavor to help Kuwait consolidate and expand those democratic gains, consistent with Kuwait’s 

own goals and with the President’s freedom agenda, to include supporting the development of additional civil society groups in advancing the rights and protections of vulnerable populations living 

within Kuwait’s borders. 

On the economic front, we must seek to create new paradigms of 

partnership, both within and beyond the energy sphere. The potential for dynamic synergies between Kuwait and the United States, 

combining capital, technology, and expertise to advance global development compatible with current environmental and other concerns, is enormous. Constructive, bilateral engagement on trade 

and investment-related issues through tools such as the Trade and 

Investment Framework, will support needed reforms and cement 

our committed partnership. 

If confirmed, I will pursue ongoing policies that promote increased investment, trade, and project development between our 

two countries. 

Finally, if confirmed, I will expand U.S.-sponsored exchange and 

English language programs to build stronger bilateral ties, and 

thus counter the negative extremist influences found all too often 

in regional media. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve served my country as a Foreign Service officer for more than 25 years, most recently as principal officer at the 

Consulate General in Istanbul, Turkey—another vital ally of the 

United States undergoing dynamic transition in a volatile region. 

Prior to that, I served in Washington as Country Director for 

Arabian Peninsula Affairs, and the lead up to the March 2003 engagement in Iraq. 

My experience with the region includes overseas postings in 

Baghdad, Tunas, Damascus, Riyadh, and the United Arab Emirates, and I look forward to continuing to serve the American people 

in Kuwait. 

If confirmed as ambassador, I will work with persistence, with 

enthusiasm, and with stamina to protect American citizens and 

promote U.S. interests, while consolidating and augmenting the 

close ties between our leaders and our peoples. 

64 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I’m honored by this nomination and the 

opportunity to appear before you today, and I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH K. JONES TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF KUWAIT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to the State of Kuwait. I am deeply honored by the confidence shown in 

me by President Bush and Secretary Rice in making this nomination. If confirmed 

by the Senate, I look forward to working closely with this committee, and others 

in Congress, to continue to advance the vital interests of the United States in Kuwait and in the region. I am joined today by my daughter, Ana, a sophomore at the 

Madeira School here in Virginia. My husband, Rick Olson, also a Foreign Service 

officer, is serving as Deputy Chief of Mission at USNATO, and our 12-year-old, Isabella, is happily serving with him there. I am so proud of them and grateful for 

their steadfastness and their encouragement. 

Mr. Chairman, the State of Kuwait has been a reliable partner and friend in a 

turbulent and transitional region of utmost importance to United States’ interests; 

because of this, the President designated Kuwait a major non-NATO ally in 2003. 

Since Kuwait’s 1991 liberation from Saddam Hussein’s brutal occupation, whose 

painful remnants remain visible to this day, United States military forces and our 

coalition partners have relied on Kuwait’s material and logistical support for our 

policy priorities in Iraq, Iran, and the global war on terror. If confirmed, I will work 

to consolidate and expand that support into broader political, social, and economic 

arenas to build and sustain a stable and democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors, and to maintain security throughout the region. 

We share with the Government of Kuwait a common interest in combating the 

spread of extremist ideology and rooting out terrorist elements that threaten peace 

and security in the region. If confirmed, I will seek to build even stronger and more 

robust counterterrorism cooperation to include increased information sharing, intensified training efforts, and the careful evaluation of existing cooperative programs 

to ensure the best possible force protection for our troops in Kuwait, as well as our 

mission employees, family members, and the larger American community. 

Kuwait continues to build positively on a proud, indigenous tradition of boisterous 

political discourse. In 2005, women were granted the right to vote; subsequently, 

nearly 60 of those eligible to so do participated in their June 2006 parliamentary 

and municipal elections. Also in 2006, the Government of Kuwait respected constitutionally mandated procedures in appointing its new leader, Amir Sheikh Sabah AlAhmed Al-Jaber Al Sabah. Since then, Kuwait has witnessed further democratic advancements, including increased press freedoms and a much needed redistricting 

law. If confirmed, I will endeavor to help Kuwait consolidate and expand those 

democratic gains, consistent with the President’s Freedom Agenda, to include supporting the development of fledgling, grassroots women’s organizations, civil society 

groups and other activists, and advancing the rights and protections of vulnerable 

populations living within Kuwait’s borders. 

In addition to deepening our security cooperation and advancing President Bush’s 

Freedom Agenda, we must seek to create new paradigms of economic partnership, 

both within and beyond the energy sphere. The recent historic deal between DOW 

Chemical and the Kuwaiti Government, the largest of its kind in Kuwait’s history, 

exemplifies the kind of creative initiatives that are possible. The potential for dynamic synergies between Kuwait and the United States, combining capital, technology, and expertise to advance global development compatible with current environmental concerns, is enormous. Constructive bilateral engagement on trade and 

investment-related issues, through tools such as the Trade and Investment Framework (TIFA), will help support needed reforms and cement our committed partnership. If confirmed, I will pursue ongoing policies that promote increased investment, 

trade, and project development between our two countries. 

Finally, if confirmed, I will expand U.S.-sponsored exchange and English language 

programs and utilize Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) funds to reach a 

broad spectrum of young citizens and future leaders throughout Kuwaiti society. 

These programs ensure stronger bilateral ties and thus counter the negative extremist influences found all too often in regional media. 

65 

Mr. Chairman, I have served my country as a Foreign Service officer for more 

than 25 years, most recently as principal officer at our Consulate General in 

Istanbul, Turkey, another vital ally of the United States undergoing dynamic transition in a volatile region. Prior to that, I served in Washington as Country Director 

for Arabian Peninsula Affairs in the lead up to the March 2003 engagement in Iraq. 

My experience with the region includes four Washington assignments directly related to the Near East and overseas postings in Baghdad, Tunis, Damascus, Riyadh 

(as a dependent spouse) and the United Arab Emirates. I look forward to continuing 

to serve the American people in Kuwait. 

If confirmed as ambassador, I will work with persistence, enthusiasm, and stamina to protect American citizens and promote U.S. interests, while consolidating and 

augmenting the close ties between our leaders and our peoples. Again, I am honored, Mr. Chairman, by this nomination and the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you 

Senator KERRY. Well, thank you very much, each of you, for good, 

solid statements. 

But, you just mentioned, Ms. Jones, in your statement, working 

to deal with this issue of the radical challenge, and so forth. Can 

you each share with me, based on your experience in these countries and this region, and just watching what’s going on, what you 

think the most advisable and important steps are for us to take 

that would have an impact, in your judgment—not just in the country you’re going to serve in, but speak to that specifically—and 

also, this is a larger issue regionally, and if you could address your 

sense of how we could best contribute in our policies to facilitate 

that minimization of radicalization? 

Ms. JONES. Obviously, we have a lot of programs that are funded 

right by the Middle East Partnership Initiative that involve exchanges and a lot more outreach. My sense, and my experience 

based in Turkey and elsewhere, is that we are perfectly capable of 

competing in the vast world of ideas, and similar to what happened 

prior, previously with the cold war, the United States can honestly 

debate in public fora, what the choices are. 

I think some of the choices may not appear to some people to be 

as stark as they were during the cold war, in the sense, then, that 

we had clear—no freedom of religion and a broken economic system. Now the challenge is much more subtle. But my sense and my 

experience is that, when people participate in the free dialog that 

is in our society, within our own society—when they come and 

study in the United States, when they see us, here, and see the variety that is here, it assists them in putting into broader context 

and more accurate perspective—the freedoms that we enjoy, the excesses that they may observe coming—what they perceive to be excesses coming out of our society—and where that really fits in the 

broader scheme of human freedom and personal choice. 

I think it’s in large part an educational issue. And our being 

comfortable and open about speaking to all of the issues and not 

shying from it. Maybe that sounds simplistic, but that’s what I’ve 

seen work in Turkey. 

Senator KERRY. So, your biggest single thing, you think, is on the 

cultural exchange side? 

Ms. JONES. I would go beyond that to even say, I think that 

whenever we bring a young person to the United States, or whenever they engage with us, they become a force multiplier, particularly in the age of blogging, when they can go back and say, ‘‘This 

is what I saw, this is what it really was.’’ 

66 

I think right now, in fact, the best advertisement we have for our 

system is our elections. I know so many young people throughout 

the Middle East who are watching, fervently, what happens in the 

United States elections, watching the debates, and watching democracy in practice. And when they see that, that has a far greater 

impact on them then any kind of pamphlet we could ever issue. I 

think that’s the advantage we have, actually, with the Internet 

right now, and with global communication. 

Senator KERRY. Ambassador Moriarty. 

Ambassador MORIARTY. I’d like to endorse what Deborah has 

said. I would also point out, though, that the issue in South Asia 

is actually a little bit different from the issue in the gulf and points 

further west. 

Basically, in South Asia, you traditionally have had relatively little support for the more extreme forms of Islam. So, when terrorism does come into places like Bangladesh or India, it’s usually 

an imported ideology. And why does it come in? It comes in because 

of poverty, it comes in because of a lack of options. I’ve actually 

been told that in Bangladesh, the United States has about its highest reputation in any Muslim majority country in the world. Why 

is that so? Frankly, it’s so because we have stayed engaged with 

Bangladesh since independence in 1971. 

I look at other places where we come in, then come out, and our 

reputation is not as strong. So, I think it’s important that we remain engaged—when I say remain engaged, I do heartily endorse 

the concept of as many exchanges as possible, but in the grindingly 

poor countries of South Asia and other impoverished parts of the 

Muslim world, that also has to have a very strong economic component. 

Senator KERRY. Ambassador Scobey. 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I would agree with 

my colleagues as well, but in addition, I think we need to also realize, and again, based on my experience in the last several years, 

even though the challenge of extremism is keen and very real to 

Americans, I think we also need to realize that the societies in the 

region have also been, in some ways, taken by surprise and 

shocked by the violence that has emerged from their societies. 

And one of the most important parts of the response to extremism, I believe, is taking place in these countries themselves, 

through voices of moderation, moderate clerics, government leaders, political leaders—they’re all speaking out and working together. I think it is our challenge to make sure that we have outreach to these opinion makers inside countries, to assure that they 

understand what the United States stands for, what our principles 

are, because they are the true—they have the true ability to get 

out into their own communities, and to affect the views of the 

youth of today, and the attitudes that they will shape, then. 

Senator KERRY. Just following up—can aid policy, and cultural 

policy, exchange policy, overcome the hurdles of perceptions of our 

larger foreign policy? In other words, how an administration is perceived in a region because of larger decisions, like Iraq, or Abu 

Ghraib, Guantanamo, things like that? Do you think you can fender through, notwithstanding, or do those other things have a seriVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
67 

ous impact on your ability to achieve your goals on a more implementation/practical level? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Sir, I think that the U.S. aid policies, our 

economic programs in countries, our cultural programs and exchanges are some of the tools that we have. There is also an ongoing need for continued speaking out, publicly and frequently to— 

as I said—to make clear what our values are, what the United 

States stands for, and often to explain our policies. We may not always find agreement with our policies overseas, but I think that 

our honest effort to explain, and to reach out, and to listen, to respond, does maintain the kinds of ties that we will need to eventually overcome the challenge of extremism throughout the region 

and the world. 

Senator KERRY. What do you think, and with respect to the current relationship with Egypt—visiting Senators, visiting Secretaries of State, visiting Presidents—have had conversations about 

human rights, opening the democracy, accountability, et cetera. 

But last year, even, our own State Department’s report was pretty 

tough on what’s happening in Egypt. 

You know, we are grateful for Egyptian support in a lot of respects. And, I think they know that, and I hope they know that. 

And they have, and can, play a very constructive role with respect 

to the peace process. So, are we the prisoners of those other needs 

in that you can’t leverage anything? Or is it that we’ve made a 

more pragmatic decision here about what we can do? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Sir, I believe that our goals and objectives 

in Egypt, our strong strategic cooperation are not in conflict with 

our goal, and our encouragement for a democratic reform, and respect for human rights. The visits of Senators, of senior administration officials, the work of our diplomats in the field—keep these 

issues to the front. And I would say that other parts of the world 

have also brought these issues to Egyptian attention. 

We have, as you know, a number of other efforts underway to 

work with civil society directly, to work with trying to build the 

rule of law and institutions of government that will help Egyptians 

form opinions about what good governance is. I don’t believe that 

this is an issue, as I said, where our goals are in conflict, but I 

agree that it is a work of—that may take time, so that all Egyptian 

voices will eventually be able to be heard. 

The government—the leaders in the government themselves 

have, over time, acknowledged and pointed to areas where they 

need reform to take place. That hasn’t happened. I think it is our 

goal—I know the President has made clear, even on his last trip— 

that he would like to see the Egyptians take a more leading role 

in the region, to promote democratic reform and justice. 

We believe it is, certainly, a capability, and we will continue to 

encourage that, as we can. But, I don’t believe that there is a conflict in our goals here. 

Senator KERRY. And, do you have a view with respect to the linking of aid and human rights progress? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Well, sir, as you know, the administration 

very strongly opposed the conditionality element of the security assistance, economic assistance package. And, on the belief that it 

68 

does, it will not help leverage or move Egypt toward specific 

changes that we have articulated for them. 

Senator KERRY. The President and the Secretary, as I’ve said, 

have repeatedly urged the Egyptian Government to ‘‘show the way’’ 

toward democracy in the Middle East. But the most recent State 

Department human rights report called the record on human rights 

‘‘poor.’’ And there are many who are certain that Egypt has regressed on democratic reform. What would you say about that? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. I would say that the path toward democratic reform that many voices inside Egypt and many international observers, including our own observers—both from NGOs 

and from our embassy—have clearly pointed out that the government has not taken enough steps toward genuine, democratic, political reform. There are certain issues out there now that have 

been particularly noteworthy, and in the press the detention of 

Ayman Nour has been a particularly difficult action for us to understand, as to why he remains in detention, and it is our—I will 

certainly, if confirmed—continue to promote, and to urge that the 

Egyptians release him. 

And there are other examples, as well, of what—where their actions have not matched what we had understood of their intent to 

be. If confirmed, I will continue to promote these issues, and we 

will continue to work directly with civil society, and other Egyptians who are really also seeking further reform within Egypt. 

Senator KERRY. And what is your interpretation of the current 

state of threat of the Muslim Brotherhood? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Well, as you know, the Muslim Brotherhood, as an organization, is illegal in Egypt. And I don’t think I 

have really good data as to what its ultimate strength is. But it is 

a potent force throughout the region, it has been attractive to a 

number of publics throughout the Middle East. It—although it did 

not run in elections because it could not—there are a number of 

independent candidates in the Egyptian parliament that most experts believe are, in fact, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood 

and they captured a good number of votes in the last parliamentary elections. 

Senator KERRY. What’s your attitude about the political banning 

with respect to them? I mean, obviously the experience—and I’ve 

heard this from President Mubarak, and we’ve all seen it—our 

pressure for an election in the West Bank, against President Abbas 

is—well, then Abu Mazan’s pleas, and the Israeli pleas—resulted 

in the election of Hamas. And one of those things that people often 

talk about is, if you push that process too fast to a place you don’t 

know, you better look out what you get as a result. Do you think 

there is that threat? That if you sort of open it up and the Muslim 

Brotherhood were legitimate, that you would in fact have a more 

radical outcome, and greater instability in Egypt? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Sir, I think that Egypt can open up its political system to greater political pluralism, it will be a question for 

Egyptians to be able to define that. But what we see now, is that 

there are many, many obstacles to the registration of new parties 

and their ability to act. 

Of course, as I said, the Muslim Brotherhood—although illegal— 

there are many in Egypt that are drawn to its ideas, and I think 

69 

we believe that if the political process were opened up so that other 

political parties could emerge, Egyptians would be able then, to 

have their choice of possible solutions to some of the political challenges that they currently face. 

Senator KERRY. Would you agree that there is some sensitivity 

in the Egyptian population about foreign interference, particularly 

American interference in their political system? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Sir, I can’t answer specifically, because I 

have not really be able to test this in Egypt, but certainly from my 

experience in the region, I think it is a fairly standard sensitivity, 

of the appearance of any foreign power telling them what to do. 

Senator KERRY. Is there the possibility that, as we promote political reform, we can also alienate the secular reformists and as well 

as frustrate the ruling elite? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Well, sir, I think if we couch our goals and 

objectives in terms that are consistent with international standards 

for political pluralism and political freedom, I think that we, at the 

end of the day, we will be able to defend our position, in that we 

will win more friends in Egypt. 

Senator KERRY. Have you been given any specific instructions, 

with respect to enforcement on the Gaza border and the arms trafficking and tunnels? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Well, sir, as you know, I’m not yet confirmed, so I haven’t. But my understanding of where the situation 

is—— 

Senator KERRY. Well, the process of prepping up for this and for 

everything—— 

Ambassador SCOBEY [continuing]. Yes, yes. Yes, sir. 

Senator KERRY [continuing]. Have they—— 

Ambassador SCOBEY. It’s clearly a—has been even before the 

January 23rd breach—been a topic of a lot of concern, both to 

Egyptians, clearly to the Government and people of Israel and to 

others—it is a vulnerability. On the 23rd, the Egyptians were overwhelmed with the number of people pushing through, and an operation appears to have been coordinated by Hamas. The Egyptian 

Government was extremely sensitive to the possibility of civilian 

injuries, and were very, very careful to try to prevent violence from 

breaking out. 

They have gradually pushed most people—encouraged most people—to get back into Gaza, and have tried to reseal the border. I 

think they are looking, talking—I think the good element here is 

that they are talking very closely, I understand, with the Israelis, 

with the Palestinian authority to try to find a way to improve the 

situation on the Rafah border. And as you know, with regard to the 

tunneling and smuggling problem that preexisted, the Egyptians 

have already, I think, submitted requests for some specialized technical equipment that will help them monitor the terrain, and try 

to mitigate the problems of these tunnels that have been there for 

30 years. 

Senator KERRY. Ambassador Moriarty, what would you define as 

the principal challenges right now, with respect to Bangladesh? 

You mentioned the Muslim issue in your comments, also. 

70 

Ambassador MORIARTY. I look upon the three issues that I raised 

as intertwined. We have to address all of them, they have to be addressed together—one is democracy—— 

Senator KERRY. Development, the—— 

Ambassador MORIARTY [continuing]. The move back toward democracy, the other is development, increasing prosperity. The 

third, which sort of overlays both of the other two, is the desire to 

deny space to international terrorists. 

Senator KERRY. How do you think we best do that? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Well, I think we have to—— 

Senator KERRY. With that kind of populace, with that kind of 

order, movement, et cetera? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. In terms of denying space to the terrorists, I think we have to play on the already considerable suspicion 

of extreme Islam on the part of most of the Bangladeshi people. I 

think we do that by encouraging a return—as quickly as possible— 

to democracy. And I think we do that by encouraging steady development of the economy. 

You remember that they were hit very hard by a cyclone in November—set back years of development progress down in the south. 

We are looking at a package to help with that, and I would hope 

that we will be bringing it to Congress in the coming weeks. 

Senator KERRY. So, is it your judgment or the judgment of the 

administration, I suppose I should ask, that the military is resolved 

to withdraw from the political domain, and facilitate transition? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. They continue to say so, sir. The chief 

advisor who, of course, is the chief civilian official, has repeated his 

commitment to this timetable of elections by the end of this year. 

The Chief of Army Staff has reiterated his determination to see 

this process move forward. He has consistently said he has no desire for political office, and he want to see the Army go back to the 

barracks by the end of this year. 

Senator KERRY. Have we identified factions that are opposed to 

that action? That prefer to-- 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Within the Army? No, sir. In fact, I 

think that what happened was, after a few months of relative calm 

last year, there were riots at the universities. I think they looked 

at the—the military looked at the situation in Pakistan, and I 

think there was a decision reached at some point last year that, 

‘‘Gee, we really do have to make this work. There is no alternative 

to marching back toward democracy.’’ 

Senator KERRY. How would you assess the influence and relationship that we have with their military? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. I think it is strong. We have had training programs for a long time. A lot of their senior officers have 

studied in U.S. courses. We do have a big question, a human rights 

question related to something called the ‘‘Rapid Action Battalions’’—that is the elite group that was set up to fight terrorism, to 

fight crime within the country. Up to now, we don’t really have a 

formal relationship with them. We want to improve their human 

rights record as a precondition for any sort of improved engagement with them. 

Senator KERRY. And how would you assess regional relationships 

with Bangladesh? 

71 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Well, again, I would rather let those 

kind of speak—— 

Senator KERRY. Has the political change, the military government altered that balance in any way? Our relationship? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Well, I think right now, Bangladesh’s 

neighbors are willing to give the current government the benefit of 

the doubt and say, ‘‘Okay, you have a timetable, move on it.’’ I 

don’t think any of the neighbors would be comfortable if, as you 

suggested, there might be further military moves in the future. 

That would isolate the Bangladeshis. 

Senator KERRY. And how has the political turmoil impacted the 

status of the Islamist radicals in the country at this time? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Well, you hear—oh, excuse me. I was 

going to say, you hear varying things on that issue. Some people 

assert that they are making progress because they have not had as 

many of their leaders arrested in the anticorruption campaign. 

Others assert that there is no evidence of any groundswell of 

support for the Islamic parties. I would remind you, in the last 

election they gained something like 6 percent of the total vote. 

Senator KERRY. You mentioned the cyclone, natural disaster, et 

cetera—this is an ongoing thing. We seem to always have a setback, whether it’s a tidal wave, or you know, whatever. Are you 

aware of whether or not they are currently focused on taking steps, 

both in terms of their development policies and other policies, to 

deal with the potential of climate change having a profound impact 

on them? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. They are extremely worried by climate 

change. Their fears are that Bangladesh, which is very, very low, 

would end up being one of the countries worst affected by climate 

change in the future. 

Much of what we’ve been doing with the Bangladeshis, in terms 

of trying to improve their structure—infrastructure, to protect 

against cyclone, to protect against tsunami—does, of course, actually help out with respect to that, too. 

They do need, they assert, a lot of help in improving the infrastructure down south, much of which was hit very hard by this latest cyclone. 

Senator KERRY. When you say ‘‘a lot of help,’’ what are you talking about? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. They estimated that the economic damage and infrastructure damage was about $2 billion that need to 

be repaired. 

Senator KERRY. Have commitments been made with respect to 

that? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Yeah, there have been—we’re still looking at exactly what we need to do. In fact, we have teams out in 

the field in Bangladesh right now, including from the military, 

looking at what sort of infrastructure projects are necessary. 

Senator KERRY. And what about the—do you have an assessment 

from the administration, anticipation as you approach this—about 

the prospect for elections, i.e., that they will be held? That they will 

be accountable and open? What’s your take on that at this point? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Well, we are encouraged by the steps 

that are being taken, to date. Basically this roadmap, just—inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
72 

cluded the final goal, it laid out the steps that needed to be taken 

to get to that goal. 

Probably the most important is coming up with a revamped voters list that is much more foolproof than what they’ve had in the 

past. They’re doing that pretty well, and progress to date is encouraging. 

So, I would say that we have seen nothing to indicate that 

they’re going to back off or shy away. And we, of course, are out 

there. And I, of course, if I get confirmed, will go out there to drive 

home the message that they need to make progress, and they need 

to hold the election on time. 

Senator KERRY. Your confidence level about that? 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Reasonably high. I mean, not having set 

foot in the country yet, but again, everything we’ve seen indicates 

that they are headed in the right direction. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. 

Ms. Jones, Kuwait is an interesting and complicated place. I remember, I was there with Strom Thurmond and Pat Moynihan, literally, the day the al-Sabah family returned to their palace after 

the invasion had been repelled. And I remember having a long conversation with them about their gratitude, and our interests and 

mutual interests and so forth. 

We’ve had some hiccups in between then and now, that sort of 

raise some questions about that. On the other hand, they are a 

very important staging area for us, and we couldn’t be doing a lot 

of things we’re doing, or pose some of the strategic positioning that 

we do without their supports. How would you characterize that relationship right now? Where do you see those strategic interests? 

And how would you describe the relationship? 

Ms. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I would say that Kuwait’s relationship with the United States remains the bedrock of its security 

strategy. And the mutual benefits of that relationship remain pretty clear and compelling, as evidenced by the amount, the support— 

both material and logistical—that Kuwait provides for us, as well, 

which is something to the tune of a billion dollars a year. 

And that doesn’t necessarily include the fuel arrangements we 

have, and other things. The generous support they’ve given—of 

course, in their interest, as well. 

But because Kuwait sits at this nexus of very critical—in a very 

critical area, but of a unique set of political and geo-political circumstances, I think that relationship is going to continue, I have 

no doubt of that. And in that sense, there’s an advantage for us. 

It’s also a small and wealthy and relatively agile society in some 

respects. It’s a young society. As you’ve commented earlier, Mr. 

Chairman, the—as with most of these populations, more than 60 

percent of the society is under the age of 30, more than 40 percent 

is under the age of 15, in fact, I believe, in Kuwait. 

They do have an active and vociferous, sometimes, parliament, 

and they do deal with other dynamics internally that some of these 

other countries do not deal with in the region, which can, at times, 

make them appear to be less forthcoming. 

You mentioned Annapolis, for example. The fact is that as their 

foreign minister later explained, Kuwait is not a member of the 

Arab Peace Initiative Committee that did attend Annapolis and did 

73 

represent a number of countries that were not part of that committee. But they had already agreed, in advance, to follow the lead 

of the committee in providing support, and they all subsequently 

pledged $300 million in assistance to the Palestinians. 

I think the issue with Kuwait on the three—on the areas of importance for us, for example, with Iraq, sustaining their support, 

but—and expanding that support into commercial investment, and 

other areas that will solidify and stabilize Iraq’s ability to function 

as an independent and a good neighbor-good, stable, democratic 

neighbor. Obviously, Kuwait has historical concerns about Iraq, 

which are somewhat justified in many people’s minds there. 

I would say that the same goes with the peace process—there 

have been a number of commitments that we need to work with 

them to follow up on, in terms of their support for the Palestinians, 

for the Palestinian authority. 

Frankly, their record in terms of compliance is not quite as good 

as a number of our other gulf friends has been—beyond the initial 

commitment. Moving back to Iraq, I think you had—someone had 

commented on that earlier—the level of support, what—Kuwait has 

made a number of commitments for project assistance, and I think 

part of the question there is waiting for Iraqis to direct—to decide 

themselves, the Government of Iraq—which are the projects that 

merit the assistance. And my understanding was that this month, 

someone was coming from the Ministry in Iraq to talk to the Kuwaitis about specific assistance. 

There’s no question that we need to work, and if confirmed, these 

will be areas that I will press on, to push for that support, and to 

be forthcoming with it. 

On the freedom agenda—and this is, again, where Kuwait has a 

unique environment, it’s gone back and forth over the years—but 

in fact the march has been fairly steadily forward in terms of women’s rights and other issues—there’s a large problem that remains 

with the treatment of domestic workers in Kuwait. 

This is an area of concern for us. Recently, they did open a shelter, for example, for domestics. But more needs to be done to ensure that, again, those vulnerable populations are protected within 

Kuwait, and that’s one of, if confirmed, that one of the areas that 

I will work with them on. 

Because as they—because they know it’s the right thing to do, 

too. As Kuwait moves forward and continues to progress as a full 

player in the modern world, with international standards, they 

know that’s the right thing to do. 

Senator KERRY. Do you have any sense of whether or not rivalries within the al-Sabah family for succession may or may not complicate that relationship that you’ve described? The strategic relationship we have? 

Ms. JONES. Well, I—obviously I’m not in a position right now, 

Mr. Chairman, to comment on a lot of those. However, I would only 

note that in the transition, I mean, as the current emir was selected, they followed their constitutional processes and I think that 

was a very encouraging thing. 

Again, and I don’t mean to be Pollyannaish, but I think with increased transparency, and with the transparency that comes with 

their young population not only observing what happens here and, 

74 

amongst their own society and their communication with each 

other—they do, I think, feel and understand that they have an obligation to play according to established rules, and they do have a 

constitution, and they have followed that. 

Senator KERRY. To what extent are there, is there evidence of 

Kuwait citizens and/or organizations who finance terrorist activities? 

Ms. JONES. This is, I think, the challenge of tracking and countering the flow of terror financing, is a huge challenge, one that 

I’ve dealt with quite a bit in previous assignments. And it certainly 

remains an item of concern in Kuwait. It’s a place where a lot of 

cash does flow in and out of the country, and obviously, therefore, 

it’s a place that people who want to exploit these avenues will seek 

to exploit, given its location. 

The Kuwaitis have taken a number of steps over the past several 

years to increase the monitoring and tracking of money, primarily 

that’s been given through charitable organizations, which is hard 

to track. They have put in place with their central bank and other 

things, systems for tracking. Obviously, more can be done, and 

that’s certainly an area where we seek to work more intensely with 

them to improve the mechanisms, not only for the flow of the 

money itself, but for surveillance, et cetera, of individuals who 

might be involved with that. 

Senator KERRY. Are you aware of—how would you describe alQaeda influence, and/or presence in Kuwait? 

Ms. JONES. I am aware that are some who are very concerned 

about the growing influence and presence of al-Qaeda in Kuwait, 

perhaps in the sense of the Whack-A-Mole effect. As the Saudis 

have clamped down, and al-Qaeda looks for more fertile grounds 

where they might feel that they aren’t under the same level of observation or monitoring. 

The Kuwaitis feel—share this concern with us, deeply—and it is 

a small society, which gives them a certain advantage in the sense 

that they can monitor. Obviously, there’s more to be done on that 

side, as well, but it’s probably something that’s best discussed in 

another venue. 

Senator KERRY. What about infiltrators from Iraq and/or Iran, 

and Iran’s regional policies? How do those impact Kuwait? 

Ms. JONES. Well, obviously, on the Iraq side, of course, Kuwait 

is deeply concerned about flows back and forth over the border. 

And I think that’s one of the reasons that they’ve been so receptive 

to having us there as a presence, and would hope to have us there 

for a time to come. 

With respect to Iran, it’s obviously—I would have to, honestly, 

Mr. Chairman, look more in terms of infiltration. I’m not aware 

that that is a big problem, per se, infiltration from Iran. 

I do know that the Kuwaitis have a regular dialog with Iran. The 

Foreign Minister was there, recently. They have assured us that 

the purpose of this dialog is to convey our concerns, and to convey 

their own concerns to Iran about Iranian activities in the region. 

Senator KERRY. So, what do you understand to be the like strategic interests here, between Kuwait and us? And are there different strategic interests that conflict with that? 

75 

Ms. JONES. Quite honestly, I don’t see that we vary. Perhaps I’m 

lucky in this sense, but I don’t see that we have great—that there’s 

a great deal of light between our strategic interests, and Kuwait’s, 

frankly. 

I think we want the same things—we don’t want a weaponized, 

an Iran that has nuclear weapons. We don’t want an Iraq that is 

unstable, and a playing field for al-Qaeda. We don’t want al-Qaeda 

active in the region, and extremism. We want development, we 

want a peace in the Middle East. I think Kuwait has been extremely supportive of the Arab Peace Plan, certainly, and others in 

support for the Palestinian Authority, as well as—I am, I think at 

the right time there will be—I don’t think there will be problems 

in coming to full peace with Israel—although I’m probably stepping 

out of my role here, I’m speculating, obviously, which I shouldn’t 

do—but I don’t see any impediment to that. They are as concerned 

as we are about instability in the region. 

And I think, at the same time, they have undertaken, on their 

own, not only in response to pressure from us, but their own society is undergoing important democratic transition and changes and 

development, and they have the luxury of being able to afford a lot 

of that, as well. 

So, I think that we’re actually, pretty much in step with each 

other, strategically. 

Senator KERRY. The arms sales that we currently have on the 

table with respect to the region—how do see that affecting that relationship? 

Ms. JONES. Again, with Kuwait, it’s largely—I think it’s about a 

$1.4 billion package, that it’s mostly kits to upgrade with missile 

defense system, it’s the PAC–3. And again, I think that Kuwaitis 

would agree with us, and the famous American poet, that ‘‘good defenses make good neighbors.’’ Especially in that part of the world. 

Senator KERRY. So, coming back to, again, all three of you—is 

there any—and two of you have now served as ambassadors, and 

you’ve been in the region a considerable amount of time. Is there 

anything that you would say to us, in the Congress, that we ought 

to be doing on this committee, or in the Congress as a whole, more 

effectively, in order to facilitate what you have to try to achieve out 

there? 

Ambassador Scobey. 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Sir, I think the continuing interest and 

oversight of our mission, our roles out there, is continuing—is a 

valid, very great interest and important to us. I welcome visits 

from you, from your colleagues in the Senate and the House, to get 

out and to see for yourselves, and talk to the leadership there. Obviously, the administration has put forward requests for assistance 

packages, certainly, for Egypt that we would want to work with the 

Senate and Congress on, in terms of assuring that—answering 

questions to try to get these approvals needed for this, because we 

believe these to be very, very important elements of advancing our 

interests in Egypt. 

Senator KERRY. Yes, sir. 

Ambassador MORIARTY. Well, unfortunately, Ambassador Scobey 

stole almost all my thunder. 

76 

Senator KERRY. That’s okay, we’re happy to have nonanswers 

here. [Laughter.] 

Ambassador MORIARTY. But I would also stress that as a country 

goes through transition, as Bangladesh is going to be going through 

transition, I think it’s important that we have as many codels and 

staffdels out as possible. Not just to inform the Congress of what’s 

going on out there, but more importantly, to let the Bangladeshis 

hear that there is a united message here—that we do support development, that we do oppose the spread of terrorism, and that we 

do want to see that democratic transition completed by the end of 

the year. 

Another item I raised is, I think you will be getting a Cyclone 

Sidr package coming up in the coming weeks and months, and I 

hope that the Congress will look at that seriously and will be as 

supportive as possible. 

Ms. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Kuwaitis have been 

gratified that, increasingly, Congressional delegations who usually 

have used Kuwait just as a stopping point to refuel or change 

planes, en route either to Iraq or Afghanistan, have actually taken 

the time to stop in Kuwait and meet with the leaders there and 

hear some of their concerns. I think the most important thing we 

can do with Kuwait is to reassure them again and again that we’ll 

be there, and that we are there, and we intend to be there for the 

long run. 

Senator KERRY. Do you foresee any logistical issue with respect 

to the potential of increased force presence there for over-the-horizon purposes? 

Ms. JONES. I think the Kuwaitis have shown that they’re ready 

to accommodate us as we need, in fact. 

Senator KERRY. Do any of you have any potential conflict of interest that might arise in the conduct of your responsibilities in 

each of your posts? 

Ambassador Scobey. 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Sir, I’ve been advised by the legal office in 

State that I will have to divest myself of a few investments, if confirmed, and I’m prepared to do that. 

Senator KERRY. Ambassador Moriarty. 

Ambassador MORIARTY. No, not that I’m aware of. 

Senator KERRY. Ms. Jones. 

Ms. JONES. No. I was required to recuse myself from activity in 

my family’s business in the State of Arizona—don’t ask me why because we have careful lawyers at State—but other than that, I 

have no other issues. 

Senator KERRY. And with respect to recusal, either of you, otherwise, is there any issue from which you’d have to recuse yourself? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. No, sir. 

Senator KERRY. None? Okay. 

Well, I appreciate your testimonies today. We’re going to truly 

want to try to get you out there as fast as possible, obviously. And 

I’m confident that we’ll move expeditiously here in the Senate. 

And again, I repeat, and particularly in the case of the two of 

you, Ambassador Moriarty and Ms. Jones, we’re—you know, we 

hate for you to have given up your position, and respect the deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
77 

sion that you’ve made, and appreciate your mutual affection for the 

Foreign Service, and for your service to the country. 

And we appreciate all of you in this willingness to do it. It is not 

the glamorous, glorious job that once many people thought an ambassadorship was. It’s hard work, and in some cases hardship, and 

sometimes dangerous. And so, we have enormous gratitude to all 

of you, and to your families, for your willingness to undertake this. 

And, we look forward to getting you confirmed, and get out there 

and get on the job. 

One last question, just quickly—you got any idea whether we’re 

ever going to have an ambassador back in Syria again? 

Ambassador SCOBEY. Sir? Somehow I thought you might ask 

that. 

As you saw, Syria, it’s a fascinating country with a wonderful 

feeling, and wonderful people who deserve good governance and 

prospects for their future, but I’ve had to, sadly, conclude that the 

choices the Government of Syria has made over the past 2 years 

since I’ve left have not increased confidence that an ambassador is 

going there very soon. 

Senator KERRY. Well, this hearing is not about Syria, it’s another 

topic, but I appreciate your telling us that, and I thank you all 

very, very much for being here. 

Good luck, Godspeed, thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider the nomination of 

James Moriarty to serve as the United States Ambassador to Bangladesh. I am 

pleased and honored to express my strong support for his nomination. 

Ambassador Moriarty has had a long and distinguished record of public service 

beginning in 1975, immediately after graduating from Dartmouth College, when he 

joined the Foreign Service as a political officer. His many assignments have included posts at the U.S. Embassies in Morocco, Swaziland, and Pakistan, as well 

as tours in Beijing and Taipei. In addition, he speaks Chinese, Nepali, Urdu, 

French, and is learning Bangla. His various posts have earned him numerous 

awards for his vital role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, these recognitions are a reflection of his command and knowledge of the issues that affect Asia, 

and his effectiveness as a diplomat of the United States. 

Most recently, Ambassador Moriarty served as the United States Ambassador to 

Nepal from 2004 to 2007, where he has been dedicated to end the Maoist insurgency, and to establish peace and democracy. In this capacity, Ambassador Moriarty 

has demonstrated his understanding of the complex issues of establishing a prosperous, democratic nation. 

Ambassador Moriarty’s experience demonstrates an enduring commitment to advocating American foreign policy and interests, and I am certain that his record of 

public service has well qualified him to take on the responsibilities of serving as the 

United States Ambassador to Bangladesh. 

On a more personal note, I have had the pleasure of knowing Ambassador 

Moriarty for many years. He comes from a family dedicated to public service. His 

father-in-law, David M. Peters, served as my executive assistant and for 14 years, 

and his wife, Lauren Moriarty—a native Hawaiian—is a former U.S. Ambassador 

and career Foreign Service officer. 

I am confident Ambassador Moriarty is well aware of the enormous responsibilities that await him, if confirmed, and I have no doubt that he will fulfill those responsibilities with great distinction. I respectfully urge my colleagues on the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee to favorably support Ambassador Moriarty’s nomination. 

78 

RESPONSES OF HON. MARGARET SCOBEY TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What is your assessment of the state of political reform and human 

rights in Egypt? What are the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, 

to promote human rights and democracy in Egypt? What do you hope to accomplish 

through these actions? 

Answer. According to the latest country report on human rights, the Egyptian 

Government’s respect for human rights is poor, and serious abuses continue in 

many areas. The government limits the democratic rights of citizens and has resisted political reform. 

The administration has been committed to promoting democracy and human 

rights in Egypt. Senior United States Government officials have raised serious concerns about the path and pace of political reform, human rights, and democracy in 

Egypt at the highest levels and will continue to do so. If confirmed, this will be a 

high priority for me as ambassador to Egypt. I hope to establish a constructive dialog with the government and with civil society advocates as both are necessary to 

the expansion of political freedom and democratic pluralism, respect for human 

rights, and rule of law that we seek. We intend to sustain existing programs and 

create additional initiatives to assist in democratic development in Egypt. 

Question. Despite personal pleas from President Bush and the cancellation of a 

trip to Egypt by Secretary Rice, opposition leader Ayman Nour remains in jail. 

What will you do to try to secure his release? 

Answer. The administration remains troubled by the continued imprisonment of 

Ayman Nour. His conviction and imprisonment raises serious concerns about 

Egypt’s commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law and is inconsistent 

with the Egyptian Government’s professed commitment to increased political openness and dialog within Egyptian society. 

If confirmed, I will continue to press the highest levels of the Egyptian Government to release Mr. Nour under Egyptian law. His release would be an important 

step in human rights promotion in Egypt, and one that I will try to encourage. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Egypt in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The conditions in Egypt for advancing human rights, including specific 

cases, present both opportunity and challenge. The citizens of Egypt, both within 

the government and outside, are searching for ways to address the country’s future 

needs—economic, social, and political. They have not reached consensus. The challenge for any foreign person or entity is to find a balance between providing support 

and encouragement, while not interfering in domestic matters. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of post activities? If confirmed, 

what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign Service officers who engage in 

human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior 

service? 

Answer. Embassy Cairo’s Mission Performance Plan (MPP) explains in detail 

post’s human rights objectives. If confirmed, I will use the MPP as a framework to 

ensure that the embassy’s country team promotes our human rights and democracy 

agenda. All agencies and offices at the embassy are represented in the country team 

and it affords an opportunity to discuss how every office can contribute to our reform plan. 

As a career Foreign Service officer, I understand the importance of recognizing 

and rewarding the work of outstanding officers. If confirmed, I will use the evaluation process and award system to recognize superior performance. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and Egypt, including those facing internal political pressure, who are working to promote human rights? 

Answer. If confirmed, I plan to meet regularly with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the United States and Egypt who would welcome such meetings. 

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Egypt has 

provided $3.1 million to the National Democratic Institute (NDI), $2.8 million to the 

International Republican Institute (IRI) and $3.9 million to International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) to promote domestic election monitoring; provided 

training and technical assistance to Egyptian political parties; and worked with civil 

society organizations advocating for political and electoral reform. Since 2006, 

79 

USAID has provided $800,000 to Freedom House to link Egyptian civil society advocates with counterparts throughout the Arab world through training, technical assistance, mentoring, professional fellowships, small grants and regional coalition 

building, and protection strategies. Also, the Middle East Partnership Initiative is 

providing $2 million to the International Labor Organization to undertake efforts 

to strengthen independent labor unions. If confirmed, I will continue to support 

these programs. 

In addition to support for United States’ NGOS, USAID provides direct support 

for Egyptian NGO’s that foster civil society. These programs have already produced 

a large cadre of several hundred election monitors. Through grants to Egyptian 

NGOs, we continue to support innovative Egyptian reform initiatives in political 

and electoral reform, increased political participation, civil society strengthening, 

civic education, human rights, women’s rights, community development, independent media, and transparency. 

Question. If confirmed, how would the United States embassy monitor Egypt’s 

compliance with the Leahy Law prohibiting United States assistance to foreign military units if there is credible evidence of human rights violations? Will you affirm 

that any Egyptian security force unit that is credibly alleged to be engaged in gross 

human rights violations is ineligible to receive United States assistance or to train 

with United States forces? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure that the United States embassy 

in Egypt continues to fully comply with the Leahy Law. Currently, all prospective 

training participants are rigorously vetted for suitability by the embassy, and appropriate offices at the State Department, including the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and the Political-Military 

Bureau review the names. If any Egyptian security force unit is credibly alleged to 

be engaged in gross human rights violations, it is ineligible to receive United States 

assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act or Arms Export Control Act. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. As a political officer in Jerusalem, Kuwait, and Iraq, as Deputy Chief of 

Mission in Yemen and Riyadh, and Chief of Mission in Syria, the advancement of 

human rights and democracy has been a significant priority in all of my assignments. 

As Deputy Chief of Mission in Yemen, I found an environment open to United 

States assistance with democratization. I worked closely with the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems 

(IFES) to prepare Yemen for the 1997 parliamentary elections. I encouraged women’s groups to focus on voter registration and turnout—with higher numbers of 

women voting in 1997 than in 1993. I supported NDI’s successful international election monitoring program and approached election commission officials to pave the 

way and facilitate their cooperation with IFES. In advance of the presidential elections in 1999, I made the rounds of political opposition parties to persuade them 

to field candidate for president. 

In Syria, I did not find an environment open to United States support and assistance to democracy and human rights. Nonetheless, during my year there, I met with 

a wide range of civil society activists, including those calling for political reform. I 

pressed the government to allow Iraqi refugees in Damascus to participate in U.N.- 

sponsored out-of-country voting for the Iraqi parliament in January 2005. To no 

avail, I urged the government to release well-known political prisoners such as Riad 

Seif. I also advocated on behalf of the rights of Syrian Kurds. 

In Saudi Arabia, most of our human rights efforts focused on religious freedom 

and women’s rights. Both the Ambassador and I frequently raised with senior Saudi 

officials at the Ministries of Interior and Foreign Affairs specific cases where the 

Saudi policy of allowing non-Muslims to practice their religion in private was not 

respected in practice. In addition to having Saudi authorities reaffirm this policy, 

in all cases that I recall, those Christians incarcerated as a result of their religious 

activity were ultimately released. Regarding women’s rights, as the first woman 

Deputy Chief of Mission in Riyadh, I promoted a number of large-scale women’s 

events that allowed Saudi women to network more broadly. I advocated frequently, 

with some success, on behalf of American women who could not depart the Kingdom 

without their husband’s consent. 

Progress in human rights and democratization in countries where I have served 

has been cumulative. I take satisfaction in noting that although it did not happen 

on my watch, Kuwaiti women now vote and serve in the cabinet, local elections have 

occurred in Saudi Arabia, and several candidates contested the last Yemeni presidential election. 

80 

RESPONSES OF DEBORAH K. JONES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career, to 

date, to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. I have held a variety of positions throughout my 25 year career, not all 

of them dealing with policy. I have striven, however, in every aspect of my foreign 

service work—whether processing Somali refugees in Ethiopia, ensuring fair, multiethnic hiring practices when reopening our embassy in Baghdad in 1984, ensuring 

fair and equal treatment to both Lebanese and Syrian visa applicants when we had 

no visa facilities in Beirut and the Lebanese had to come to Damascus, where I was 

consular chief, or overseeing a staff of over 16 different nationalities while Deputy 

Chief of Mission in Abu Dhabi and allowing them a voice in choosing between available programs or benefits—to adhere to bedrock American principles of fairness 

based on equal treatment under the law and participatory governance, when appropriate. 

More specifically, and in more senior positions as Country Director for the Arabian Peninsula and principal officer at our Consulate General in Istanbul, Turkey, 

I was a forceful advocate with foreign government officials for addressing serious 

human trafficking issues, such as the treatment of young South Asian ‘‘camel jockeys’’ in the GCC countries (specifically, the UAE and Qatar, where the practice has 

now been largely criminalized and/or abolished in favor of robots), as well as their 

treatment of foreign laborers in general; I have pressed foreign governments, particularly the Saudis, to adhere to international accords governing child custody and 

the right of the (often female) custodial parent to take back her abducted children, 

despite the constraints of Shari’a law, with significant success; and I have marched 

publicly in Turkey—following the assassination of Armenian activist, Hrant Dink, 

who was a personal acquaintance and good contact of the Consulate General—in 

support of tolerance and religious freedom. In addition I have spoken out openly and 

appeared frequently in public with His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch 

Bartholomeo, whose diminishing Greek Orthodox community has suffered under unfair property confiscations and other actions at the hands of the Government of Turkey. I hosted, inter alia, a major Alliance of Civilizations gathering at the official 

residence as well as mixed gatherings of various political and religious groups who 

had previously avoided interaction; when I departed Istanbul, it was written in the 

press that I had been a very positive force for tolerance and change in a society undergoing a difficult transition from its secularist, Kemalist roots to a more democratic, albeit Islam-oriented political reality. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Kuwait? Will you 

commit to make legal protections for the ‘‘bidun jinsiya’’—the stateless people of Kuwait—and foreign domestic laborers a priority? What are the most important steps 

you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights and democracy in Kuwait? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. The most pressing human rights issues in Kuwait include strengthening 

democracy, increasing protections to combat trafficking in persons, assisting stateless individuals, and supporting civil society and women’s empowerment. The 

United States Embassy in Kuwait continues to encourage democratic reform and development through exchange and visitor programs in addition to United States Government-funded democratic reform programming. MEPI currently funds programs 

aimed at improving the professionalism of Kuwaiti journalists, empowering student 

activists, increasing women’s involvement in the political system, and training political and civil society groups. 

If confirmed, I will continue United States efforts to encourage sustained Kuwaiti 

commitment to improve the rights of victims of trafficking and to clarify the status 

of stateless individuals while working to improve their fundamental rights. The 

Government of Kuwait has taken some steps to address the needs of vulnerable population within its borders. In September 2007, the Kuwaiti Government opened a 

shelter for victims of trafficking in persons and in late 2007 the government announced plans to study the legal issues surrounding the bidun jinsiya in an effort 

to create lasting solutions to their grievances. Unlike in previous years, the MOI 

issued a limited number of passports to Bidoon that they were allowed to keep. Recently, the Government of Kuwait announced plans to issue a list of bidoon who will 

receive Kuwaiti citizenship. We eagerly await the publication of this list and additional protections for the bidoon. These are noteworthy efforts; however, much more 

needs to be done to support the needs of both victims of trafficking and Kuwait’s 

81 

stateless population, and if confirmed I will continue to raise these issues with appropriate Kuwaiti interlocutors. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Kuwait in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will endeavor to help Kuwait consolidate and expand 

those democratic gains to include supporting the development of fledgling, grassroots women’s organizations, civil society groups and other activists, and advancing 

the rights and protections of vulnerable populations living within Kuwait’s borders. 

Kuwait continues to serve as a regional leader on political reform and has developed 

somewhat accountable democratic institutions, as illustrated by its robust Parliament. Kuwait has enjoyed a number of recent democratic successes including the 

successful transition of government following the January 2006 death of Amir 

Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al Sabah, the enfranchisement and participation 

of women in the political process, and the expansion of media and press outlets. 

Nonetheless, further reform is critical for Kuwait’s long-term stability, and Kuwaiti 

progress on democratic reform and human rights will serve as a powerful example 

to the gulf region. Kuwaitis themselves must be encouraged to drive this process 

toward democratic development, and campaigning for increased participation by 

women, civil society and the rights of Kuwait’s vulnerable populations will remain 

one of my most challenging obstacles. If confirmed, I will look for outlets to continue 

United States partnership with Kuwaitis to expand and solidify Kuwait’s democratic 

institutions. Critical human rights issues, including the exploitation of expatriate 

workers, will continue to be a focus of embassy efforts under my leadership and 

guidance. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of post activities? If confirmed, 

what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign Service officers who engage in 

human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior 

service? 

Answer. Kuwait is a positive model of United States transformational diplomacy 

efforts in the gulf. If confirmed, I will work to solidify the groundwork on democratic 

reform and human rights laid by my predecessors, and I will work to promote 

United States human rights goals and objectives as an integral part of Embassy Kuwait’s activities. 

A key element of these efforts will include the use of MEPI and public diplomacy 

programs and exchanges to energize Kuwaiti citizens toward proactive engagement 

on critical human rights issues. Embassy Kuwait enjoys a number of robust and effective programming options at its disposal. Examples of current MEPI programming options include the following: 

• The Women’s Advocacy and Political Participation program launched by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) to support Kuwaiti 

women’s organizations and help them to work as a coalition and increase their 

political participation. 

• The Gulf States Civil Society Organization Law Reform Initiative (ICNL) works 

with regional and international experts to examine the role of civil society in 

democratic societies, and the legal framework necessary to enable and protect 

it. A regional workshop examines samples of existing and draft laws governing 

civil society from the region, Europe, and the United States, and common components of effective legislative frameworks. 

These two programs are examples of the broad range of programming tools available for incubating and developing democratic reform and human rights objectives 

in Kuwait. If confirmed, I will continue to work with Congress, the Government of 

Kuwait, as well as international and domestic civil society organizations to support 

reform efforts in Kuwait. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Kuwait who are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. If confirmed as Chief of Mission at U.S. Embassy Kuwait, I will endeavor 

to strengthen support for Kuwait democratic institutions as well as encourage further progress on human rights issues. I will work hard to encourage the Government of Kuwait to ease restrictions on nongovernmental organizations and enhance 

opportunities for the international community to engage with local human rights organizations. 

82 

The use of United States-funded programs, while an important tool, must be 

partnered with regular exchange and dialog with Kuwaiti leaders and activists in 

order to promote positive change and reform in support of democratic reform and 

the development of civil society in Kuwait. 

(83) 

NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Grieco, Jeffrey, to be an Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development 

Guevara, Ana, to be the Alternate Executive Director of the World 

Bank 

Morales, Hector, to be the Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States 

Walther, Larry, to be the Director of the Trade and Development 

Agency 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Robert Menendez 

presiding. 

Present: Senator Menendez. 

Also present: Senators Hutchison and Lincoln. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. This hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Relations will now come to order. 

Today, the committee meets to consider the nominations of four 

individuals for key leadership positions in the administration. The 

President has nominated Hector Morales to be the Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States; Larry Walther 

to be the Director of the Trade and Development Agency; Jeffrey 

Grieco to be an Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development; and Ana Guevara to be the Alternate 

Executive Director of the World Bank. 

We congratulate you all on your nominations, and we look forward to hearing from each of you this afternoon. 

And we also welcome our colleagues, Senator Hutchison and Senator Lincoln, who are, shortly, going to introduce Mr. Morales and 

Mr. Walther today. 

The United States plays a critical role in promoting economic 

and social development, trade, political stability, and poverty alleviation around the world. The Organization for American States, 

the U.S. Agency for International Development, the World Bank, 

and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency are parts of the toolkit the United States has to address these challenges. 

84 

Each nominee before us, if confirmed, would be expected to play 

a key role in these organizations’ missions and the overall U.S. 

Government strategy overseas, something that I personally take 

very seriously. 

I look forward to the witnesses’ testimonies, and hearing how 

they might contribute to the U.S. goals in these areas. 

Mr. Morales, in—your position, if confirmed, will be to represent 

the U.S. interests in the premier multilateral forum in the Western 

Hemisphere. You would be in a unique position to communicate 

and advance U.S. priorities for the region and represent the United 

States in an important process of developing consensus among 

member states. The Americas is a region which, unfortunately, has 

gone somewhat unnoticed by our efforts in the last several years, 

at least I’ve viewed it that way, and, having just taken a trip to 

Latin American with several of our colleagues, heard much of that 

throughout our trip. In addition, the OAS is not without its own 

challenges: management capacity, budget shortfalls, and internal 

tension over respecting state sovereignty. I look forward to hearing, 

today, how you would work to reconcile these challenges while advancing our priorities in the region, especially in light of the upcoming Summit of the Americas in 2009. 

Mr. Grieco, as I have said before, we are at a decisive moment 

for the future of USAID, and I strongly believe that, until we get 

serious about rebuilding USAID, we are not going to get the results 

that the world’s poor and marginalized deserve. A mediocre effort 

will, at best, yield such results. USAID should be the backbone of 

our foreign assistance, and be viewed as a heavyweight agency 

both in Washington and in the field. The Bureau for Legislative 

and Public Affairs has a key role in making the case that USAID 

is a serious player with serious people who demand serious results. 

One good way to weaken an agency in Washington, and in the 

eyes of Congress, is to give them a weak legislative affairs shop. 

USAID has a strong tradition of weak legislative affair shops, and 

I won’t, personally, as the subcommittee chairman that handles all 

of our foreign affairs—foreign—international assistance, I certainly 

don’t want to see that happen. 

And so, I believe USAID has a story to tell, and they have a case 

to make. Of course, if one fails at telling their story, you will lose— 

but, more importantly, millions of poor and marginalized around 

the world will lose—and the United States will lose one of the most 

important tools of soft, but important, diplomacy. So, I look forward 

to hearing how you intend to proceed to stand in the face of that 

tradition and make the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs 

the bureau that it can be and that it needs to be. 

Ms. Guevara, as we talked about America’s role in international 

development, we need to recognize that our foreign assistance extends to supporting multilateral institutions, such as the World 

Bank. I know that this administration’s use of the term ‘‘multilateral’’ is often used either in vain or out of necessity, but rarely by 

choice. They should be using it as a way of strengthening a unified 

effort, rather than as a last resort. That’s why I believe that America must continue to play a leading role in the multilateral financial institutions. Your position, if confirmed, would be partly responsible for setting the tone of the relationship between the 

85 

United States and the World Bank, a relationship that is not without challenges. The World Bank needs help, and it needs to be reformed. I look forward to hearing how you propose to work to advance these goals in this—current challenges that the World Bank 

faces in the areas of corruption, incentives, and results. 

Finally, Mr. Walther, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency is 

one of several agencies that the United States uses to fill an important niche in the mix of programs that we carry out. Just because 

the agency’s budget is not as large as some of the other agencies 

that this committee has jurisdiction over doesn’t mean that that 

work isn’t vitally important, and doesn’t mean that Congress 

doesn’t expect to see the same results from USTDA as from those 

agencies to which we appropriate billions of dollars per year. 

So, for all four of you, if confirmed, you would play a vital role 

in institutions whose work is not trivial and not extracurricular, 

but work that is at the core of the United States effort to combat 

the world’s most intractable problems—problems that merit our undivided attention. In short, this work matters. 

In that spirit, I look forward to hearing your testimony today, 

and I’ll end my comments there. 

Seeing no other member before the committee now, please let me 

turn, then, to Senator Hutchison, who will introduce Mr. Morales. 

Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your holding this hearing, because, as you have said, these 

are very important posts to which I hope we can send American 

representatives. 

I’m particularly pleased to introduce an outstanding Texan, Hector Morales. He has been an advisor and friend to me for many 

years. And it is for the position of U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States. This, too, is a very important organization for our country and for our initiatives, to try to bring in Central and South America to our trade base and our friendships, and 

to support democracies in Central and South America. 

Hector is certainly qualified for this position. He’s been confirmed twice by the Senate, as a member of the board of the InterAmerican Foundation, in June of 2007, and as an alternate executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank, in December of 2007. 

His impressive biography includes a bachelor of arts degree in 

history from Columbia University in New York, a law degree from 

the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. He’s practiced law 

in both Houston and Austin, and had a long tenure with Reliant 

Energy, one of our largest utilities in Texas. He was first an attorney in the International Law Department, and rose to president 

and general manager of Reliant Energy Argentina, and then as director of project development for Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Today, he serves as executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank. 

He certainly knows this area, and, I think, would be a wonderful 

representative for America. He also has given so much in service 

86 

to our country. I think, if there’s one thing that stands out, it is 

that he has been willing to leave the private sector to give, in public service. 

This is going to be a hard job. As you mentioned, the Summit for 

the Americas is going to be in 2009, and I think it would be wonderful to have him there to help in the planning for that very important summit. 

So, I hope that the committee will act expeditiously for his confirmation. And, since he has been confirmed by the Senate before, 

I hope that it is uneventful. 

Thank you very much. [Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. As do all nominees. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me turn to my friend and colleague, who 

I’m proud to be back with, since I was with her in the House, and 

now I get to be with her in the Senate. 

Senator Lincoln. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And it’s 

great to have you in the Senate, that’s for sure. We’re delighted to 

be working with you again. 

I am proud to be here today to introduce Larry Walther, who’s 

a fellow Arkansan and a nominee to be the Director of the U.S. 

Trade and Development Agency. 

As you know, and have very ably described, USTDA has an impact beyond promoting growth and developing in middle-income 

countries. They also help American businesses to export their products and services overseas; and, in doing so, they create U.S. jobs. 

We, in Arkansas, understand small business. Small business is 

the engine of the economy for us in this great country, and certainly in States like ours. We also understand that small businesses grow. We have what used to be a very small business in Arkansas that’s grown—WalMart comes to mind, but there’s many of 

them—that start as small businesses, and grow tremendously. 

Larry brings to this position an abundance of relevant privateand public-sector work experience that will help him pursue 

USTDA’s objectives. 

In the private sector, Larry worked for over 30 years for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and during that time he worked 

in many positions; among them, he worked closely with governmental and regulatory agencies at the State and Federal level. 

Larry’s also served as the director of the Arkansas Department of 

Economic Development. It’s a position that has clear relevance to 

the work that he would be doing over at USTDA. 

As director of the Arkansas Department of Economic Development, Larry oversaw efforts to encourage business investment in 

the State from across the world, making many connections in that 

arena. This is no small order, and the Arkansas economy has made 

impressive gains in recent time. 

This is, in no small part, due to the success of Arkansas’s homegrown Fortune 500 companies—I mentioned WalMart; there’s also 

87 

Alltel and Tyson Foods, Axiom—that have benefited from a favorable business environment. 

Given his past professional experiences in the private sector and 

the work he has done for my home State of Arkansas, I believe 

Larry has a great understanding of the latent potential that many 

emerging economies have for companies that are looking for new 

consumers abroad. 

So, I hope you will look favorably upon Larry Walther’s nomination for director at USTDA, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for inviting me, allowing me to come today, to introduce yet another 

great Arkansan for an opportunity to serve this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln. For 

a moment there, I thought you were trying to tell me WalMart was 

a small business, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. Used to be. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Yeah, used to be. Okay. 

Senator LINCOLN. Started that way. 

Senator MENENDEZ. All right. Thank you very much. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And I know that you have a busy agenda, 

so that if you need, at some point, to excuse yourself, we appreciate 

you coming before the committee and sharing your insights on Mr. 

Walther. 

As we set you up there, let me just say it’s time to turn to the 

nominees. 

We ask that you summarize your statements. Certainly, your full 

statements, each and every one of you, will be included for the 

record in its totality. 

And we invite you, if you wish, to introduce any members of your 

family that may be here with you today. We welcome all of them. 

And we’ll start with you, Mr. Morales. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HECTOR E. MORALES, NOMINEE TO BE 

PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION OF 

AMERICAN STATES, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR 

Mr. MORALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the 

committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I am honored that President Bush has nominated me to serve as 

the United States Permanent Representative to the Organization of 

American States, and I am grateful to have the support of the 

President, Secretary Rice, and the privilege of your consideration. 

And, with your indulgence and the committee’s indulgence, I 

would like to accept your offer and introduce the members of my 

family that are here with me today. 

First, my wife, Selden Wallace Morales, my sister, Ann Michel 

Morales, and my brother-and sister-in-law, David and Manar Morales. 

For the last 4 years, I have had the honor of representing our 

country at the Inter-American Development Bank; first, as the alternate executive director, and, for the last 3 years, as the executive director. I have also been honored to serve on the board of the 

United States agency, the Inter-American Foundation. 

88 

The Inter-American Development Bank’s mission is to help accelerate economic and social development individually and collectively 

among the region’s countries. During my tenure at the bank, there 

have been notable accomplishments, including the $150 million replenishment of the Multilateral Investment Fund, the participation 

of this fund and the Inter-American Investment Corporation with 

OPIC, and the creation of a $200 million financing initiative for 

small and medium businesses in Latin America and the Caribbean, 

and, less than a year ago, a $3.4 billion debt relief package to the 

poorest countries of the region. 

I’ve also been a strong advocate for greater transparency and accountability. While I’ve been at the IDB, an Office of Institutional 

Integrity was implemented, and the board now has an audit committee to improve the vigilance and fiduciary oversight of bank operations. 

Latin America and the Caribbean are regions with great economic potential, but they face the formidable challenges that confront most developing countries. We must take advantage of the opportunities that effective multilateralism offer to the United States, 

working through institutions like the IDB and the OAS, as we pursue goals in key strategic areas, including the promotion of democracy, human rights, economic prosperity, and security. 

As we do so, we recognize and reaffirm our commitment, expressed in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, that democracy 

is essential for social, political, and economic development of the 

peoples of the Americas. 

I’ve had the opportunity to work multilaterally in the InterAmerican system in development. I hope this experience, if I am 

confirmed, will help the United States in our commitment to work 

with our partners multilaterally to advance our common interests 

and values, and to ensure that the OAS remains true to the core 

principles upon which it was founded, now enshrined in the InterAmerican Democratic Charter. 

Over recent decades, the Western Hemisphere has undergone 

profound and positive changes. Democracy prevails in all countries 

but one—Cuba—and respect for human rights is the norm, not the 

exception. People throughout the region have made enormous sacrifices to strengthen their democracies, and must now consolidate 

these gains in the face of very serious challenges. These include 

poverty, inequality, social exclusion, and the inability of institutions to deliver the goods and services that people need, to take advantage of the benefits of democracy and economic opportunity. 

It is also important that the United States remain committed to 

the summit process, which has enjoyed bipartisan support since its 

inception, in 1994, under the Clinton administration. President 

Bush has attended three summits, which have brought significant 

accomplishments in the areas of democracy, job creation, HIV/ 

AIDS, infrastructure, development, education, and competitiveness. 

The fifth Summit of the Americas, which will take place in Trinidad and Tobago in the first half of 2009, will be an early opportunity for the next President to build on the accomplishments of 

prior administrations, and also engage many of the region’s leaders 

for the first time. It is critical that the OAS remain engaged and 

proactive. And, from the U.S. standpoint, this means enterprising, 

89 

multilateral engagement in the Americas to ensure that the OAS 

and the Summit of the Americas continue to enhance their important catalytic role in advancing our shared hemispheric agenda. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to address these 

issues and to continue to promote U.S. multilateral diplomacy in 

the Americas at the Organization of American States. If given the 

opportunity to serve, I would approach my role as U.S. Permanent 

Representative with the benefit of having traveled, worked, and 

lived in the region. I would also bring to this position my deeply 

held belief in the importance of a robust U.S. engagement with our 

regional partners to advance freedom, economic prosperity, and social justice for all the peoples of the Americas. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before 

the committee, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you 

or the other members of the committee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morales follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. HECTOR E. MORALES, JR., NOMINEE TO BE U.S. 

PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. I am honored that President Bush has nominated me to 

serve as the United States Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States (OAS), and I am grateful to have the support of the President and Secretary Rice and the privilege of your consideration. 

With the Committee’s indulgence, I would like to introduce the members of my 

family here today: my wife, Selden Wallace Morales, my sister Ann Michele Morales, and my brother and sister-in-law, David and Manar Morales. 

For the last four years, I have had the honor of representing our country at the 

Inter-American Development Bank; first as the Alternate Executive Director and for 

the last three years as the Executive Director. I also have been honored to serve 

on the board of a United States agency, the Inter-American Foundation. 

The Inter-American Development Bank’s mission is to help accelerate economic 

and social development, individually and collectively among the region’s countries. 

During my tenure at the Bank, there have been notable accomplishments, including: 

the $150 million replenishment of the Multi-lateral Investment Fund; the participation of the MIF and the Inter-American Investment Corporation with OPIC in the 

creation of a $200 million financing initiative for small and medium businesses in 

Latin America and the Caribbean; and less than a year ago a $3.4 billion debt relief 

package to the poorest countries of the Region. I have also been a strong advocate 

for greater transparency and accountability. While I have been at the IDB, an office 

of institutional integrity was implemented, and the Board now has an audit committee to improve the vigilance and fiduciary oversight of Bank operations. 

Latin America and the Caribbean are regions with great economic potential, but 

they face the formidable challenges that confront most developing countries. We 

must take advantage of the opportunities that effective multilateralism offer to the 

United States, working through institutions like the IDB and the OAS, as we pursue goals in key strategic areas, including the promotion of democracy, human 

rights, economic prosperity, and security. As we do so, we recognize and reaffirm 

our commitment, expressed in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, that democracy is ‘‘essential for the social, political, and economic development of the peoples 

of the Americas.’’ 

I have had the opportunity to work multilaterally in the Inter-American system 

in the area of development. I hope this experience, if I am confirmed, will help the 

United States and our commitment to work with our partners multilaterally to advance our common interests and values, and to ensure that the OAS remains true 

to the core principles upon which it was founded, now enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 

Over recent decades, the Western Hemisphere has undergone profound and positive changes: Democracy prevails in all countries but one, Cuba; and respect for 

human rights is the norm, not the exception. People throughout the region have 

made enormous sacrifices to strengthen their democracies, and must now consolidate these gains in the face of very serious challenges. These include poverty, inequality, social exclusion, and the inability of institutions to deliver the goods and 

90 

services that people need to take advantage of the benefits of democracy and economic opportunity. 

It is also important that the United States remain committed to the Summit Process, which has enjoyed bipartisan support since its inception in 1994 under the Clinton Administration. President Bush has attended three Summits, which have 

brought significant accomplishments in the areas of democracy, job creation, HIV/ 

AIDs, infrastructure development, education and competitiveness. The fifth Summit 

of the Americas, which will take place in Trinidad & Tobago in the first half of 

2009, will be an early opportunity for the next President to build on the accomplishments of prior Administrations, and also engage many of the region’s leaders for the 

first time. 

It is critical that the OAS remain engaged and proactive. And from the U.S. 

standpoint, this means enterprising multilateral engagement in the Americas to ensure that the OAS and the Summit of the Americas continue to enhance their important catalytic role in advancing our shared hemispheric agenda. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to address these issues and to 

continue to promote U.S. multilateral diplomacy in the Americas at the Organization of American States. If given the opportunity to serve, I would approach my role 

as U.S. Permanent Representative with the benefit of having traveled, worked, and 

lived in the region. I would also bring to this position my deeply held belief in the 

importance of robust U.S. engagement with our regional partners to advance freedom, economic prosperity, and social justice for all the peoples of the Americas. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before the Committee. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you and the other members of the Committee may have. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Morales. 

Mr. Grieco. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY J. GRIECO, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. GRIECO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

On January 22nd, 2008, the President nominated me for the position of Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs 

at the U.S. Agency for International Development. I’m deeply honored by his confidence in me, and I’m most appreciative of the support that’s been given to me during the nomination process. 

I would also like to acknowledge and thank my family for their 

support. Without their love and encouragement, I, frankly, 

wouldn’t be here today. And, with your permission, I’d like to be 

able to ask my family just to stand up, briefly, if I could: my wife, 

Susie, of 15 years plus, and my four great kids, Grant, Alexandra, 

Danielle, who’s probably asleep by now, and Joseph, as well. And 

they’re very appreciative for being out of school today, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. They all look real sharp, too. So—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIECO. Thank you. 

I would also like to express my appreciation to my parents, Joseph and Theresa Grieco, of Orchard Park, New York, and my 

brother, Dave, whose wisdom and love and guidance throughout all 

the years has been very helpful to me. 

I’m a long-time student of international affairs. I’ve received degrees from the Elliott School of George Washington University, as 

well as the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, where I received my master’s in Foreign Service. In addition, 

I have studied at the American University in Paris, as well as a 

91 

short stint at Oxford University’s Templeton College on Comparative International Management. 

I knew pretty early on that I wanted to get engaged in a career 

in international affairs. I joined the administration following 9/11, 

and I’ve taken this opportunity to serve my country with the utmost of seriousness and respect for those who serve. It’s been exhilarating. It’s been highly educational for me, not the least because of what I’ve learned from my responsibilities dealing with 

Congress and the American public on behalf of the agency. 

Throughout my service as the senior deputy assistant administrator for public affairs within the LPA Bureau, and during the 

past 9 months as the acting assistant administrator at the agency 

for LPA, I’ve been struck by the emerging broad consensus for 

America’s international development and foreign assistance activities, and, in particular, about the mission of USAID. 

The humanitarian development mission of the United States has, 

and will continue to be, a moral imperative for this country. Post9/11, it is also a national security imperative. And, among the most 

effective means by which this Nation brings about transformational 

change in the world is through its use of soft power. If confirmed 

as USAID administrator for legislative—assistant administrator for 

legislative and public affairs, I will hold the position that is central 

to the ongoing conversation between the executive and legislative 

branches, essential to the effective formulation of U.S. foreign and 

national security policy. 

If confirmed by this position, I see my responsibility as helping 

to explain USAID’s missions, USAID’s goals, USAID’s programs to 

the Congress and to the American public, and to foreign audiences, 

as well as to help ensure a timely flow of information between the 

Congress and the agency. 

I intend to ensure that you are fully informed, in a timely manner and with a measurable fashion, about all of our USAID matters 

that merit your attention, and that your advice, concerns, and 

questions are immediately conveyed to our agency’s senior leadership, including our administrator, Henrietta Holsman Fore, and 

our Acting Deputy Administrator, James Kunder. 

I’m very proud of our LPA team, several of which are here today. 

They’ve received three favorable audits in the last 4 years from the 

Government Accounting Office, recognizing our innovation and our 

communications techniques and our competencies. More specifically, these reports have highlighted how USAID’s overseas public 

diplomacy activities and the first coordinated use of targeted paid 

media campaigns, primarily in GWOT countries, have helped to improve the impact of our programming. 

We’ve also received top honors from the League of American 

Communications Professionals for our Development, Outreach, and 

Communications Initiative now being implemented at more than 

70 USAID missions abroad. 

The combination of broad public affairs experience and, during 

the past half-dozen years, serving at the agency, of legislative experience and work on U.S. foreign assistance, has prepared me for 

the added responsibilities that I will assume, if confirmed, as assistant administrator for legislative and public affairs. 

92 

Should the Senate choose to confirm me for this position, it 

would be an honor to serve side by side with the 8,000 dedicated 

USAID employees who, at great risk and personal sacrifice, answer 

the development challenges around the world. 

Just this past month, I helped to supervise the return of the remains of a USAID Foreign Service officer, John Granville, who was 

murdered in Khartoum, Sudan, on New Year’s Day. John was from 

the town that I was born and raised in—Buffalo, New York. And 

the sense of outpouring from Buffalonians for the service that John 

provided to our country and for the service that USAID provides 

to the poor, the starving, and the hopeless throughout the developing world, was truly inspiring for me. 

As I committed to John in my prayers at his funeral, and to his 

family, we will endeavor to serve them with the same distinction 

and purpose that John served our country and that our committed 

USAID employees do for the American people every day at over 80 

missions and offices around the developing world. 

In closing, I want the committee to know that, if confirmed, I intend to make myself fully available to consult with any interested 

staff and members on any and all issues at AID that may fall within your purview. It’s my strong belief, and my firm conviction, that 

full and ongoing communications among all of our major stakeholders are critical within our system of government if the U.S. national interest is to be effectively served. I will dedicate myself to 

carrying out that principle, Mr. Chairman. 

This concludes my formal public statement. I now welcome any 

questions that you or other Senators here today may have for me. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grieco follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY J. GRIECO, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hagel, and other Senators of the Foreign Relations Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

On January 22, 2008, President Bush nominated me for the position of Assistant 

Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs at the U.S. Agency for International 

Development. I am deeply honored by his confidence in me and am most appreciative of the support that has been given me during the nomination process. 

I would also like to acknowledge and thank my family for their support. Without 

their love and encouragement, I would not be here. With your permission Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize my wife of 15 years, Suzie, and our four great-children—Grant, Alexandra, Joseph, and Danielle. I would also like to express my deep 

appreciation to my parents, Joseph and Theresa Grieco of Orchard Park, NY, and 

my brother, David Grieco, whose wisdom, love, and guidance has helped me so much 

over the years. 

I am a long time student of international affairs, having received degrees from 

the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University and the 

Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. In addition, 

I studied at the American University in Paris, and also for a short time at Oxford 

University, Templeton College. I knew early on that I wanted a career in international affairs. 

Indeed, I have been very fortunate to have had many experienced and well-known 

mentors and professors over the years including Dr. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Dr. Gaston Sigur, Dr. Alan Goodman, and former 

USAID Deputy Administrator, Dr. Carol Lancaster. 

I joined the administration following September 11, 2001, and I have taken this 

opportunity to serve my country with utmost seriousness and respect for those who 

serve. It has been exhilarating and highly educational, not the least because of what 

I have learned from my responsibilities in dealing with the Congress and public on 

behalf of USAID. 

93 

Throughout my service as the Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for Public 

Affairs in the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs (LPA), and during the past 

9 months as the Acting Assistant Administrator, I have been struck by the broad 

political consensus for America’s international development and foreign assistance 

activities and, in particular, about the mission of USAID. 

In his National Security Strategy of 2002, the President stated that ‘‘including the 

world’s poor in an expanding circle of development—and opportunity—is one of the 

top priorities of U.S. international policy.’’ Since then, the administration has nearly 

tripled official development assistance (ODA) worldwide, doubled assistance to Latin 

America, and nearly quadrupled assistance to Africa. Secretary Rice has reaffirmed 

his mandate to elevate development. It now plays a key role in our national security 

architecture as part of the three ‘‘D’s’’—defense, diplomacy, and development—and 

it is vital to her vision of ‘‘transformational diplomacy.’’ 

The humanitarian and development mission of the United States has been and 

will continue to be a moral imperative of this country. Post 9–11, it is also a national security imperative and among the most effective means by which this Nation 

brings about transformational change in the world through its ‘‘soft power.’’ 

If confirmed as USAID Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs, 

I will hold a position that is central to the ongoing conversation between the executive and legislative branches essential to the effective formulation of U.S. foreign 

and national security policy. 

If confirmed for this position, I see my responsibilities as helping to ‘‘explain’’ 

USAID missions, goals, and programs to the Congress and to the American people 

and foreign audiences, as well as to ensure a complete and timely flow of information between the Congress and the Agency. I intend to ensure that you are fully 

informed in a timely and measurable fashion about all USAID matters that merit 

your attention, and that your advice, concerns, and questions are immediately conveyed to the Agency’s senior management including the Administrator of USAID, 

Henrietta Holsman Fore, and Acting Deputy Administrator James Kunder. 

In my professional career, prior to joining the administration, I have had substantial experience in international and public affairs, working in major public affairs 

firms and managing major international accounts. This has equipped me to participate in and help lead the public diplomacy and outreach efforts of the U.S. Agency 

for International Development. 

I am very proud of our LPA team for receiving three favorable audits by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), recognizing our innovative communications techniques and competencies. More specifically these reports highlighted USAID’s overseas public diplomacy activities and the first coordinated use of targeted paid media 

campaigns combining tailored message targeting and pre- and post-campaign audience impact measurements. We have also received top honors from the League of 

American Communications Professionals for our new Development Outreach and 

Communications Initiative (DOC), now being implemented in more than 70 USAID 

missions abroad. 

The combination of broad public affairs experience and, during my past half dozen 

years service in the U.S. Agency for International Development, legislative experience on U.S. foreign assistance has prepared me for the added responsibilities I 

would assume as Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Legislative and Public 

Affairs. 

Should the Senate choose to confirm me for this position, it would be an honor 

to serve side by side with the 8,000 dedicated USAID employees who, at great risk 

and personal sacrifice, answer the development challenges around the world. Just 

this past month, I helped to supervise the return of the remains of a USAID Foreign 

Service officer, John Granville, who was murdered in Khartoum, Sudan on New 

Years Day. John was from the town that I was born and raised, Buffalo, NY, and 

the sense of outpouring from Buffalonians for the service that John and USAID provide the poor, the starving and the hopeless throughout the developing world, was 

inspiring. As I committed to John in my prayers at his funeral and to his family, 

we will endeavor to serve them with the same distinction and purpose that John 

and our committed USAID employees do for the American people everyday at over 

80 missions and offices around the world. 

In closing, I want the committee to know that, if confirmed, I intend to make myself fully available to consult with interested staff and members on any and all matters at USAID that may fall within your purview. It is my strong belief that full 

and ongoing communications among all major stakeholders are required within our 

system of Government if the U.S. national interest is to be effectively served, and 

I will dedicate myself to carrying out that principle. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement before the committee. I now welcome 

any questions that you and the other Senators here today may have for me. 

94 

Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. And I apologize, I 

thought I had your name—surname right. It’s Grieco. 

Mr. GRIECO. Grieco, that’s right. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Grieco. Okay. Thank you very much for your 

opening statement. 

Ms. Guevara. 

STATEMENT OF ANA M. GUEVARA, NOMINEE TO BE ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANK 

FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. GUEVARA. Mr. Chairman, I’m grateful for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. 

I’d like to recognize my little godchild, Ian Carr, who is in the 

back of the room with his little sister, Mary, and my little niece 

and nephew, who are in Californian history class, watching this on 

the Internet. I also have a large group of supporters, here, of very 

good friends and colleagues. And, especially, I’d like to recognize 

my current boss, Assistant Secretary of Commerce Admiral Sutton, 

the tall one in the back of the room, and two very good friends and 

mentors, Ex-Im Bank board member Bijan Kian, and former Congressman Henry Bonilla, from the great State of Texas. 

I am honored to have been nominated to serve— 

Senator MENENDEZ. That’s all? [Laughter.] 

Ms. GUEVARA. I am honored to have been nominated to serve as 

U.S. Alternate Executive Director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. 

President Bush said, in his State of the Union Address, that 

America is leading the fight against global poverty, hunger, and 

disease, and that America is a force of hope in the world, because 

we are a compassionate people. I share this belief. And as compassionate people with a unique leadership role in the World Bank, 

the United States must engender strong partnerships to ensure 

programs meant to eradicate poverty and create inclusive economic 

growth are not squandered by corruption and mismanagement. If 

confirmed, I will have the great privilege and responsibility to represent the United States at the World Bank. I look forward to the 

opportunity to work with Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and 

others in our Government, as well as with our partners at the 

World Bank, to improve its effectiveness and impact. 

Catalyzing prosperity in the developing world and post-conflict 

countries is not just a moral imperative; it helps create local stability and peace, and it creates new markets for America entrepreneurs. Indeed, our prosperity and security is tied to those whom 

we endeavor to help. 

For the past two decades, whether as a businesswoman or a government official, I have gained extensive experience forging strong 

partnerships and formal agreements with governments and international institutions in Asia and Latin America. If confirmed, I will 

apply these skills to build coalitions that will foster broad support 

for U.S. priorities with member countries of the World Bank. 

My professional life has focused on increasing trade and developing economic competitiveness, whether by opening new markets, 

providing capacity-building for modern supply chains, customs proVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
95 

cedures, and cultural and heritage tourism, or by protecting U.S. 

countries from unfair and corrupt practices overseas, or even by 

promoting venture capital and entrepreneurism. I have also served 

as ex-officio board member of the Export-Import Bank, worked with 

the board of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and 

overseen the Department of Commerce’s participation in the Interagency Working Group on Multilateral Aid. 

The most gratifying experience of my professional life, however, 

has been the community education projects—in Mexico, China, Poland, Ukraine, and rural America—that I was fortunate to be involved with while in the private sector. 

In Mexico, I developed a 10-year educational development program, where I learned, firsthand, about the many challenges in implementing a results-oriented project. It allowed me to see how, 

given the right tools, proper food and nutrition, warm clothes, and 

a little hope and encouragement, that even the poorest child facing 

the greatest odds can flourish, exceeding his or her own expectations and transforming a community’s quality of life, and, more important, quality of spirit. 

In working with the community projects, I also learned how corruption can hurt these programs and the people they are meant to 

help, when I was forced to turn away one of the communities under 

consideration because I was not convinced local officials would enforce proper fiduciary controls for project funds. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will use the combination of my experience with the private sector, public sector, and community 

service to build support for U.S. priorities, such as anticorruption, 

governance and accountability, transparency, debt sustainability, 

environmental safeguards, and to improve results. I will seek to 

help developing countries capitalize on the benefits of globalization 

and trade, and to promote an inclusive and sustainable prosperity 

through private-sector development in these countries. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer the 

committee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Guevara follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ANA M. GUEVARA, NOMINEE FOR UNITED STATES ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION

AND DEVELOPMENT, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity 

to appear before you today. I am honored to have been nominated to serve as U.S. 

Alternate Executive Director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. President Bush said in his State of the Union Address that America is 

leading the fight against global poverty, hunger and disease; and that ‘‘America is 

a force for hope in the world because we are a compassionate people.’’ I share this 

belief. And as compassionate people with a unique leadership role in the World 

Bank, the United States must engender strong partnerships to ensure programs 

meant to eradicate poverty and create inclusive economic growth are not squandered 

by corruption and mismanagement. 

If confirmed, I will have the great privilege and responsibility to represent the 

United States at the World Bank. I look forward to the opportunity to work with 

Treasury Secretary Paulson and others in our government—as well as with our 

partners at the World Bank—to improve its effectiveness and impact. Catalyzing 

prosperity in the developing world and post-conflict countries is not just a moral imperative. It helps create local stability and peace. And it creates new markets for 

American entrepreneurs. Our prosperity and security is tied to those whom we endeavor to help. 

96 

For the past two decades, whether as a businesswoman or government official, I 

have gained extensive experience forging strong partnerships and formal agreements with governments and international institutions in Asia and Latin America. 

If confirmed, I will apply these skills to build coalitions that will foster broad support for U.S. priorities with member countries of the World Bank. My professional 

life has focused on increasing trade and developing economic competitiveness, 

whether by opening new markets or providing capacity building for modern supply 

chains, customs procedures and cultural and heritage tourism or by protecting U.S. 

companies from unfair and corrupt practices oversees, or even by promoting venture 

capital and entrepreneurism. I have also served as ex-officio board member of the 

Export Import Bank, worked with the board of the Oversees Private Investment 

Corporation and overseen the Department of Commerce’s participation in the Interagency Working Group on Multilateral Aid. 

The most gratifying experience of my professional life, however, has been the community education projects in Mexico, China, Poland, Ukraine, and rural America 

that I was fortunate to be involved with while in the private sector. In Mexico I 

developed a 10-year educational development program where I learned first hand 

about the many challenges in implementing a results oriented project. It allowed me 

to see how given the right tools, proper food and nutrition, warm clothes—and a little hope and encouragement—that even the poorest child facing the greatest odds 

can flourish, exceeding his or her own expectations and transforming a community’s 

quality of life and more importantly, quality of spirit. In working with the community projects, I also learned how corruption can hurt these programs and the people 

they are meant to help when I was forced to turn away one of the communities 

under consideration because I was not convinced local officials would enforce proper 

fiduciary controls for project funds. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I will use the combination of my experience with the 

private sector, public sector and community service to build support for U.S. priorities such as anti-corruption, governance and accountability, transparency, debt sustainability, environmental safeguards, and to improve results. I will seek to help developing countries capitalize on the benefits of globalization and trade, and to promote inclusive and sustainable prosperity through private sector development in 

these countries. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer the committee’s questions. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Ms. Guevara. 

Mr. Walther. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY WOODROW WALTHER, NOMINEE TO BE 

DIRECTOR OF THE TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

Mr. WALTHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to introduce my wife and soulmate of almost 38 years 

now, Janice Walther. She’s over there. Janice and I have two children, Bill and Mandy. And Bill is a mechanical engineer who works 

for other Department of Army in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and he and 

his wife have two children under—let’s see, 7 and under. My 

daughter—her husband is a college professor; they have four children, 8 and under. And so, it was a little difficult for them to travel 

from central—you know, from Arkansas and from Missouri to be 

here, but they really wanted to be here. 

It is a pleasure to appear before you today as President George 

W. Bush’s nominee to be director of U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency. If confirmed, I look forward to making a direct impact on 

the economic growth and development of middle-income and developing countries around the world through the promotion and export 

of U.S. technology and ingenuity. My career has taught me many 

things that are relevant to the success leading USTDA, but none 

may be as important as the impact of the expansion of infrastructure and its impact on economic development and growth. 

Before being selected as the President’s nominee for USTDA director, I enjoyed a wonderful career in the private sector. I started 

97 

as a switching engineer with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in 1970, and was fortunate to achieve success throughout my 

career. Ultimately, I concluded 30 years of service with SBC, with 

is now AT&T, as the vice president for corporate services and 

chairman of the SBC Foundation. In that capacity, I oversaw a 

philanthropic organization that managed $67 million in community 

and charity giving. 

More recently, I had the honor of serving as director of the Arkansas Department of Economic Development. As the director of 

ADED, I was responsible for the overall direction and management 

of the department and for representing the governor and the State 

on all matters concerning statewide issues of economic development. In so doing, I provided direction and policy advice to the governor, to his cabinet, to the legislature, and regional and local leaders on key issues affecting the economic development and business 

climate in the State of Arkansas. 

As a result of this background, I have a deep appreciation for the 

essential role of infrastructure, both physical and institutional, in 

establishing the ideal environment for the private sector to serve 

as a catalyst for growth. I also understand the role of government 

in promoting and assisting growth. USTDA trade and development 

missions reflect this focus. If confirmed, I will look forward to applying my experience in building the—on the agency’s outstanding 

record of success. 

As you well know, USTDA’s activities position U.S. firms to play 

key roles in the priority projects in developing countries. Through 

the strategic use of foreign assistance funds, USTDA seeks to create an environment favorable for trade, investment, and sustainable economic development. The agency accomplishes its mission by 

assisting early project planning activities designed to promote 

trade capacity and sector development. In engaging U.S. privatesector expertise early in the project planning process, USTDA helps 

to ensure that U.S. firms will be competitive during the implementation phase. This model of foreign assistance has created successful mutual economic benefits to both U.S. industry and our partner 

countries in emerging economies. 

On a more personal note, the agency already has a significant 

focus on promoting the development of information and communications technology around the world. Given my background and 

the capacity of this sector to serve as a catalyst in the development 

of other sectors, I would like to reinforce the agency’s commitment 

in this area. More broadly, this unique trade and development mission is one that I am committed to successful leading. 

Mr. Chairman, I am eager to undertake the role of USTDA director. If confirmed, I will build upon the agency’s outstanding reputation of responsiveness, flexibility, and success with the U.S. business community. I intend to continue the agency’s long track record 

of partnerships with exceptional projects, sponsors overseas to foster commercial solutions for their developmental goals. I am deeply 

honored and humbled that the President has nominated me to 

serve as USTDA director, and I look forward to working with you 

and your staff in the future. 

I want to thank you, again, very much for holding this hearing 

today, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

98 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walther follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY W. WALTHER, DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE, U.S. TRADE

AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Thank you very much Chairman Menendez, Senator Hagel and the Members of 

the Committee.It is a pleasure to appear before you today as President George W. 

Bush’s nominee to be the Director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency 

(USTDA). If confirmed, I look forward to making a direct impact on the economic 

growth and development of middle income and developing countries around the 

world through the promotion and export of U.S. technology and ingenuity. My career has taught me many things that are relevant to successfully leading USTDA, 

but maybe none as important as the impact that the expansion of infrastructure has 

on economic growth. 

Before being selected as the President’s nominee for USTDA Director, I enjoyed 

an accomplished career in the private sector. I started as a Switching Engineer for 

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in 1970 and was fortunate to have achieved 

success throughout my career. In my professional capacities, a significant potion of 

my career with SBC was spent in a leadership role in the area of governmental and 

regulatory relations. Specifically, I had the pleasure of representing the company before all levels of government, the majority of which was working with state regulatory commissions and the legislative and executive branches. I also had a major 

role within the company in economic analysis and marketing oriented business development. 

Ultimately, I concluded 30+ years of service with SBC as the Vice President for 

Corporate Services and Chairman of the SBC Foundation. In that capacity, I 

oversaw a philanthropic organization that managed $67.4 million in community and 

charity giving. As Chairman of the Foundation, I was charged with the responsibility for developing and refining the Foundation’s strategic plan, implementing that 

vision, and ensuring it met the goals of the SBC Foundation’s directors and the 

Chairman of SBC. In supporting various philanthropic organizations, I had to evaluate and identify those programs that best met the goals of the Foundation, and had 

a high likelihood of success, ensuring I was a good steward of the Foundation’s 

funds. 

More recently, I had the honor of serving as Director of the Arkansas Department 

of Economic Development (ADED). As the Director of the ADED, I was responsible 

for the overall direction and management of the Department and for representing 

the Governor and the State on all matters concerning statewide issues of economic 

development. In so doing, I provided direction and policy advice to the governor and 

his cabinet, the legislature, and regional and local leaders on key issues affecting 

the economic development and business climate of Arkansas. I formed significant relationships with top level management within the private sector, addressing the economic conditions and business and investment opportunities in the State. In addition, I led numerous economic and trade development missions to the Far East and 

Europe, actively pursuing investment by foreign companies into the Arkansas economy. 

As a result of this background, I have a deep appreciation for the essential role 

of infrastructure, both physical and institutional, in establishing the ideal environment for the private sector to serve as a catalyst for growth. I also understand the 

role of government in promoting and assisting growth. USTDA’s trade and development missions reflect this focus. If confirmed, I look forward to applying my experience in building on the agency’s outstanding record of success. 

As you well know, USTDA activities position U.S. firms to play a key role in priority projects in developing countries. Through its strategic use of foreign assistance 

funds, USTDA seeks to create an environment favorable for trade, investment, and 

sustainable economic development. The agency accomplishes its mission by assisting 

early project planning activities designed to promote trade capacity and sector development. 

Fundamentally, USTDA provides access to U.S. technology, expertise and ingenuity in meeting developmental challenges. This access serves as the basis of the 

public-private partnerships that are a hallmark of the agency’s success. Often, 

USTDA investments are matched by contributions from U.S. firms that share the 

agency’s and project sponsor’s commitment to a development priority. 

By engaging U.S. private sector expertise early in the project planning process, 

USTDA helps to ensure that U.S. firms will be competitive during the implementation phase. This model of foreign assistance has created successful mutual economic 

99 

benefits for both U.S. industry and our partner countries in emerging economies. 

USTDA has an impressive record of achievement in carrying out this mission. Since 

1981, USTDA has been associated with more than $28 billion in U.S exports. This 

amounts to approximately $39 in U.S. exports for every $1 invested by the agency. 

USTDA also has a strong record of support for U.S. small businesses. In fact, the 

agency contracts exclusively with small businesses in evaluating the funding proposals that the agency receives. These contracts help to provide small businesses 

with important international experience that they can apply in competing for other 

business opportunities. 

In recent years, the agency has placed considerable emphasis on activities that 

advance U.S. policy objectives. Priority areas have included the promotion of global 

energy security, the application of environmental technologies, ensuring secure and 

safe trade, and enhancing regional integration. In doing so, I believe the agency has 

significantly leveraged its resources, and magnified its impact, by focusing on areas 

that complement efforts by other U.S. Government agencies. 

In addition, USTDA has targeted its program on developing countries’ trade capacity. This area now accounts for half of the agency’s obligations worldwide. Recognizing the capacity of trade to unleash the dynamic power of the private sector as 

an engine for growth, these activities are designed to enhance countries’ ability to 

efficiently and effectively participate in the global economy. 

In these ways, USTDA rightly recognizes that for the infrastructure to reach its 

fullest potential, the institutional capacity also must be in place for the private sector to succeed. By helping to create both the infrastructure and the environment for 

U.S. firms to compete overseas, USTDA is opening new markets to U.S. goods and 

services around the world. 

USTDA has a unique trade and development mission, and I am committed to that 

mission. I am also interested in exploring additional efforts that the agency can 

make as an integral part of advancing larger U.S. policy priorities. I seek and welcome the guidance and support of the Congress in these efforts. The agency already 

has a significant focus on promoting the development of information and communications technology around the world. Given my background and the capacity of 

this sector to serve as a catalyst for the development of other sectors, I would like 

to reinforce the agency’s commitment in this area. 

Mr. Chairman, I am eager to undertake the role of USTDA Director. If confirmed, 

I will build upon the agency’s outstanding reputation for responsiveness, flexibility 

and success with the U.S. business community. I intend to continue the agency’s 

long track record of partnerships with exceptional project sponsors overseas to foster 

commercial solutions to their development goals. Moreover, I will consult regularly 

with this committee and its counterpart in the U.S. House of Representatives. I also 

plan to continue USTDA’s close coordination with other U.S. Government agencies 

through the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, and with other agencies that 

possess technical expertise and other resources that can be applied in increasing the 

effectiveness of USTDA’s programs. 

I am deeply honored and humbled that the President has nominated me to serve 

as USTDA Director and look forward to working with you and your staff in the future. Thank you very much for holding this hearing today. I am happy to answer 

any questions that you have. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Walther. 

Thank you all. 

And let me start a first round of questioning. We’ll put up 7 minutes, and, unless we get other members, I’ll continue thereon. 

So, let me start with you, Mr. Morales. I appreciated what you 

said in your opening statement. I want to know what you think the 

role of the OAS should be. I know what it is, but I want to know 

what you think the role of the OAS should be in the Americas. 

Mr. MORALES. Mr. Chairman, I think the role of the OAS is extremely important. I mean, clearly its mission to help promote and 

consolidate democracy is fundamental. I think that we need to continue to support that. But it also does quite a bit in the area of 

development. Both of these are critical if we’re going to have the 

kind of stability, I think, that we want to see in the region. I believe that you have to have democracy in order to really have effective programs that are going to alleviate the challenges that I outVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
100 

lined in my statement—poverty, social exclusion—because that— 

hopefully, that will lead to economic and social development. They 

mutually reinforce one another. So, the role of the OAS is critical 

to that, and that’s what I believe. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask you. We are the largest contributor to the OAS. How do you see our role in the process of developing consensus among member states? And, before you answer 

that, you know, we have a challenge in the hemisphere. I spent a 

lot of time on focusing in the hemisphere when I was in the House, 

as well as now, in the Senate, and just came from a visit there, of 

five countries. You know, we have a challenge in the hemisphere. 

We see authoritarian—what I consider to be authoritarian rule, 

guised under the cloak of constitutions, such as in Venezuela. We 

see a movement toward the populace of many countries who do not 

believe that democracy has brought good things to life and/or open 

markets. And we see a rising tide of anti-Americanism. 

In that context, how do you see us working with the other countries of the OAS to bring common cause to what you describe as 

your own vision of what the role should be? 

Mr. MORALES. I think that consensus-building is very difficult. 

I—the work that I’ve had the pleasure to do at the Inter-American 

Development Bank—while not similar to the OAS in terms of ‘‘one 

vote, one country,’’ the work there is very much based on a consensus spirit. So, what that means is, advocacy, a willingness to listen, and a willingness to engage—and I think that that is—I would 

imagine—I don’t know what the OAS is like, but I have spoken to 

colleagues who have worked there and are working there, and it is, 

I think, critical that we send a signal that—one, that we care about 

the institution. I think the regional members have—and the observers—have a real interest in the success of the OAS. So, I think 

our active participation is a way of manifesting our commitment to 

the goals of the—to the OAS, as well as our commitment, more 

broadly, to the region. 

So, I think that—while there are clearly many different voices, 

I think what we have to signal is that, if these are democratic governments, we need to be prepared to work with them across ideological lines, across party lines, and that’s the signal that we 

should send. Hopefully, they’ll want to work with us, but I think 

we have to be willing to say that this is what we’re prepared to do. 

I think, in terms of the budget, we do offer more than 60 percent 

of the budget, but we’re also providing assistance in a number of 

other programs. I think that the fact that it’s not percentage-based 

allows, I think, the other countries to feel that their vote is just as 

important. And it is. Every vote in that institution is important. 

But, it also means that we have to be very active and engaging, 

and be strong advocates. 

Senator MENENDEZ. What do you think is the biggest challenge 

the OAS has? And, after defining it, how would you work to meet 

that challenge, to overcome that challenge? 

Mr. MORALES. The—clearly, I think, the challenges—among the 

largest challenge is how democracies can help to provide the benefits and goods that people expect that type of government to offer. 

And I think that the OAS, through many of its programs, whether 

it’s through the human rights—the work of the Human Rights 

101 

Commission, whether the electoral observation missions that it’s 

doing—all of these programs, I think, are designed to show that a 

democratic and pluralistic form of government is the best way to 

ensure that these challenges that exist can be addressed, and addressed effectively. 

I think that how I would go about it, if I were to be confirmed, 

would be to continue to underscore the importance of the InterAmerican Democratic Charter, to work, not only on the reinforcement of democracy, but, as I said earlier, also on the development 

program. Economic and social programs are critically important to 

the—to democracy. So, that, if I were to be confirmed, would be 

how I would approach the position. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you for your answer. If you are to be 

confirmed, I would urge you to look at legislation, that Senator 

Martinez and I have, creating a fund for the Americas. I think it’s 

incredibly important. And we certainly would be looking for some 

vigorous advocacy at the OAS. We think our country needs it in the 

hemisphere, and this is our front yard, our closest neighbors. 

And—many of us believe that the only time we pay vigorous attention is when we have a problem—and when we have a problem, it’s 

late in the process. We need to engage, early on. So, I’m happy to 

hear some of your answers. 

Mr. Grieco, let me ask you—you and I had a chance to talk, in 

private, about some of the challenges of the department, as you 

know. I know that both AID and the State Department have complained about a number of congressional directives, about limitations, about holes on reprogramming. And, as I talk to my colleagues, that happens because they feel they don’t get the right 

consultation—not information, not notification, because that’s just 

telling me what—something is happening; doesn’t engage me in the 

process of working toward a decision. So, notification is one thing. 

A lot of that is by statute, and necessary, so it’s not a question of 

whether you have the discretion. Engagement and consultation is 

another. And so, hence, I think you’ve seen a rise of congressional 

directives on limitations and holes in the reprogramming. 

How would you, in your role—now, you’ve been acting in this role 

for 9 months. So, now the question is—now—and, I believe, largely, 

you’ve had authority, but now, with the absolute confirmation of 

the Senate, presuming that happens, how would you work to improve this relationship with Congress, number one? And, number 

two, would you commit—responsiveness is part of our challenge, 

getting responsiveness to questions posed, both orally and in written form—how would you commit—would you commit to a timeline 

for responsiveness to congressional inquiries? And, if so, what 

would that timeline be? 

So, first, how would you seek to make the relationship more constructive, more engaging, more responsive? And, certainly, in terms 

of inquiries, what would you be willing to commit yourself to? 

Mr. GRIECO. Well, I think—if I can start with the latter, I think 

what we’d like to try to do—since I’ve been involved in—as an acting assistant administrator in the bureau right now, we’ve gotten 

our congressional response rates for written requests down to 90 

percent, or at a 2-to 3-week average right now. I think we can improve that even more, frankly. 

102 

In addition to those written responses, what we have talked 

about within the agency—and we’ve had several new assistant administrators now confirmed, that have now joined us in our African 

Bureau, Latin America Bureau, and so forth—there is a big interest on behalf of our assistant administrators to come up and do 

more regular consultations on our programming, with the committee and with our appropriators committees, as well. We’re anxious to do that. 

We are seeing, now, I think, a more active approach from our assistant administrators to come out to Congress and testify on various issues. We just had an assistant administrator, Kate Almquist, 

up, this week, on Kenya. We hope to have more assistant administrators in our functional bureaus also testifying in the next few 

weeks, as well. And I think we’d like to see an aggressive positioning of the agency, especially on its programming budget, on its 

operating-expense budgets, to come up and talk to Congress, and 

get Congress’s ideas, too. 

We talked, yesterday, a little bit about the congressional budget 

justification, some of the frustrations that you’ve experienced with 

that, and I think we’re more committed than ever, and we’re fairly 

optimistic, that the long version of that CBJ, which you’re doing to 

receive, hopefully, in the next few weeks, is going to have much 

greater detail for your requests. We’ll offer datasets from us to you, 

providing greater congressional interest—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, I’m going to get country—— 

Mr. GRIECO. You’re going to get countries—— 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. Or the committee—— 

Mr. GRIECO [continuing]. And sectors. 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. Country-by-country projects? 

Mr. GRIECO. Plus sectors, as well. And I’m—if I can just—if you 

would oblige me for one second, we also added to the CBJ this 

year, specifically at this committee and other committees’ request, 

you will receive sector and element representations in charts that 

break it out, not just by the countries, but also, now, by some of 

the biggest issue areas that you’ve raised with us—trafficking in 

persons; maternal and child health will now have its own page; 

HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB will be broken out; family planning 

and reproductive health; and basic ed—just to name a few. So, 

that—we believe that it’s going to be better than last year’s 

version. We’re listening to Congress, and we’re responding to Congress. We think we can make it better. We’re in the middle of a 

process in this, and we hope that, with your guidance and your 

consultation, that it can be what you want it to be. 

Senator MENENDEZ. How about performance data? 

Mr. GRIECO. Performance data is based on a separate system, so 

we have FACTS, which is a new foreign assistance measurement 

system, which is tied to our performance analysis, and that is— 

we’re going to be offering the staff a briefing on that, I understand, 

within the next week or so. That’s a newer system, and it’s ready 

to roll out formally, I believe, to the Hill, and we’re looking forward 

to doing that. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I see no other member before the committee, so I’m going to continue. If a member comes in, I will yield 

to them. 

103 

How does the budget of the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs compare to that of the H Bureau at the Department of State 

and the legislative shop at the Millennium Challenge Corporation? 

Mr. GRIECO. AID is fairly small, sir, in comparison. AID’s got 

about eight leg officers. My understanding is State’s got approximately 100, with admin staff included; MCC, I think, between four 

and six on the leg side. Our bureau has about 80 people, total, 

when you add—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Millennium Challenge has between four and 

six? 

Mr. GRIECO. Just on the leg side, yeah. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And you have what? 

Mr. GRIECO. I have about eight leg liaison officers, for us. And 

we—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. What’s your budget, compared to the Millennium Challenge budget? 

Mr. GRIECO. I’ve never been asked, or privy to, the MCC’s budget 

on their leg side, but I—if the committee requests, I’d be happy to 

try to provide that information. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Yeah, well, we would like to see it. AID has 

a very important role, and I appreciate what the Millennium Challenge Corporation does, but it sounds like that’s a disproportionate 

leg shop, compared to what you do. 

Let me ask you this. How would you describe the overall capacity 

of the Legislative and Public Affairs Bureau at AID? 

Mr. GRIECO. Compared to MCC—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Just—the overall—your overall—— 

Mr. GRIECO. Oh, I think—— 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. Capacity. 

Mr. GRIECO. I think that we have tremendously dedicated people. 

Several of our staff—career staff have been in the bureau for more 

than 20 years, and are experts—really, I think, the U.S. Government’s experts—on an appropriations process on our foreign assistance budgets. Our public affairs staff is equally dedicated, and 

we—as I said, the GAO reports have validated that we have unique 

competencies here that, I think, can be expanded. We’re looking— 

the administrator, when she arrived, the first thing she did was, 

we need to rebuild LPA staffing. She’s getting us several more legislative staffers, that are in process now. We have several more 

public affairs staffers coming in. A new chief of public liaison just 

arrived yesterday. And we’re doing aggressive replanning on both 

the staffing and resource side for us. And we have a very small 

program budget within the bureau, which we implement the strategic ad campaigns, which we talked about in our doc program 

overseas. 

But, there is some program money that we received previous, 

under the Biden Pell Grant, for domestic education, about what development does for U.S. interests, for us to talk about to the domestic audience. And, unfortunately, that’s been capped at only about 

$25,000 a year. We would love to see that cap removed, so that we 

could do more aggressive outreach to the American public about 

what foreign assistance does for their own security and does for 

U.S. national interests. 

Senator MENENDEZ. You’re capped at 25,000? 

104 

Mr. GRIECO. 25,000. 

Senator MENENDEZ. To communicate to the American people 

why—— 

Mr. GRIECO. Yes. 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. We spend what we spend, and 

what’s their—— 

Mr. GRIECO. For development—— 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. Interest in it? 

Mr. GRIECO [continuing]. Education portion, yes. Now, I have a 

$1.7 million budget for the whole bureau, which includes my staffing, my leg staff, my public affairs staff, and outreach activities, 

generally. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Okay. Well, that answers part of that question I was going to provide to you. If you had more money, what 

you do differently, in terms of the public perception, here domestically, about the importance of AID and our foreign assistance, in 

general? 

Mr. GRIECO. This would be program money, so the program 

money that we would receive for that purpose would have to—you 

know, I’m very cognizant that, in the past, Congress has had a 

number of problems with the agency, over many decades, with 

some of that money being provided for domestic audience education 

that was used for other purposes. And I think that’s one of the 

problems, in the past, that’s put some constraints on the agency. 

Since I’ve been there, more 7 years, we’re very focused on targeting our work, providing Congress with initial analyses of what 

we’re trying to achieve, and then doing post-event performance reviews, and providing you with the information show what our audience reach was, did we move the audience awareness ticker? And 

I think we can show you a model that works, because we’re doing 

it now throughout the developing world, as well. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Now, let me—before I turn away from you— 

I would like to pursue that a little bit more, but—okay. 

State wants the record to reflect that they only have 70, not 100 

employees. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIECO. Sorry. I stand corrected, and I’m sure I’ll hear from 

Mr. Bergner later about that. [Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. No, no, no. You were giving your best estimate. You didn’t have the numbers before you. We can’t hold you 

responsible for it. I just wanted to get proportionality, here—— 

Mr. GRIECO. All right. 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. Get a sense. 

So, the record is reflected, now, for the State Department, that 

they don’t have 100, they have 70. [Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. Which means that I’m still going to get my 

requests a lot quicker, now that I know they have 70. Let me 

just—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me just ask you one thing. You were 

very good in giving me an answer about how you’re trying to improve the timelines, but you didn’t make a commitment to what the 

timelines would be, in terms of responding to inquiry—congressional inquiries. Is it 2 weeks? Is it 3 weeks? What would it be? 

105 

Mr. GRIECO. Here is the issue, that we spoke about a little bit, 

briefly. If the request requires us to go out to our missions overseas, it automatically adds time for us, because our staffing at the 

missions is so tight, and they’re doing, many of them, two and 

three different jobs at the mission, and with—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, let’s bifurcate it. 

Mr. GRIECO. So—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let’s say it doesn’t go out—— 

Mr. GRIECO. If it doesn’t require—— 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. The request doesn’t require—go 

outside. What would you commit yourself to? 

Mr. GRIECO. I’ll commit myself, sir, to 2 weeks, at the outset; and 

if we can improve upon that, in practice, that’s my goal. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And if it is outside—or you have to go 

through the bureaus outside, what would you think would think 

would be an appropriate timeframe? 

Mr. GRIECO. Again, it’s going to depend on whether the information is going to require us, in the field, to undertake actions to extract the information from our local partners or our local NGOs or 

host governments, but—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. What do you think is a reasonable timeframe? 

Mr. GRIECO. Within a month? 

Senator MENENDEZ. Okay. 

Ms. Guevara, let me ask you a couple of questions. You’re going 

to be—you know, ‘‘alternative executive director’’ sometimes sounds 

like, well, doesn’t really matter, until—it’s like being Vice President, you know, you’re there and waiting. I look at the alternative 

executive director in a little bit different way, much more 

proactively, and have—and certainly, as we have seen—if Mr. Morales gets confirmed, he’s going to be leaving a position that the 

all—you know, there’s going to be alternatives to—alternates to. 

So, you know, it can—you can ultimately function in the position, 

itself. So, I’d look at the alternate as very important in our decisionmaking. 

And so, the World Bank—there’s an area—two areas that I want 

to explore with you. One is, middle-income countries can now borrow from the private capital markets at pretty competitive interest 

rates. So, what’s the incentive for poor countries to borrow from the 

World Bank? And, in essence, how—what do you see the comparative advantage is for the World Bank—to borrow from the World 

Bank versus—you know, from middle-income countries versus, 

largely, the market that they can achieve in the private marketplace, without the World Bank’s constraints? 

Ms. GUEVARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The World Bank has a mission that is not only just to loan 

money, but one of the things that it brings is its ability to have capacity-building and provide technical assistance. This is the one 

thing that it has over a regular bank that might be lending money 

to developing countries or to middle-income countries, is that the 

World Bank could provide capacity-building, could help with helping countries meet their environmental safeguards and other social 

safeguards. 

106 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, you think that that is the singular nature—that it’s the capacity-building essence of it, that gives the 

bank the desirability—the people the desirability—countries, I 

should say—the desirability to go to the bank? 

Ms. GUEVARA. I certainly think it’s one of the best incentives. If 

the countries can go to the private sector and don’t need that help, 

then there’s no need to go to the bank. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, how do you think the bank should 

charge for those activities? 

Ms. GUEVARA. I think the poorest countries—if we’re looking at 

Africa, those services should not be charged, necessarily, for those 

countries. If you’re looking at more middle-income countries, depending on the service, then you could look at what that capacitybuilding and technical assistance would be. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Is that—well, what does the bank do now in 

that regard, do you know? 

Ms. GUEVARA. I don’t have a lot of information on that, but—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask—— 

Ms. GUEVARA [continuing]. I’ll be glad to find out. 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. You this. What do you think is 

the main mission of the bank? Is it economic expansion or is it poverty alleviation? 

Ms. GUEVARA. It’s eradication of poverty. And to the extent that 

it’s promoting economic growth, it should do it in an inclusive manner. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Okay. You gave me the words ‘‘inclusive 

manner.’’ Give me a little bit of meat on that bone. 

Ms. GUEVARA. Yes, sir. We’ve heard a lot about global prosperity, 

especially in the last years, and globalization, and the point is that 

not everybody has been able to partake in that growth and in that 

prosperity. And what the World Bank does is ensure that this prosperity includes all people, even those that perhaps don’t have the 

natural ability to partake in it. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And the reason I pursue that with you is because we can have economic expansion, but that does not guarantee poverty alleviation or elimination. 

Ms. GUEVARA. I agree. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And so, we look forward to seeing our leadership on the bank move in a direction that, maybe, can have economic expansion, but is also about significant poverty alleviation, 

at the end of the day. 

Let me ask you this. The World Bank, as with so many institutions, particularly of this size, has—suffers from some of the problems that plague large bureaucracies: it has entrenched interests, 

it has turf wars, it has competing ideologies, power, and, of course, 

money. In my mind, the most obvious, and, frankly, in my view, 

the most absurd, tradition at the World Bank is the instinctive 

structure—the way in which the bank promotes its recognition for 

bank personnel is based on pushing money out of the door, rather 

than on the results their programs demonstrate. I know that—from 

your discussion of your private-sector experience, I’m sure you 

didn’t achieve success by pushing—just simply pushing money out 

the door. If you did, I—tell me the company, so, when I retire, I 

can go try to work there. [Laughter.] 

107 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, point is, Do you think that’s a good way 

to run an agency? 

Ms. GUEVARA. I think it’s vitally important for the effectiveness 

of the World Bank to have a focus on results-based measurements, 

and that it’s not just about how much money you pushed out the 

door, but following that project and making sure that results on the 

ground were made, and, further, in having incentive to countries 

who show that they are showing results in the way that their loans 

and their credits are given to them. 

Senator MENENDEZ. What would you do to—then, if you are confirmed, would you do to change that present standard at the bank? 

Ms. GUEVARA. Well, if I was confirmed, I would work with the 

USCD. Again, I think, coalition-building and building support from 

different countries is very important, and working with President 

Zoellick to see what sorts of internal policies could be changed to 

move in that direction. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask you one last set of questions. 

Give me a sense of the governance structure of the bank. Who has 

the power within the bank? And who makes the majority of the 

funding decision? Who decides where the money goes and what it’s 

used for? 

Ms. GUEVARA. The bank is run by the board of directors that are 

representatives of the member states, and it’s the board that votes 

on where the funding will go. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And how does that directorship—is it 

weighted, or is it—is it equal votes? 

Ms. GUEVARA. Yes, sir, it’s weighted, depending on how large a 

share the member has. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, therefore, it’s not just that the directors 

have a vote, but, since it’s weighted, there’s obviously a universe 

in that structure that has a pretty big say about where that funding goes, right? 

Ms. GUEVARA. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Walther, let me ask you—I thought I 

heard this in your opening statement. I think it’s a good thing, but 

I just—let me ask you. Many people, when they’re confirmed at the 

late stage of an administration, try to scramble and put their mark 

on the agency, and sometimes propose changes, reorganizations, a 

refocusing of the mission. Sometimes they can be good, sometimes 

it can be chaotic, because it cannot be executed within the timeframe of the appointment. So, how—what would be your agenda for 

the next 10 months or so, if you were to be confirmed by the Senate? 

Mr. WALTHER. That’s very—a very good question, Mr. Chairman. 

I have observed—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. I’m looking for a very good answer. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WALTHER. I’m going to get—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. You have to have some humor in this process, I think. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WALTHER. Touche. 

I have observed this agency from afar for some time. I’ve had 

friends—two people who were former directors, and people that 

have worked within the agency—so, I’ve observed it for some time. 

108 

And this agency is very unique. It’s small. It’s very nimble. It uses 

its resources very conservatively and wisely. And the staff, from my 

observation, is very professional. I have had some discussions with 

the senior staff, only. But, I am very, very encouraged and very— 

the level of expertise and the way they conduct themselves is extremely professional. I can see no changes like that at all. They’ve 

got a wonderful mission. They’re accomplishing their mission. And 

I would like to continue to aid them in doing that, and in aiding 

these countries, also. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Good. Let me ask you—you just described a 

very nimble agency. It’s a niche agency, as well. 

Mr. WALTHER. Right. 

Senator MENENDEZ. It requires its interrelationship with other 

agencies, to some degree, to perform its mission. How do you see 

yourself working to facilitate that coordination? 

Mr. WALTHER. I have a history, in jobs that I’ve had in the past, 

including as director of the Department of Economic Development, 

of being a team player. I like to work with other agencies. I’ve always done that. And there’s a—when you can work together for the 

same goal, you can pool your resources and really accomplish more 

together than you can apart. And so, I see us working with the 

State Department, with the U.S. Trade Representative, with other 

agencies, with the Ex-Im Bank and others. And I will—they do 

that—I will continue to do that, and I will look forward to those 

relationships. 

Senator MENENDEZ. One final question. The agency aims to promote U.S. enterprise and support at the same time—economic development in developing countries, through its activities. Of the 

two—export promotion or development assistance—which do you 

believe should be prioritized at TDA? 

Mr. WALTHER. The notion is that they should be balanced equally. And there’s a—there is, actually, a third thing, and that is the 

United States trade policy or foreign policy. So, we need to balance 

all three of those. 

I’m—I’ve always been involved in economic development. I like to 

see the creation of jobs. And so, I am anxious to see our results in 

the area of creating jobs within the United States. But, on the 

other side, this is a unique way of providing international aid to 

developing and middle-income countries, where we both are partners, and we will equally benefit, and we should—in both the jobs, 

the exports, and the infrastructure in the foreign country. 

So, I would hope that it would be a balanced approach to aid to 

foreign countries. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Equal parts—— 

Mr. WALTHER. Equal parts. 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. At every TDA event? 

Mr. WALTHER. That’s the objective. We—you—I mean, and you 

can’t—it’s hard to measure that. I mean, you know, you put—you 

help them—convince them that a power plant’s the right thing to 

do, and then we get the—we get the export, they get the infrastructure. So, it’s—you know, hopefully, they think that they get a fair 

result from our partnership, and so do we. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Morales, one last question. The—you 

mentioned it, and I think it’s incredibly important, and we talked 

109 

about it privately; I just want to get you on the record on this— 

the Inter-American Democratic Charter. In recent years, the member states have debated whether to more clearly define what constitutes—what conditions constitute a violation of the charter, and 

what automatic responses might be included in the charter to help 

the OAS deal with violations of its principles. How do you believe 

we can work to strengthen the charter? 

Mr. MORALES. Mr. Chairman, the charter is not a treaty, it’s not 

a convention; so, it doesn’t have, for example, sanctions associated 

with noncompliance. There are provisions in the charter that call 

for the review—for example, if there are conditions going on in one 

of the member states that raises concern, that those can be looked 

into, but they do require consent of the country. 

Having said that, the—these issues can be raised to the Permanent Council; and, in fact, there have been a number of initiatives 

that have been presented, I believe, in the last three general assemblies, to try to help countries implement the principles that are 

enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. And, I believe, as recently as last year, Secretary Insulza has presented different—or, some initiatives to try to strengthen the charter. So— 

but, clearly—because it’s not a treaty, it doesn’t have those sanctioning provisions; but, ultimately, I think, the force of the charter, 

the strength of it, depends on the ability for all of the 34 member 

countries of the OAS to believe in it, to try to implement it in their 

countries and in their democracies. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Wasn’t Venezuela recently an example of 

which, just by saying no, the will of the OAS was largely aborted, 

in terms of having—I don’t know if it was observers are in certain 

violations, or a rapporteur, or something to that effect? 

Mr. MORALES. The case that you’re referring to is with regard to 

RCTV, and there was a concern raised about the ability for freedom 

of expression. And, in fact, this is an issue that Secretary Rice 

raised at the general assembly in Panama. Our Alternate Permanent Representative sent a letter to Secretary Insulza, requesting 

that the matter be looked into under, I believe, it’s article 18 of the 

charter. But, as I indicated earlier, the charter also provides that— 

to be able to do that, it requires the consent of the country in question, and Venezuela did not provide its consent. 

Senator MENENDEZ. It seems to me that if the charter is going 

to be meaningful, at the end of the day, other than an aspirational 

document, we need to get the member states to come around, to 

have some teeth to it; otherwise, it’s—it is a fine aspirational document, but it just remains that, at the end of the day. It would be 

something I would look forward to, when you’re there, hearing 

about what ground exists for moving in that direction. 

Let me—we’ve tried to explore, on behalf of the committee, both 

your views as—on some of the critical issues, your capabilities to 

perform the job. Let me thank all of you for testifying, for your 

willingness to serve our country in these important positions. 

However, the record will remain open until the end of the day 

tomorrow so that committee members may submit additional questions for the record. 

I ask that each nominee respond expeditiously these questions. 

Obviously, we need your answers to them before we can move—the 

110 

Chairman can move, when he chooses to do so, to a final business 

committee meeting. 

And since I have no other members here and no additional comments, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF ANA GUEVARA TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. Corruption and lack of transparency in the natural resource sector severely hampers development and poverty alleviation in less developed countries. 

The World Bank has made a commitment to combat corruption through adoption 

of the Governance and Anti-Corruption Strategy. What should the U.S. Government 

do to ensure that this strategy is meaningfully implemented and mainstreamed into 

World Bank interventions? 

Answer. Fighting corruption has become a top priority for the Bank. In March of 

2007, the board approved the Governance and Anti-Corruption (GAC) Strategy, and 

in September the Bank released its final implementation plan. Implementation of 

the GAC will likely have tremendous resource and operational implications for how 

the Bank does business, and it is still developing appropriate ways to integrate governance and anticorruption efforts into all levels of Bank engagement. The United 

States has actively engaged management on the implementation of this strategy at 

the policy, country strategy, and project levels. Moving forward, it will be important 

to provide incentives to Bank staff to (1) engage more proactively on the ground, 

(2) incorporate concrete good governance objectives in projects, (3) develop stronger 

results frameworks, (4) increase early involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, 

and (5) strengthen synergies with other international actors at the global level, such 

as it has with the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI). If confirmed, 

I will commit to strongly pursue this top priority of the United States. 

Question. What actions should be taken to ensure that the World Bank effectively 

tackles natural resource corruption and adopts a more focused and coherent approach to natural resource management? 

Answer. The World Bank has adopted several initiatives to tackle the natural resource corruption issue. For example, it is a strong supporter of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which promotes transparency in resource rich 

countries through the reporting and publication of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining. It has also worked on a set of indicators 

that can be used to measure and track countries’ overall fiscal transparency. But 

more could be done to encourage a broader comprehensive and systemic approach 

for natural resource management. Among other initiatives, the Bank could (1) incorporate the GAC implementation principles consistently into all natural resource 

Bank projects, (2) ensure natural resource programs are supported on the ground 

by governance and law enforcement programs specific to its sector as well as with 

those that are nationally focused, (3) incorporate strategic partners, civil society, 

and indigenous people in project development and oversight to ensure human rights, 

economic, and environmental goals are strategically met, (4) develop projects that 

promote equitable economic and social development, and (5) strengthen synergies 

with other international actors at the global level, particularly those that fight 

money laundering. If confirmed, I would have the opportunity to obtain more information about these challenges once inside the World Bank, and would urge the 

World Bank management to strengthen its efforts. 

Question. The forestry sector is at particularly high risk for corruption, with a 

long history of illegal logging fueling conflict and poor governance from Cambodia 

to Liberia. The World Bank has funded several failed forestry projects, for example 

with the Bank’s inspection panel reporting last month that its forestry initiative in 

the Democratic Republic of Congo broke several internal procedures and ignored the 

rights of local people living in the forest areas. What concrete benchmarks to combat 

corruption in the forestry sector will be developed so that the Bank does not repeat 

these mistakes? How should the United States promote these efforts? 

Answer. Good governance in the forestry sector is critically important because it 

can help improve the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of poor people in developing 

111 

countries and because forests provide a global public good supplying carbon storage 

services. 

As part of its efforts to attack corruption and consistent with the broader U.S. 

Government’s results agenda, the Bank should consider applying governance benchmarks for the forest sector. While it would be necessary for me to have access to 

more detailed information at the Bank before making specific recommendations on 

benchmarks in the DRC, or other countries, benchmarks could generally focus on 

ensuring Bank projects include (1) transparent practices and engagement with local 

communities and civil society groups in project development, management and oversight, (2) participatory and sustainable land use planning that includes environmental and social safeguards, and (3) strengthened law enforcement capacity and 

improved management of artisanal logging. The United States has been engaged on 

the Bank’s forest sector activities, as reflected in the U.S. statement on the inspection panel case. If confirmed, I look forward to opportunities to engage with Bank 

management to underscore the seriousness that the United States attaches to this 

issue, and to work closely with Treasury and other U.S. Government agencies to 

make sure that the U.S. interests in forest sector governance reflected in that statement are fully addressed by the Bank in its future operations. 

Question. How should the World Bank actively support the efforts of civil society 

groups, including their ability to operate freely and without intimidation? 

Answer. Unfettered input from civil society is an important component of the development process. It plays an especially crucial role in post-conflict countries. The 

World Bank has several mechanisms to actively support the efforts of civil society 

groups both at the country programming and project levels. It also holds hundreds 

of learning programs for civil society each year. Inclusion of civil society in Bank 

activities often gives the poorest people a voice without fear, and the ability to hold 

the Bank and local governments accountable. While the Bank cannot control the 

policies of host governments, these mechanisms lend legitimacy to civil society 

groups and help create political space for their activities. If I am confirmed, I will 

use my voice on the board to encourage the Bank to maintain and strengthen its 

mechanisms for engaging with civil society. 

Question. The Governance and Anti-Corruption strategy highlights the importance 

of meaningful civil society engagement and consultation in World Bank efforts to 

combat corruption—what steps should the World Bank take to build up the capacity 

of civil society groups to monitor the natural resource sector and public financial 

management and to hold governments to account on these issues? 

Answer. Civil society groups can provide an important check on government abuse 

and Bank projects, as we recently saw in the DRC Inspection Panel. In its March 

GAC report and the September implementation plan, the Bank committed to working with a wide array of stakeholders, including civil society groups, to combat corruption. A fundamental course of action for success that the Bank has identified is 

to strengthen transparency so the groups can be better informed. The Bank should 

also continue its trend of increasing civil society participation in country programming and projects, as well as its capacity-building seminars on building strong civil 

society organizations. These activities will be essential for holding governments accountable in the natural resource sector and public financial management. If confirmed, I will work with the U.S. Executive Director, other Bank Executive Directors 

and key Bank staff to strengthen civil society engagement and consultation as part 

of the overall effort to combat corruption. 

RESPONSES OF ANA M. GUEVARA TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. Relationships with other development partners: Do you currently have 

relationships with senior officials at USAID, the Department of Treasury, and the 

other multilateral financial institutions in Washington like the Inter-American Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund? If so, please describe the 

nature of these relationships. If confirmed how will you build upon and draw on 

these relationships to help advance the United States’s role at the World Bank? 

Answer. Yes, I do have relationships with senior officials at USAID, the Department of the Treasury, Department of Commerce, Inter-American Development 

Bank, Export-Import Bank, and Oversees Private Investment Corporation. The nature of the relationships vary from professional to personal. If confirmed, I will build 

upon and draw on these relationships in three ways: 

112 

• Learn from their personal experience what strategies have been most successful. • Leverage their relationships to build new strategic partnerships at the World 

Bank. • Pursue opportunities to create greater synergy with those institutions to help 

advance U.S. priorities. 

An example might be working with USAID to create greater coordination with 

educational projects like the Education for All Fast Track Initiative, which is a 

World Bank initiative, but for which USAID has the lead in the U.S. Government. 

Another example might be working with IADB to garner ‘‘bloc’’ support for U.S. positions at the World Bank. Or even, to use the Department of Commerce’s broad 

global network to promote U.S. priorities by urging Bank members in their capitals 

to adopt strong procurement practices. 

Question. U.S. reputation with the World Bank: The World Bank has tremendous 

convening power, with the decrease of the United State’s reputation for ‘‘playing 

fair’’ in multilateral environments, how are you going to improve the United State’s 

credibility inside an institution whose staff increasingly views the United State’s 

role with skepticism rather than optimism? 

Answer. Improving U.S. relationships within the World Bank is essential for attaining desired results and will be my priority. I will work with the U.S. Executive 

Director and other U.S. Government colleagues to strengthen American leadership 

and advance our country’s interests, while demonstrating consistent respect for multilateral engagement. I hope to achieve this by focusing on five key strategies: 

• Identifying far-sighted strategies where the United States can take the lead and 

shape the agenda. This is important in order to shape consensus early prior to 

country positions being solidified; 

• Incorporating other country’s national interests into the justification of our position. This requires research up front to use hard data to relieve their concerns 

and invalidate their alternatives. It will also allow them to support U.S. positions without appearing to be submitting to U.S. pressure. 

• Building broad coalitions by cultivating bilateral relationships with our key allies and developing countries that play influential roles. This will require headto-head advocacy, including visits with key decision makers in capitals, and officials from small countries that are well respected and wield extensive personal 

influence. This is important in order to avoid opposition simply because an initiative appears to be American made. 

• Promoting the importance of multilateral diplomacy and the work of the Bank 

through think tanks, educational institutions, policy makers, Congress, and 

young people. This will build public support for continued engagement. 

• Ensuring that colleagues at the Bank understand the reasoning when the 

United States must take a position on its own. And ensure that others do not 

misrepresent the U.S. position. 

• By being part of the process and the solution, the United States can foster increased respect and optimism. Engaging in consistent multilateral diplomacy 

will expand our influence and make it easier when we have to stand alone. 

RESPONSES OF JEFFREY J. GRIECO TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. If confirmed, would you commit to a timeline for responsiveness to congressional inquiries? If so, what would that timeline be for written inquiries? What 

would the timeline be for phone calls placed to USAID? 

Answer. I would like to affirm the response I provided during my SFRC hearing 

that, should I be confirmed, LPA will commit to timelines for written Congressional 

member inquiries as a measure of our responsiveness. These timelines would be: 

• Standard correspondence: Two weeks should be a reasonable standard for correspondence which can be answered in Washington. 

• Field input correspondence: One month for letters that require major inquiry 

or research in the field involving our missions, in-country partners, and/or host 

governments. Needless to say, if confirmed, I intend to strive to do better in 

both cases. 

• Interim response commitment: I also recognize that in some rare cases we may 

have no choice but to exceed those standards for a complete or comprehensive 

response. In those cases I commit to a timely interim response and/or other appropriate communication with the subject congressional office. 

113 

Receipt and processing of congressional correspondence: We would also like to affirm that all correspondence is time stamped upon date of receipt by our congressional correspondence unit. This is important since all USAID mail is routed via a 

terrorist screening center and there are some significant delays in receipt of correspondence sent via regular mail. For this reason, we also maintain a direct facsimile capability for member letters to be transferred to USAID at (FAX) 202–216– 

3237. Lastly, to speed up response times, we encourage members to call us directly 

to arrange pick-up. Upon receipt of this call to our congressional correspondence 

unit at 202–712–4462, a USAID legislative liaison officer will come by and pick up 

the letter. 

Question. If confirmed, what improvements would you suggest for the management of staff and communications of the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs? 

Answer. As noted at my hearing, I would like to focus on two sets of improvements critical to the Bureau—one set operational and one set strategic. My first set 

of improvements would be ‘‘operational’’ to support LPA mandated activities including: 

• Staffing improvements: In helping to make the Agency better informed about 

the role, responsibilities, and needs of the Congress, it is valuable for us to find 

ways in which we can communicate more systematically and proactively to the 

Congress on Agency plans, programs, and issues. To do significantly better on 

this objective is conceptually easy, but harder in practice. With currently only 

seven congressional liaison officers and potential impending departures, to address the usual high demand for information from congressional members and 

staff, it is difficult to sustain significantly proactive communications efforts to 

Congress. I am already hard at work improving the staffing/hiring of open personnel positions within the Bureau, both of a career and noncareer nature. I 

will continue to make the case for further legislative staff in Washington and 

more targeted communication (specialists) staffing both in Washington and the 

field. 

• Maintaining resources: We have been able to maintain the LPA operating expense budget at consistent levels but we need further support for improving our 

program allocations for (a) domestic development education activities so as to 

build a wider constituency for U.S. foreign assistance and development activities abroad (e.g., by removing the cap on Biden-Pell grants), and (b) encouraging 

wider program support for our successful targeted country-based ad campaigns 

which show dramatic and specific increases in host country awareness of 

USAID implemented foreign assistance activities. 

• Better information sharing with congressional staff: We will further this 

through continued improvements to our correspondence unit and more assistance with CODELs and StaffDels. Note, USAID does not receive directly any 

list of CODELS and StaffDels to our more than 80 countries—this being very 

important to our efforts to improve support for member trips and planning. If 

these lists are provided to me I commit that we would secure the information 

on a classified system only. 

• Intra-agency communications about legislative affairs: 

Æ There are numerous measures we have undertaken and will undertake to improve internal communication, including frequent and regular staff meetings, 

more systematic linkages between congressional liaison officers and press and 

public affairs officers, Bureau and office off sites for team building and communication, the creation and maintenance of an online congressional calendar 

and it’s continual cross checking with the administrator’s strategic scheduling 

activity; the weekly Strategic Communications Group (SCG) meetings. 

Æ Among the ways in which we have sought to improve sharing congressional 

priorities with our Agency staff is to assign congressional liaison officers and 

press officers to support specific Bureaus, and expect their close and intimate 

participation in the work of those Bureaus, beyond simply attending their 

staff meetings. 

Æ In addition, we have asked the Bureaus to designate, and intend to strengthen, a roster of ‘‘gate keepers’’ whose principal function is a close liaison with 

LPA. 

Æ We also plan to expand our LPA provided training to the rest of the Agency 

on congressional operations, and possibly to expand opportunities for USAID 

employees to perform details and other Hill assignments as a firsthand way 

of familiarizing more Agency employees with how the Congress works. 

114 

My second set of improvements would be Agency-wide imperatives or ‘‘strategic 

improvements’’ which may have a significant impact or reliance on LPA including 

the following: 

• Operating expense plus up for USAID staffing: LPA will continue to seek approval from Congress for the operating expense increase for USAID which 

would allow 300 plus new Foreign Service officers and civil servants each year 

for next 3 years and would dramatically improve our training float for the Agency. This initiative, spearheaded by the administrator, is entitled the ‘‘Development Leadership Initiative’’ which LPA has already briefed some SFRC staff on 

its importance in revitalizing USAID. 

• Focus on new diversity recruitment strategies: At the administrator’s initiative, 

USAID is reformulating it’s new human capital resources strategy for 2009– 

2013: LPA serves on the administrator’s new diversity recruitment working 

group and is especially active in seeking new strategies to increase Hispanic 

and underrepresented minority recruitment. 

• Securing agreement from Congress for the President’s program budget request 

for USAID: LPA will work closely with Congress on the fiscal year 2009 proposed budget, as well as in consideration of any future action on the fiscal year 

2008 supplemental and future fiscal year 2009 supplemental. We recognize the 

supplemental(s) are very important to Congress, especially in consideration of 

humanitarian assistance priorities contained therein. 

• GDA and Administrator Fore’s commitment to major expansion of USAID’s public-private partnerships: In fiscally tight budget circumstances increased use of 

public-private partnerships only makes sense in order to maximize use and leverage of limited foreign assistance budget dollars. Today, of total resource 

flows to the developing world the vast majority are private—a reversal from 20 

years ago. USAID needs to take advantage of this and LPA needs to help communicate the importance of this trend to key audiences. 

(115) 

NOMINATIONS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Barrett, Barbara McConnell, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Finland 

Ghafari, Yousif Boutrous, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia 

McEldowney, Nancy, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Bulgaria 

Urbancic, Frank, to be Ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus 

Volker, Kurt, to be the U.S. Permanent Representative on the 

Council of NATO 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barack Obama presiding. 

Present: Senators Obama, Menendez, Cardin, Casey, Lugar, 

Voinovich, and Barrasso. 

Also Present: Senator Kyl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator OBAMA. This hearing of the Committee on Foreign Relations will now come to order. Today, the committee meets to consider the nomination of five important diplomatic positions. 

The President has nominated Barbara McConnell Barrett to be 

Ambassador to the Republic of Finland, Yousif Boutrous Ghafari to 

be Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia, Frank Urbancic—did I 

say that correctly?—to be Ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus, 

Nancy McEldowney to be Ambassador to the Republic of Bulgaria, 

and Kurt Volker to be the U.S. Permanent Representative on the 

Council of NATO. 

I want to congratulate all of you on your nomination. I look forward to hearing from each of you this afternoon, or this morning. 

I also want to welcome my colleague Senator Kyl, who has joined 

us to introduce Ms. Barrett today. And I understand that Senator 

Casey will be joining us a little later to introduce Mr. Volker. 

Senator Levin, who regrets he cannot be here, he has got this little thing he has got to do right now, chairing the Armed Services 

Committee hearing of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. 

But he asked me to note his support for Mr. Ghafari’s nomination 

116 

to be Ambassador of Slovenia. His statement of support will be included in the record. 

[Senator Levin’s statement appears at the end of this hearing in 

the ‘‘Additional Material Submitted for the Record’’ section.] 

And I just want to welcome our esteemed colleague and the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard 

Lugar. 

I am very pleased to welcome each of our nominees today. Without exception, you bring an impressive range of talents and experience to your assignments, and I look forward to discussing the 

challenges you are likely to encounter and how you intend to 

strengthen our Nation and its allies in the course of your service. 

Your nominations come at a critical moment in the history of 

American diplomacy. The challenges we face are formidable—securing our country, revitalizing our alliances, bolstering young democracies, and confronting the common threats of the 21st century, including terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation, climate 

change and poverty, genocide and disease. 

Turning these challenges into opportunities will require renewed 

American leadership. It will also require ambassadors who exemplify the principles that make our Nation great. Upon confirmation, 

each of you will work with countries that are close partners of the 

United States and share our common faith in the value of self-determination, accountable governments, collective security, and 

human rights. 

And Mr. Volker, if confirmed, will serve as the United States 

Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is the most powerful and most successful military alliance in the history of the world. No organization has done more to 

promote peace and stability in Europe or to create the protective 

shield that has allowed the democracies of the North Atlantic to 

grow into a free and prosperous community. 

But as we saw at last week’s summit in Bucharest, NATO is not 

as strong, as capable, or as united as I believe it should be. Afghanistan, NATO’s first major mission beyond the borders of Europe, 

has been overlooked and undermanned by many members of the alliance, including the United States. Success in Afghanistan, I believe, is critical to American national security and to the security 

of the entire world. And a failure there would not only endanger 

our Nation and global stability, it would cast serious doubt on the 

ability of NATO’s military and political architecture to uphold our 

security in the 21st century. 

Some new troop commitments to Afghanistan were made in Bucharest, and that is good news. But neither the administration nor 

our allies have yet done enough to muster the resources that would 

win the war there and prevent Afghanistan from reemerging as a 

safe haven for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Bucharest summit 

also left out one of three candidates for membership and failed to 

provide the young democracies of Georgia and Ukraine with membership action plans. 

Mr. Volker, you are a professional diplomat of the first order, and 

I have confidence that you will represent the United States ably in 

Brussels. However, ensuring that NATO retains its rightful place 

as the cornerstone of the Euro-Atlantic alliance will require that 

117 

we do more to enlarge NATO to include worthy European democracies and focus more resources on the fight against the Taliban 

and al-Qaeda. 

Doing so will require adroit diplomacy at NATO headquarters, 

but it will also mean making the case directly to the citizens of Europe that we must all increase our commitment to global security. 

We succeeded in coming together to confront the greatest challenges of the second half of the 20th century. We cannot succeed 

in confronting the challenges of the 21st century unless we do so 

together. 

Mr. Urbancic, if confirmed, you will be serving in Cyprus at a 

time of new optimism in the long struggle to bring an end to the 

estrangement of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. After 

three decades, last Thursday’s opening of the Ledra Street crossing 

in downtown Nicosia was a tangible indication of goodwill on both 

sides of the island to forge a settlement between two peoples who 

share a common home, a common history, and a common destiny. 

I hope that the day of Cypriot reunification comes in the course 

of your ambassadorial service and that you will do everything in 

your power to help the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriot 

community reach a just and lasting peace. 

Slovenia has been on the cutting edge of democratic change in 

Eastern Europe. Since its early success gaining membership in 

NATO and the European Union, it has been a model for the 

progress of the Balkans. Despite its small size, Slovenia currently 

leads the nations of the European Union while it occupies the EU’s 

Presidency. Its citizens are helping to set the agenda for an entire 

continent. 

Slovenians are focusing Europe’s attention on the unfinished 

business of bringing peace and prosperity to the Balkans. The people and Government of Slovenia will need the help of the United 

States and other partners as they consolidate their democratic 

gains and seek to extend those gains throughout the region. 

Mr. Ghafari, as an immigrant who has truly lived the American 

dream, you represent the strength found in our country’s diversity. 

Similar strengths should characterize life in the Balkans. In some 

parts of the region, including Slovenia, it already does. I hope your 

story and your service will resonate with people throughout the 

former Yugoslavia. 

After a difficult transition from communism and setbacks in the 

1990s, Bulgaria has made impressive economic strides in recent 

years. As a potential hub for oil and gas distribution, the country 

could play an important role in Europe’s future energy security. 

However, Bulgaria continues to struggle with corruption and the 

corrosive influence of organized crime. Any failure to address these 

challenges could jeopardize the country’s future cooperation with 

the European Union and, with it, much of the progress that has occurred in the recent past. 

Ms. McEldowney, you will need to work aggressively to assure 

that the democratic backsliding, which has happened in some other 

parts of Eastern Europe, does not occur in Bulgaria. The country’s 

institutions and judicial system will need your support and assistance in order to help Bulgaria remain on course toward full EuroAtlantic integration. 

118 

In recent years, the United States has dramatically reduced its 

financial assistance to Bulgaria, so you will have to be creative. 

But your exemplary record as a member of the Foreign Service 

bodes well for your work on these critical tasks. 

And finally, Ms. Barrett, you have a different task, as you will 

represent America in a country that has traveled further down the 

path of democracy and prosperity. Finland is a world leader in 

technology and innovation and even outranks the United States in 

some measures of development. But it still faces challenges in its 

relationship with Russia and its long-standing position outside of 

the Euro-Atlantic security institutions. 

At some point soon, Finland may move toward membership in 

NATO. Should the Finnish people and Government choose to pursue that objective, I hope you will be their biggest booster. 

All of you are coming before this committee at a defining moment 

in America’s story. Now is not a time for half-hearted diplomacy. 

We need to raise the bar for our allies, and that must begin with 

raising the bar for ourselves. Together, with our partners in Europe, I am confident that we can make whole a world that is in 

need of repair. And I look forward to a more detailed discussion of 

the challenges and opportunities that await you. 

I want to acknowledge that Senator Voinovich has joined us, as 

well as Senator Cardin. I will now turn it over to Senator Lugar 

for his opening statement, and I will then allow for brief opening 

statements from Senator Voinovich and Senator Cardin. We will 

then turn it over to Senator Kyl for his introduction of Ms. Barrett, 

and I know he has other things to do as well. 

So, Senator Lugar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like unanimous consent that a statement by our Ranking 

Member, Senator DeMint, be placed in the record at this 

point.[Senator DeMint’s statement appears at the end of this hearing in the ‘‘Additional Material Submitted for the Record’’ section.] 

Senator OBAMA. Without objection. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for calling 

and chairing this timely hearing. The need for ambassadors in each 

of the posts that are represented here today is imperative, and the 

timeliness of this hearing is extremely important. And we are delighted that our colleague, Senator Kyl, is here today to introduce 

a candidate, Ms. Barrett, for Finland. 

Let me just focus short remarks and really in the spirit in which 

you have addressed the Bucharest summit, Mr. Chairman. I am 

disappointed about the lack of progress made at the summit. While 

additional troop commitments for Afghanistan were secured, it is 

unclear if any of the national caveats that constrain troop deployment were removed at this point. 

And while agreement was found on missile defense, it appears 

that the cost included the refusal to proceed with membership action plans for Ukraine and Georgia. Lastly, the Greek veto of Macedonia’s membership bid is extremely unfortunate and a strategic 

blunder for European security, in my judgment. 

119 

Mr. Volker, you will bear the brunt of many of these questions 

as we come to you in the lineup at this point. And you are a veteran of the trail, having spent a lot of time with Members of Congress thinking about summits in the past. But I would just say 

that I have enjoyed working with you over the years. You will 

make a great ambassador to NATO, but I still am concerned about 

the progress of the 2006 summit at Riga as well as last summit, 

and I just will query what lessons were learned at Bucharest that 

can be applied to next year’s 60th anniversary summit. 

It appeared to those of us in the Senate the diplomatic spade 

work got started very late in the process this year, and that by the 

time the President gauged on the matter, most issues may have 

been decided by some members. In hindsight, I will query whether 

you believe it was a wise decision for President Putin to be invited 

to the summit. He accused the alliance at that point of demonizing 

Russia. Imagine what he would have said if the alliance had supported Ukraine and Georgia’s MAP plans. 

I read some press accounts about President Putin’s refusal to 

sign the NATO-Russia communique. Is it your understanding this 

refusal was linked to NATO’s pledge that Ukraine and Georgia will 

one day join NATO? 

I have concluded that Germany’s opposition to Ukraine and 

Georgia’s receiving of the MAP plan has been largely based upon 

Russia and energy. A number of NATO members are currently dependent on Russia for energy. Do Russia’s energy reserves provide 

a de facto veto of NATO’s activities? 

And I will pose a question to Ms. McEldowney about Bulgaria in 

due course. Sofia’s January 2008 agreement with Russia to host a 

portion of the South Stream energy pipeline was truly a setback to 

an independent and secure European security strategy. What was 

Bulgaria’s motivation in concluding this deal? And what role do you 

believe the lack of progress on the Nabucco pipeline played in the 

South Stream decision? 

Do you believe that there is time or opportunity to convince 

friends in Bulgaria to change course or, for that matter, for those 

of you who are serving in Europe to be instrumental in reviving 

Nabucco as opposed to South Stream? 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity for a preview of 

some of the issues and questions, and I look forward to participating in this vital hearing. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much. 

I would like to acknowledge that we have been joined by Senator 

Casey, as well as Senator Menendez. What I would like to do is let 

them, let all of the other members of the committee make a brief 

opening statement, and then turn it over to Senator Kyl so that he 

can provide his introduction of Ms. Barrett. 

Let us start in the order of people who showed up, with Senator 

Voinovich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your 

holding this committee meeting and thank Chairman Biden for 

120 

putting all of these people before us so that we can get on with 

their appointments. 

My first observation is, Mr. Urbancic, you should be going to Slovenia. [Laughter.] 

Although, Mr. Ghafari, you and I have met, and you will do well 

in Slovenia. Slovenia has a role. It is president of the European 

Union, and it is very much engaged, as you know, in what is going 

to happen in Kosovo and really understands the need to make sure 

that it gets done right. 

Mr. Volker, you are going on to NATO, and NATO has got some 

real challenges with operations in Afghanistan, and whether the 

members are going to come onboard and send troops or lie back. 

How is that going to work? You have got the KFOR forces in 

Kosovo right now, the relationship with that, and also the issue 

that the chairman just brought up about NATO enlargement. 

I would be interested to know if our Government is going to take 

the position of trying to work things out between Greece and Macedonia, and where you think that issue is going, if anywhere. 

And Finland—Ms. Barrett, Finland is now in charge of the OSCE 

ministerial lines, and there are a couple of members of this Foreign 

Relations Committee that are very interested in the OSCE, particularly in the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. 

Because that is the organization that deals with the issue of Muslim xenophobia and also deals with anti-Semitism. 

And right now, the OSCE is at a crucial point because it is going 

to be appointing a new person to head up ODIHR, and we really 

would like to make sure that this new person really knows what 

he or she is doing and is committed—particularly to our issue of 

anti-Semitism, they call it ‘‘the tower incident,’’ and on discrimination. 

Mr. Urbancic, you have got to face the issue of Cyprus and Turkey and how is that all going to work out with the prospect of Turkey joining the European Union? 

And, of course, Bulgaria. How is that issue coming? We were successful in getting Bulgaria into NATO. We felt that that would 

move things along. How are the Bulgarians doing in terms of their 

niche capabilities, and how are some of the human rights and other 

changes that need to be made going in there? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, and thank you, Senator 

Voinovich, for setting a good example of brevity. 

Let me turn it over to Senator Cardin, and if we can try to keep 

our remarks to 5 minutes or less so that Senator Kyl is not too further delayed and that we have an opportunity to ask as many 

questions as possible. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I thank you for 

your convening this hearing so that we can move forward on these 

important positions for the United States in Europe. 

I first want to just thank all of the nominees for their public 

service, their willingness to serve, and I thank your families for alVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
121 

lowing this participation and helping our country. And we know it 

is a family sacrifice. So we thank you all for that. 

Europe is very important to the United States. I want to follow 

briefly on what Senator Voinovich said in regard to the OSCE. I 

have the honor of being the Senate chair of the OSCE, and there 

are several issues of concern within the countries that are represented by the nominations today on OSCE issues. You have already mentioned Kosovo, which is—I would be interested in pursuing that. 

We have minority issues. In Bulgaria particularly, there is a concern about the Roma population, as well as the Turkish minority. 

I would be interested to hear your perspective on that. We have the 

concerns of human trafficking in several of the countries that are 

represented here. So I look forward to those questions. 

And then NATO, I am concerned about the Bucharest summit as 

to the influence Russia has on the expansion of our NATO allies, 

and I would be interested in pursuing that during the question period. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you. 

Senator Menendez. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be even 

briefer. 

I appreciate the service of all of the nominees. My particular 

questions, when we get to that point, will be for Mr. Volker and 

Mr. Urbancic as it relates to Greece and the Macedonia, the firearm issue, as well as Cyprus. And they are, I think, in my view, 

important countries. There are some significant issues that are outstanding there, and I will be looking to see your insights on them 

as it relates to my support for your nominations. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have had the greatest model 

of expediency. 

Senator OBAMA. You have done outstanding. 

Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am going 

to be very brief. I am going to be offering, in a few moments, opening remarks by way of introduction to Mr. Volker. So I will defer 

until then. 

But thank you very much. 

Senator OBAMA. Good. Well, it is now time to turn to the nominees. I will ask that each of you deliver your statements in the 

order that you were introduced. You will each have 5 minutes for 

your statements, and if you are summarizing a statement, the text 

of your entire presentation will be included in the hearing record. 

Also, if you would like, please feel free to introduce any members 

of your family that are with you here today because, as Senator 

Cardin noted, I know that this is a family affair, and we are extraordinarily grateful for their service, as well. And we would like 

to welcome them all to the committee. I know this is a great occasion for them. 

122 

So what I would like to do is to allow Senator Kyl to introduce 

Ms. Barrett. And then, Ms. Barrett, we will go with your statement. 

Senator Casey, I am sorry. Who were you going to be introducing? 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Volker. 

Senator OBAMA. Mr. Volker. So, Mr. Volker, you are down at the 

end. So I will make sure that Senator Casey has occasion to introduce you before your testimony. 

Senator Kyl, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

Got it. Thank you very much for your courtesy in allowing me 

to formally introduce Ms. Barbara Barrett to you. I want to assure 

you that mine is more than the obligatory introduction of a constituent. 

I calculated that I have known Barbara Barrett for almost 40 

years, and we have been good friends during that entire time. And 

I would also note that Senator McCain strongly endorses her nomination and confirmation, and we have submitted a statement for 

the record from Senator McCain, as well. 

[Senator McCain’s statement appears at the end of this hearing 

in the ‘‘Additional Material Submitted for the Record’’ section.] 

Ms. Barrett has a resume, which I can’t do justice to, and frankly, in the interest of time, I am just going to highlight a couple of 

matters from it. But I think it is important to also get a measure 

of the individual, and I will really close with what I think are her 

most important attributes in terms of representation of the United 

States in an important country abroad. 

She has served as—nationally, for example, as vice chairman of 

the Civil Aeronautics Board here in Washington, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. In Phoenix, she was 

a partner in a prominent law firm there. She has served in our 

community in numerous ways, and I do encourage you to look at 

the resume to see the breadth of her experience there. 

She has also represented interests in Washington, DC, and internationally, as well. She has been a teacher as a fellow at Harvard’s 

John F. Kennedy School of Government. She served as president of 

the International Women’s Forum. She was Chairman of the U.S. 

Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, which looked very hard 

at U.S. efforts at public diplomacy and had some significant recommendations to make in that regard. She was senior advisor to 

the U.S. mission to the United Nations. 

One of her current passions, which I really admire—and incidentally illustrates that her travel schedule is, frankly, more robust 

than mine, and I go home almost every weekend—is working with 

the Thunderbird School of Management and the U.S. Afghan Women’s Council on a program to work with and mentor and train Afghan women as entrepreneurs and effective members of their communities. I know this is a passion because I have talked to her 

about it on numerous occasions. 

123 

I could go on about her resume, but I really want to just tell you 

about the kind of person that Barbara Barrett is. I can’t think of 

anyone who could more effectively represent the interests of the 

United States Government in a foreign embassy. She is obviously 

highly intelligent, has a broad background of experience, great 

skills, a tremendous personality, huge energy. I talked about her 

travel schedule. She will work at it very hard. But most importantly, she has the diplomatic skills to represent the United States 

in an important post abroad. 

And so, I urge you to take as quick action as you can in this committee to confirm these nominees and enable full representation of 

the United States in these important posts around the world, beginning with my long-time friend, Ms. Barbara Barrett. 

Senator OBAMA. Well, that is a wonderful introduction, and I 

would note that my understanding is it is colder in Finland than 

in Phoenix. So I don’t know if you have gone shopping yet, but—— 

Senator KYL. Anything to sacrifice for the United States. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl, 

for the very gracious introduction. 

Ms. Barrett, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA MCCONNELL BARRETT, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND 

Ms. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 

consider it an extraordinary privilege to appear before you today as 

the President’s nominee to the United States ambassador role to 

Finland. I am grateful to President Bush and to Secretary Rice for 

their trust. 

If confirmed, I intend to demonstrate that their trust is well 

placed by building upon the excellent existing relationships between our countries and by advancing American interests in Finland. 

I thank Senator Jon Kyl for introducing me today and Senator 

McCain for his written record. 

I recognize that it is a demanding responsibility to serve the public as an ambassador of the United States of America. Thirty-three 

years ago this spring, I began my journey in public service as an 

intern at the Arizona State legislature. My respect and admiration 

for government leadership was inspired by observing then-Senate 

Majority Leader Sandra Day O’Connor. She was a leader among 

her colleagues, an advocate for transformative legislation, and a 

champion of meaningful causes. 

During my legislative experience, I learned the importance of 

serving constituents and making practical improvements to people’s lives through public service. Meanwhile, in business, I was an 

executive of two Fortune 500 companies, chairman of the board of 

a small bank, CEO of the American Management Association, a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, and on the boards of two aircraft manufacturers and an airline. Tangential to business, I 

learned to fly a plane and shoe a horse. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed as 

ambassador, I will advance the priorities of the United States mission to Finland. The first priority of our embassy is continuing 

124 

high-level bilateral cooperation with Finland to combat terrorism. 

In 2006, Finland was one of the first countries to sign the Global 

Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, an effort co-established by 

the United States and the Russian Federation. Additionally, Finland has actively participated in counterterrorism and nonproliferation initiatives sponsored by the United Nations and the 

European Union. 

The Finnish civil aviation authority has fully implemented the 

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s security directives regarding air carriers operating to the United States. I understand the 

sensitivity of these aviation cooperation efforts because I am a 

pilot, and I served on the Phoenix airport boards and the Civil Aeronautics Board and was second-in-command at the FAA. 

Serving today at the governance level in defense, technology, and 

engineering companies, I work with some of the world’s most pressing national security issues, starting with terrorism. Ensuring the 

welfare and safety of American citizens at home and abroad would 

be among my highest priorities. So, if confirmed, I will continue to 

advance our high level of coordination between Finland and the 

United States to deter, detect, and defeat terrorism. 

A second mission priority is our cooperation with Finland on 

peacekeeping and regional stability, especially in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Finland, a long-time advocate for Kosovo, has been instrumental in mustering international support for this new nation 

and has deployed more than 400 troops with NATO forces there. 

In Afghanistan, too, Finns are part of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. Finland demonstrates its long-term commitment to Afghanistan, not just by contributing troops, but also 

through development assistance, poppy eradication, and other 

counternarcotics efforts. 

My work with the U.S. Afghan Women’s Council inspired Thunderbird’s Artemis Project, a program, as Senator Kyl mentioned, 

that trains and mentors Afghan women entrepreneurs. Working 

with Afghan students, doctors, business leaders, and American 

troops on the ground in Afghanistan makes me respect and profoundly appreciate Finland’s support. 

Having observed circumstances, both in the Balkan States and in 

Afghanistan, and having met with government officials in both 

places, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will work to ensure that Finland’s important contributions to peace and stability in Kosovo and 

Afghanistan continue and receive our recognition. 

The missions third priority is promoting pro-growth innovation 

for energy security and the environment. During 2008, as was mentioned, Finland is chairing the OSCE, the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe. And Finland is also a global leader in 

biofuels and renewable energy with a quarter of its total energy 

consumption derived from renewable resources. 

As a sister of a liquefied natural gas supertanker captain, I understand the disparate distribution of petroleum and other fuel reserves and the resultant urgency of diversifying fuel sources. On 

this and many other topics, Finland and the United States will mutually benefit from an exchange of information gained from research, innovation, and thoughtful leadership. 

125 

Through the years, I have instigated, organized, and chaired 

countless international symposia, large and small. If confirmed, energy and environment will be topics of my focused attention. 

Another priority for the mission is to enhance mutual understanding and protect and promote U.S. interests. Finland is a true 

friend of the United States and a transatlantic advocate for beliefs 

that we share. As Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on 

Public Diplomacy, chairman of Thunderbird School for Global Management, and past chairman of the International Women’s Forum, 

I have led delegations to China, Russia, South Africa, Israel, Jordan, and a number of other important nations. I have lectured at 

the Moscow School of Politics. I have spoken at college campuses 

and visited medical clinics and elementary schoolrooms in rural villages on six continents. 

I know the importance of academic, scientific, and cultural exchanges. And if confirmed, I will foster and sustain our relationship 

with Finland by energetically engaging personally with the Government and people of Finland to advance our shared values and interests. And I will do my utmost to lead by example and support 

our embassy’s efforts to expand communication and engagement 

through vigorous public diplomacy. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, my 

personal interest, my professional experience in defense, international business, aviation, and public policy and law prepare me 

well for ambassadorial duties. My life experience has been 

strengthening political and economic ties with other nations and 

achieving results through mutual understanding, communication, 

and collaboration—in short, diplomacy. 

If confirmed, I pledge to do everything I can to lead the embassy 

that represents the finest values of the United States, and I will 

do my level best to advance American interests by strengthening 

the bonds between the United States and Finland. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barrett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA MCCONNELL BARRETT, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I consider it an extraordinary privilege to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be 

the United States Ambassador to Finland. I am grateful to President Bush and Secretary Rice for their trust. If confirmed, I intend to demonstrate that their trust is 

well placed, by building upon the excellent existing relationships between our countries and by advancing American interests in Finland. 

I thank Arizona Senator Jon Kyl for introducing me today. 

I recognize that it is a demanding responsibility to serve the public as an Ambassador of the United States of America. Thirty-three years ago this spring, I began 

my journey in public service as an intern in the Arizona State Legislature. My respect and admiration for governmental leadership was inspired by observing thenSenate Majority Leader Sandra Day O’Connor. She was a leader among her colleagues, an advocate of transformative legislation, and a champion of meaningful 

causes. During my legislative experience, I learned the importance of serving constituents and making practical improvements to people’s lives through public service. 

Meanwhile, in business, I was an executive of two Fortune 500 companies, chairman of the board of a small bank, CEO of the American Management Association, 

a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics and on the boards of two aircraft manufacturers and an airline. Tangential to business, I have learned to fly a plane and shoe 

a horse. 

126 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, if confirmed as Ambassador, I will 

advance the priorities of the United States mission in Finland. The first priority of 

our embassy is continuing high-level bilateral cooperation with Finland to combat 

terrorism. In 2006, Finland was one of the first countries to sign the Global Initiative To Combat Nuclear Terrorism, an effort coestablished by the United States and 

the Russian Federation. Additionally, Finland has actively participated in counterterrorism and nonproliferation initiatives sponsored by both the United Nations and 

the European Union. The Finnish Civil Aviation Authority has fully implemented 

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration security directives regarding air carriers operating to the United States. 

I understand the sensitivity of their aviation cooperation because I am a pilot and 

served on the Phoenix airports board and the U.S. Civil Aeronautics board and was 

second in command at the FAA. Serving today at the governance level of defense, 

technology, and engineering companies, I work with some of the world’s most pressing national security issues, starting with terrorism. Ensuring the welfare and safety of American citizens at home and abroad would be among my highest priorities. 

So, if confirmed, I will continue to advance our high level of coordination between 

Finland and the United States to deter, detect, and defeat terrorism. 

A second mission priority is our cooperation with Finland on peacekeeping and 

regional stability, especially in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Finland, a long-time advocate for Kosovo, has been instrumental in mustering international support for this 

new nation, and has deployed more than 400 troops with NATO forces there. In Afghanistan too, Finns are part of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force 

(ISAF). Finland demonstrates its long-term commitment to Afghanistan not just by 

contributing troops, but also through development assistance, poppy eradication, 

and other counternarcotic efforts. 

My work with the U.S. Afghan Women’s Council inspired Thunderbird’s Project 

Artemis, a program that trains and mentors Afghan women entrepreneurs. Working 

with Afghan students, doctors, business leaders, and American troops on Afghan soil 

makes me respect and profoundly appreciate Finland’s support. Having observed circumstances both in the Balkan states and in Afghanistan and having met with government officials in both places, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will work to ensure 

that Finland’s important contributions to peace and stability in Kosovo and Afghanistan continue—and receive our recognition. 

The mission’s third priority is promoting pro-growth innovation for energy security and the environment. During 2008 Finland is chairing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Finland is also a global leader in biofuels and 

renewable energy with a quarter of its total energy consumption derived from renewable sources. As a sister of an LNG supertanker captain I understand the disparate distribution of petroleum and other fuel reserves and the resultant urgency 

of diversifying fuel sources. On this and many other topics Finland and the United 

States will mutually benefit from an exchange of information gained from research, 

innovation and thoughtful leadership. Through the years I have instigated, organized, and chaired countless international symposia, large and small. If confirmed, 

energy and the environment will be topics of my focused engagement. 

Another priority of the U.S. mission is to enhance mutual understanding and protect and promote U.S. interests. Dating back to John Morton, a United States immigrant from Finland and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Finnish 

people have proven that they understand and share our core values, including an 

abiding belief that all people deserve freedom, democracy, and human rights. Finland has been recognized for its lack of corruption, respect for democracy, and its 

consistently high quality, universal education. Finland is a true friend of the United 

States and a transatlantic advocate of beliefs we share. 

As Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Thunderbird 

School of Global Management, and the International Women’s Forum, I have led 

delegations to China, Russia, South Africa, Israel, Jordan, Ireland, Chile, El Salvador, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, and other important nations. I have lectured at the Moscow School of Politics, spoken on college campuses, and visited 

medical clinics and elementary schoolrooms in rural villages on six continents. I 

know the importance of academic, scientific, and cultural exchanges. If confirmed, 

I will foster and sustain our relationship with Finland by energetically engaging 

personally with the Government and the people of Finland to advance our shared 

values and interests. And I will do my utmost to lead by example and support our 

embassy’s efforts to expand communication and engagement through vigorous public 

diplomacy. 

A final priority element for the United States mission in Finland that I will mention is expanding economic opportunities for bilateral trade and investment. The potential is vast for enhanced economic cooperation between the United States and 

127 

Finland and through Finland to other parts of the European Union, the Baltic 

States, and Russia. Finland is a leader in research and development with leading 

edge advancements in technology, biotechnology, telecommunications, and equipment. While practicing law in Arizona, I was Chairman of the Arizona District Export Council, the Arizona World Affairs Council, and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce’s Export Conference. I worked to advance the market for American goods and 

services by hosting and leading trade missions, seminars, and other trade advancement efforts. During the Uruguay round of GATT, I was a trade advisor involved 

in efforts to improve global protection of intellectual property. At the Civil Aeronautics board, I participated in bilateral and multilateral negotiations between the 

United States and nations in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. If confirmed, I will 

continue Ambassador Ware’s efforts to create opportunities for U.S. companies by 

expanding our trading and investment relationships. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, my personal interest 

and my professional experience in defense, international business, aviation, public 

policy, and law prepare me well for ambassadorial duties. My life experience has 

been strengthening political and economic ties with other nations and achieving results through mutual understanding, communication, and collaboration—in short, 

diplomacy. If confirmed, I pledge to do everything I can to lead an embassy that 

represents the finest values of the United States, and I will do my level best to advance American interests by strengthening the bonds between the United States 

and Finland. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Ms. Barrett. 

Next, Mr. Ghafari. 

STATEMENT OF HON. YOUSIF BOUTROUS GHAFARI, NOMINEE 

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA 

Mr. GHAFARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for recognizing my immigrant status, and with that, I disclose forgive me 

for my accent. 

I would also like to acknowledge this morning the presence of my 

wife, Mara Ghafari, for 30 years, the mother of our three children; 

our son, Peter Ghafari, who is here today. Our two daughters are 

graduating very shortly from college. They could not be here, and 

you would be happy to know, Senators, they both will be taxpayers 

very shortly, with a smile. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you today as President Bush and Secretary 

Rice’s nominee to represent the United States in Slovenia. I am 

privileged that they have selected me to represent our country as 

Ambassador to Slovenia and honored that this committee is willing 

to consider my nomination. 

I believe that my presence here today is a testament to the 

power of American democracy. I can think of no other country in 

which the opportunities for education, economic success, and personal accomplishments are so great. I have been extraordinarily 

fortunate. I came here as a young man with very little means and 

no family connections. Yet I had the opportunity to receive a good 

education and establish successful businesses. We are living the 

American dream. And now I have come to that point in my career 

where I hope to be granted the privilege of serving my country. 

Our bilateral relationship with Slovenia is strong and vibrant, 

particularly now since Slovenia holds the European Union presidency for the first half of 2008. It is a relationship enriched by generations of Slovene Americans and the enduring ties they maintain 

with their land of origin, including your honorable colleague, Senator George Voinovich. Thank you for being here, Senator. 

128 

As the first of the former Yugoslav republics to gain independence, Slovenia plays a key role in the Western Balkans. It has 

worked long and hard to stabilize the entire Southeast Europe region, was the first of the former Yugoslav States to gain membership in NATO and the European Union, and actively contributes to 

regional security by deploying more than 350 troops to Kosovo. 

In its role as European Union president, Slovenia played a remarkable role in coalescing European support for resolution of 

Kosovo’s status and recognized Kosovo soon after its declaration of 

independence. The United States and Slovenia share the goal of 

European Union expansion in the Balkans, believing that it will 

further regional stabilization and development. As a strong, stable, 

and economically prosperous member of the Union, Slovenia recognizes that it has both a responsibility and an interest in aiding 

Western Balkan nations to move toward greater European and 

transatlantic integration and has undertaken several initiatives to 

achieve this goal. 

One of Slovenia’s notable initiatives is the International Trust 

Fund for demining and mine victims assistance, ITF. Since its inception in 1998, the ITF has raised more than $220 million in donations, and as of October 2006, the fund had cleared nearly 70 

million square meters of mines and aided more than 900 mine victims. 

We have also worked side-by-side with Slovenia in the struggle 

against terrorism. Slovenia has contributed forces to the international missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and elsewhere, 

recently deployed more than 11 percent of its armed forces abroad. 

It recently increased its troop contribution in Afghanistan and has 

contributed equipment and ammunition to the Afghani Armed 

Forces. 

If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to promote continued strong bilateral cooperation in the fight against terror and to 

encourage the Slovene Government to increase its participation in 

NATO missions. 

Slovenia’s strong economy presents many opportunities for 

United States businesses. There are approximately 40 United 

States companies with investments and/or sales offices in Slovenia, 

and it is estimated that United States investment totals more than 

$490 million. We should continue to encourage the Slovenian Government to strengthen its market economy through privatization 

and increase foreign direct investment. 

If confirmed, I will work to increase opportunities for U.S. companies and further expand our trade and investment, resulting in 

benefits to both our peoples. 

Finally, if confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to continue 

to foster and sustain our close relationship by personally reaching 

out to the Slovene Government, people, and media to explain the 

United States perspective, to promote United States policy interests, to remind young people of America’s constant support for 

peace, freedom, and human rights in Southeastern Europe and 

throughout the world. I will continue to support our embassy’s efforts to expand academic, scientific, and cultural exchanges, all of 

which will serve to bring our peoples closer together. 

129 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the people of America 

are diverse in origin, religion, and education. Yet they are almost 

universally inclusive and generous. Our way of government, even 

in the harsh light of an imperfect reality, is fair and welcoming and 

enables its citizens to live in safety and prosperity. 

I hope, as a personal mission, even in a small way to serve as 

a testament to the inclusive and generous spirit of the American 

people and our way of life. I thank you again for this opportunity 

to appear before you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ghafari follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. YOUSIF BOUTROUS GHAFARI, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to appear 

before you today as President Bush and Secretary Rice’s nominee to represent the 

United States in Slovenia. I am privileged that they have selected me to represent 

our country as ambassador to Slovenia, and honored that this committee is willing 

to consider my nomination. 

I believe that my presence here today is a testament to the power of American 

democracy. There is a reason the opportunities that are possible in this great country are referred to as the ‘‘American dream.’’ I can think of no other country in 

which the opportunities for education, economic success, and personal accomplishments are so great. I have been extraordinarily fortunate; I came here as a young 

man with very little means and no family connections, yet I had the opportunity 

to receive a good education, establish successful businesses, marry, and raise a family. We are living the American dream. And now, I have come to that point in my 

career where I hope to be granted the privilege of serving my country. 

Our bilateral relationship with Slovenia is strong and vibrant, particularly now 

since Slovenia holds the European Union Presidency for the first half of 2008. It 

is a relationship enriched by generations of Slovene-Americans and the enduring 

ties they maintain with their land of origin. 

As the first of the former Yugoslav Republics to gain independence, Slovenia plays 

a key role in the Western Balkans. It has worked long and hard to stabilize the 

entire Southeast Europe region, was the first of the former Yugoslav states to gain 

membership in NATO and the European Union, and actively contributes to regional 

security by deploying more than 350 troops to Kosovo. In its role as European Union 

President, Slovenia played a remarkable role in coalescing European support for resolution of Kosovo status and recognized Kosovo soon after its declaration of independence. 

The United States and Slovenia share the goal of European Union expansion in 

the Balkans, believing that it will further regional stabilization and development. 

As a strong, stable and economically prosperous member of the Union, Slovenia recognizes that it has both a responsibility and an interest in aiding Western Balkan 

nations to move toward greater European and transatlantic integration and has undertaken several initiatives to achieve this goal. 

One of Slovenia’s notable initiatives is the International Trust Fund for Demining 

and Mine Victims Assistance (ITF). Since its inception in 1998, the ITF has raised 

more than $220 million in donations from various countries, the European Union, 

the U.N. Development Program and more than 70 private companies. More than 

$100 million of this total has come from the U.S. Government as part of a program 

mandated by Congress that matches nearly all donations made by other governments, individuals, and corporations. As of October 2006, the fund had cleared nearly 70 million square meters of mines and aided more than 900 mine victims, most 

of them coming from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both the Slovene Embassy in Washington 

and the United States Embassy in Ljubljana have been involved in fundraising efforts for ITF. 

We have also worked side-by-side with Slovenia in the struggle against terrorism. 

Slovenia has contributed forces to the international missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, 

Lebanon, and elsewhere, and recently deployed more than 11 percent of its armed 

forces abroad. It recently increased its troop contribution in Afghanistan and has 

contributed equipment and ammunition to the Afghani Armed Forces. If confirmed, 

one of my top priorities will be to promote continued strong bilateral cooperation 

in the fight against terror and to encourage the Slovene Government to increase its 

participation in NATO missions, particularly in Afghanistan, where it could offer an 

Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team. 

130 

Slovenia’s strong economy presents many opportunities for United States businesses. There are approximately 40 United States companies with investments and/ 

or sales offices in Slovenia and it is estimated that United States investment totals 

more than $490 million. We should continue to encourage the Slovenian Government to strengthen its market economy through privatization and increased foreign 

direct investment. If confirmed, I will work to increase opportunities for U.S. companies and further expand our trade and investment, resulting in benefits to both our 

peoples. 

Finally, if confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to continue to foster and sustain our close relationship by personally reaching out to the Slovene Government, 

people and media to explain the United States perspective, to promote United States 

policy interests, to remind young people of America’s constant support for peace, 

freedom, and human rights in Southeastern Europe, and throughout the world. I 

will continue to support our embassy’s efforts to expand academic, scientific, and 

cultural exchanges, all of which will serve to bring our peoples closer together. 

Mr. Chairman, the people of America are diverse in origin, religion, and education, yet they are almost universally inclusive and generous. Our way of government, even in the harsh light of an imperfect reality, is fair and welcoming, and 

enables its citizens to live in safety and prosperity. I hope, as a personal mission, 

even in a small way, to serve as a testament to the inclusive and generous spirit 

of the American people and our way of life. I thank you again for this opportunity 

to appear before you. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. Ghafari. 

Mr. Urbancic and Ms. McEldowney, Senator Casey, I think, may 

be constrained by his schedule. So I hope you don’t mind if we go 

a little bit out of order, allow Senator Casey to introduce Mr. 

Volker and allow Mr. Volker to go ahead and make his statement. 

And then we will go back to you guys. Okay. 

Senator Casey. 

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

U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I do 

want to thank the other nominees who are here for this courtesy. 

Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct pleasure this morning to introduce Mr. Kurt Volker to the committee. Kurt with his family appears before the committee as the nominee for one of our most important diplomatic postings, the United States Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we know as 

NATO. 

The NATO alliance just completed a major summit in Bucharest, 

Romania, where the alliance agreed to accept two new members, 

Croatia and Albania, and took action on other issues, including bolstering force levels in Afghanistan. NATO, almost 60 years old following its founding, remains the anchor of the relationship between 

the United States and Europe. I believe Kurt Volker is the right 

person to represent the United States at our NATO mission in 

Brussels. 

Kurt was born and raised in Hatboro, PA. He is a proud graduate of Hatboro-Horsham Senior High School. Following high 

school, he chose to remain in Pennsylvania and attended Temple 

University in Philadelphia. Following college graduation, he moved 

to Washington, DC, to earn a master’s degree in international relations from the George Washington University. 

Kurt then entered the United States Foreign Service as a career 

officer in 1988, where he served with honor and distinction ever 

since. I want to note that Kurt is married to Karen Volker, another 

131 

Foreign Service officer, and is the proud father of two daughters, 

Sonja and Katja. Did I pronounce those correctly? 

Mr. VOLKER. Very close. 

Senator CASEY. Okay. [Laughter.] 

Help me. 

Mr. VOLKER. Sonja and Katja. 

Senator CASEY. Sonja and Katja. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, you have Kurt’s CV in front of you, as well as 

other members of the committee, so I won’t recite every detail. But 

I want to quickly run through some of the highlights of his career, 

which demonstrate how rapidly Kurt has risen through the ranks 

of the Foreign Service. 

First of all, he served as a special assistant to the United States 

envoy for negotiations in Bosnia during the 1990s; then as the deputy political counselor at the United States embassy in Budapest, 

Hungary, from 1994 to 1997; the senior advisor to then-NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson at the beginning of this decade; 

next, the director on the National Security Council responsible for 

NATO in Western Europe from 2001 to 2005; and today, Mr. 

Volker serves as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Europe and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department. 

He serves as second-in-command for this key regional bureau at 

State and is focused on U.S. relations with NATO, the European 

Union, and key European States. Looking at his background, you 

recognize that Kurt’s entire career has helped prepare him for this 

moment, to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO. He recognizes 

that NATO retains an enduring value, even though the cold war 

is a distant memory and that when NATO acts in a unified manner, the entire world benefits. 

I am also proud that Kurt represents the very best of the U.S. 

Foreign Service. A seasoned diplomat who advances the interests 

of his country without regard to politics or partisanship, Kurt has 

proudly served four presidential administrations during his career. 

He played a valuable role in helping Hungary prepare for NATO 

accession during the Clinton administration, but also was instrumental in spearheading NATO’s next two rounds of expansion during the Bush administration. 

Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, I heartily endorse Kurt 

Volker, a distinguished native of the State of Pennsylvania, to be 

confirmed as the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, and I 

thank you for allowing me to speak this morning on his behalf. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Senator Casey. 

Given that wonderful introduction, I think it is best if, Mr. 

Volker, you go ahead and proceed. And if you want to introduce— 

as a father of two daughters, I am a little biased here. But feel free 

to introduce those exceptional young ladies, as well. 

STATEMENT OF KURT D. VOLKER, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE COUNCIL OF THE 

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, WITH THE RANK 

AND STATUS OF AMBASSADOR 

Mr. VOLKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator. 

After an introduction like that, I think it is best if I don’t say anything at all. 

132 

But I would like to introduce my wife, Karen, who is here, and 

my two daughters, Sonja and Katja. Karen—Mr. Chairman, you 

will be interested—attended Occidental College from 1979 to 1981. 

Senator OBAMA. We overlapped. 

Ms. VOLKER. We had friends in common. 

Senator OBAMA. That is wonderful. 

Mr. VOLKER. Friends in common. And my oldest daughter, Sonja, 

began school in Brussels when I was working for Lord Robertson 

at NATO and was born there. 

Senator OBAMA. Wonderful. 

Mr. VOLKER. It is an honor to be here before this committee as 

the President’s nominee to serve as Permanent Representative to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and a particular honor 

also to be introduced by Senator Casey from my home State, Pennsylvania. And I am grateful that you would take the time and offer 

such words of encouragement. Thank you. 

I am also delighted, I should say, to see so many friends from 

the Diplomatic Corps from European countries here today, and I 

just want to point out Ambassador Gianni Castellaneta from Italy, 

who is a good friend. Thank you for being here and for your support. 

I have a longer statement I would like to enter into the record. 

Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased to be nominated to serve as 

Ambassador to NATO because I have dedicated my career to building a healthy, secure, democratic transatlantic community. In 20 

years in the Foreign Service, I have served four administrations 

working on our NATO alliance from many angles—the executive 

branch, I spent a year here in the Senate as a legislative fellow, 

and at NATO in some of our allied countries. 

I have worked closely with this committee and its staff on a variety of issues over the years. And I am grateful for the close cooperation that we enjoy today between the committee and the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, which I represent. This career-long commitment to NATO and to our transatlantic partnership with Europe stems from my commitment to the founding principles of our Nation—the values of individual liberty, democracy, 

market economy, human rights, and the rule of law—which transcend our national borders and define the best hopes of humanity. 

We and the other members of NATO are part of a single transatlantic democratic community based on these shared values. We 

view challenges in the world from this shared perspective, and we 

need to work together if we are to deal with these challenges effectively and advance these values in the world. 

The fact that the cold war is over does not mean that threats to 

our democratic community have gone away. They have changed 

from the threat of ground attack in Europe to threats such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the consequences of failed States. And NATO has done a remarkable job 

securing the freedom of this community for nearly 60 years while 

transforming itself as threats have changed. It has added new 

members, taken on critical operational missions, built partnerships 

with nations around the globe. NATO is now a frontline alliance 

dealing with the challenges of the 21st century. 

133 

The just-concluded Bucharest summit further advanced the 

transformation of NATO, renewing our commitment to operations 

in Afghanistan and in Kosovo, inviting new members, strengthening partnerships, and focusing on the defense capabilities needed 

for the future. We got a lot done at Bucharest. I think we have a 

lot more to do as well, and I think we need to keep working on 

some of the issues that you and the other Senators have raised. 

The United States is deeply committed to the effort in Afghanistan and to all NATO missions. We have made enormous investment, suffered serious losses. I honor the service of our men and 

women in uniform, as well as our diplomats and civilians in the 

service of NATO. 

And I also want to pay tribute to the contributions and sacrifices 

of our allies and partners. Several allies are fighting hard in Afghanistan and have suffered fatalities. Denmark and the U.K. in 

recent days. Canada, in particular, has suffered significant losses. 

And the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Australia 

as a non-NATO ally. Indeed, all 26 members of NATO and 14 partners have made sacrifices and are making meaningful contributions in Afghanistan. 

Though we still need more forces and greater flexibility in the 

deployments of some, it is important to stress that we respect and 

honor all of these contributions to our common efforts. At the Bucharest summit, allies and partners such as France, Poland, the 

Czech Republic, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and others came forward with 

contributions to our operations. 

NATO faces serious challenges on the ground in Afghanistan, but 

also in maintaining the political solidarity and the defense contributions needed for a strong and healthy alliance. If confirmed as 

U.S. Ambassador to NATO, I will focus my efforts on strengthening 

support and understanding in Europe for two fundamental ideas. 

That the prosperity and well-being of our democratic societies still 

depends critically on security, so we must invest in security. And 

that the security of Europe and North America remain fundamentally linked, so we must face our modern-day security challenges 

together. These are the challenges NATO must tackle in the coming years. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

If confirmed, I will do my very best to serve my country with distinction, and I look forward to working closely with you and this 

committee in the process. I would be pleased to hear your views 

and answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Volker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KURT D. VOLKER, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE COUNCIL OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, 

WITH THE RANK AND STATUS OF AMBASSADOR

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

It is an honor to come before this committee as the President’s nominee to serve 

as the United States Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I am grateful for the confidence expressed by President Bush and Secretary Rice through this nomination. 

I am joined here today by my wife, Karen, also a career member of the Foreign 

Service. I am also delighted to see friends here from the diplomatic corps and others 

with whom I have worked to transform NATO. Their support means a great deal 

134 

to me, and I thank them for being here. I am also grateful for the support of my 

family and others who cannot be here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased to be nominated to serve as Ambassador 

to NATO because I have dedicated my career to building a secure transatlantic community, based on shared democratic values. 

In 20 years in the Foreign Service, I have served four administrations, advancing 

our agenda for NATO—at our embassies in the United Kingdom and Hungary; as 

a legislative fellow here in the United States Senate; at the U.S. Mission to NATO 

and in the NATO Secretary General’s Private Office; at the National Security Council; and currently as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau 

of European and Eurasian Affairs. In this latter capacity, I am proud to have 

worked closely with this committee on a variety of issues and am grateful for the 

close relationship between the committee and the European Bureau. 

I am committed to NATO and to our transatlantic partnership because I am committed to the founding principles of our Nation—the values of individual liberty, democracy, market economy, human rights, and the rule of law. These are principles 

which transcend our national borders and define the best hopes of humanity. We 

and the other members of NATO are part of a single transatlantic community, 

based on these shared democratic values. 

Those of us who are a part of this community view security challenges in the 

world from the shared perspective of our values. We know that we need to work 

together if we are to deal with these challenges effectively, and to continue to advance these enduring values in the world. 

NATO’s defense of freedom helped to end the cold war. Yet the end of the cold 

war did not mean the end of threats to our democratic community. The strategic 

landscape has changed and NATO has changed with it. To be sure, NATO’s core 

mission remains the collective defense of its members. But the means by which 

NATO goes about this mission have changed dramatically over time. 

NATO is now in the process of learning how to defend our transatlantic community against new threats and challenges that are often global in scope—threats such 

as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the consequences 

of failed states. 

In its nearly 60-year history NATO has served as: 

• Our defense of freedom against the Soviet threat, leading eventually to the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the birth of a Europe whole and free. 

• The military force that ended ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and kept the 

peace so democratic governance could emerge. 

• The driver for democratic progress in Central Europe, admitting 10 new allies 

since the fall of the Berlin wall—and deciding to admit still more at the Bucharest Summit last week. 

• A core security organization building partnerships with dozens of nations 

around the world. 

• A front-line alliance in dealing with the 21st century challenges of terrorism 

and extremism—for example, by conducting counterterrorism operations in the 

Mediterranean, or running the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 

mission in Afghanistan. 

The Bucharest Summit further advanced NATO’s transformation, by renewing 

our commitment to operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo, inviting new members, 

setting a vision of future membership for others, strengthening partnerships across 

the globe, and focusing on the defense capabilities needed for the future, including 

missile defense. 

NATO’s most important operational challenge is in Afghanistan. The United 

States is deeply committed to the long-term effort in Afghanistan. We have made 

enormous investments in blood and treasure. I honor the service of our men and 

women in uniform, as well as our diplomats and civilians. I respect enormously the 

families who sacrifice so their loved ones can contribute to meeting these important 

challenges. 

I also want to pay tribute to the contributions and sacrifices of our allies and partners in Afghanistan. They are fighting hard, especially in the East and South, and 

have suffered significant casualties—Denmark and the U.K. in recent days, but also 

Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and others. All 26 allies, along with 14 nonNATO partners, have troops in Afghanistan. All are playing a vital role, and all are 

determined to see this mission through to success. 

At the Bucharest Summit, allies endorsed a strategic vision for Afghanistan that 

reaffirms their long-term commitment to build an enduring, stable, secure, prosperous, and democratic Afghan state, free from the threat of terrorism. Many allies 

backed up these words with deeds by announcing new force contributions. 

135 

Most notably, though by no means alone, President Sarkozy announced that 

France will send a new battalion to Eastern Afghanistan, freeing some United 

States troops to do more to help allies in the South. In addition to the French contribution and the temporary addition of 3,500 United States Marines, United Kingdom, Polish, Czech and other additions bring the total to about 6,000 new forces so 

far in 2008. 

That said, all allies must do still more to provide the combat troops, helicopters, 

and trainers crucial to winning this counterinsurgency fight. Allies must also make 

serious efforts to ensure their citizens understand that the mission matters, success 

is within reach, and humanitarian assistance is possible only in a secure environment. 

NATO faces real challenges, operationally on the ground, as well as politically in 

Europe. Violence levels are up, particularly in southern Afghanistan where opium 

production is also largest. Many Europeans are skeptical about the Afghanistan 

mission—people either believe it does not matter to them, that success is out of 

reach, or that humanitarian assistance alone should be enough. We are working 

with our NATO partners to clarify the mission and its importance. As agreed in the 

common vision statement issued at the Bucharest Summit, we are building a shared 

NATO counterinsurgency strategy that provides for population security, real economic development, and progress in governance. Civil-military coordination can and 

should be better, and we welcome the naming of a new U.N. Special Representative, 

Kai Eide, who will bring greater coherence to our international civilian efforts. The 

narcotics trade fuels the insurgency and fosters corruption, making all other efforts 

an uphill struggle. NATO allies can do more to help the Afghans lead their own 

counternarcotics strategy. 

In acknowledging the serious challenges, we also must recognize our achievements. Working with our Afghan allies, NATO forces thwarted the Taliban’s muchhyped ‘‘spring offensive’’ last year. Allies and partners are helping the Afghans build 

capacity so they can improve good governance and increasingly stand themselves at 

the forefront of security operations. 

It is easy to forget the gains made since 2001. Under the Taliban, there were only 

900,000 kids in school—none of them girls, because it was illegal. Only 8 percent 

of the population had access to medical care. There were only 50 kilometers of paved 

roads. The Taliban imposed a dark and severe regime on the people of Afghanistan, 

while terrorists were allowed to train and export their violence and extremism to 

other countries. 

Today, there are nearly 6 million kids in school—over 1.5 million of them girls. 

Over 65 percent of the population has access to medical care, and there are over 

4,000 kilometers of paved roads. The government was elected by 8 million Afghan 

voters, on the basis of a constitution approved through an open process, a Loya 

Jirga. 

To be sure—the challenges in Afghanistan are great, and success will take time. 

But we are doing the right thing in Afghanistan, we are making progress, and we 

should continue. 

NATO’s other major operation is in Kosovo, where NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR) 

remains the ultimate guarantor of peace and stability for all people in Kosovo, with 

nearly 16,000 personnel from 35 allied and non-NATO troop contributing nations. 

It was NATO that ended ethnic cleansing not only in Kosovo but in the wider Balkans, and it has kept the peace that has enabled democratic governance to emerge. 

At the recently concluded Bucharest Summit, NATO recommitted itself to helping 

ensure a safe and secure environment and declared its intention to play a key role 

in the establishment of a new, multiethnic Kosovo Security Force and a civilian 

agency to oversee it. 

NATO has played, and will continue to play other vital operational roles-from its 

role in securing peace in Bosnia (which has now been passed on to the European 

Union), to counterterrorist naval operations in the Mediterranean, to offering support for African Union forces in Darfur and transporting humanitarian supplies to 

Pakistan after a major earthquake, and Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. 

One of the fundamental principles of the alliance is that the door to membership 

is open to those European democracies who wish to pursue it. The enlargement 

process has been and remains a driving force for countries to focus on difficult reforms. The United States must continue to provide leadership and clarity of purpose 

in expanding the alliance to advance the goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. 

NATO enlargement has been a historic success—securing freedom, democracy, 

and burgeoning prosperity for 100 million people in Central and Eastern Europe, 

and strengthening NATO in the process. 

In Bucharest, allies reiterated the importance and success of NATO’s open door 

policy. Membership invitations were issued to Albania and Croatia, marking an hisVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
136 

toric occasion for security and stability in the Balkans. Allies also determined that 

Macedonia is ready to receive an invitation as soon as the name issue is resolved. 

We hope this is done as quickly as possible. We look forward to working in close 

cooperation with the Senate as we seek its advice and consent to the ratification 

of the protocols of accession for each of the invitees, which are to be signed by July 

2008. 

Allies provided an unprecedented commitment to Ukraine and Georgia, stating 

unequivocally that these countries will become members of NATO. They welcomed 

their request to participate in the Membership Action Plan (MAP). Allies recognized 

that the MAP process will benefit reform efforts and authorized foreign ministers 

to review and take decisions on their MAP participation in December 2008. We 

must continue to support their aspirations. 

Allies also invited Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, to begin an intensified dialog relating to their membership aspirations and conveyed their desire to develop a closer relationship with Serbia. NATO’s cooperation with these countries 

will further increase stability in the western Balkans. 

To further secure freedom and democracy, NATO is also strengthening its relationships with partners across the globe and the developing of new capabilities, such 

as missile defense, energy security, and cyber defense. 

When the wall fell in 1989, NATO was an alliance of 16 members and no partners. Today, NATO has 26 members—with 2 new invitees, prospective membership 

for others, over 20 partners in Europe and Eurasia, 7 in the Mediterranean, 4 in 

the Persian Gulf, and others from around the globe. 

Through the creation of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Partnership for Peace, NATO provided the political and practical cooperation necessary to 

help the newly independent nations of Europe integrate into the transatlantic community. 

NATO has also established the Mediterranean Dialog and Istanbul Cooperation 

Initiative to reach out to the Middle East, and reached out to new partners around 

the world on the basis of shared security interests and democratic values. Australia, 

Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and now Singapore are making valuable contributions to NATO operations, especially in Afghanistan, and the alliance decided 

at Bucharest to remain open to developing relationships with additional countries. 

It is also vital that NATO work effectively with international organizations such 

as the European Union and United Nations. A capable and united European Union 

is in NATO’s interest. We recognize the value that a stronger and more capable European defense brings, providing capabilities to address common challenges, and 

support NATO and the European Union working closely together. We also need to 

work as closely as possible with the United Nations, particularly in U.N.-mandated, 

NATO-led operations as in the Balkans and Afghanistan. 

In Iraq, NATO provides leadership training to Iraqi Security Forces to help establish a more secure environment. The NATO training mission in Iraq is looking to 

broaden its training mission in response to Prime Minister Maliki’s requests. Allies 

have also agreed to proposals for a structured cooperation framework to develop 

NATO’s long-term relationship with Iraq. 

NATO is committed to building a relationship where NATO and Russia can work 

together to address common interests such as nonproliferation, counterterrorism, 

and border controls and counternarcotics with respect to Afghanistan. We welcomed 

Russia’s most recent offer of a mechanism for transiting nonmilitary freight through 

Russian territory in support of ISAF. 

On other issues such as Kosovo, missile defense, and the Conventional Armed 

Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), serious differences remain. On CFE, NATO has endorsed the U.S. parallel actions package, which we believe can ensure the viability 

of this important security regime. 

We are working hard to develop the capabilities needed for a new century-the 

NATO Response Force, the C–17 consortium, the Special Forces coordination, and 

steps toward NATO missile defenses. At Bucharest, allies recognized that ballistic 

missile proliferation poses an increasing threat; that missile defense forms part of 

a broader response to counter this threat; and that the U.S. system will make a substantial contribution to protecting alliance territories and populations. NATO will 

continue its work on missile defense, and also with Russia as well, in order to provide more effective defenses for all alliance territory. 

A NATO Cyber Defense Policy, endorsed at Bucharest, enhances our ability to 

protect our sensitive infrastructure, allows pool experiences, and come to the assistance of an ally whose infrastructure is under threat. I thank Senators on this committee for focusing attention on this issue following the cyber attacks against Estonia. 

137 

NATO’s role in energy security, noted at Bucharest, will help address threats to 

energy infrastructure and in order to better safeguard the security interests of the 

allies. I appreciate the leadership of Senators on this committee for their involvement in energy security and believe NATO is building a response to the concerns 

you have raised. 

NATO faces genuine challenges, as it always has. The strength and enduring 

character of the alliance comes from our ability to face these challenges together. 

As Winston Churchill said, ‘‘the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting 

without them.’’ 

If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to NATO, I will work to strengthen support and 

understanding in Europe for two fundamental ideas: 

• That the prosperity and well-being of our democratic societies still depends 

critically on security, so we must invest in security. 

• That the security of Europe and North America remain fundamentally linked, 

so we must face our modern-day security challenges together. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. If confirmed, I will 

do my very best to serve my country with distinction and to work closely with you 

and this committee. 

I look forward to listening to your views, and to responding to any questions you 

and the members of the committee may have. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Urbancic. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK URBANCIC, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS 

Mr. URBANCIC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me say, too, that I today am honored to be supported 

here by my wife and lifetime partner, Michelle; our two children, 

Frank and Arlette; and most importantly perhaps, my father and 

mother from Indianapolis, who have driven here to join us today. 

So we are very honored to have the presence of Senator Lugar. 

It is also a great privilege for me to be nominated by the President to serve as the next Ambassador of the United States to the 

Republic of Cyprus. And if confirmed, I will do everything in my 

power to justify that trust as well as that of Secretary Rice in sending forward my nomination. 

At the outset, I would also note my intention to heed an admonishment of the ancient stoic philosopher from Cyprus, Zeno of 

Kition, who said famously that the reason we have two ears and 

one mouth is that we may listen more and speak less. I will keep 

my comments brief. 

May I also say that I am honored to be here Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you very much for calling us here to speak about our countries. 

I personally have spent 27 years in the Foreign Service, deepening my understanding of the issues in the basin of the East Mediterranean and the risks that its people face. I have a deep and 

abiding interest in Cyprus, and from this background, I have a 

keen awareness of the role that the United Nations in Cyprus can 

play and that what a positive role multilateral diplomacy can play 

in bringing about healing of deep political divides. 

In graduate school, I specialized in Byzantine studies, with a 

particular interest in Orthodox Church history. From that study, as 

well as my work in the region, I have come to understand the 

unique position that Cyprus has always held throughout its own 

history. 

138 

There was a time when I could translate Aristotle. Those days 

are gone, unfortunately, but I will try to get them back. And my 

time in Istanbul has also given me the opportunity to speak another great language of this region. If confirmed, I intend to use 

this familiarity with the languages of both the Greek Cypriot and 

Turkish Cypriot communities to support efforts to reunite the island. 

We need to establish there and—we need to work with the leadership of that island to create a bizonal, bicommunal federation. 

Reunification of Cyprus under these long-agreed principles will 

allow its communities to realize the full potential of their own history. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with all members of the 

committee, and your views are very important to me. And I would 

like to work closely with you in the future to deepen United StatesCypriot—the United States-Cypriot relationship, building upon the 

work of my predecessors, of course. 

The United States and Cyprus have many shared interests and 

ties. I have learned that Cyprus, for example, is one of the, if not 

the largest per capita participant in the Fulbright program anywhere in the world. Cyprus was the first European Union country 

to sign a shipboarding agreement with the United States under the 

Proliferation Security Initiative. 

Our countries are working together to safeguard Cypriot cultural 

heritage, prevent pillaging, and stop the illegal trafficking in the 

sale of antiquities. I look forward to seeking new opportunities to 

expand our partnerships and to further our mutual understanding. 

If confirmed, I realize I will be accredited to one government. 

That is the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. The United 

States does not recognize any other state on the island. That said, 

we need to engage the Turkish Cypriot community. We need to 

help them prepare for reunification by strengthening their NGOs 

and reducing economic disparities across the island. We also need 

to urge them to combat money laundering and to counter possible 

terrorist threats. If confirmed, I will ensure the U.S. assistance 

program continues to support one overarching aim, and that is reconciliation between the two communities and reunification. 

If confirmed, I will pursue one of the administration’s policy priorities—a comprehensive Cyprus settlement. The de facto division 

of that country pains Greek Cypriots and it pains Turkish Cypriots, 

and it damages United States strategic interests in the region. The 

dysfunctional and unacceptable status quo also threatens effective 

NATO-European Union defense cooperation, and it remains an obstacle for Greek-Turkish relations. 

Currently, though, there is room for guarded optimism. Many see 

2008 as a year of opportunity for Cyprus. Both community leaders 

state that they want the same thing. They have the same goal. 

They want a bizonal, bicommunal federation, and the U.N., with 

strong American support, is considering reinvigorated settlement 

efforts. 

Negotiating the details of a bizonal, bicommunal federation will 

be a difficult task, of course. Both sides will need strong leadership, 

and they undoubtedly will have to make hard decisions and settle 

for some probably painful compromises. A federation, however, 

139 

with a single international sovereignty enjoying European Union 

membership, peace, and prosperity is achievable, and I hope to 

help advance it, if confirmed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Urbancic follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK URBANCIC, JR., NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO

THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be with you here today. It is my great honor to be nominated by President 

Bush to serve as the next Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Cyprus, and, if confirmed, I will do everything in my power to justify that trust, as 

well as that of Secretary Rice in sending forward my nomination. 

At the outset, I would note my intention to heed an admonishment of the ancient 

Stoic philosopher from Cyprus, Zeno of Kition, who said, ‘‘The reason we have two 

ears but only one mouth, is that we may learn more and speak less.’’ I will keep 

my comments brief. May I also say that I am honored to be supported here today 

by my wife and lifetime partner, Michelle, our two children, Frank and Arlette, and 

my parents visiting us from Indiana. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent 27 years in the Foreign Service, deepening my understanding of issues in the basin of the east Mediterranean and the risks that its people face. I have a deep and abiding interest in Cyprus, its people, and the politics 

and history of the region. I served at the U.S. mission to the United Nations during 

the first gulf war, and, in addition, I was Senior Adviser in that mission for Eastern 

European Affairs after my return to the United States from the second gulf war. 

From those experiences, I have a keen awareness of the role of the United Nations 

in Cyprus and the role that multilateral diplomacy can play in bridging deep political divides. 

In graduate school, I specialized in Byzantine studies, with a particular interest 

in Orthodox Church history. Because of that study, as well as my work in the region, I have come to understand the unique position that Cyprus has always held 

throughout its history. Cyprus has long played a role as a multicultural crossroad 

of history and civilization, and this remains true today. There was a time when I 

could translate Aristotle, and my time in Istanbul has also given me the opportunity 

to speak another great language of this region. I intend to use this familiarity with 

the languages of both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities to support efforts to reunite the country into a bizonal, bicommunal federation. Reunification of Cyprus under these long-agreed principles will allow its communities to realize the full potential that history has long foreseen for this beautiful and historically 

rich island. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with all members of the committee. Your 

views are important to me, and I would like to work closely with you to deepen the 

United States-Cypriot relationship, building upon the work of my predecessors. 

The United States and Cyprus have many shared interests and ties. I was pleased 

to learn that more than 3,000 Cypriots have studied in the United States under U.S. 

Government-sponsored academic exchange programs, including the Fulbright Program—one of the largest, if not the largest, per capita rate in the world. Cyprus 

was the first European Union country to sign a ship boarding agreement with us 

under the Proliferation Security Initiative—a significant provision given that Cyprus has the eleventh largest merchant fleet in the world. Our countries are working together to safeguard Cypriot cultural heritage, prevent pillaging, and stop the 

illegal trafficking and sale of antiquities. I also expect that the nearly 15,000 American citizens who transited Cyprus in the summer of 2006, as they were evacuated 

from Lebanon, will long remember the generosity and gracious reception they were 

given by the Cypriot people. I look forward to seeking new opportunities to expand 

our partnerships and further our mutual understanding. 

If confirmed, I realize I will be accredited to one government, that of the Republic 

of Cyprus. The United States does not recognize any other state on the island. That 

said, we need to engage the Turkish Cypriot community. We need to help them prepare for reunification by strengthening their NGOs and reducing economic disparities across the island. We also need to urge them to combat money laundering and 

counter possible terrorist threats. For all our programs, I will ensure U.S. assistance 

continues to support one overarching aim—reconciliation and reunification. 

If confirmed, I will pursue one of the administration’s policy priorities—a comprehensive Cyprus settlement. The de facto division of the country pains Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and damages United States strategic interests in the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
140 

gion. The dysfunctional and unacceptable status quo also threatens effective NATOEuropean Union defense cooperation and remains an obstacle for Greek-Turkish relations. Furthermore, I am sure both communities would agree that Turkey, a key 

NATO ally, would be better off anchored to Europe through European Union membership. Yet the continued impasse on Cyprus negatively affects all these considerations. Many outside observers have increasingly asserted that in the absence of a 

settlement in the near future, the world will accept a de facto division ad infinitum. 

This would be a bad outcome, and one we should all strenuously seek to avoid. 

Currently, though, there is room for guarded optimism. Many see 2008 as a year 

of opportunity for Cyprus. Both community leaders state they want the same goal— 

a bizonal, bicommunal federation, and the U.N., with strong American support, is 

considering reinvigorated settlement efforts. Negotiating the details of a bizonal, 

bicommunal federation, such as governmental structure, administrative and territorial jurisdictions, security considerations, and property disputes will be a difficult 

task. Both sides will need strong leadership and undoubtedly have to make hard 

decisions and settle for some possibly painful compromises, but the goal will be 

worthwhile—a federation, with a single international sovereignty, enjoying European Union membership, peace, and prosperity. That goal is achievable, and I hope 

to help advance it, if confirmed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any questions. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you. 

Ms. McEldowney. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY E. MCELDOWNEY, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA 

Ms. MCELDOWNEY. Good morning. I am very pleased to state 

that I am joined today by family members who have traveled to 

visit me all over the world in the course of my Foreign Service career. They have also traveled here to Capitol Hill from Philadelphia 

today. My sister and brother-in-law, Heidi Hayes and Richard 

Johnson, their son, Nicolas Johnson, as well as family friend, 

Elaine Jones. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am deeply honored 

to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the 

next American Ambassador to Bulgaria. I am grateful for the confidence expressed by President Bush and Secretary Rice through 

this nomination, and I ask today, with respect and humility, for 

your confidence, as well. 

If I am confirmed, I pledge to validate your trust by advancing 

our Nation’s interests in Bulgaria and throughout the region. I also 

pledge to work closely with this committee and your congressional 

colleagues in pursuing our common objectives and shared agenda. 

My appearance before this committee today is the culmination of 

more than two decades of public service as an American diplomat. 

Patriotism and service to Nation have shaped my life and the lives 

of my entire family. My father was a member of the United States 

Marine Corps. My husband served 26 years as a pilot in the United 

States Air Force. And my younger brother, now a lieutenant colonel 

in the Air Force, recently concluded a deployment to Afghanistan. 

I have spent my entire adult life working to protect and advance 

our country’s interests as a professional diplomat. I have served 

overseas in Europe, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union. 

Here at home, I have worked in the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and on the staff of the National Security 

Council. 

I have served as deputy chief of mission in two embassies and 

have frequently functioned as acting chief of mission. These experiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
141 

ences have helped prepared me for the responsibilities and challenges that I will face if confirmed for this position. 

Since this committee voted 3 years ago to confirm our current 

ambassador, a number of important developments have taken 

place. Bulgarian and American soldiers are now exercising together 

inside Bulgaria, and we are now deployed side by side in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Bulgaria is now a member of both 

the European Union and the NATO alliance, following the achievement of important domestic reforms and sustained economic 

growth, fueled in part by the generous assistance allocated by this 

Congress as well as by the active involvement of United States 

companies. 

These are impressive accomplishments, and they illustrate the 

vibrancy and potential of our bilateral relationship. But as many 

members of this committee have noted, there is still more to be 

done. Bulgaria still suffers from pervasive corruption and organized 

crime that undermines public confidence in its institutions. The 

Balkan region is still burdened with instability. European energy 

supplies still lack sufficient diversity and security. And there is 

still more that the United States and Bulgaria can do together to 

advance our common strategic interests. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my top priority will be to protect the 

security of the United States and our citizens, including American 

facilities and personnel in Bulgaria. I will work together with a talented team of civilian and military professionals at our embassy in 

Sofia to advance American interests in five key areas. 

We will deepen our cooperation in combating terrorism, proliferation, and other forms of transnational crime. We will advance stability throughout the Balkans to help this long-troubled region 

enjoy peace and prosperity as part of an undivided Euro-Atlantic 

community. We will promote the security and diversity of energy 

supplies, building upon Bulgaria’s strategic location as a key transit route across the European continent. We will catalyze unfinished legal and judicial reforms, supporting the Bulgarian Government’s own efforts to combat corruption and promote the rule of 

law. And finally, we will expand our trade and economic cooperation, increasing commercial opportunities for U.S. companies. 

This is an ambitious agenda. But I believe it is one that can be 

achieved through concerted effort and joint action. Bulgaria is a 

government that is firmly committed to the principles and practices 

of democracy and free market economy. It has made significant 

progress in domestic reform in international engagement and is determined to continue these efforts. 

As a bilateral partner, a NATO ally, and a genuine friend to the 

United States, Bulgaria is a country of great importance and bright 

promise. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will do my utmost to maintain the distinguished record of service by the men and women who 

held this position before me. I will strive unceasingly to advance 

American interests and promote American values. 

I thank you again for the honor of appearing before you today, 

and I look forward to answering any questions that you may wish 

to pose. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McEldowney follows:] 

142 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY E. MCELDOWNEY, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO

THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

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

today as the President’s nominee to be the next American Ambassador to Bulgaria. 

I am grateful for the confidence expressed by President Bush and Secretary Rice 

through this nomination. I ask today, with respect and humility, for your confidence 

as well. If I am confirmed, I pledge to validate your trust by advancing our Nation’s 

interests in Bulgaria and throughout the region. I also commit myself to work closely with this committee and your congressional colleagues in pursuing our common 

objectives and shared agenda. 

Mr. Chairman, my appearance before this committee today is the culmination of 

more than two decades of public service as an American diplomat. Patriotism and 

service to the Nation have shaped my life and my family. My father was a member 

of the United States Marine Corps. My husband served 26 years as a pilot in the 

United States Air Force. And my younger brother, now a lieutenant colonel in the 

Air Force, recently concluded a tour of duty in Afghanistan. 

I have spent my entire adult life working to protect and advance our country’s 

interests as a professional diplomat. I have served overseas in Europe, the Middle 

East, and the former Soviet Union. Here at home, I have worked in the Department 

of State, the Department of Defense, and on the staff of the National Security Council. I have served as Deputy Chief of Mission in two embassies and have frequently 

functioned as Acting Chief of Mission. These diverse experiences have helped prepare me for the responsibilities and challenges that I will face if confirmed for this 

position. 

Since this committee voted 3 years ago to confirm our current ambassador, a 

number of important developments have taken place: 

• In April 2006, the United States and Bulgaria signed a defense cooperation 

agreement authorizing United States military units to train at specified Bulgarian bases. The first exercise under this agreement took place in September 

2007. This summer, approximately 1,000 United States and Bulgarian land 

forces will train together. Over the next 12 months, the U.S. Air Force will conduct three training events with approximately 250 U.S. service members each. 

• In January 2007, Bulgaria became a member of the European Union. This followed Bulgaria’s entry into the NATO alliance in March 2004. Taken together, 

these represent the culmination of a process of democratization and reform that 

began over 19 years ago with the fall of communism and single party rule in 

1989. 

• Bulgaria is a member of the coalition in Iraq and a contributor to the NATO 

effort in Afghanistan. Bulgarian soldiers are deployed side by side with us at 

Camp Ashraf in Iraq; and in ISAF operations in Kandahar, Kabul and Herat, 

Afghanistan. Bulgarian soldiers also participate in NATO, European Union and 

U.N. peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, and Ethiopia. 

• With the support of United States assistance monies generously allocated by 

this Congress, Bulgaria has accomplished important reforms in economic development, local governance, and national institutions, including the establishment 

of the American University in Bulgaria and the National Institute of Justice, 

one of the premier Eastern European training centers for judges and prosecutors. 

• Trade and investment between the United States and Bulgaria has surged, as 

the Bulgarian economy has grown more than 5 percent annually for the past 

5 years. In 2007, bilateral trade totaled almost $1 billion and cumulative investment by American companies is estimated at more than $5.5 billion. 

These are impressive accomplishments that illustrate the vibrancy and vast potential of the bilateral partnership between our two countries. But there is still 

more to be done. Bulgaria still suffers from pervasive corruption and organized 

crime that undermines public confidence in its institutions. The Balkan region is 

still burdened with instability, as we have seen recently in Serbia and Kosovo. European energy supplies still lack sufficient security and diversity. And there is still 

more that the United States and Bulgaria can do together to advance our common 

strategic interests. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my top priority will be to protect the security of the 

United States and our citizens, including American facilities and personnel in Bulgaria. I will work together with the talented interagency team of civilian and military professionals at our embassy in Sofia to advance American interests in key 

areas: 

143 

• We will broaden and deepen our cooperation in combating terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, trafficking in persons and narcotics, 

and other forms of transnational crime. • We will work to advance stability and security throughout the Balkans, to help 

this long-troubled region enjoy peace and prosperity as part of an undivided 

Euro-Atlantic community. • We will promote the security and diversity of energy supplies, building upon 

Bulgaria’s strategic location as a key transit route across the European continent. 

We will catalyze unfinished legal and judicial reforms, supporting the Bulgarian 

Government’s own efforts to combat corruption and organized crime, and to promote 

good governance, public trust, and the rule of law. • We will expand our trade and economic cooperation, increasing commercial opportunities for United States companies and stimulating sustainable growth in 

the Bulgarian economy. 

This is an ambitious agenda but one that can be achieved through concerted effort 

and joint action. Bulgaria is a country that is firmly committed to the principles and 

practices of democracy and free market economy. It has made significant progress 

in both domestic reform and international engagement, and the government is determined to continue these efforts. As a bilateral partner, a NATO ally and a genuine friend of the United States, Bulgaria is a country of importance and promise. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will do my utmost to maintain the distinguished 

record of service by the men and women who held this position before me. I will 

strive unceasingly to advance American interests and promote American values. 

I thank you again for the honor of appearing before you today. I would be delighted to answer any questions that you may wish to pose. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, all of you, for your opening statements. 

What I would like to do now, we have approximately an hour, 

and we have six Senators present. So what I would like to do is 

allocate 7-minute rounds to each Senator. And if we have sufficient 

time afterwards, then we can maybe go to a second round, if that 

is agreeable to other members of the committee. 

Well, let me start with you, Mr. Volker. Obviously, a lot of your 

work is in the newspapers or will be in the newspapers. People are 

paying a lot of attention to what is happening in NATO right now. 

Secretary Gates said in February that lingering European anger 

over Iraq has undermined our efforts to marshal allied support to 

win the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Obviously, we made some—the President was able to make some 

progress in Bucharest, but as Senator Lugar noted, some of the 

constraints that continue to be placed on the operations there are 

of continuing concern. 

Certainly, we appreciate all the work that has been done by our 

NATO allies. But it does appear as if we continue to be resourcestrapped in Afghanistan. I am curious, do you agree with the assessment of Secretary Gates that Iraq still is causing turbulence 

within the NATO alliance and our actions in Afghanistan? If so, do 

you have any thoughts on how we might correct that? 

Mr. VOLKER. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I share Secretary Gates’s 

view that public opinion in Europe, I think, has in some ways 

conflated the conflict in Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan. They 

see the violence. They see the extremists, the terrorist attacks, 

IEDs, suicide bombers, and they do see that this is a terrible thing 

to be involved in. And I think that it is difficult for many of our 

European allies and their governments to build and sustain public 

support for their participation in Afghanistan. 

That said, I would say the resources dedicated to Afghanistan 

have grown considerably as NATO has expanded the mission. In 

144 

2003, NATO took over ISAF when it was only in Kabul and only 

about 4,000 people. We currently have ISAF throughout the whole 

country with about 47,000 people. So every time we have expanded 

the mission, we have expanded the requirements, and then NATO 

allies have contributed more toward meeting those requirements. 

We have never made 100 percent, but we have seen a significant 

progress over time. 

I think that what is critical is to remind people that Afghanistan 

has its own storyline that is an important and compelling one, and 

that the security and the well-being of our societies actually depends upon what we do in Afghanistan. And the Afghan people 

want us there and want us to help. The last poll I saw showed 75 

percent of Afghans supporting the presence of foreign troops there 

to help provide security so they can get on with the business of 

building a stronger, more stable country. 

And then, finally, we are making progress in Afghanistan, and 

I think that is visible. So when you look at health care, education, 

road building, the economy, there has been a lot of progress made 

in Afghanistan since the Taliban was in power. We faced daunting 

challenges in Afghanistan with the insurgency, with narcotics, with 

governance. We have to focus on these, and we do need more resources and to work more with the allies. But I think we need to 

recapture and reexplain the storyline a little bit about what is 

going on with Afghanistan and why it is critical that our mission 

there succeed. 

Senator OBAMA. While I think that Senator Lugar is probably 

going to pursue this further, because I know he mentioned it in his 

opening statement, I would like for you also to just comment on the 

apparent or potential influence, at least, of Russia in putting a 

pause button on MAP for two important actors in the region. Can 

you comment at this point in terms of how you see that playing 

itself out? Do you get an impression that the other NATO members 

will be more open to the moving forward of those two countries 

next year? 

Mr. VOLKER. Well, let me state clearly up front that we strongly 

support a membership action plans for Ukraine and Georgia and 

work very hard within the alliance to try to gain consensus on that. 

There wasn’t consensus in NATO. There were some allies who objected to that, and we were concerned about the very issue that you 

and Senator Lugar are raising, that Russia somehow is either exercising a veto or at least intimidating NATO out of making decisions. 

So there were two things that NATO did, I think, to make clear 

that we reject that idea of a Russian veto. The first was in the 

NATO communique that was issued at Bucharest. There was a 

clear statement that decisions on enlargement are for NATO itself 

to make and made that very clear. The second thing is that while 

not offering a Membership Action Plan, NATO made an unprecedented statement simply to say that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO. 

And as someone who has worked on previous rounds of NATO 

enlargement—the Madrid summit in 1997, Prague in 2002—we 

had always reserved our position about invitations until the actual 

moment. And in order to make clear that Russia is not exercising 

145 

that kind of influence, the alliance decided that it would state very 

forthrightly that Ukraine and Georgia will become members. 

Senator OBAMA. Good. My final question I am going to direct to 

you, Ms. Barrett. And that is, as we noted, Finland—although 

there is extraordinary cooperation between the two countries and 

they are a strong ally—is one of the few countries that is in the 

European Union, but not in NATO. And I am wondering if you 

want to comment on where the NATO debate in Finland stands 

now? Should the United States be trying to move or encourage Finland’s membership in NATO or off the status quo? What is your 

take on that? 

Ms. BARRETT. The Americans with great respect for NATO, we 

think it would be beneficial for Finland and for NATO for Finland 

to be a part of it. But it will be a choice of Finland and the people 

of Finland whether or not they would become a part of NATO. 

It is something that the Finns have demonstrated some attention 

to. We think it would bring greater strength to NATO if they were 

a part of it. 

Senator OBAMA. Okay. Mr. Volker, do you have any comments on 

that? 

Mr. VOLKER. I would just add to what my colleague said. Finland 

is making substantial contributions to NATO missions already. 

They are very valuable contributions. I think if the Finns chose to 

become allies, they would make great allies. But it is a choice for 

the people and Government of Finland to make. 

Senator OBAMA. Good. Okay. I will actually give up 15 seconds 

just to set a good example. 

Let me turn it over to Senator Lugar. 

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

Mr. Urbancic, I am delighted that you have strong Hoosier representation here today and great Hoosier roots. And therefore, I 

will direct my first questions to you. 

You are a veteran of service on Cyprus. You very carefully in 

your statement said that you were accredited to one government 

there. But at the same time, you pointed out the imperative that 

you would pursue the administration’s goal of trying to bring about 

a comprehensive Cyprus settlement. 

Since this is not a new subject for you and your entire career has 

informed you, really, of the dilemmas here, how do you intend to 

proceed? Really, what are the avenues that might lead you to optimism that during your tenure these objectives might advance? 

Mr. URBANCIC. Thank you, Senator. And yes, I am a very strong 

Hoosier, and we still live there, and I am really glad that my parents were able to join us. We take the kids back as often as we can. 

I think that the great thing is that we are truly at a point where 

there may be a true opportunity for a final settlement of this terrible problem. Yes, there is one government, which is recognized 

internationally, and that is the government that the United States 

deals with. But there are two communities, and it is those two communities that have to overcome their own estrangement, one from 

the other. 

The truly great story is that they are doing that. They are doing 

that on their own because it is important to them and because reunification is something that they think is in their interests. And 

146 

I think that the best that we can do and what I would certainly 

do, if confirmed, is to continue to support that effort, them directly, 

then the United Nations supporting them. And the United Nations 

is, as you know, undertaking an assessment right now to see how 

the U.N. can best contribute. And then us, with our other allies, 

supporting that U.N. effort. 

But the most important thing is that the two sides themselves 

are intimately engaged. There will be times when our own good offices, I think, will be valuable. And at those points, I will hope to 

have established good relationships with the leadership on both 

sides to allow them to make the tough decisions that they are certainly going to have to make on behalf of their two communities. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I hope in those good offices that you will 

encourage appropriate citizens in the United States to be helpful 

to you, obviously including the State Department, Members of Congress, and others. This is an important objective, both for Cyprus 

as well as for our ongoing relationships with Greece and with Turkey. 

This is well known to you, but I just wanted to take this opportunity at the confirmation hearing to underline the importance for 

all three countries—Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. We look forward 

to your leadership in that regard. 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Ghafari, to follow up on an important 

point that you made, and that is that recently Slovenia has deployed more than 11 percent of its armed forces abroad. This is an 

abnormal percentage for most European countries. As a matter of 

fact, many of us have visited with NATO allies and regretted that 

they have such a small expeditionary force. And therefore, even as 

we exhort them to do more in Afghanistan or elsewhere, the wherewithal to do so in terms of personnel quite apart from logistics is 

not present. 

What explains this? Why this boost to 11 percent? And is this a 

special reach-out to the rest of Europe, to the United States, or how 

would you explain this activity? 

Mr. GHAFARI. Senator, thank you for this question. I believe that 

the reason Slovenia—and that is my understanding at this point, 

is that they really want to be a good example for the rest of the 

region. And I think they have demonstrated that economically and 

fiscally, and what they have done with the armed forces, I think, 

is just an extension of that. 

They are a strong ally of ours. They believe in the global agenda, 

the issues we face as it relates to terror and what that has to do 

with the world. And I think that is what they have tried to do with 

expanding their troops to the 11 percent that you just mentioned, 

Senator. 

Senator LUGAR. A year ago, the Aspen Institute congressional 

seminar was held in Slovenia. We had an opportunity to note the 

point that you have made that 40 United States companies are now 

operating in Slovenia. While it is a fairly small country in terms 

of population and size, $490 million ha been invested there as you 

mentioned. Has there been a special outreach either way by Slovenia to Americans or Americans to finding very talented people 

there in that country? 

147 

Mr. GHAFARI. If I am confirmed, that would be one of my top priorities. 

Senator LUGAR. Yes. 

Mr. GHAFARI. I understand that there is some reform that has 

taken place. There is more to be done in that regard, and I understand that now that they are preoccupied with the European Union 

Presidency, that maybe had they waited a little from that economic 

reforms. They have elections coming up this fall, and hopefully that 

will become an agenda item that we as an embassy and myself can 

work on to help expand the business entry between our two nations. 

I have to date, in preparing for my departure, talked to my colleagues in the business, and I said we have this wonderful friendly 

country. What can we do together? And they all are expressing interest and are impressed by the success they have made to date. 

They are impressed by the quality of the people, the Slovenian people, and their technical capabilities. So that would be something 

that I will definitely put on the top of my list to do. 

And at the same time, I think I am going to encourage and we 

have got some—actually some leads on there that the Slovenes are 

willing to come here and invest, as well. With the strength of the 

euro, they need to manufacture in this country for some of their 

customers. So that would be a two-way deal that, hopefully, we can 

work on together. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I think we all hope with your business 

background, you will be very successful. 

Mr. GHAFARI. Thank you very much. 

Senator LUGAR. And we applaud that. 

Mr. GHAFARI. Thank you. 

Senator LUGAR. Ambassador Volker, let me ask you a quick question. You mentioned that NATO’s commitment in the Bucharest 

Communique that Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO at some 

point in the future has led to some speculation that action extending membership action plans to Tbilisi and Kyiv at the upcoming 

foreign ministers meeting of NATO representatives. Describe really 

how that procedure works so that Americans understand how that 

type of momentous decision could occur. 

Mr. VOLKER. That is correct, Senator. The summit leaders, when 

they got together and agreed a formal NATO statement expressing 

NATO’s position, said not only that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO, they also welcomed their aspirations for 

participating in the membership action plans and stated in the declaration from NATO itself that the foreign ministers are authorized 

to decide on this issue when they meet in December of 2008. 

Senator LUGAR. And so, December of 2008 is the approximate 

time in which all of this might arise again? 

Mr. VOLKER. Yes, indeed. We will be certainly pursuing and encouraging their aspiration for Membership Action Plans, and we 

hope that we can reach a consensus within NATO to grant that to 

them. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, we will be cheering you on at that point. 

Mr. VOLKER. Thank you. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator OBAMA. Senator Voinovich. 

148 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ghafari, you mentioned that you had some concern about the 

investment by the United States in Slovenia. My suggestion to you 

would be to spend some time with the Slovene Diaspora here to try 

and get them involved, and they have talked about it, but they 

really have never done it. 

I brought Goodyear to Slovenia a long time ago, and since that 

time, the government has been reluctant about privatizing some of 

their—in fact, they are slower than most in that region. And it 

might be something that you could try to nudge them on. 

Mr. GHAFARI. Thank you, Senator. One of my things I would like 

to do before I leave to Slovenia is to visit with the American Slovenian community in Cleveland and maybe a couple of other places 

around the country just to get the pulse of what is going on there 

and get a better understanding of what they would like to do with 

that country, as well. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Bulgaria is in an area that is right now, I 

think, most people are not aware, will be affected if the election 

goes the wrong direction in May in Serbia. That would be a real 

setback for the whole region. 

One of the things that I suggested is to—and hopefully, you will 

be there—is to try to get Bulgaria and Romania and some others 

that belong to the European Union to get over to Serbia to talk 

about how important European Union membership is to the future 

of Slovenia. Are you updated on that issue on where we are and 

how thin the situation is? 

Ms. MCELDOWNEY. Thank you very much, Senator. I have, indeed, been following the issue and, in particular, have been watching the Bulgarian Government try hard to work both with the 

Serbs, as well as with other neighbors in the region, to try to moderate Serbian policy, to try to bring about an outcome that will advance stability throughout the region. 

If confirmed, this is one of the issues that I look forward to making a priority as we go forward and face this very key election, and 

as Kosovo’s independence proceeds and Bulgaria continues to serve 

as a moderating, stabilizing force throughout the region. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And Mr. Volker, one of our problems in Afghanistan is that many of the countries that are involved have 

these national caveats, and many of us are concerned that they are 

still in effect. Some of our allies are saying that if some of those 

countries don’t remove take them, then they will be more reluctant 

to participate. We have taken a position, I think, of publicly knocking some of them that haven’t done what they are supposed to do. 

I would be interested to know your perspective and how you, 

through your great diplomatic skills, are going to try and work this 

out. 

Mr. VOLKER. Well, thank you, Senator. We are very concerned 

about the issue of caveats on the forces deployed in Afghanistan 

and anywhere in NATO operations. That is a matter that we raise 

privately with the governments concerned and also we have discussed publicly. 

I do want to say that the contributions that allies make are valuable, all of them. So those countries that have caveats are, noneVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
149 

theless, performing important roles where they are in Afghanistan 

or elsewhere. But it does create problems. 

It creates problems for the commander on the ground, who has 

less flexibility in his ability to use forces where they are most needed. And it creates political dissension within NATO. Those countries who are taking on the hardest burdens and fighting and facing casualties, and those countries that are operating in relatively 

safer areas with limitations on the deployments that will keep 

them in safer areas. 

So we have to chip away at this problem. We have been working 

at it. We have seen, around the time of the Riga summit, some caveats lifted. We have not seen much more progress on it since then. 

It is something we need to stay focused on. 

I would say in terms of addressing this there is one critical thing 

that we need to do, and this is what I discussed when answering 

the chairman’s question about getting the story right in Afghanistan. Reassuring European publics that we are there for the right 

reasons and doing the right things, and that their forces that are 

contributing in Afghanistan are in a good cause and, therefore, 

should be fully part of the NATO mission and fully contributing as 

equal allies, sharing the burdens equally. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you share the opinion that we need to 

bring more of our troops into Afghanistan to help out? 

Mr. VOLKER. I do. I do. I know that Secretary Gates and the 

President, have announced our intention to deploy about 3,500 Marines, and that was announced in advance of the Bucharest summit. We are the leader of NATO. We need to be making a substantial contribution to alliance operations to ensure their success. And 

in doing so, we need to encourage other allies to increase their contributions as well. 

We currently have a situation where of about 47,000 troops within ISAF, the United States is contributing less than half of that. 

I think we need to be doing our share in leading the charge and 

then encouraging the allies to make their contributions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Ms. Barrett, you—I mentioned that you are working with Finland, and you know that the Ahtisaari plan, he was president of 

Finland, and so they are real interested in Kosovo. 

Ms. BARRETT. Absolutely. 

Senator VOINOVICH. But the issue that I am concerned about is 

the issue of this Office of Democratic Institutions and Human 

Rights. I don’t know whether you are familiar with it, but I will 

tell you this, that there are many people here in this Congress that 

worked very hard to get the Office of Nondiscrimination and Tolerance on the core budget of the OSCE. 

And right now, we are in the midst of hiring someone to take the 

place of a man by the name of Christian Strohal, and I would really appreciate your looking into it. And I would like to spend some 

time with you on the phone talking about perhaps a role that you 

might play because Finland is in charge of that ministerial effort 

right now. I think if we don’t do that, we may lose a wonderful opportunity to continue to make a difference in the area of dealing 

with discrimination. 

150 

Ms. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, I would look 

forward to working with you on that. I also consider it an urgent 

matter in the limited time during which the Finns will be in the 

leadership role would be an important time to make good things 

happen there. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator OBAMA. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Volker, let me follow up a little bit on first Afghanistan and 

then Georgia and Ukraine. In regards to Afghanistan, OSCE does 

have a mission there. And NATO, of course, is the lead group as 

far as international involvement with the United States, but we do 

have OSCE. There is an important mission on the border. And of 

course, Afghanistan is a partner within OSCE. 

Just curious as to your views as to whether we cannot—couldn’t 

expand OSCE’s mission, which would broaden European participation in dealing in Afghanistan? 

Mr. VOLKER. Thanks, Senator. Yes, we agreed with the other 

members of the OSCE to launch the border training and development effort that the OSCE is putting in Afghanistan. We deliberately decided to start small to make sure that it could get in 

there effectively, that it could operate in the environment in Afghanistan, and to see whether it could bring about a success in its 

developments training on the border. 

And presuming that that is successful, then we would look toward expanding the mission depending on the resources that nations are able to bring. But we do think that is a possibility based 

on success in the initial phases. 

Senator CARDIN. And I look forward to continuing to work with 

you on that. I do think it is just in our interests, the United States 

interests to broaden the participation, and OSCE gives us an opportunity to do that. 

I do want to compliment you on your diplomatic skills and your 

response on the question regarding Georgia and Ukraine. I was 

only aware of two steps that could be taken. One was the membership action plan. The other was being admitted. You have now 

given us a third level, I guess, of moving forward. 

I would just be interested as to whether you see a change that 

we can get NATO expansion in countries such as Georgia and 

Ukraine without a changed position with some of our NATO allies 

on Russia’s influence here? 

Mr. VOLKER. Well, clearly, we did not succeed in getting a membership action plan approved for Ukraine and Georgia, something 

that we sought. Membership action plan, you will recall, was 

launched at the Washington summit in 1999 at a point when 

NATO was not ready to offer invitations to countries in Central 

and Eastern Europe, and so we said, well, we are not going to just 

say no. We are going to help you. We are going to create a plan 

to work with you so that you can present a stronger candidacy in 

the future. 

What happened—— 

Senator CARDIN. Which seems to be what should have been offered as the U.S. position was—— 

Mr. VOLKER. Yes. 

151 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. With regard to Georgia and 

Ukraine. I guess my question is, will we be able to get to that point 

with countries such as Ukraine and Georgia without a changed relationship between our NATO allies and Russia? 

Mr. VOLKER. I believe that we can. I believe that the statement 

that was made about these countries will become members of 

NATO—a very forceful, clear statement—sort of cuts right through 

the heart of the membership action plan question. It is kind of 

ironic that the debate about offering a MAP was, well, is this going 

too far? And then we make a strong political commitment that goes 

even further. 

So I think that, based on that, we should be able to do the diplomatic work underneath, then proceed with the Membership Action 

Plan and get a consensus within NATO for that. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you, and again, I look forward to working with you on that. 

Let me follow up on Senator Voinovich’s point in regards to the 

OSCE’s mission not just in fighting discrimination, but also on the 

human rights agenda. The four countries that are represented at 

the table all have important issues involving commitments to the 

OSCE. 

In regards to Bulgaria, as I mentioned earlier, the issues concerning minorities, whether it is the Turkish or the Roma population, is a major concern to us. On human trafficking, there are— 

Bulgaria is a Tier 2 country. There is a problem in Cyprus. They 

are on the watch list because of concerns as a recipient state to 

human trafficking. Slovenia has a problem with the Muslim community that just recently mushroomed. And of course, as pointed 

out, Finland has the chair in office. 

I would welcome brief responses as to your concerns in regards 

to these issues, and I certainly look forward to working with each 

of you in making progress in these countries. Who would like to 

start? 

Ms. MCELDOWNEY. I would be happy to start. Thank you very 

much, Senator. 

I appreciate you highlighting those issues. Those are issues of 

concern—both human rights and the issue of vulnerable populations. You mentioned the Turkish minority. The Turkish minority 

in Bulgaria, which represents just under 10 percent of the population, is well represented in the political process, but there are 

still concerns. The Roma, which you mentioned, is a smaller minority, approximately 4 to 5 percent. This is a vulnerable population. 

It is a group that much of the U.S. Government’s assistance monies 

have been focused on trying to provide services to, but we still need 

to do more. 

Human trafficking is also an issue of great concern. The Bulgarian Government has taken a number of steps, including the establishment of a national antitrafficking commission as well as 

some targeted efforts to set up centers in the tourist areas along 

the Black Sea coast where trafficking is most prevalent. But we 

need to do more. And we are working in partnership with the Bulgarian Government to try to do that. I welcome your advice and the 

involvement of members of the committee as we go forward and try 

to make those things happen. 

152 

Senator CARDIN. And I think we do have now regional strategies 

to deal with this, and we look forward to your active work in that 

regard. 

Ms. MCELDOWNEY. Yes. Excellent. Thank you very much. 

Mr. URBANCIC. Senator, the same thing for the United States 

role in dealing with Cyprus. Cyprus is more on the receiving end, 

but it is a country where trafficking in persons is something of very 

great concern. We have engaged the Cypriots on this, and certainly, 

if confirmed, I will continue to make it a priority. 

They understand U.S. law, and they understand the implications 

that this has for them. So it is a human rights question, which is 

of very great interest and profound concern for us. 

Senator CARDIN. The issues in Slovenia are a little bit different. 

There is some concern about lack of sensitivity with the Muslim 

community, and I would just urge you to be mindful of this as we 

go forward. 

Mr. GHAFARI. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to working 

with you on that. And I am very sensitive. With my ethnic background, I think I could help in that regard. 

Senator CARDIN. I think so. 

We already talked a little bit about Finland, and Finland has 

had a real leadership role in regards to the OSCE, and we look forward to continuing to work with you in that regard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator OBAMA. Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be rather brief. 

I did want to note something I should have mentioned before— 

that Barbara McConnell Barrett is also a Pennsylvania native. I 

appreciate that, and I also heard that in Ms. McEldowney’s reference to her family, we have got family from Philadelphia here 

today. 

I hate to keep coming back to a commercial for my State, but I 

think it is important to do that. But I will be very brief. 

I wanted to direct my broader general question to Mr. Volker. 

With regard to the relationship between NATO and Russia, you 

spoke to it before. I wanted to broaden that a little bit. 

The NATO-Russia Council, which was established in 2002 and is 

the principal forum for NATO to engage Russia. But we know from 

the recent history and the news just in the last couple of months, 

that the relationship faces a lot of challenges when you think about 

democracy and human rights, missile defense, energy, Kosovo, or 

the CFE treaty—all of those. 

I guess I wanted to ask you, though, just in a broad sense, can 

you give us a sense of the state of play between Russia and NATO 

and anything you think we could do constructively to engage and 

to be cognizant of that important relationship? 

Mr. VOLKER. Thank you for the question, Senator. We have been 

disappointed in the NATO-Russia Council ourselves. We launched 

this in 2002 with hopes of overcoming suspicions, division, sense of 

concern, mutual concern between NATO and Russia, and it has not 

developed in the positive, cooperative, strong way that we had 

hoped at the time. 

I think the most important thing that we can do is to undermine, 

to cut, to remove any kind of zero sum mentality that still exists. 

153 

The idea that there is a zone of, sphere of influence in Europe, this 

is part of the Russian fear of influence or any gain for NATO, that 

any NATO enlargement is somehow a threat to Russia or that missile defense is somehow a threat to Russia. 

We need to put aside these kind of cold war notions within Russia, within Europe, and instead say that the fundamentals—building democratic societies, market economies, rule of law, integration 

of countries into a larger community—these don’t threaten anybody. And they build a healthier community and they are good 

neighbors and good neighbors for Russia. 

So if we can develop that sense that we are actually creating a 

common good through NATO enlargement, through security, 

through missile defense—we want to work together with Russia. 

We certainly don’t want to be putting ourselves in a position of confrontation and conflict with Russia, even though we have serious 

disagreements with Russia. What we want to do is try to work together on areas where we find common ground. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

I will conclude with this. I want to commend all of the nominees 

who are here for your service prior to this and your willingness to 

take on another assignment. And we wish you all of Godspeed in 

your families as well. 

Thank you. 

Senator OBAMA. Senator Menendez 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I appreciate all of your service. And now that I know that 

in order to be an ambassador you have to live in Pennsylvania—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. I will maybe cross the border in 

the future. Who knows? 

Let me focus my questions on a certain line that I am interested. 

Mr. Volker, I have seen that Greece has always taken a position 

that they seek to find a mutually acceptable solution before NATO 

accession. And I am glad to see, at least as I read it, that the 

NATO summit communique basically has that same position as 

well. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. VOLKER. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. It is. Let me ask you with reference to that, 

what do you see the role of NATO in trying to—working, of course, 

with our own U.S. ambassador in the region, but what do you see 

the role of NATO in trying to bridge that gulf and come to a successful resolution? 

Mr. VOLKER. In the first instance is the United Nations. The 

U.N. negotiator, Matt Nimitz, has the lead in trying to reach a negotiated settlement to the issue of the name. Beyond that, we have 

tried, as the United States and through our ambassador to NATO 

and through Assistant Secretary Fried and through others, to encourage both countries to work together and try to reach some solution. 

We did some fairly extensive diplomatic work in advance of the 

Bucharest summit, trying to get the point where they could reach 

an agreement. They were unable to reach an agreement, and so 

NATO did leave the issue open, as you indicated, hoping that they 

154 

would reach a mutually acceptable solution as quickly as possible, 

at which point Macedonia could then be invited. 

NATO itself I don’t see playing an active role in trying to facilitate negotiations. I see that as something we can do diplomatically, 

and I see that as something the U.N. has the lead on. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask you a different question. There 

has been some reports that as it relates to Afghanistan, NATO— 

some of our NATO allies have been less than willing to engage in 

a way that makes me concerned about picking and choosing. 

My understanding of one of the strengths of NATO is that upon 

its decision to enter into an engagement, all member countries are 

committed. And yet in Afghanistan, we have seen reports of some 

of the member countries balking at that commitment. That is a 

slippery and dangerous slope, is it not? 

Mr. VOLKER. It is. I agree with that, Senator. This is the issue 

of caveats that has come up repeatedly. Every NATO ally is contributing in Afghanistan. Every contribution is important. We need 

the forces there, whether it is in the north, the west, and so on. 

But we are concerned that some allies place limitations on the 

use of their forces, which has, in the first instance, an operational 

effect. It reduces the flexibility of the forces and puts the commander in a more difficult position and actually increases the requirement for more forces if he needs them in places where those 

forces won’t go. 

It also has an effect of creating political dissension within NATO, 

as allies are concerned that the burdens aren’t being shared equally. And some allies, who are fighting hard in the south of Afghanistan have had casualties, look at others who have not done that 

and say that this is not fair. And they want to see greater solidarity. 

So our effort, as we work on this, and we will need to continue 

to work on this, is to increase the political solidarity that allies put 

into the mission—that is one mission for all of us—and to increase 

the operational flexibility that they give their forces on the ground 

so they could be used most effectively. 

Senator MENENDEZ. That is critical if the alliance is to truly 

achieve its goals. 

Mr. Urbancic, let me ask you a couple of questions about Cyprus. 

First of all, I appreciated your opening statement, and it was very 

diplomatic. I understand about listening more than speaking, and 

I guess it served you well. Let me try to explore with you a little 

bit more some of your thoughts in that regard. 

You know, since 1974 when Cyprus was invaded and has been 

divided, since then, we have sought to promote a bicameral, bizonal 

federation. I want to get a sense from you whether you think the 

solution—and I know there is a lot of optimism right now, a new 

administration in Cyprus. But do you believe that solution emanates from the Cypriots or emanates from the U.N.? How do you 

see that happening? 

Mr. URBANCIC. I think it emanates from a history of experience 

between the two communities, and I think that this is their realization that this is where they best think that their island can become 

a fully functioning, reunified state. It is not from the U.N. in that 

the U.N. is imposing it. It certainly is not from the United States 

155 

in that we are imposing it, but I think it is where they realize they 

are going to have to find that common ground. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, so there are those who believe in Cyprus and received an overwhelming rejection that the Annan plan 

was an imposition versus a negotiated agreement between the parties that deserved support. So is it our view, as an American Government, that we are seeking to have this solution come from the 

Cypriots? 

Mr. URBANCIC. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask you this. In that respect, we 

have an incredible militarized element in Cyprus. Yet we have had 

nearly 13 million crossings since 2003, back and forth without incident. There was an attempt recently in good faith to open the 

Ledra Street crossing, and it ended up being closed on the same 

day it was opened because of the Turkish military intervened in 

the occupied zone, and the agreement was not to do that. 

Are we going to be more direct? If we want to have a solution 

here, we can’t have the Turkish military imposing itself between 

Greek and Turkish Cypriots? 

Mr. URBANCIC. Senator, I think the good news is that that crossing is open. And there are going to be hiccups no matter what happens and no matter who goes forward and whose plan it is, but 

they will do it themselves. They were able to do it themselves. 

They have done it themselves. And I think that is where we have 

to focus from now into the future. 

Senator MENENDEZ. But clearly, the Turkish military has engaged here in a way that is beyond the civilian powers that exist. 

Is that a concern for us? 

Mr. URBANCIC. The military presence is a concern for everybody, 

and it is going to have to be part of a comprehensive solution that 

they are going to work out among themselves, first of all, the Cypriots. But of course, they have partners, and they have supporters, 

and they will have to be part of that solution. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Finally, there is, as you aptly put when you 

would be accredited if you were to be approved by this committee 

and by the Senate, only one country for which we both, as a Nation 

as well as the international community recognizes, which is the 

Government of Cyprus. And in that respect, there is a concern, and 

as the subcommittee chair on all of our foreign assistance, I am 

concerned about our engagement of foreign assistance, particularly 

on the Turkish Cypriot side, without the appropriate consultations 

of the Government of Cyprus. 

Do you not believe that it is appropriate—now consultation 

doesn’t mean that the Government of Cyprus dictates anything as 

far as I am concerned. No one dictates anything to us in terms of 

our assistance abroad. But do you not believe that significant consultation in order to pursue the ultimate goal of reunification with 

the Government of Cyprus is appropriate? 

Mr. URBANCIC. Yes, sir, I do. I think that the entire aid program 

is designed to support reunification and to support the establishment of a single state. I absolutely agree that our aid program 

must be transparent to both sides. There should be no surprises in 

this subcommittee. There should be no surprises on the Hill. And 

156 

there should be no surprises to the Government of Cyprus or to 

Turkish Cypriots. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I personally believe that we should 

have a memorandum of understanding with the Greek Cypriots, 

and I will be pursuing that in the days ahead with the States Department. As the very possible next ambassador there, I hope that 

you will engage actively with us in that regard. 

Mr. URBANCIC. Senator, I am always available. Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator OBAMA. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to congratulate each and every one of you on these nominations. I would like to follow up with Senator Menendez’s questions, specifically Mr. Volker. Senator Menendez talked about the 

picking and choosing that goes on by our NATO allies in Afghanistan. 

I have just returned from Afghanistan. I wanted to thank the 

Wyoming troops who are there. We heard from them exactly how 

they felt things were going and also talked to our own ambassador 

as well as other leaders. 

In your statement, you mentioned that many Europeans are 

skeptical about the Afghanistan mission, and my question is what 

can you tell them to demonstrate that Afghanistan is very important in this war against terrorists? 

Mr. VOLKER. Yes, thank you, Senator. I think that is a critical 

issue, in fact, to build public support and understanding for the 

mission in Afghanistan. Several things, I think, are important to 

lay out. One of them is that the security and the well-being of our 

societies depends on success there. 

If you look at the September 11 attacks on the United States, 

they were applauded in Afghanistan. If you look at the bombers 

who were arrested in Barcelona in January of this year, they had 

their financing and their training on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, and they were planning to spread out throughout Europe 

to attack buses and subway systems. So there is a direct impact 

on our own security. 

There is also a drug impact, so that 90 percent of opium reaching 

Europe is coming out of Afghanistan. So there is a direct interest 

in that. 

I think one of the things that they see is the images of twisted 

metal and bloody bodies that they see in the media of the fighting 

in Afghanistan and terrorist bombers and improvised explosive devices. We need to make sure that they see the other images of Afghanistan. 

In 2001, there were 900,000 kids in school. Now it is over 5 million. In 2001, it was illegal for girls to go to school. And now it’s 

over 1.5 million. There is greater access to healthcare. There is 

road building. There is an economy. There is a democratically elected government. 

So I think if the European public gets the whole picture of what 

we are doing in Afghanistan, we can broaden support for that. And 

that is critical for then empowering the governments to be more 

forthcoming with the contributions and the way that their forces 

are used. 

157 

Senator BARRASSO. Because it did seem that there were different 

rules of engagement from one nation to another instead of a unified 

rules of engagement for all of our NATO allies, when troops are deployed in various provinces. Do you want to comment? 

Mr. VOLKER. Sure. In terms of there is a joint operational plan, 

there is a common operational plan that NATO has agreed. There 

are also rules of engagement that apply with that plan. 

But on top of that, some nations have applied political limitations on their forces. You know, a caveat that says we don’t have 

night vision goggles so we won’t go do things at night. Well, that 

is understandable. But a caveat that says we won’t allow our forces 

to move from this part of the country to that part of the country 

because there is fighting there or they can’t engage in certain combat roles, well, that is damaging to the political solidarity of NATO. 

It makes the commander’s job on the ground harder. So we have 

to keep working away at it to try to strengthen the operational 

flexibility and the political solidarity of NATO. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Ms. Barrett, if I could, I noted that you had been a member of 

the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, and I 

am wondering if you could tell me a little bit about your work there 

and if there is anything you have learned that we can apply, both 

in Iraq and in Afghanistan? 

Ms. BARRETT. Thank you, Senator. One of the things that we 

learned was that women, as well as men, can contribute significantly to our defense and that women as well as men are sacrificed 

for their country and women as well as men can perform great 

duty for their country. And I note that among the Senators on our 

panel, there are fathers of daughters, and it is often fathers of 

daughters who are most aggressive in realizing the capability that 

women bring to military as well as other roles. 

So through the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the 

Services, we learned a great deal about unfairness and opportunity 

at that point, inchoate opportunity that we could open new job 

roles and new privileges to women, and it was an extraordinary 

eye-opener to me. 

Senator BARRASSO. If I could now ask specifically about your 

comments about Finland. You mentioned that Finland is a global 

leader in biofuels and renewable energy. I think 25 percent of the 

energy there is renewable. And you talked a little bit about some 

of Finland’s cooperation with other countries in this area. 

How do you see that unfolding from an energy state, given that 

we have lots of renewables as well as unrenewable resources? How 

is it that you see us working in a more cooperative way? 

Ms. BARRETT. I think that their research, their development, 

their efforts so far have produced results. Just about 100 percent 

of their forest products, industry is fueled by the byproducts of the 

industry. So woodchips, for instance, are fueled by their own product. And we can learn a lot from that. 

They are looking at biofuels, as I indicated, but also at alternate 

resources. They also have a close link to the pipeline ideas that 

would bring fuel from Russia into Europe. So they are looking at 

technologies and also transport issues in fuels. We can learn from 

158 

them, and they can learn from us. I think it is an opportunity for 

nuclear alternate fuels as well as transportation in fuels. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you. 

Senator Barrasso, we had said that we were going to do a second 

round. Do you have any further questions? 

Senator BARRASSO. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator OBAMA. Okay. If not, I just have one last question that 

I have for you, Mr. Volker, and I wanted to get a sense of whether 

you could characterize the transit agreements that we concluded 

with Russia at the Bucharest summit and whether there is some 

overlap there in terms of what that will facilitate or allow NATO 

to do? In what way does it enhance NATO’s forces’ abilities to send 

supplies and so forth? 

Mr. VOLKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The idea of working together with Russia on logistical support 

for Afghanistan is one that we supported for over a year. Just before the Bucharest summit, the Russians came forward and said, 

okay, we can do something on this. What was agreed at the Bucharest summit was for ground transport of nonlethal supplies. So we 

are talking about logistical support for the forces in Afghanistan. 

It is not air transit. It is not lethal materials. 

Is it a help? Yes, it is a help. It is good for our forces and others 

there to have multiple routes of access, multiple ways to go. Crossroad transport through Russia is helpful. There is more that could 

be done, and as I mentioned, we could open up to other areas if 

we had agreement with Russia to do that, and it is something we 

could continue to talk about. 

It is an example of something that is being done positively in the 

NATO-Russia Council, the ability to look at what we can do together on something such as supporting the effort in Afghanistan. 

Senator OBAMA. Good. Okay, well, I thank all of you for your responses, for your service, and for your testimony here today in 

these important positions. 

The record will remain open for 2 days so that the committee 

members may submit additional questions for the record. I ask that 

each nominee respond expeditiously to any of these queries. 

And I again want to thank the members of the families of all of 

you because I know that it is an extraordinary burden that is 

placed on them, and they are providing a service to this country, 

as well. 

If no one has any additional comments, then this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. I would like to express my 

strong support for the swift confirmation of Barbara McConnell Barrett as United 

States Ambassador to the Republic of Finland. I commend the President for nominating such an outstanding candidate for this important post. 

159 

Barbara has a long history of service to Arizona and our Nation. During her professional career, she has amassed an impressive and diverse resume, ranging from 

serving as the first female deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and acting as chairwoman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, to being an executive at two Fortune 500 companies. Throughout this time, 

Barbara has distinguished herself as a respected leader in both the civic and business communities. 

Her professionalism, thoughtfulness, and diverse experience will make her an effective diplomat and representative of the United States abroad. I have every confidence that, if confirmed, Barbara will contribute greatly to the continuation of our 

warm relations with the Republic of Finland. 

I urge the committee’s expeditious action in moving this nomination to the full 

Senate and ask my colleagues to support her prompt confirmation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today so we could move forward 

with these ambassadorial nominations. To our nominees and your families, thank 

you for taking the time to serve. Public service is never easy and I wanted to let 

you know how appreciative we are that you would be willing to take on the tasks 

for which you have been nominated. 

As we all know, Europe is filled with our closest allies and friends in the world. 

While friends sometimes disagree, we find ways to overcome these challenges 

through our long history together. 

However, all of your countries of assignment share a role in the strategic security 

of Europe. Obviously, Bulgaria and Slovenia are members of NATO, Cyprus is the 

reason Turkey pulled out of NATO’s military council, and Finland borders on the 

Russian Federation, which is trying to dictate terms to NATO. 

I was discouraged by Russia’s influence to prevent even larger efforts to expand 

NATO. I do not believe their posturing should stand in the way of NATO’s efforts 

to expand freedom to countries that want an opportunity to side with the West, that 

is the countries sovereign choice. Mr. Volker, I hope you will work diligently to correct this situation. 

Despite this disappointment, I was encouraged by NATO’s endorsement of missile 

defense and its willingness to move forward with providing a blanket of protection 

for all of Europe—not just NATO members. It is a strong signal that the United 

States is still intimately concerned with European security. 

I was also pleased by NATO’s renewed pledge to the long-term fight in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the first military engagement outside Europe’s boundaries. Europe has experienced more terrorist attacks than the United States, and the threat 

of Islamic extremism throughout Europe is just as large as the risk to America. 

However, while European leaders may understand the importance of Afghanistan 

and the threats posed by terrorism, the citizens of these nations do not. It will be 

important for all of you to talk with the people of your countries and help them understand the crucial link and why it is important that all of Europe support and 

remain engage in NATO’s activities in Afghanistan. 

Many European nations want to play a larger role in the affairs of Africa, but 

success in Afghanistan is critical to the future of NATO and if the alliance cannot 

succeed there, then the hopes of more engagement in Africa will never become a reality. 

While these many not seem like issues for your individual concerns, they are at 

the heart of Europe’s position in the world and each of your countries will play a 

part. All of you will have to tackle these daunting tasks, and you will be in very 

crucial positions to help foster the trans-Atlantic relationship. Your willingness to 

listen and be passionate advocates is vital. 

Often European leaders express how the United States and Europe share a common set of values. It will be important to remind them that we have a long history 

of common values that include the ideals of freedom and economic opportunity, and 

that these values serve as the foundation to our prosperity. American culture is 

loved in Europe, but the same is not always true of American policy. However, the 

two cannot be conveniently separated. 

As a final note, I encourage you to spend more time outside of the embassy and 

government offices in your respective capitals than inside. Successful diplomacy is 

no longer an activity just between heads of state, but between the people of each 

nation. If you are committed to fostering even stronger relations and want to be successful American advocates, you will need to deliver your messages directly to the 

people of your countries. 

160 

I look forward to working with each of you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

I want to begin by thanking the Chairman and ranking member of this committee 

for holding this hearing today. 

I regret that I am not able to deliver these remarks in person. I am chairing a 

hearing before the Armed Services Committee with Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. I thank the Foreign Relations Committee for taking up this nomination so quickly, and I am pleased to support the nomination of Yousif Ghafari to 

serve as Ambassador to Slovenia. 

Born in Lebanon in 1952, the eldest of seven children, Mr. Ghafari immigrated 

to the United States in the early 1970s to pursue his education at Wayne State University in Detroit. He successively earned three degrees from Wayne State—a bachelor of arts degree in mathematics in 1974, a master of arts in applied mathematics 

and computer applications in 1975, and a master of science in chemical engineering 

in 1977. In 1992, he returned to school to receive his master of business administration from the Michigan State University Advanced Management Program. 

Soon after leaving Wayne State, Mr. Ghafari founded GHAFARI, Inc., a highly 

successful global architectural, engineering, and consulting firm. Established in 

1982, he built GHAFARI, Inc., on a foundation of responsive client services and the 

utilization of the latest technology in order to improve quality. The success of his 

business has been acknowledged by national trade publications such as INC. magazine and Engineering News Records. 

Mr. Ghafari has done a tremendous amount of work to give back to the communities he has come from. As a founding partner of the United States-Lebanon Partnership Fund, he has helped to raise money and awareness of the effort to provide 

resources and infrastructure repair to parts of Lebanon damaged by war. In 1995, 

he was named one of the top 100 ‘‘executive heroes’’ in southeastern Michigan, and 

is a member of the International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit’s ‘‘Hall of Fame.’’ 

In 2005, Wayne State University acknowledged his longtime generosity and support 

by renaming a residence building Yousif B. Ghafari Hall. Mr. Ghafari also currently 

serves on the board of trustees of the College for Creative Studies and Oakwood 

Healthcare, Inc. He additionally is on the board of directors for the Automobile Club 

of Michigan, Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., the Economic Club of Detroit, and the 

Wayne State University Foundation. 

If confirmed, this would not be the first time that Mr. Ghafari has served the 

United States in the international arena. In 2004–2005, he served as a public delegate designate at the U.S. mission to the United Nations for the 59th United Nations General Assembly. He has served on the J. William Fulbright Foreign Service 

Scholarship board since 2005, being elected vice chair this year. 

Mr. Ghafari is a prominent member of the Detroit community and a successful 

businessman who will serve as an excellent representative of our Government in 

Slovenia. I thank the committee for allowing me to enter this introduction into the 

record. 

RESPONSES OF NANCY E. MCELDOWNEY TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read this cable concerning Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and, if confirmed, will abide by the guidelines as conveyed in 04 STATE 258893. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I agree that the Peace Corps, in order to effectively carry out its mandate, needs to be distinct from the United States mission in Bulgaria, as in other 

countries. 

161 

Questions. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. In line with Secretary Rice’s guidance on this issue, if confirmed, I intend 

to allow the Peace Corps to operate with as much autonomy as possible, bearing 

in mind my responsibility to provide for the safety and security of the volunteers 

and to coordinate United States objectives and policy in Bulgaria. 

RESPONSES OF KURT VOLKER TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JIM DEMINT

Question. Have you been briefed on all of the negotiations from the Bucharest 

Summit last week? 

Answer. Yes, I have been fully briefed on all of the negotiations from the Bucharest Summit. 

Question. Did the United States offer France anything in return for their pledge 

of increased forces for the Afghanistan mission? 

Answer. In our diplomatic exchanges with France, the United States urged France 

to increase its contributions in Afghanistan, but we did not offer anything in return. 

Question. Has the State Department entered into formal discussions with Paris 

regarding the possible entry of France into NATO’s integrated command structure? 

Answer. The State Department has not entered into formal discussions with Paris 

regarding the possible entry of France into NATO’s integrated command structure. 

French President Sarkozy has made general statements about France’s intention to 

reintegrate fully into the NATO integrated military structure by the time of the 

April 2009 NATO Summit meeting. The French have not, however, followed up with 

detailed proposals at NATO or bilaterally with the United States. The French have 

indicated that they prefer to use the term ‘‘normalization’’ rather than ‘‘reintegration’’ when discussing France’s rejoining NATO’s integrated military structure. 

Question. If so, what is France requesting from the United States in return? 

Answer. We have not entered into formal discussions with Paris regarding possible French reintegration into NATO’s military structure. 

Question. What is your opinion about how the United States should respond if 

France formally requests United States support for an independent European Union 

defense structure within NATO? 

Answer. We do not support an independent European Union defense structure 

within NATO. We support stronger European defense capabilities, which can support NATO or European Union operations. In supporting stronger European defense 

capabilities, we must avoid the creation of duplicative or competing structures that 

could waste resources, divide the United States and Europe politically, undercut 

NATO, or impede the development of effective military forces. 

In his speech in advance of the Bucharest Summit, President Bush said, ‘‘Building 

a strong NATO Alliance also requires a strong European defense capacity. So at this 

summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defense investments to support both NATO and European Union operations. America believes that 

if Europeans invest in their own defense, they will also be stronger and more capable when we deploy together.’’ 

RESPONSES OF WILLIAM TODD TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. What are the primary United States foreign policy objectives related to 

Brunei? 

Answer. Our foreign policy objectives in Brunei mirror those for the Asia-Pacific 

region in general: 

• Regional Security: Strengthening regional security by garnering Brunei’s support for enhanced United States relations with ASEAN and encouraging expansion of its contributions to peacekeeping operations in the region and to other 

multilateral undertakings; 

• Stability: Safeguarding Brunei’s long-term stability by helping to improve its 

counterterrorism and defense capabilities through law enforcement and miliVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
162 

tary-to-military cooperation and by encouraging broader popular participation 

in the political process through development of the country’s legislative council; 

• Outreach: Improving perceptions of the United States among Brunei’s largely 

Muslim population and its decisionmakers through outreach, exchange programs, and promotion of United States education; 

• Sustainable Development: Increasing opportunities for United States firms to 

compete in Brunei through an expanding trade dialog focused on improving protection of intellectual property rights and opening markets for United States 

goods and services, while contributing to sustainable development through conservation of Brunei’s tropical forests. 

Question. How many students from Brunei have studied in the United States during the past 7 years? Does the United States Government, or American colleges and 

universities, actively recruit Brunei students? 

Answer. There have been approximately 136 students who have studied in the 

United States during the past 7 years. The year-by-year breakdown is given below. 

Year No. of 

students 

2006/07 .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 

2005/06 .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

2004/05 .................................................................................................................................................................... 18 

2003/04 .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

2002/03 .................................................................................................................................................................... 17 

2001/02 .................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

2000/01 .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 

Source: International Institute of Education (IIE) Open Doors statistics. 

The embassy in Bandar Seri Begawan actively promotes United States higher 

education as part of our foreign policy objective of creating a greater understanding 

of United States society and policies by Brunei’s majority-Muslim population. Embassy officials often speak to target audiences of prospective students to encourage 

study in the United States. They and other State Department officials also helped 

arrange a visit in 2007 by Brunei’s Deputy Minister of Education to several leading 

United States universities to establish contact with Islamic studies programs. The 

Minister of Education plans to visit the United States in 2008 to build partnership 

relations between United States universities and the University of Brunei 

Darussalam, which the embassy expects will result in increased student exchanges—both short and long term—between the United States and Brunei. 

The embassy in Bandar Seri Begawan worked to place United States institutions 

of higher learning on a list of Ministry of Defense-recommended schools, as part of 

the embassy’s campaign to promote United States schools to Bruneians, who historically have looked to the United Kingdom and Australia for foreign study. As a result, five students entered U.S. universities through this new track for the current 

academic year and our embassy anticipates four more will enter in the 2008/09 academic year. The embassy is also working with the Ministry of Education to allow 

students to use other Brunei Government scholarship programs to attend United 

States educational institutions. 

In the past year, the embassy also assisted the following American colleges or universities visiting Brunei to recruit students: 

• Tufts University (Fletcher School) 

• Upper Iowa University 

• Portland State University 

• State University of New York—Binghamton 

• Creighton University 

• University of Denver 

• Eckerd College 

• Herkimer Community College 

Question. What is the present level of Brunei investment in the United States? 

Do you anticipate an increase in such investment in the future? 

Answer. Exact figures for the present level of Brunei’s investment in the United 

States are difficult to obtain, because the United States does not require the registration of investments and the level of Bruneian direct investment flows are small. 

According to industry estimates, Brunei holds substantial foreign assets globally, 

estimated at $30 billion dollars, through its Brunei Investment Agency (BIA), a sovereign wealth fund. Brunei’s investments in the United States include luxury hotels 

163 

in New York and California. Other financial assets are believed to be managed by 

U.S. financial institutions. 

The current value of the United States dollar would appear conducive to growing 

Bruneian investment in United States equities and bonds, but we are not aware of 

any plans for Brunei to acquire controlling interests or direct equity stakes in additional United States companies. Traditionally, the BIA has preferred passive, indirect investments to direct equity investments. 

Question. During the past 5 years, what cabinet or subcabinet level United States 

officials have visited Brunei? What United States military leaders have visited 

Brunei during the same time period? 

Answer. Assistant United States Trade Representative Barbara Weisel visited 

Brunei in May 2007. In December 2002, the Sultan of Brunei met with President 

Bush at the White House, and with Secretary Powell. In addition, the President has 

met the Sultan of Brunei every year at the annual APEC leaders meeting. Brunei 

hosted APEC in 2000, which President Clinton attended, and the ASEAN Regional 

Forum in July 2002, which Secretary Powell attended. 

The following United States military leaders have visited Brunei in the last five 

years: 

• April 2008: Pacific Commander Admiral Keating 

• May 2006: Deputy Under Secretary for Defense Lawless 

• March 2006: Pacific Commander Admiral Fallon 

• March 2005: U.S. Army Pacific Commander LTG Brown 

RESPONSE OF HON. BARBARA M. BARRETT TO QUESTION SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

Question. The issue that I am concerned about is the issue of this Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. And I don’t know whether you are even familiar with it. But I will tell you this, that there are many people here in this Congress that worked very hard to get the Office of Nondiscrimination and Tolerance 

on the core budget of the OSCE. 

And right now, we are in the midst of hiring someone to take the place of a man 

by the name of Christian Strohal, and I would really appreciate your looking into 

it. And I would like to spend some time with you on the phone talking about perhaps a role that you might play because Finland is in charge of that ministerial effort right now. And I think if we don’t do that, we may lose a wonderful opportunity 

to continue to make a difference in the area of dealing with discrimination. 

Answer. Finland’s OSCE Chairman-in-Office has actively promoted the work of 

the ODIHR’s tolerance and nondiscrimination unit, which is funded by the OSCE 

core budget. If confirmed as the United States Ambassador to Finland, I look forward to working closely with the OSCE Chairman-in-Office to support Mr. Strohal 

and his successor. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with you 

and to hear your views on how we can improve our antidiscrimination efforts in the 

OSCE. 

(165) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Haslach, Patricia M., to be United States Senior Coordinator for 

the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum 

Marciel, Scot A., to be United States Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs 

Stephens, D. Kathleen, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of 

Korea 

Todd, William E., to be Ambassador to the State of Brunei 

Darussalam 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:15 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Webb, and Murkowski. 

Also Present: Senator Kennedy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good afternoon, everybody. Today, the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets to consider four distinguished nominees for ambassadorial posts. 

As chair of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 

I am extremely pleased to welcome our nominees, and I am also 

pleased to welcome our colleague and my dear friend, Senator Kennedy, who has come today to say a few words about Ms. Kathleen 

Stephens. And how lucky you are to have his support. 

Ms. Stephens, the President’s nominee to be the ambassador to 

the Republic of Korea, has served her country as a career member 

of the Foreign Service for 30 years, most recently serving as the political advisor in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Ms. 

Stephens has had an expansive career throughout Europe and 

Asia, but I understand this post will bring her back to where she 

served as a Peace Corps volunteer before joining the Foreign Service. That is a really wonderful circle. 

Mr. Scot Marciel, sir, the President’s nominee for the rank of ambassador for the Association of South Asian Nations Affairs, has 

served his country as a member of the Foreign Service for more 

than 22 years. If confirmed, Mr. Marciel will serve as the ambassador while also serving his current post as the Deputy Assistant 

166 

Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Mr. Marciel 

has extensive experience in Asia, having served in Hong Kong, 

Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines. 

Ambassador Patricia Haslach—hello—is the President’s nominee 

to be the U.S. senior coordinator for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, with the rank of ambassador. Ambassador 

Haslach has served as the U.S. senior coordinator to APEC since 

last year. 

During today’s hearing, we will consider the Honorable Patricia 

Haslach for promotion and nomination to the rank of ambassador. 

Prior to her current post, she served as the director for the Office 

on Afghanistan in the Bureau of South Asian Affairs and the U.S. 

Ambassador to Laos. 

And finally, Mr. William Todd is the President’s nominee to be 

the U.S. Ambassador to Brunei. Mr. Todd is a member of the Senior Executive Service. He currently serves as the Deputy Inspector 

General for the Department of State. Prior to this assignment, he 

served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civilian Police, Rule 

of Law, Asia, Africa, and Europe in the Bureau of International 

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Mr. Todd has served the 

U.S. Government in a variety of other posts since beginning his career in 1983. 

I want to thank all of you for your amazing dedication to our 

country. It goes without saying that we are considering a number 

of very important posts today, as we look to define the future role 

of the United States in Asia and the Pacific region. While that role 

has yet to be fully shaped, for many of us, one thing is clear. The 

21st century will be defined as much by the Pacific and Asia—by 

the Pacific and by Asia as it will be by our traditional relationships 

in the Atlantic region and Europe. 

And of course, coming from California, I particularly know that 

I am right on that point. Not only—and I am sure that I speak for 

Senator Murkowski, too, given her representation of Alaska. 

Not only do we have an extensive and growing economic relationship in Asia and the Pacific, but all of the major transnational 

challenges faced by the United States today have a place there, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation and arms trafficking, climate change, epidemic diseases such as avian flu and HIV–AIDS, 

the flow of refugees, and human trafficking. 

One place where a number of these challenges continue to play 

out is on the Korean peninsula, and one of the places where climate change could have a particularly harsh impact is Brunei, a 

country where 70 percent of the territory is primal tropical rain 

forest and whose economy is looking toward ecotourism to help sustain it into the future. 

Our success or failure at addressing these challenges will be defined by the extent of the cooperation we can get from this region 

of the world. And so it is important that we seek comprehensive 

and sustained engagement with all of the countries in East Asia 

and the Pacific. 

As we seek to advance human rights in Burma and bring meaningful pressure to bear on the Burmese regime, we must ask more 

of our friends and allies in Asia, and this must be done. The Burmese regime must be held accountable for its continued failure to 

167 

afford its people the fundamental rights and freedoms they deserve 

and they have demanded. 

The United States also faces challenges with China. We all know 

this. As China asserts itself in the region, we need to press the 

Chinese to play a constructive role and to abide by international 

standards and norms, particularly on the issue of human rights 

that we know was in the news today regarding Tibet. 

So, to do that, we need people like those in front of us here— 

dedicated, experienced people. And so, you certainly have your 

work cut out for you. 

Now the way we are going to proceed is I am going to turn to 

Senator Murkowski for her opening statement, if she has one. Then 

we are going to turn to Senator Kennedy. And at that time, we will 

then turn to Senator Webb for his opening statement, and we will 

go from there. 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank 

you for holding the hearing here this afternoon. 

You have touched on the relationship, but when we think about 

the United States relationship with our Asia-Pacific neighbors, 

truly the four individuals that we have before us today, who have 

been nominated to these posts, these are truly very key posts within that region. 

APEC, with its significant economic and a growing noneconomic 

role, the importance of the ASEAN nations as they move forward 

politically and economically. I am pleased that the administration 

agreed with the Congress on the need to appoint an ambassador 

to the ASEAN nations. Brunei, certainly despite its very small geographic size, can play a very significant role as a moderate Islamic 

nation in helping the United States standing with other Islamic nations. Of course, South Korea, our seventh-largest trading partner. 

We have got quite a significant military presence in country, and 

of course, Seoul plays a very instrumental role in the Six-Party 

Talks on North Korea’s nuclear program. 

I would like to put on the record that I am very hopeful that 

South Korea will soon be able to participate in our Visa Waiver 

Program. I believe that we are close in meeting the requirements 

to be eligible for this program or that Korea is close to being eligible, and I certainly support their inclusion in that. 

Each post is very key, very important, and will have a vital role 

in shaping U.S. policy in the region. I look forward to the hearing 

from the nominees on what action they individually will take to 

promote the United States interests in the region and am delighted 

to have the four of you before us this afternoon and your willingness to serve. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Kennedy, why don’t you introduce your 

friend. 

Senator KENNEDY. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. And then after that, we will call on her. 

168 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Senators Boxer, Murkowski, and Senator Webb. I am very grateful for the opportunity 

to make some brief comments this morning, Madam Chairman and 

members of the committee, to introduce Kathleen Stephens, who 

has been nominated to be the Ambassador to the Republic of 

Korea. 

I first met Kathy in Northern Ireland in 1998, when she was 

counsel general to the United States consulate in Belfast. Previously, she had served in the National Security Council under 

President Clinton. At that time, the situation in Northern Ireland 

was very different from what it is today. But by 1998, significant 

progress was taking place. In fact, tomorrow, April 10, we celebrate 

a dramatic milestone of the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday 

agreement, peace agreement. 

As Kathy and all of us remember so well, ending the decades of 

hatred, violence, and bloodshed in Northern Ireland and achieving 

a peaceful resolution of the conflict was an enormously difficult 

challenge. But today, we see the people of Northern Ireland living 

in peace and prosperity and fulfilling their dreams and pursuing a 

promising future. 

Through her work on the National Security Council and at the 

consulate in Belfast, Kathy was significantly involved in the peace 

process. I was impressed with her diplomatic skills and her positive 

ties with the principal political leaders on both sides. She knew the 

many complex details involved in the peace negotiation. She offered 

perceptive insights about the complicated political process taking 

place. 

Her son, James, who was with her in Belfast, is now here today 

at Olin College of Engineering in Needham, MA. 

Kathy’s work on the Balkans has been impressive. As Deputy Assistant Secretary for Burma—for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs from 2003 to 2005, she worked on Kosovo’s future status and the integration of the Western Balkan nations in Europe. 

She ably managed our policy with countries in the region to see 

that America’s interests were protected and promoted, and her 

work has left a lasting imprint. And I am sure she is very pleased, 

as I am, by the recent independence of Kosovo and by last week’s 

announcement that Albania and Croatia have been invited to join 

NATO. 

More recently, as political advisor and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific, Kathy has 

been closely involved in strengthening our relations with the nations in that region as well, particularly Japan and Korea. And it 

is fitting that she is now being nominated to be Ambassador to 

Korea, a country that she has lived in and has known well for 

many years, beginning in 1975, when she was a Peace Corps volunteer there, teaching English to young Korean students. 

She returned to Korea in 1983 as a political advisor and human 

rights officer at the American Embassy, and she is a strong advocate for human rights and equality for all. I am delighted that the 

administration has selected such a talented and dedicated diplomat 

to represent us. She will be the first woman to serve as an AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
169 

ican Ambassador in Korea, the first American Ambassador there to 

be fluent in Korean, and the first American Ambassador who was 

once a Peace Corps volunteer in Korea. 

She is a consummate diplomat with ability, experience, and vision to represent the United States extremely well in a nation vital 

to our foreign policy in today’s world. I strongly support Kathleen 

Stephens’s nomination as our next Ambassador to Korea. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much. I know you have a 

busy schedule. We so appreciate your coming. 

And before we call on Ms. Stephens to introduce her family and 

make her statement, I know Senator Webb had some comments, in 

general, that he would like to share. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I wanted to come here today just to express my support for all 

the nominees. They are obviously extremely qualified and to especially express my gratefulness that we are nominating people like 

Kathleen Stephens and Scot Marciel, both of whom I have known 

at some level. And everything that Senator Kennedy just pointed 

out, I think is illustrative of the incredible qualifications that we 

have in the person that we are sending to South Korea at a time 

when relations with that country and on the Korean peninsula are 

in such a period of change. It is kind of a remarkable set of credentials to be bringing to the table at this key time. 

And also, as someone who has spent a great deal of my life in 

and out of Southeast Asia, I would like to reiterate what other people are saying about how important it is that we have created this 

position that Scot Marciel is going to be occupying. We tend to look 

at so many of our relationships in Southeast Asia as bilateral relationships at a time when the region itself is coming together in a 

more collective way to try to deal with problems, and I think it is 

very important for our country that we have this sort of representation at ASEAN. 

And quite frankly, we need new solutions in Southeast Asia, and 

the Burmese situation is a good example of that. The ways that we 

have been trying haven’t really worked in terms of solving the 

problem. And there are other ideas that we can work on with other 

nations maybe to come to a better solution there and in other 

places. And we have the right person to be doing that. I have got 

a great deal of confidence in him and look forward to seeing our 

relationships in Southeast Asia mature and move forward with this 

new position. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Webb. 

So now, Ms. Stephens, would you like to introduce some folks you 

may have brought with you? And I will offer that to all of the nominees. 

STATEMENT OF D. KATHLEEN STEPHENS, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 

Ms. STEPHENS. Yes, thank you very much. It is a great privilege 

to be here today, and I do want to thank Senator Kennedy so much 

170 

for his very, very generous introduction. If I look a little flushed, 

it is not just the excitement of the moment. I am blushing a bit 

because it was very, very generous. 

And thank you for recalling our work together, and I do thank 

you for our work together and the work that I have enjoyed doing 

throughout my 30-year career with all of the members of Congress 

in promoting U.S. ideals and interests abroad. I look forward to 

doing the same if I am confirmed. 

My son, as mentioned, is here. He is 21 years old. James, studying engineering at Olin College. 

Senator BOXER. James, why don’t you stand up so we can say hi 

to you? Thank you for being here for your mom. 

Ms. STEPHENS. James is studying engineering, but he had to be 

a bridge builder before that because he is a Foreign Service kid, 

and I am very proud of him. 

If I may, Madam Chairman, I wanted to also introduce two great 

mentors of mine. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. 

Ms. STEPHENS. Ambassador James Lilley, who was my boss in 

the Republic of Korea during some very exciting times in the 1980s 

and, of course, was also United States Ambassador to the People’s 

Republic of China. I learned so much from him. 

Senator BOXER. Ambassador, will you stand, please, so we can 

recognize you? Thanks. It is very nice to see you again. 

Ms. STEPHENS. And Mr. Jon Keeton, who was Peace Corps Korea 

director in the 1970s. Both of these men have done so much for our 

country, and I thank them for their example. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you both. 

Okay, we will start the clock going now at 7 minutes, and we will 

move forward. Yes. Go ahead. 

Ms. STEPHENS. Oh, I am sorry. 

Senator BOXER. This is your turn. [Laughter.] 

Ms. STEPHENS. Okay. This is my first time doing this. 

Senator BOXER. Well, so far, you are doing well. 

Ms. STEPHENS. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, I wanted to start by saying it has been mentioned that I lived in Korea many years ago, and in the years ago, 

I used to hear a phrase from Koreans quite often, even when I 

didn’t speak much Korean. When they talked about the United 

States-Korean relationship, they would talk about ‘‘Hyal Maeng 

Gwan-gei.’’ And literally, that is an alliance forged in blood. 

I am not sure that is said so much these days, but over a 60- 

year history of our relationship, the United States and the Republic 

of Korea have faced many challenges. There have, of course, been 

immense changes in both countries and in the world around us. 

But the partnership between our two countries has remained vital. 

I think this is the time to reinvigorate our partnership and to 

take it to a new level. Many of the goals the United States and 

Korea have been pursuing together for many years are within our 

grasp—a more mature and balanced military partnership, tarifffree trade, and the prospect of positive change in the North. So I 

believe that the most important work and the best days of the 

United States-Korean partnership are still ahead of us. 

171 

Madam Chairman and Senator Murkowski, I have submitted a 

written statement, which is rather lengthy. It goes into more detail 

than time allows me here, and it is lengthy because we have a very 

big agenda with Korea. But you know, in Korea, there is always 

breaking news. And even though I submitted my statement yesterday, it doesn’t include comment on some important events that actually have occurred in the last 24 hours. 

And to name just a few as a sample, the National Assembly elections concluded in Korea today, given the time difference. Ambassador Chris Hill’s meeting earlier today in Beijing with his Republic of Korea counterpart in the Six-Party Talks. And my favorite, 

the first Korean astronaut in space, a woman, Yi So-yeon, by the 

way. 

Each of these events reflects the breadth and vitality of Korea 

itself and the potential for our future cooperation together. So, if 

confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and with 

other members of Congress on a number of goals, which I will very 

briefly enumerate. 

First, working with my military colleagues and the Republic of 

Korea in adjusting our military forces on the peninsula. This includes moving our main United States military base out of downtown Seoul and preparing for the transfer of wartime operational 

control of Korean forces to the Republic of Korea in 2012. 

And expanding our global partnership with the Republic of Korea 

and deepening our cooperation in the kinds of areas that Senator 

Murkowski mentioned, from climate change to energy security and 

many, many more. 

And third, promoting open markets, fair trade, and U.S. economic leadership in the region. This includes ensuring that the Republic of Korea follows international guidelines and fully reopens 

its market to United States beef. It also includes the consideration 

by legislatures in both countries of the free trade agreement we 

have signed. This is a comprehensive, high-quality agreement between two democracies with advanced economies. It will open 

South Korea’s growing market of 49 million consumers to the full 

range of United States goods and services from agriculture to autos 

to telecommunications services. 

It will also strengthen our relationship with Korea and send a 

strong message of continued United States leadership in Asia. If 

confirmed as ambassador, upon FTA ratification, I am committed 

to working closely with the U.S. trade representative to ensure that 

all the provisions of the agreement are enforced across the board. 

Another key item on our agenda already mentioned is our effort 

to implement fully the September 2005 Statement of Principles 

agreed to the in Six-Party Talks. The full implementation of these 

principles envisions not only the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, but transformed relations on the peninsula and beyond 

and more secure and better lives for all Koreans. 

We have made progress, but much remains to be done, and it 

hasn’t been easy, as I know this committee well knows. Working 

closely with our allies in Seoul is vital. Ambassador Hill has just 

completed a round of meetings in Singapore and Beijing and will 

be reporting to Secretary Rice when he arrives back this evening. 

172 

Issues related to North Korea will be on the agenda when President Lee and President Bush meet next week at Camp David. If 

confirmed, I will also work closely and energetically with the South 

Korean Government to promote an improved human rights situation in North Korea and to seek sustainable solutions to the plight 

of North Korean asylum seekers. 

I also hope we can deepen the people-to-people ties between our 

two countries. Congress has provided legislation allowing us to 

work with the Republic of Korea on the steps needed to facilitate 

entry into our Visa Waiver Program, and I thank Senator Murkowski for her mention of this. 

If confirmed, I will work with the Koreans and our own authorities toward this end. In my own activities and those of the embassy, I will put a strong emphasis on outreach, on building our 

ability to communicate in Korean as well as in English, in cyberspace as well as face-to-face with Koreans from all walks of life, 

from all generations, and every part of the country. 

Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, thank you very much for 

the honor of appearing before you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stephens follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF D. KATHLEEN STEPHENS, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Madame Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea. I am honored by the confidence that President Bush and Secretary 

Rice have placed in me. I want to thank the committee and the other Members of 

Congress with whom I have had the pleasure of working during my career for your 

support for the Foreign Service and your dedication to advancing U.S. ideals and 

interests abroad. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working with this 

committee and with other members of Congress to strengthen our partnership with 

the Republic of Korea and to work together for the kind of peace and stability in 

which democracy and economic opportunity can flourish, not only on the Korean peninsula, but also throughout the world. 

I am joined today by my son, James, who is a student at Franklin W. Olin College 

of Engineering in Needham, MA. James was born in Korea. Like all Foreign Service 

family members, he learned to be a bridge-builder, even before he decided to study 

engineering. 

I am also grateful to my friends and colleagues from the Peace Corps and the Foreign Service who have joined me today, including the dedicated men and women of 

the Department of State who have been so helpful as I have prepared for this new 

assignment. I also want to recognize Ambassador James Lilley, former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China, and Mr. Jon 

Keeton, former Peace Corps/Korea director. Both have represented the United 

States brilliantly in Korea and elsewhere, and both have contributed hugely to 

United States-Korean relations. I have benefited from their mentorship, encouragement, and example. 

I have been a U.S. Foreign Service officer for 30 years. Early in my career, I spent 

8 memorable years at United States diplomatic posts in China and Korea. With the 

fall of the Berlin Wall, I turned to post-cold war Europe with assignments abroad 

and in Washington focused on the Balkans, the search for peace in Northern Ireland, and the changing transatlantic relationship. In 2005, I returned to the United 

States diplomatic agenda in East Asia. As this committee knows well, it is a huge 

agenda on which success is vital to the peace and prosperity of this country and indeed of the world. I believe we are making good progress. 

Madame Chairman, if we consider the history of American engagement in East 

Asia since the Second World War, if we examine the flowering of economic opportunity and democratic expression in much of East Asia in recent decades, if we identify the key security, human rights, and other issues yet to be resolved, it is clear— 

the 60-year-old partnership between the United States of America and the Republic 

of Korea has been and remains a remarkably successful and vital one. South Korea 

173 

emerged from a catastrophic half-century of occupation, division, and war to join 

within the space of only decades the top ranks of the world’s free and prosperous 

nations. This stunning achievement is testimony to the talent, determination, and 

sacrifices of several generations of Koreans, and to the power of free markets and 

democracy to unleash extraordinary human potential. It is also rightly viewed in the 

context of the sacrifice of the more than 35,000 Americans who lost their lives in 

the Korean War, and to the many thousands who have served side by side with our 

Korean allies to secure an uneasy peace since then. With the Republic of Korea 

serving today as a model and a catalyst for economic growth and democratic development elsewhere, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in its own neighborhood, I believe the 

best days of the United States-Korean partnership are still ahead of us. 

One reason I am an optimist about Korea’s future, and about the still-untapped 

potential of the United States-Republic of Korea partnership, is because I was fortunate enough to live and work in Korea during periods of amazing economic and political transformation. In the Korean countryside that was my home as a Peace 

Corps volunteer from 1975 to 1977, the memory and threat of war was the backdrop 

to a life that was harsh for many, not easy for any. The political atmosphere was 

stifling. But an economic and social transformation was happening before my eyes. 

I could see the way people’s standards of living were improving in small but crucial 

ways day by day, and the way new opportunities—for education, for a brighter future—were being created and energetically grasped. 

When I returned to Korea in 1983 as a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in 

Seoul, burgeoning economic growth had been joined with increasing urgency by a 

growing insistence by Koreans that economic development should be matched with 

political reform, with human rights standards and democratic institutions that reflected the aspirations and maturity of the Korean people. It was a difficult period, 

at times for United States-Korean relations, but especially for the patriotic Koreans 

who took risks in the cause of Korea’s democratization. By 1987, the tide had 

turned. Just as an earlier generation of Koreans had against all odds turned their 

country from an economic disaster zone into a powerhouse, so did Koreans in the 

1980s take Korea across the democratic threshold. 

Koreans have never looked back. The twin engines of a dynamic economy and a 

vibrant democracy have lifted Korean accomplishments to new heights and new 

fields. We see it in Korea’s status as Asia’s ‘‘most wired country,’’ in its innovative 

mobile phone industry that made South Korea the first to launch digital TV to cell 

phones in 2005, in its cutting-edge, globally-recognized film and art scene, and in 

its full participation in the international community, epitomized by the election of 

its distinguished former Foreign Minister, His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, as the Secretary General of the United Nations. 

Madame Chairman, Senate Resolution 444, which passed unanimously on February 14, marked another milestone in Korea’s recent history, that of the election 

of the Republic of Korea’s new President, Mr. Lee Myung-bak. The resolution describes the ever-growing areas in which the Republic of Korea and the United States 

work together closely in our alliance partnership, and highlights the opportunities 

before us to expand further our areas of cooperation. In that spirit, it is fitting that 

President Lee’s first overseas trip in his new role is to the United States. President 

and Mrs. Bush will host President Lee and his wife, Mrs. Kim Yoon-ok, at Camp 

David next week for discussions that will focus on ways in which the United States 

and the Republic of Korea can continue to work together to advance our shared values of freedom, security, and prosperity in East Asia and beyond. 

This year, 2008, marks the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the Republic 

of Korea as well as the sixtieth anniversary of the United States-Republic of Korea 

relationship. As we reflect on our shared history of sacrifice and success, and as we 

examine the regional and global opportunities and challenges we face, the time is 

right to reinvigorate and maximize the mutual benefits of our partnership. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to realize this goal. There are several major areas in which I intend to concentrate my efforts. 

ADAPTING OUR LONGSTANDING SECURITY ALLIANCE WITH

SOUTH KOREA TO ADDRESS CONTEMPORARY REALITIES

The United States and the Republic of Korea have agreed to adjust the size and 

strategic stance of our respective military forces on the peninsula to reflect better 

the challenges we face today and the changes in the Republic of Korea itself. We 

are working with our Korean counterparts to move the main United States military 

base out of downtown Seoul, and to consolidate United States troops in the Republic 

of Korea overall to fewer hubs further south. We have agreed to transition our command relationships such that beginning in 2012, the Republic of Korea will exercise 

174 

wartime operational control over Korean troops. These steps are sensible and timely. The changes overall will reflect Korea’s economic and military strength, and its 

place in the world and the region. The changes will also strengthen the U.S. military’s operational efficiency and deterrent capability. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Korean Government, my military colleagues, and with the Congress to 

accomplish this transformation. 

The core mission of deterring aggression from the North will remain the principal 

priority. But we should continue to deepen our cooperation with the Republic of 

Korea as we address other regional and global challenges. We should build on the 

work we have done together in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. In Iraq’s Irbil province, the Koreans have been successful not only in developing local infrastructure 

and maintaining security, but also in providing a vision for a more democratic and 

peaceful future. The Republic of Korea has made substantial contributions to international peacekeeping efforts, from Somalia to Georgia to Timor-Leste. The Republic 

of Korea currently has some 350 troops in southern Lebanon supporting the U.N. 

peacekeeping mission. The South Korean National Assembly is considering legislation to allow even greater participation in peacekeeping missions. We should also 

continue to expand our cooperation on a range of global and transnational issues, 

such as nonproliferation, pandemics, counterterrorism, climate change, and democracy promotion. 

PROMOTING OPEN MARKETS, FAIR TRADE, AND U.S. ECONOMIC

AND STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP IN THE REGION

The Republic of Korea has gone from a per capita income of $67 in 1953 to roughly $20,000 today. In the past several years, South Korea has demonstrated a growing willingness to move to greater market openness. It has demonstrated its resolve 

to participate in free and fair trade by making the strategic decision to negotiate 

and sign a comprehensive, high-quality free trade agreement with the United 

States. Upon approval by the legislatures of both countries, the KORUS FTA will 

open South Korea’s growing market of 49 million consumers to the full range of 

United States goods and services, from agriculture to autos to telecommunications 

services. 

The KORUS FTA is the most commercially significant free trade agreement the 

United States has concluded in over 15 years. Just taking into account the benefits 

of eliminating tariff barriers alone, this trade agreement has the potential to boost 

U.S. exports by more than $10 billion annually, according to the recent International Trade Commission report on the expected impact of the FTA. The benefits 

are even more significant when the elimination of nontariff barriers is factored in. 

It will accelerate and lock in Korea’s economic reforms. The FTA will provide new 

opportunities for American companies to export to and invest in the Korean market. 

It will strengthen our relationship with a key democratic ally in a critical part of 

the world, and send a strong message of continued United States leadership in Asia. 

If confirmed as ambassador, and upon FTA ratification, I will make it a top priority 

to work with the United States Trade Representative to ensure that the provisions 

of the agreement are enforced across the board. This includes enhancing our current 

cooperation with the South Koreans on environment and labor standards. 

Moreover, we must ensure that the Republic of Korea follows international guidelines and fully reopens its market to United States beef. If confirmed, and as the 

progeny of Texas ranchers, you can be assured I will do all I can to ensure that 

our safe and delicious beef has unrestricted access to the South Korean market. 

WORKING CLOSELY WITH OUR SOUTH KOREAN ALLIES TO ACHIEVE THE COMPLETE, 

VERIFIABLE DENUCLEARIZATION OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA, BETTER LIVES FOR THE

LONG-SUFFERING PEOPLE OF NORTH KOREA, AND A PEACE SETTLEMENT ON THE PENINSULA THAT REFLECTS THE ASPIRATIONS OF THE KOREAN PEOPLE

Strategically situated between China and Japan, the Korean peninsula remains 

of critical geopolitical importance to the region and to the United States. Despite 

the prosperity and freedom that has come to define the Republic of Korea, the situation on the peninsula as a whole remains unpredictable. On a human level, the disparity between the lives of the ordinary citizens of North and South Korea is greater 

than ever. The United States seeks through the Six Party Talks to complete the 

denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to implement fully the vision set out 

in the Joint Statement of Principles agreed to by all six parties in September 2005. 

Our close coordination with the Republic of Korea in that process has been instrumental to the progress made to date, and if confirmed, I will seek to ensure that 

we continue that vital cooperation. With successful denuclearization, the joint statement commits the United States and the other parties to the normalization of relaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
175 

tions, to economic and energy assistance to North Korea, and to achieving a permanent peace arrangement in Korea, along with a peace and security mechanism for 

the region. It is an ambitious agenda. The United States and the Republic of Korea 

will need to work closely together to succeed. 

As democratic societies, the United States and South Korea also share a deep interest in promoting an improved human rights situation in North Korea. This interest is particularly keen among the many Koreans whose families were tragically 

separated by the Korean War. President Lee and his government have made clear 

the importance the Republic of Korea attaches to this issue. The United States has 

equally deep resolve. If confirmed, I will work closely with the South Korean Government on the issue of human rights in North Korea, including in seeking sustainable solutions to the plight of North Korean asylum seekers. 

ENHANCING THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE TIES BETWEEN OUR TWO COUNTRIES

AND DEEPENING MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

The people-to-people ties between the United States and Korea continue to grow 

exponentially. The 2 million Korean-Americans in the United States and Korea play 

a positive and ever-growing role in strengthening the ties between our two countries. Tourism from the Republic of Korea is on the rise, topping 800,000 visitors 

last year. Over 100,000 Korean students are studying in the United States. South 

Korean investment and business interests are also growing. In 2006, South Korea 

was our 7th largest trading partner and the 18th largest source of foreign direct investment in the United States. 

These facts, combined with Korea’s stable democracy and our strong alliance partnership, make South Korea a natural candidate for the Visa Waiver Program. If 

confirmed, I will work with the Government of the Republic of Korea to address the 

legislative requirements for entry into our Visa Waiver Program, including increased information sharing, greater law enforcement cooperation, and the timely 

production of a South Korean electronic passport. I will work with the Department 

of Homeland Security and with Korean authorities to ensure that, consistent with 

congressional and administration requirements, the security, immigration, and law 

enforcement interests of our Nation are strengthened by the inclusion of the Republic of Korea in the Visa Waiver Program. 

I also look forward to leading our embassy’s efforts to communicate our ideas and 

priorities as a Nation to the South Korean people. Much has changed since I last 

lived in Korea. I will need to do a lot of listening and learning. I will ask the forbearance of my audiences as I attempt to improve my Korean language ability and 

to use it to understand better a culture and people I respect so deeply. 

I will build on the embassy’s reputation of being on the leading edge of United 

States diplomatic missions in the use of innovative technologies to reach out to 

South Korea’s plugged-in public. I look forward to supporting programs such as the 

Korean-American Educational (Fulbright) Commission. This year alone, there are 

114 United States grantees in Fulbright programs in Korea, and 82 Korean grantees 

in programs in the United States. Just last week, the Asia Society, devoted to improving ties between Americans and the diverse people of Asia, opened a new regional center in Korea. The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, or Amcham 

Korea, has an impressive record of bringing American and Korean business people 

together. These organizations and the multitude of other United States-Korea educational, cultural, spiritual, and artistic exchanges epitomize the breadth and depth 

of the United States-Korean relationship in the 21st century. 

LEADERSHIP OF THE EMBASSY COMMUNITY; PARTNERING WITH

OUR COLLEAGUES IN UNIFORM

If confirmed, I will lead a complex diplomatic mission in the Republic of Korea 

consisting of 575 employees, including staff in the United States Embassy in Seoul 

and the American Presence Post in Busan. Of that number, 184 are U.S. citizens 

representing 15 U.S. Government agencies and offices, and 391 are locally hired 

United States and Korean citizen staff. All the staff serve our country in a mission 

that is categorized by the State Department as ‘‘historically difficult to staff’’ due 

to unique linguistic and other challenges. Among the U.S. citizen employees currently at post, 44 possess a working to fluent level of Korean language skills. I look 

forward to rounding out that number to 45, if confirmed. I will do my best to ensure 

that all members of the diverse community at Embassy Seoul and their families 

have the leadership, security, and support they need to get their jobs done, serving 

and representing the American people, and strengthening our partnership with 

South Korea. One high priority will be to hasten the day when we are able to move 

into a new embassy building that better represents the modern United States-ReVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
176 

public of Korea partnership. It will also be my privilege to serve with the committed, hard-working men and women of United States Forces Korea. I have had 

the pleasure of getting to know here in Washington, Lieutenant General Walter 

Sharp, who has been nominated to be Commander of United States Forces Korea. 

If we both are confirmed, I look forward to a close and productive service together 

in Korea. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Ms. Stephens. 

And now it is my pleasure to introduce Mr. William Todd to be 

Ambassador to the State of Brunei. And sir, if you have anyone you 

would like to introduce, please do so. And then we will start the 

clock, give you 7 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TODD, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF BRUNEI DARUSSALAM 

Mr. TODD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

My wife, Ann. 

Senator BOXER. Ann, you want to stand, please. 

Mr. TODD. She has put up with a heck of a lot while I have been 

getting ready for this hearing. So I owe her public thanks and 

thank her for her love and support. 

Senator BOXER. Very good. 

Mr. TODD. Thank you. Madam Chairman and Senator Murkowski, members of the committee, I deeply am honored to come 

before you today as President Bush’s nominee to be the next American Ambassador to Brunei Darussalam, which is known as the 

abode of peace. 

I want to thank Secretary Rice and the President for their confidence in nominating me for this position. If confirmed by the Senate, I will work closely with the committee, interested Members of 

Congress, and other Americans to further advance United States 

interests in Brunei. 

Madam Chairman, a little over a year after 9/11, the Sultan of 

Brunei came to Washington and met with the President. At that 

meeting, the President and the Sultan agreed to four goals and objectives. The first were closer counterterrorism cooperation. The 

second were more military-to-military visits and collaboration. The 

third, expanded trade and investment. And lastly, the fourth, expanded educational opportunities for Bruneians to study in America. 

I am happy to report that both of our governments have made 

progress in all four of these areas, and if confirmed, I will continue 

to vigorously pursue these goals. 

Madam Chairman, I also wanted to add two or three very important goals for my team and I to focus on, if confirmed. First, the 

last few years have been a challenging time for America’s image in 

some parts of the world. I think we have an opportunity to regain 

some of the ground we lost through more public diplomacy, outreach, engagement with this moderate Muslim nation. 

Second, I hope to be able to expand on the environmental programs in Brunei, like the Heart of Borneo Initiative, which was 

created to safeguard the future of Brunei’s tropical rainforests. 

This program has only been around for approximately a year, but 

it is showing great promise. 

177 

Last, I will aggressively manage the construction of the new Embassy in Brunei, ensuring that it becomes a model for safe, secure, 

environmentally friendly new small embassies. 

Madam Chairman, I believe the broad range of experience I have 

gained during my 25-year career in the Federal Government will 

assist me in accomplishing these goals. I have served in the Senior 

Executive Service for more than 10 years. I am currently the Acting Inspector General for the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In this capacity, I oversee all OIG activities, both domestically and abroad. 

Previously, I directed the day-to-day global operations in the 

State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, spearheading programs to combat illicit narcotics, international crime and terrorism, and to strengthen rule of law institutions and law enforcement capabilities all over the world, including 

in Southeast Asia. 

During the mid 1990s, I worked in a senior position in the 

United States and Foreign Commercial Service, helping to promote 

U.S. trade and investment abroad. In this capacity, I helped create 

and implement the big and emerging market strategy that was designed to maximize exports to countries like China and create jobs 

in the United States. As part of this program, I also built, staffed, 

and opened a number of United States commercial centers abroad, 

including three in Asia—one in China, one in Vietnam, and one in 

Indonesia. 

In closing, Madam Chairman and members of the committee, if 

confirmed, I will dedicate all of my energy and experience to advancing United States foreign policy objectives in Brunei. I will be 

glad to respond to your questions and thank you for today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Todd follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TODD, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee, I am extremely honored to be here before you today as President Bush’s nominee to become 

our next ambassador to the nation of Brunei Darussalam. I am also honored by the 

confidence the President and Secretary Rice have shown in me in making this nomination. If confirmed by the Senate, I will work closely with the committee, interested Members of Congress, and other Americans to advance United States interests 

in Brunei Darussalam. 

Although a small country, Brunei exerts a greater influence in the region than 

its size would suggest. Brunei’s location, its status as a significant provider of hydrocarbons, its stance against terrorism, and its membership in a number of important regional and multilateral organizations, such as the Association of Southeast 

Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, the 

World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Organization of the Islamic Conference 

(OIC), makes it an important partner and a valued friend of the United States. 

Since the Sultan of Brunei met with President Bush in the White House in December 2002, our ties with Brunei Darussalam, which means the ‘‘abode of peace’’ 

in Malay, have expanded and deepened. If confirmed, I therefore will be building 

on a strong foundation of growing cooperation in a number of areas, including security and military-to-military relations, economic-commercial ties, environmental protection, and people-to-people contacts. 

In considering our economic relations, we have common interests with Brunei. 

Brunei shares with us a desire and strong support for free markets, secure global 

shipping lanes to ensure smooth passage of exports and imports, and a stable financial system. Brunei is an important provider of liquefied natural gas to the region 

and also provides oil to the world market. The United States had a little over half 

a billion dollars of two-way trade with Brunei in 2007. U.S. exports surged last year 

due to sales of aircraft and other manufactured items. If confirmed, I will do all I 

178 

can to support U.S. businesses in order to continue this trend. We have a bilateral 

Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Brunei, which enables us 

to raise with Brunei officials our concerns and suggestions to expand our trade and 

investment relationship. Brunei is a member of what is called the Trans-Pacific 

Strategic Economic Partnership, also known as the P–4 Free Trade Agreement, 

along with Singapore, New Zealand, and Chile. The U.S. Government has joined negotiations with those countries on the investment and financial services chapters of 

that Free Trade Agreement. We are also exploring whether it will be in the United 

States interest to participate in the full FTA. I look forward to increasing our economic relationship with Brunei through the P–4 and other means. 

I also hope to do all I can to support Brunei’s partnership with Malaysia and Indonesia in the ‘‘Heart of Borneo Initiative’’ to preserve and sustainably manage the 

treasure of biodiversity that is found in the tropical rain forests of the island of Borneo. Although Brunei possesses just a fraction of the total area included in the initiative, approximately 240,000 square kilometers, Brunei has put at least 58 percent 

of its territory under the conservation protection called for in the Heart of Borneo 

Initiative, which has the strong support of the Government and the people of 

Brunei. 

Brunei Darussalam strives to maintain its well-deserved reputation as an ‘‘abode 

of peace.’’ The United States has found Brunei to be a valuable partner in promoting 

regional stability and security. Brunei and the United States coordinated relief to 

Aceh following the 2004 tsunami, and for several years Brunei has contributed 

forces to the international monitoring team on the Philippine island of Mindanao. 

Brunei welcomes the United States military presence in Southeast Asia, viewing it 

as essential to regional stability and prosperity. Our militaries cooperate closely in 

exercises and exchanges, and an increasing number of United States ships have visited Brunei’s port. Brunei’s first cadet at West Point is due to graduate in 2009, and 

two other officers are currently on shorter-term study in the United States. Our Department of Defense is working with the Government of Brunei to improve the 

latter’s abilities in military procurement, and we hope to sign a Mutual Acquisition 

and Cross Servicing Agreement to improve the ability of our military to work with 

its Bruneian counterparts in many areas, such as exercises and disaster assistance. 

If confirmed, I will seek to further enhance these ties. I will also work to improve 

our information sharing on terrorist threats. 

Madam Chairman, Brunei is an absolute monarchy. If confirmed, I will share 

with Bruneians the benefits of our democratic system and political openness, and 

look for ways we can further promote Brunei’s move toward a more participatory 

government. 

I also believe it is very important to promote greater people-to-people ties, and 

I especially want to increase the number of Bruneian students studying in or visiting the United States. While we have a friendly and constructive relationship with 

Brunei, I am confident that increased direct exposure to America would deepen understanding of our country by Bruneians and overcome stereotypes common in the 

global media. I am a firm believer in the value of public diplomacy and will work 

hard to ensure that Bruneians, the majority of whom are Muslim, are aware of the 

many qualities that make America such a great nation, and a nation of religious 

tolerance for all faiths. 

Madam Chairman, if confirmed to lead our embassy in Brunei, I will be responsible for the protection of United States citizens and our employees and facilities. 

Fortunately, the United States and Brunei recently agreed on the acquisition of land 

in order to build a new embassy compound that, when completed, will provide a secure working environment for our dedicated diplomats and local employees. This 

will be a great improvement over the current embassy location. 

Madam Chairman, the experience I have gained in government service for nearly 

25 years has prepared me well to serve as our next Ambassador to Brunei 

Darussalam. I have had a life-long interest in Asia, and I am looking forward with 

great enthusiasm to putting all of my experience and skill to use in order to advance 

United States interests in Brunei. 

I am currently the Acting Inspector General of the Department of State and the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors. I direct all Office of Inspector General activities, 

domestically and abroad. 

Previously, in the Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and 

Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), over a 4-year period I served as Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary (PDAS), as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Civilian Police and Rule of Law Programs and Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, 

as well as Executive Director/Controller. As PDAS, I was the Chief Operating Officer for global programs, including all post-conflict activities, and at the forefront of 

our international programs for police training, rule of law, and counternarcotics efVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
179 

forts in some of the most hostile places on earth, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

Colombia. I managed approximately 4,000 employees and contractors in more than 

75 theatres of operation. As INL’s Executive Director/Controller, I was in charge of 

about one-sixth of the State Department’s budget (over $3.5 billion), and about onefourth of its assets. 

Finally, as Director of Planning and Resource Management for the Department 

of Commerce’s U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, I built, staffed, and opened 

U.S. Commercial Centers around the world, including three in Asia. 

Madam Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for your consideration of my nomination. I would be happy to respond to your questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

And next we go to Mr. Scot Marciel for the rank of Ambassador 

for Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Sir, go right ahead. If 

you have anyone to introduce, feel free. 

STATEMENT OF SCOT A. MARCIEL, NOMINEE FOR THE RANK 

OF AMBASSADOR FOR ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN 

NATIONS (ASEAN) AFFAIRS 

Mr. MARCIEL. Thank you. Unfortunately, the combination of 

work, school, and studying for exams made it impossible for my 

wife and my daughters to join me today. But I would like to take 

this opportunity to express appreciation for all the support they 

have shown me over the years. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. MARCIEL. Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee, I am deeply honored to appear before you 

today to seek confirmation of President Bush’s nomination of me as 

United States Ambassador for ASEAN affairs. I would like to begin 

by acknowledging the key role that the U.S. Senate played in creation of this position. 

Madam Chairman, just over a year ago, you and Senator Murkowski and other members of this committee cosponsored Senate 

Resolution 110, which urged, among other things, the United 

States to appoint an ambassador for ASEAN affairs. That resolution and the administration’s decision to put forth my nomination 

highlight our shared belief that ASEAN is playing a growing role 

in the region and that the United States should increase its engagement with ASEAN. In that spirit, and if confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to work with you and other members to 

advance our interests in Southeast Asia. 

Southeast Asia is a dynamic region of great importance to us. 

ASEAN’s 10 member nations have a combined population of almost 

600 million people and together constitute our fourth-largest export 

market. ASEAN members include two treaty allies, the world’s 

third-largest democracy, and many partners and friends. 

Our fundamental interest in Southeast Asia is that the region’s 

nations remain strong and independent, that they enjoy increased 

prosperity and freedom, and that they work with us in addressing 

regional and global issues. It is also in our interest to see a successful ASEAN, which can be a positive force for peace, stability, 

and progress. ASEAN members have worked to bolster their organization recently, including by signing a charter last year that provides a legal basis for the organization and offers the possibility for 

it to play a more significant and positive role in the future. 

180 

We have responded by ramping up our own cooperation with 

ASEAN. An appointment of an ambassador for ASEAN affairs will 

add to the momentum in the relationship. 

Madam Chairman, nearly half of my 23 years in the Foreign 

Service has been devoted to working in or on the ASEAN region. 

I have served in the Philippines and Vietnam as director of the two 

offices responsible for Southeast Asia and in my current position as 

Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for Southeast Asia in which 

I am also responsible for relations with ASEAN. 

I have developed a broad network of contacts in the region and 

a healthy appreciation for its diversity, its challenges, and its many 

opportunities. If confirmed, I pledge to use that experience to expand United States engagement with ASEAN in support of our national interests. I will work to ensure the United States maintains 

a significant presence in the region and to erase any doubt about 

the United States commitment to Southeast Asia. 

I intend to urge ASEAN to set and to meet high standards, 

whether on economic issues or on democracy and human rights. I 

also look forward to expanding our cooperation with ASEAN in key 

areas such as health, education, and the environment. 

Finally, one of my highest priorities, if confirmed, will be to work 

with ASEAN and with other countries in the region to convince 

Burma’s rulers to end their brutal repression and to begin a genuine dialog leading to a democratic transition. Burma represents 

one of ASEAN’s biggest challenges, but it is also an opportunity. 

If we and ASEAN, along with other members of the international 

community, can help bring about a reversal of Burma’s dangerous 

downward spiral, it will be of great benefit not only to the Burmese 

people, but to ASEAN and to our interests in Asia. 

Madam Chairman, we are doing a lot of good work in Southeast 

Asia, and there is more that we can do. I would consider it a privilege and an honor to be part of that effort by serving my country 

as the first United States Ambassador for ASEAN affairs. 

Thank you for considering my nomination, and I welcome your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marciel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOT A. MARCIEL, NOMINEE FOR THE RANK OF

AMBASSADOR FOR ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN) AFFAIRS

Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee, I am 

deeply honored to appear before you today to seek confirmation of President Bush’s 

nomination of me as U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs. I appreciate the confidence that the President and Secretary Rice have shown in me by this nomination. 

The creation of the position of U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs reflects our 

recognition of the growing importance of ASEAN as an institution. I would like to 

acknowledge the important role the United States Senate played in the creation of 

this post. Madam Chairman, just over a year ago, you joined nine other Senators 

in cosponsoring Senate Resolution 110, sponsored by Senator Lugar, expressing the 

sense of the Senate that, among other important actions, the United States should 

appoint an ambassador for ASEAN affairs. That resolution and the administration’s 

subsequent move to nominate such an ambassador highlight our shared belief that 

the United States should increase its engagement and cooperation with ASEAN. In 

that spirit, and if confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to work with you and 

other members to advance United States interests in Southeast Asia and within 

ASEAN in particular. 

Southeast Asia is a dynamic region of great importance to our country. ASEAN’s 

10 member nations have a combined population of nearly 600 million, and together 

181 

constitute our fourth largest export market. ASEAN members include two treaty allies, the world’s third-largest democracy, and many long-time partners and friends. 

Our fundamental interest in Southeast Asia is that the region’s nations remain 

strong and independent, that they enjoy increasing prosperity and freedom, and that 

they work with us as partners in addressing a wide range of regional and global 

challenges. 

We are pursuing these interests, both by bolstering our already strong bilateral 

relations with most ASEAN members and, increasingly, by building a fuller relationship with ASEAN itself. Because I have been nominated to be Ambassador for 

ASEAN Affairs, I would like to focus my comments on our relationship with ASEAN 

as a whole, rather than on our bilateral relations with individual members. 

ASEAN was established in 1967. The United States became a dialog partner, 

ASEAN’s term for those nations with which it has established regular formal discussions, in 1977. Throughout those 31 years, we have developed closer relations between our governments, our businesses, nongovernmental organizations, education 

institutions, and individuals. 

In recent years, ASEAN members have worked to bolster the organization and to 

promote economic integration and a greater sense of community. ASEAN governments understand these changes are essential if they are to compete internationally 

and ASEAN is to maintain its relevance. ASEAN leaders took a very important step 

along these lines last November when they signed the ASEAN Charter, which provides a legal basis for the organization and offers the possibility for it to play a 

much more significant and positive role in the future. 

It is in our interests to see a strong and successful ASEAN, which can be a positive force for peace, stability, and prosperity, and which also can set high standards 

for its members in areas such as rule of law and human rights. That is why we 

have responded to ASEAN’s recent efforts by ramping up our engagement. The 

ASEAN-United States Enhanced Partnership, announced by the President and 

ASEAN leaders in 2005, set a clear framework for boosting cooperation. The action 

plan signed by Secretary Rice and her ASEAN counterparts in 2006 laid out a series 

of concrete areas of cooperation. More recently, the Department of State and USAID 

have developed a program, called ADVANCE, to support these efforts, and to help 

ASEAN achieve its ambitious goals. 

Much of our initial work has focused on supporting ASEAN’s economic integration 

efforts, in large part because ASEAN itself is moving fastest in building its economic 

pillar. However, we also are advancing our political, security, social, and cultural 

interests with ASEAN. We have been very active on the environment, supporting 

projects such as the successful ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network, the Coral 

Triangle Initiative, and the Heart of Borneo program. We are rapidly increasing our 

cooperation on climate change, clean energy, pandemic preparedness, and avian influenza. I am very pleased that we recently launched the first ASEAN Fulbright 

program. 

We want to work with ASEAN to promote democracy and freedom. We are 

pleased that the fundamental principles embodied in the ASEAN Charter include 

commitments to ‘‘strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of 

law, and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.’’ We welcome the decision to create a human rights body—and as the structure and functions of that body take shape, we will urge ASEAN to give it the means to promote 

and protect fundamental human rights throughout the region. 

Madame Chairman, nearly half of my 23 years in the Foreign Service has been 

devoted to working in or on the ASEAN region, including assignments in the Philippines and Vietnam, as director of the two offices responsible for Southeast Asia, 

and as desk officer for Laos. I have developed a strong network of contacts in the 

region, as well as a healthy appreciation for its diversity, challenges, and opportunities. 

If confirmed, I pledge to use that experience and my firm belief in the value of 

a strong United States role in Southeast Asia to expand United States engagement 

with ASEAN in support of our national interests. I will do all I can to ensure the 

United States maintains a strong presence in the region, and to eliminate any doubt 

about the United States commitment to Southeast Asia. I intend to urge ASEAN 

to set and to meet high standards, whether on economic issues such as intellectual 

property rights protection or on democracy and human rights, including by making 

the human rights body a credible and meaningful entity. I also look forward to enhancing United States-ASEAN cooperation in other areas, such as health, energy, 

and the environment. 

One of my highest priorities, if confirmed, will be to work with ASEAN and its 

member nations—as well as with other countries in the region and around the 

globe—to convince Burma’s rulers to end their brutal repression and begin a genVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
182 

uine dialog leading to a democratic transition. The problem of Burma represents one 

of ASEAN’s biggest challenges, but also an opportunity. If we and ASEAN, together 

with others in the international community, can help bring about a reversal of Burma’s dangerous downward spiral, it will be of enormous benefit not only to the Burmese people, but to the region, to ASEAN, and to our interests in East Asia. 

I would like to conclude with a few comments on how I hope to carry out this 

new role as Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs, while continuing my work as Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Southeast Asia. First, I intend to travel extensively throughout the region, and to use every stop to talk about both bilateral and ASEAN issues. 

I believe the title of Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs will give me good access, and 

many opportunities to talk about our concerns—and the positive role the United 

States is playing in the region—both privately and publicly. Second, I intend to engage extensively with the ASEAN Secretary General and his staff in Jakarta to support ambitious ASEAN goals and to find concrete ways in which we can work together. Finally, I need to do a lot of work here to ensure that we have a clear, coherent, and coordinated approach to Southeast Asia that combines the traditional focus 

on bilateral relations with recognition that our challenges and opportunities in that 

part of the world increasingly need to be pursued regionally, particularly through 

close cooperation with ASEAN. 

Madam Chairman, I would consider it a great privilege to serve my country as 

the first U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs. 

Thank you for considering my nomination. I welcome your questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

And now we turn to the Honorable Patricia Haslach for the rank 

of ambassador during her tenure of service as United States senior 

coordinator for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICIA M. HASLACH, NOMINEE FOR 

THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HER TENURE OF SERVICE AS UNITED STATES SENIOR COORDINATOR FOR THE 

ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC) FORUM 

Ambassador HASLACH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would first like to take this opportunity to thank my mother, 

also named Patricia Haslach, who is here with me today. 

Senator BOXER. Why don’t you stand up, Mrs. Haslach. 

Ambassador HASLACH. And to my father, who has recently 

passed away and who was always an inspiration to me. I would 

also like to thank my husband, David, who is serving as a Foreign 

Service officer in Austria, and to our two daughters, Shereen and 

Kiran, who are unable to join us today. 

Madam Chairman, I note that Shereen is a student at Santa 

Clara University, which gives me the chance to visit your State 

quite frequently. 

Senator BOXER. Wonderful. Well, we welcome you. 

Ambassador HASLACH. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members 

of the committee, I am honored to appear before you to seek confirmation as United States Ambassador to APEC. I appreciate the 

confidence that President Bush and Secretary Rice have shown in 

me by this nomination. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

you to advance United States interests through APEC. 

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, APEC, is the premier venue for United States engagement with the Asia-Pacific region on economic and other issues. The 21 members of APEC together account for 60 percent of U.S. exports, 60 percent of global 

GDP, 50 percent of world trade, and nearly 3 billion consumers. 

183 

APEC is the only trans-Pacific forum that includes the United 

States and meets annually at the head of State level. 

While these facts alone demonstrate the significance of the 

forum, APEC is more than the sum of its statistics. APEC is a vibrant organization that works to enhance the well-being of the 

United States and the Asia-Pacific in practical and tangible ways. 

With little fanfare, APEC is playing a vital role in promoting 

prosperity, opening markets, and ensuring our security. For example, APEC is at the forefront of regional economic integration. A 

key component of this effort is APEC’s exploration of a free trade 

area of the Asia-Pacific as a long-term vision, which would allow 

Americans to compete on a level playing field in the region. 

APEC also helps to facilitate increased regional commerce. This 

includes promoting the development of high-quality free trade 

agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, expediting business travel, and reducing the costs of conducting trade. 

America must participate constructively in the process of economic integration that is already transforming the Asia-Pacific or 

risk becoming disadvantaged and isolated. If confirmed as ambassador, I will work to utilize the tools and opportunities provided by 

APEC to ensure that America will be part of the region’s extraordinary dynamism and in a way that benefits all Americans. 

At the same time, addressing economic issues alone does not 

guarantee growth. We must also foster an overall environment 

where prosperity can occur. This is why APEC is helping to build 

institutions, combat corruption, and promote education. Madam 

Chairman, you might be interested to know that APEC is committed to women’s economic empowerment and has made it an important criterion in the approval of APEC projects. 

In addition, APEC is helping to address energy security and climate change. It is also helping to improve port security, counterterrorism, and confront avian influenza. I note that APEC is accomplishing these things in partnership with the region’s private sector. 

This year, Peru’s hosting of the forum enables us to tackle 

emerging challenges while highlighting ties between Latin America 

and Asia. APEC will work to enhance protections against unsafe 

food and other products. APEC is uniquely suited for addressing 

this issue since our key regional trade partners, including China, 

are active members. 

APEC will also work to address concerns about globalization, including access to the skills needed to succeed in the global economy. Furthermore, I want to highlight that in 2011, the United 

States will be hosting APEC for the first time in 18 years. This is 

a tremendous opportunity for our country, and I look forward to 

working with Congress to make this event successful. 

During my 22 years in the Foreign Service, I have developed an 

intimate knowledge of Asia. If confirmed as ambassador to APEC, 

I promise to work to strengthen the organization as an engine of 

growth and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific. 

Thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Haslach follows:] 

184 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICIA M. HASLACH, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR

DURING HER TENURE OF SERVICE AS UNITED STATES SENIOR COORDINATOR FOR

THE ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC) FORUM

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the committee, 

I am deeply honored to appear before you today to seek confirmation as U.S. Senior 

Official for APEC with the rank of Ambassador. I appreciate the confidence that 

President Bush and Secretary Rice have shown in me by this nomination. If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to work with you to advance U.S. interests 

through APEC. 

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) is strategically important to 

the United States. It is the premier venue for engaging the Asia-Pacific region on 

economic and other issues. The 21 members of APEC together account for 60 percent of U.S. exports, 60 percent of global GDP, 50 percent of world trade, and nearly 

3 billion consumers. APEC is the only trans-Pacific forum that includes the United 

States and meets annually at the head of state level, with President Bush having 

attended every APEC leaders meeting since taking office. It also brings together 

other top officials throughout the year to address an array of important issues. 

While these facts alone demonstrate the significance of the forum, APEC is more 

than the sum of its statistics. APEC is a vibrant organization that works to enhance 

the well-being of the United States and the Asia-Pacific in practical and tangible 

ways. With little fanfare, APEC is playing an important role in promoting economic 

growth, opening markets for U.S. business, and ensuring our security. If confirmed 

as U.S. Senior Official for APEC with the rank of Ambassador, I will work vigorously to strengthen the organization, particularly as the United States prepares to 

host APEC in 2011. 

PROMOTING U.S. TRADE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Madam Chairman, APEC has made real progress in breaking down barriers to 

American goods and services, as well as addressing an array of issues that are important to U.S. manufacturers, service providers, workers, farmers, and ranchers. 

• Over the years, APEC has offered strong support to concluding the Doha Round 

of multilateral trade talks, especially at critical junctures. In March, at their 

first meeting of 2008, APEC senior officials issued a strong statement noting 

the recent positive developments in the Doha Round and committing to work 

toward an ambitious and balanced outcome that delivers real commercial gains. • APEC is also at the front-and-center in the trend toward economic integration 

in the Asia Pacific, a critical ingredient for building prosperity and stability in 

the region. A key component of this effort is APEC’s work to actively explore 

the long-term vision of a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), which 

would allow Americans to compete on a more level playing field in the world’s 

most dynamic economic region. • In addition, APEC has made important progress in addressing an array of 

issues to further facilitate trade and economic growth in the Asia Pacific. This 

includes establishing guidelines to promote the development of high-quality 

FTAs in the region, increase protection of intellectual property rights, and reduce the costs of conducting trade that hinder American businesses—especially 

small businesses—from fully participating in the regional marketplace. • APEC also expedites the travel of senior business people and government officials throughout the region using the APEC Business Travel Card program. 

This program provides eligible individuals with speedier processing at airport 

immigration lines in participating APEC economies. 

There is still unfulfilled potential in our trade relationship with Asia. America 

must participate constructively in the process of economic integration that is already 

transforming the region, or risk becoming disadvantaged and isolated. If I am confirmed with the rank of ambassador, I will work to utilize the tools and opportunities provided by APEC to ensure that our country will be a part of the extraordinary 

dynamism of the Asia-Pacific, and in a way that benefits all Americans. 

BUILDING AND SECURING PROSPEROUS SOCIETIES

At the same time, addressing economic issues alone does not guarantee growth. 

We must also foster an overall environment where prosperity can occur. 

• This is why APEC is helping economies to construct transparent regulatory institutions, combat corruption, and promote education. It is also why APEC is 

working to ensure that all members of society can prosper from regional trade 

and investment. Madam Chairman, you might be interested to know that APEC 

members, including the United States, are particularly committed to women’s 

185 

economic empowerment and have made it an important criterion in the approval of APEC-sponsored projects. 

• APEC is also contributing to the global response to energy security and climate 

change. Utilizing its strengths as the region’s preeminent economic forum, 

APEC is working to achieve regional goals in such areas as improving energy 

efficiency, promoting alternative energy sources, and fostering the development 

and trade of clean technologies. These activities include an effort in APEC to 

promote trade of environmental goods and services. 

• Furthermore, APEC has made important contributions to protect the region 

from security threats that could harm economic growth. With the United States 

in the lead, APEC has helped to improve the security of airports and seaports, 

counterterrorism, and confront avian influenza. 

I want to emphasize that APEC is not just a forum for talking about policy solutions to economic challenges; it also works in practical terms to translate ideas into 

action. In particular, APEC undertakes technical cooperation programs that help 

our trade partners to implement their commitments and improve the economic life 

of people throughout the region. This is one of the main reasons why President 

Bush committed in 2006 to augment U.S. funding for APEC. With financial contributions from the United States and other members, APEC is implementing 

projects in a wide range of areas, including education, energy, emergency preparedness, anticounterfeiting, and economic reform. APEC’s partnership with the region’s 

private sector, including many of its leading companies, also ensures that its initiatives are focused, constructive, and of tangible benefit to U.S. businesses. 

PERU 2008 AND THE FUTURE

Peru’s hosting of the forum in 2008 underscores the trans-Pacific nature of APEC 

and enables us to tackle emerging challenges while highlighting the growing economic ties between Latin America and Asia. 

• APEC will be working to increase economies’ capacity to protect against unsafe 

food and other products, an issue of immense concern to U.S. consumers. The 

United States believes that APEC is uniquely suited for addressing this issue, 

since our key regional trade partners—including China—are active members. 

APEC will implement a major program this year to identify strategies for improving food safety and is looking to pursue more initiatives that will strengthen regional capabilities to protect consumers. 

• APEC will focus on ways to address concerns in both developed and developing 

economies about globalization, including access to education and workplace 

skills needed to succeed in the global economy. 

• APEC will also work to promote corporate social responsibility in the Asia-Pacific, since we know that good corporate citizenship has a positive impact for 

both the people of the region as well as for the business community. 

Madam Chairman, I also want to highlight that in 2011 the United States will 

be hosting APEC for the first time in 18 years. This is a tremendous opportunity 

for our country. As the host economy, it will be an excellent chance to promote U.S. 

business and investment opportunities and define an agenda for regional prosperity 

that reflects our values. This will be a major undertaking, and I look forward to 

working with Congress to make this important event successful. 

CONCLUSION

If I am confirmed with the rank of Ambassador, I promise to put my experience 

and enthusiasm to work in advancing United States interests in the Asia-Pacific. 

During my 22 years in the United States Foreign Service, I have developed an intimate knowledge of Asia, having served as Ambassador to Laos between 2004 and 

2007, and in the economic section of the United States Embassy in Indonesia during 

the 1990s. Together with my other experience working on economic issues in South 

Asia, Africa, and Europe, I am prepared to tackle the broad range of economic issues 

with our fellow APEC members. 

Madam Chairman, it would be a great privilege to serve my country as U.S. Senior Official for APEC with the rank of Ambassador. APEC is a truly unique and irreplaceable asset to the American people, and I am ready to help the United States 

strengthen the organization as an engine of growth and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific. 

Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you all. Excellent panel, and I will just 

ask a few questions and then turn it over to my colleague. And I 

186 

don’t have any need to go any extra rounds, I don’t think. So, hopefully, this will be short and sweet for you. 

Ms. Stephens, while South Korea remains an important ally of 

the United States, it is safe to say that the United States-South 

Korean relationship has faced a number of challenges over the past 

few years. At times, anti-Americanism has reached alarming levels, 

particularly after the tragic death of two South Korean girls, who 

were hit by a United States tank on its way to a training exercise 

in 2002. 

The election of President Lee in South Korea is being touted as 

an opportunity to strengthen our relations. President Lee has himself set rebuilding ties with the United States as one of the objectives of his presidency. How will you work to strengthen the relationship between the United States and South Korea, and how will 

you specifically address the issue of anti-Americanism? 

Ms. STEPHENS. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for that 

question. 

As I said in my opening statement, I look at the United StatesKorea relationship in a historical context. This is the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Korea. It is the 60th 

anniversary of the United States-Republic of Korea diplomatic relations. And as you point out, we have had a lot of challenges. 

When Ambassador Lilley and I were serving in Korea in the 

1980s, there was not democracy there. And so, I would have to say 

that I see some of the events of the past few years as a sign of a 

democratic society as it develops and matures. And as that society 

has developed and matured, so has the United States-Republic of 

Korea relationship. 

Polling suggests today that there is strong support across the 

board for a United States-Korea security relationship. The fact that 

we have a Korean-American community that now numbers some 2 

million—about 1.5 million in the United States, a half a million in 

the United States—gives the relationship, I think, the kind of foundation perhaps and resilience that perhaps it did not have some 

years ago. And I think there are a number of areas in which we 

can work to build on this relationship. 

When President Lee comes to the United States next week, I 

know that he and President Bush will be looking at a number of 

these. And without repeating what I said in my opening statement, 

I would again highlight in terms of the embassy our outreach in 

Korea itself. Korean is a very hard language. We are very proud 

of the fact that about a third or almost a third—— 

Senator BOXER. Oh, wait. I don’t want to get off the question. 

Ms. STEPHENS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. So you don’t think there is anti-Americanism in 

South Korea? 

Ms. STEPHENS. No, I do think that there has been, and there remains critical voices about the alliance, about what has happened 

in the past. But I think there is generally a sense that as Korea 

looks to its own interest, to its own future, that it needs to have 

a mature relationship with the United States. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Well, I think we need to build on that. 

I understand that the United States Government has repeatedly 

asked South Korea to contribute forces to assist with the interVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
187 

national effort to help stabilize Afghanistan, but that South Korea 

has been nonresponsive to date. Is there an overarching reason as 

to why South Korea does not want to assist the United States and 

its allies in Afghanistan? And do expect that there might be a 

change of heart because of President Lee’s new tenure? 

Ms. STEPHENS. Well, Madam Chairman, I do think that we—this 

is an issue we can discuss and should discuss with the Koreans. 

I would note that the Republic of Korea has contributed not only 

to our efforts in Iraq, where for a while they were the third-largest 

coalition contributor, but also in Afghanistan, where they did have 

a presence of, I think, some engineers and some other experts. 

Senator BOXER. But mine was—I was talking about forces. 

Ms. STEPHENS. Yes. I think this is a discussion that we should 

have with the new government, and I think we need to make—to 

discuss what the needs are in Afghanistan and to see how they can 

contribute. They have certainly made clear they would like to contribute to more peacekeeping operations worldwide. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I think it is very important because, of 

course, I have been to the zone there. I have looked across, and you 

know, South Korea understands the need to have stability at its 

border. Afghanistan deserves to have a country free of the Taliban, 

and I would hope that in this new opportunity that we have with 

you and the new President that we will make that case for Afghanistan. It is a very different case than Iraq. And so, I am looking 

forward to hearing from you on that. 

Mr. Marciel, what steps will you take to urge the ASEAN members to do more to let Burma know that its behavior is reprehensible and will not be tolerated in the future? How will you work 

with ASEAN to pressure the Burmese Government to reconsider 

the referendum it is planning to hold on a new constitution in May 

of this year? 

As you know, the referendum is facing widespread opposition in 

Burma, particularly because it will bar Aung San Suu Kyi from 

running for office. Now the Philippines has asked that she be released before it will ratify the new charter. Will you encourage 

other nations to follow suit? 

Mr. MARCIEL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

We have been working extensively and intensively with all of the 

ASEAN countries to try to get them to push the Burmese regime 

to take a number of steps, including releasing political prisoners, 

beginning a genuine dialog, and most recently, making the upcoming referendum an inclusive process that is credible. 

We have had, I would say, mixed success. On the one hand, you 

can look at ASEAN’s response compared to our response and say 

it has been somewhat meek. On the other hand, given ASEAN’s 

history and precedent, it has been remarkably strong. A very 

strong statement, as you know, last September expressing the 

sense of ASEAN of being appalled and expressing repulsion at the 

crackdown. 

ASEAN is a little bit split on this. I think all of the ASEAN 

countries would like to see change in Burma. They see that it is 

going downhill, and it is hurting ASEAN. Some, like the Philippines, have been most outspoken. We are continuing to weigh in 

188 

diplomatically with all of them, and we just need to keep doing 

that. 

Part of what is happening in places like Indonesia is that civil 

society in Indonesia is actually increasing pressure on the government to step in. The ASEANs are interested in working with us. 

They are opposed to sanctions, as you know. I don’t anticipate that 

will change. Frankly, we just need to continue working with them 

diplomatically and pointing out that the Burma problem is not 

going to go away on its own. 

Senator BOXER. As you know, because you have testified here before, this is an issue of great concern to members of the committee. 

So we will be working with you on this. 

I have one more question for you, Mr. Marciel. Then I will yield, 

and then I will come back with just two quick questions for our 

other panelists. 

In January of this year, Singapore’s defense minister said the 

United States should place some hot energy and effort in Southeast 

Asia, and I think he was relating to the fact that we have been so 

focused on Iraq. What initiatives are necessary to reassure our 

friends and allies in Asia that we are committed to an active and 

engaged presence in the region? 

Mr. MARCIEL. Senator, I think one of the challenges that we face 

is actually making sure that people in the region understand all 

the many things that we are doing in the region. The fact is that 

we have an incredible level of engagement. I would say overall, 

with the exception of a place like Burma, bilateral relations with 

the ASEAN members are at an all-time high, and we are doing 

more with ASEAN by far than ever before, with the enhanced partnership, assistance, et cetera. 

But as you said, the perception is still out there that somehow 

we are not engaged, we are not committed. Part of, I think, the 

beauty of creating an ambassador for ASEAN affairs, and I don’t 

want to sound arrogant here at all about my future role, if confirmed. But I think having an ambassador for ASEAN affairs allows us to raise the profile, and when we talk publicly in the region 

to emphasize the things we are doing and to look for more opportunities, including continuing high-level visits. 

So it is both a substantive challenge, but more importantly, I 

would say a public diplomacy challenge. Southeast Asians want 

more of us. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I think you make a good point, and that 

was one of the reasons we did support the creation of this position. 

So we are glad that you are willing to take it on. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Marciel, we will just keep you on the seat for a moment 

longer. With regard to Burma again, following up on Senator Boxer’s question, we recognize that the economic ties that Burma has 

with India and China and the significance of those. How much influence do the members of ASEAN have then with the military regime, given how China and India factor in? And where I am going 

is what is their leverage? 

Mr. MARCIEL. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. It is actually a 

question that we ask ourselves all of the time. 

189 

I think it is—we believe and most people believe that China 

probably has the most influence over Burma of any other nation, 

although I wouldn’t exaggerate even that influence. The Burmese 

generals don’t seem to take advice particularly well, either from 

outsiders or even from their own people. So I would say China has 

the most influence. 

ASEAN as a whole seems to have relatively limited influence, 

surprisingly. I think the greatest ASEAN influence is that when 

ASEAN speaks out strongly on Burma, it makes it harder for other 

nations in the region not to speak out, as well. I mean, I think in 

some ways it is a bit of an indirect influence. And so, we urge the 

ASEANs, as a result, to continue to speak out. 

But I think the experience over the last several months shows 

that the Burmese generals have not been particularly responsive. 

That said, ASEAN needs to keep raising this and pushing any way 

they can. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What is the status of the trade agreements 

that are being negotiated currently? This is the ASEAN Plus Three 

and the ASEAN Plus Six and the East Asia Economic Group. And 

in terms of the U.S. involvement on these trade agreements, do you 

know where we are? 

Mr. MARCIEL. We are not part of those. Senator, we are not part 

of those agreements. ASEAN is negotiating a series of agreements, 

I think, with Korea, China, and Japan. Yes, and they are all different—I think as well as with India, although that one is not moving ahead as fast. 

I don’t—I am afraid I don’t have a very good update for you, but 

I would be pleased to come back and give you more details. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. If there is an update, that is what 

I was looking for. 

Mr. MARCIEL. Okay. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you, Ms. Haslach, the—you 

mentioned the administration’s proposal for a free trade area within the Asia-Pacific. What has been the reaction of the APEC members to the proposal? I am assuming this is something that is meeting with a level of support or endorsement? 

Ambassador HASLACH. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

This is actually an aspirational goal. In everything in APEC, we 

have to reach consensus, and all the 21 members have agreed to 

a path looking at what is called a free trade area—not an agreement, a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific. And the focus is on 

building economic integration, and we can do this in many different 

ways, and we haven’t actually defined what the path will be. 

But currently, what we are trying to do is come up with model 

measures for free trade agreements, and we are looking at highquality free trade agreements similar to the one that we have recently negotiated with Korea. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. What about the sentiment that is out 

there that this administration just has not paid close enough attention to what is going on in the Asia-Pacific region? There were 

some issues recently where we didn’t stay at the meeting as long 

as we would have liked. 

And I guess the question is whether that sentiment is still out 

there, that the Bush administration is just not giving enough, atVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
190 

taching enough significance to the region and to the APEC members? And if that sentiment is still out there, how do you counteract that as ambassador to APEC? 

Ambassador HASLACH. Well, I think we have been able to actually counteract it by announcing that the United States will be 

hosting APEC in 2011, and I think that really speaks out for our 

commitment to APEC. Also, we fully are engaged in all of the different APEC meetings, hundreds of them that take place over the 

year. And President Bush has attended every single one of the 

leaders meetings, and Secretary Rice has attended all the 

ministerials. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So that sentiment is changing then with 

the passage of time? 

Ambassador HASLACH. Absolutely. And we cooperate in many, 

many tangible ways. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. Let me ask you, Ms. Stephens, and 

again, kind of sticking with some of the trade issues. Given Alaska’s relationship with South Korea and the fact that South Korea 

is our third-largest trading partner ahead of our neighbor, Canada, 

I am supportive of the United States-South Korea free trade agreement. But we recognize that there is some opposition to that agreement here in the United States. 

But can you speak to the agreement’s chances of success or how 

that is being received within South Korea’s National Assembly and 

what concerns they might have specifically? 

Ms. STEPHENS. Well, thank you, Senator. As you know, the 

agreement was signed in June of 2007 between our trade representative and her counterpart. The Republic of Korea is on a little bit of a different track in its timing, and it was introduced into 

the Korean National Assembly, I believe, last September. 

Now since then, Korea has had a presidential election and transition and then today the National Assembly election. But there has 

been a great deal of discussion—debate. In the early days of the 

negotiations, quite a bit of very vocal opposition to the idea of a 

free trade agreement. So they have been through quite a process 

there. 

And I think where they have come out, according again to polling, is with very strong support for it as a strategic decision by the 

Republic of Korea. As it looks at its very large neighbors in the region it works in and its need to be competitive in this global economy, I think for Korea they look at it as a key strategic move to 

not only deepen its ties with the United States, but as I said, to 

really kind of reform its economy. 

The benefits are different for our two countries. For us, we get 

a lot more access, as you know, because the tariffs go down. We 

don’t have so many tariffs on our products. So, for the Koreans, it 

is a little bit different. But it is about deregulating the Korean 

economy, making it more investor friendly, including to foreign investors, and making it more competitive. 

And it seems to me—I haven’t been to Korea recently. But from 

what I see in the polling and the discussion, President Lee’s party 

supports the agreement. The outgoing government, of course, is the 

one that negotiated it. I don’t know what the timing will be, but 

191 

we hope that it will go before the National Assembly and that they 

will consider it and ratify it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you a little bit more parochial 

question. But you mentioned one of your goals was just the outreach. The Korean Government has applied to open a consulate office in Anchorage, and I understand that the progress has been 

some slow—just hasn’t been at the speed that we would like. Do 

you have any update on what is happening with approval of that 

application? 

Ms. STEPHENS. Yes, Senator, happily, I do. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. 

Ms. STEPHENS. And we do regret that it has been a bit slow, but 

I understand that the approval was sent through diplomatic channels to the Korean Embassy here and that they can move forward 

with opening that consulate in Anchorage. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. Good, good. Well, that—you talk 

about the level of outreach, and that is highly significant. So I am 

pleased to hear that. 

And then just very quickly, we have been working—the State of 

Alaska has been working with the embassy there in Seoul to establish this Alaska Explorer Visa Program, and this provides the visa 

interviews for the Korean travelers. It has been very successful in 

encouraging tourism into Alaska from our Korean visitors, and I 

would just ask for your support to continue this program. I think 

it has been very helpful for both sides. 

Ms. STEPHENS. Thank you very much for highlighting that for 

me. I will certainly pay great attention to that, and we hope to get 

more and more Koreans visiting Alaska. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. Madam Chairman, my time has expired. I have one quick question for Mr. Todd. 

Senator BOXER. Go ahead. Please, go ahead. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And it is really very general. Mr. Todd, you 

had ticked off four specific items in terms of the foreign policy objectives that the United States has with regard to Brunei, and the 

first on your list related to the counterterrorism initiative. And you 

bring to this post a degree of background, you indicated, with international narcotics and law enforcement department. 

Can you speak to the issue of counterterrorism and what specifically you would look to do in Brunei to work with the United 

States foreign policy objectives on that issue? 

Mr. TODD. Thank you, Senator. That is an important question. 

The current state of play in Brunei is that there are not any active terrorist organizations in Brunei itself. However, there are 

three active terrorist organizations in the surrounding countries. 

Many of the top leaders have basically been dealt with, and they 

are not part of those organizations at this point in time. But the 

organizations still exist. 

In terms of Brunei itself, we share data with them. We share information. We know who is coming and going. It has been a very 

informative relationship. One of the things that we do do and what 

I did when I was in INL, which is the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, is we would do training and equipping and assistance in the form of teaching and training people 

what to do and what not to do. 

192 

And we have—the department has an ILEA, an International 

Law Enforcement Academy, in Bangkok, which I funded and ran 

that last—I think in 2006 trained, I think, 21 Bruneians in various 

forms of enforcement, some of which included antiterrorism activities. 

So if I am confirmed, I would continue to get people trained. I 

also would continue and encourage more information sharing. And 

as long as these three terrorist groups are still active in the region, 

my goal is to make sure that all Americans and American assets 

are protected. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Appreciate your response. 

In looking at Brunei—I have never had the opportunity to go 

there, but in looking at your economy reminds me a lot of what we 

have up north in Alaska and the dependence on oil, your desire to 

seek some diversification with your economy, some of your environmental issues. We differ a little bit in terms of size, but maybe one 

of these days I will have an opportunity to come visit for myself. 

Mr. TODD. I would love for you to come visit, ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the questions of these individuals. They certainly appear to be well prepared for their appointed tasks and I look forward to seeing them 

move through the process. 

Senator BOXER. I absolutely agree. And I was going to say while, 

future Ambassador Stephens, you are looking after Alaska, we 

have six—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER [continuing]. We have 600,000 Korean Americans 

in California. And—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. She trumps me every time. 

Senator BOXER. We trump each other, but anyway. So, anyway, 

just don’t forget. That is all. 

I have just a couple of questions. Ambassador Haslach, in recent 

weeks, China’s treatment of the Tibetan people has focused the 

world’s attention on China’s commitment to the rule of law and 

human rights. Obviously, this scrutiny is growing as we get closer 

to the Olympics. I understand in San Francisco today I forget how 

many people came out, but thousands and thousands of peaceful 

demonstrations. It has touched people’s hearts. 

And in the months leading up to the Olympics, how, if at all, can 

APEC be used as a forum to urge China to responsibly handle the 

crisis in Tibet? 

Ambassador HASLACH. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. 

APEC is largely an economic organization, but certainly there 

are many opportunities we have during the year at the Secretary 

of State level, at the leaders level. For example, last year in Sydney, President Bush did meet with many of our APEC partners to 

discuss issues that were not economic, human rights issues with 

regard to Burma. 

I much expect that Tibet will be on the agenda this year, as well 

as the bilateral meetings that we conduct with the economies 

whenever we meet, and we always bring up other subjects. And so, 

we use APEC for that. It presents yet another opportunity for us 

to dialog with China. 

193 

Senator BOXER. Good. I am glad you see it that way because, you 

know, we have a lot of States in our Union that will act unilaterally sometimes and say we are going to boycott this, that, or another from our State government purchases. And you look at my 

State, we have got 37 million people. We would be the fifth-largest 

economy in the world. So, in many ways, I think you are right to 

use it as an opportunity because you never know what State could 

all of a sudden decide to say we are done. 

So I hope you use every opportunity that you can to raise this 

issue. It is such a sad one, and it seems to me we can resolve it. 

It could be resolved without independence, just with some autonomy, and I just would press you on that. And I am glad that you 

intend to raise it. 

So, in conclusion, I have just a couple of quick questions for Mr. 

Todd. Why should he get away from my questions? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. And so, Mr. Todd, Brunei—and this really follows Senator Murkowski’s question about the economy in Brunei. 

Brunei is one of the most prominent economic success stories in 

Southeast Asia, thanks in large part to its natural resources. However, it is reported that Brunei’s oil and gas reserves, which account for 90 percent of its exports and one half of its GDP, are declining to the point where they will be exhausted in the relative 

near future. Oil is expected to dry up in 15 years and natural gas 

in 30. 

The Government of Brunei has reportedly tried to pursue alternative development strategies, but with limited success. As the 

Ambassador to Brunei, what will you do to help ensure that Brunei 

remains an economic success story in Asia? And I think you do 

have some unique qualifications to do this. So why don’t you discuss that as well? 

Mr. TODD. Thank you, ma’am. In terms of Brunei, as you said, 

it is a very wealthy country. It is about the size of Delaware. It has 

383,000 people. And at one point, the Sultan was the richest man 

in the world before the tech boom. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, I feel so sorry for him. [Laughter.] 

Mr. TODD. He still owns quite a bit, though. But in terms of it 

all, there seems to be a recent surge on the part of the several of 

the ministers in the Bruneian Government, where this is bothering 

them. One minister recently wrote an article that was in the Associated Press that talked about the complacency on the part of 

Bruneians and the fact that the per capita income in Brunei is one 

of the highest in the world. It is approximately $32,000 per person. 

And depending on whose numbers you believe, the oil and gas are 

going to run out somewhere between 15 and 40 years. 

In this article, this minister talked about alternatives to the current economy and diversifying. And I found it quite interesting because one of the things that it talked about was the wasteful use 

of energy in Brunei and how the country needed to learn how to 

be more economic and efficient in terms of how they use gas and 

oil, how they basically look at other alternative energy sources. 

And so, in terms of your question, if I am confirmed, I would like 

to look at U.S. firms promoting trade for alternative energy 

sources, looking at things that are more efficient in terms of cars 

194 

and buses and their manufacturing base. The other thing that I 

have thought about that actually is very popular in the rest of 

ASEAN is aqua farming. There have been talks about the 

Bruneians looking at cultivating shrimp and other things. 

Lastly, the—if I am confirmed, one other thing that has been recently brought to the attention of this specific minister is Brunei 

does have the Heart of Borneo Initiative, which basically is a huge 

ecological reserve that basically walls off approximately 50 percent 

of the country. One of the things that has been talked about is increasing ecotourism and making it kind of a new base of the economy. 

Currently, Brunei is a dry country. The expenses—or the hotels 

are extremely expensive. So there aren’t many tourists, but I see 

it as a place that American businesses could flourish in. 

Senator BOXER. Interesting. Well, let me say that as you talked 

about moving toward energy efficiency, that is exactly what we are 

doing here. We have a lot of steps we have to take right here in 

America. So that is good timing because we are all going to be looking toward this as we face global warming challenges. 

So my last question is really a human rights question to you, Mr. 

Todd. While the citizens of Brunei appear to enjoy a relatively high 

quality of life, Brunei is an absolute monarchy that restricts freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press. According to the 2007 Reporters Without Borders annual report, journalists working for privately owned publications in the sultanate—and this is a direct 

quote—can be punished by prison sentences of up to 3 years for 

publishing ‘‘false news.’’ And self-censorship is commonplace, and 

freedom of expression is limited. 

In June of 2006, three men were sentenced to 1 year in prison 

for having sent seditious and insulting mobile phone messages to 

the family of the leader. I was just thinking about how many people send insulting messages to me and the consequences that 

could—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER [continuing]. But I think they are wrong. People 

should have the right to insult their leaders. I would die for that 

right. So, if confirmed, what will you do to encourage Brunei to increase freedom of the press? 

Mr. TODD. Thank you, Senator. That is an excellent question. 

Right now, political freedoms are very limited—freedom of the 

press, religion, the right to congregate. There has been an emergency act that has been in place that gives the Sultan almost ultimate power since 1962. There is something called an Internal Security Act, which basically gives the Sultan and his ministries the 

ability to pick up people and to hold them without due process for 

up to 2 years. That is on one hand. That is the bad news story. 

The good news story is that the Government of Brunei and the 

Sultan have made some very positive changes over the last few 

years. The first is that they have enacted, the Sultan enacted in 

2004 the legislative council. A number of the people on the legislative council are actually elected, which is a new, novel thing in 

Brunei. 

The second is that government and the Sultan ratified 2 of the 

12 human rights conventions, basically protecting the rights of 

195 

women and children. And in terms of human rights, and if I am 

confirmed, my goal is through engagement and through staying 

true to our principles, focusing on these issues with the government and the Sultan and when—monitor, engage, and report. 

When I am done, report it up the food chain to DRL at the State 

Department and to the Hill and continue to press things that we 

believe in. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you. And I think that is true that 

we have seen some movement in the right direction, and I am sure 

that you will encourage that. 

Well, I would like to again thank our nominees for their willingness to serve our country. I also, and I know Senator Murkowski 

joins me fully in this, not only thanking our nominees, but their 

families. We certainly know the sacrifices that families do make. 

Of course, there are opportunities and pluses that go with our 

lifestyle in government, but there is a lot of sacrifice involved. So 

we want to thank you all. We want to thank some of you who were 

here who have been mentors to our outstanding panel. 

And I just wanted you to know that it is my understanding that 

Senator Biden will schedule a business meeting in the upcoming 

weeks so that these nominees can be considered and reported to 

the full Senate, and I want you all to know that you have my full 

support. I think I speak for Senator Murkowski and certainly Senator Webb, who said that. 

So we are really just glad you have stepped forward and accepted 

these new responsibilities, and much luck. And we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF D. KATHLEEN STEPHENS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. Depending upon the report, there are varying degrees of anti-American 

sentiment in the Republic of Korea. What contributes to reportedly significant levels 

of anti-American perspective among the people of South Korea? As ambassador, how 

will you work to improve perceptions and attitudes of South Koreans toward the 

United States? 

Answer. Most Koreans support the alliance with the United States, and older Koreans especially view that alliance as having been forged in blood during the Korean 

War. The most current opinion poll conducted by the State Department (in September 2007) revealed that 60 percent of South Koreans have an overall favorable 

opinion of the United States. Sixty-five percent also said the United States-South 

Korean security alliance was in good shape. Three-fourths of South Koreans consider the presence of United States forces in Korea important for their country’s security, and 68 percent feel that South Korea should maintain the security alliance 

with the United States even after North-South reunification. Other indicators, including the number of South Korean students who come to study in the United 

States and Korea’s strong interest in the Visa Waiver Program, also highlight the 

strength of the relationship. 

That said, given the many challenges the United States and the Republic of Korea 

have faced together in our 60 years of bilateral relations, it is no surprise that there 

has long been some anti-American sentiment in South Korea, or at least ambivalence and misunderstanding about the United States role in Korea at various historical junctures. I saw this personally, both as a Peace Corps volunteer in Korea in 

the 1970s and while there on diplomatic assignment in the 1980s. In my discussions 

during those decades, Koreans from all walks of life almost unanimously affirmed 

196 

their desire to see a healthy United States-Korea relationship, but were also critical 

of aspects of our shared history and of United States policies past or present. Part 

of that criticism stems from the division of the Korean Peninsula after World War 

II. Part is also rooted in the varying perceptions Koreans have of their process of 

democratization and of the role of the United States in those years. Incidents relating to the U.S. military presence have also inflamed anti-American feeling, such as 

after the tragic deaths in 2002 of two schoolgirls during a training exercise. 

I believe the best way to improve perceptions and attitudes of South Koreans toward the United States is to engage in a genuine dialog across the board, on all 

the issues. If confirmed as ambassador, I would seek first of all to listen to Korean 

voices and to understand better the many ways in which Korea has changed since 

I last lived there. I will put a strong emphasis in my own activities on outreach, 

on building our ability to communicate in Korean as well as in English, and on communicating in cyberspace as well as face-to-face. I will seek ways to engage more 

actively the large and influential Korean-American community, which now numbers 

some 2 million people, of whom about one-fourth reside in South Korea. 

Progress on our shared policy objectives is also key. I will work for early implementation of the consolidation of United States forces south of the Han River, which 

will reduce the United States footprint in central Seoul. I will seek to support, as 

well as explain publicly, why the implementation of our shared vision for the Korean peninsula’s future outlined in the September 2005 Joint Statement of Principles is so important to Americans as well as Koreans. I will work to streamline 

business, tourism, and educational travel to the United States, important to improving public perceptions of the United States. 

Question. If confirmed as ambassador, you will be challenged with important 

issues to the Alliance, that have necessarily occupied Ambassador Vershbow’s time. 

These include the Free Trade Agreement, the Visa Waiver program, the North Korean nuclear issue, and the United States military presence in the Republic of 

Korea, among others. Please describe some new and innovative ways of growing the 

United States-Republic of Korea relationship, that you consider notable and that 

you envision pursuing, if confirmed and in Seoul. 

Answer. As the question suggests, the groundwork has been laid to achieve an 

upgrade in the United States-Republic of Korea relationship in the coming years. 

Much work still remains to be done in adjusting our security presence on the peninsula in achieving denuclearlization of the peninsula and full implementation of our 

shared vision for its future as outlined in the September 2005 Joint Statement of 

Principles, and in implementing the Free Trade Agreement upon ratification. If confirmed, I will be focused on advancing this work, and to working with Korean authorities as they aim to enter the Visa Waiver Program. 

I would continue the effort to adjust our longstanding security alliance with South 

Korea to address contemporary realities. The United States and the Republic of 

Korea have agreed to adjust the size and strategic stance of our respective military 

forces on the peninsula to reflect better the challenges we face today and the 

changes in the Republic of Korea itself. We are working with our Korean counterparts to move the main United States military base out of downtown Seoul and to 

consolidate United States troops in the Republic of Korea, overall, to fewer hubs further south. We have agreed to transition our command relationships such that beginning in 2012 the Republic of Korea will exercise wartime operational control over 

Korean troops. These steps are sensible and timely. The changes overall will reflect 

Korea’s economic and military strength and its place in the world and the region. 

The changes will also strengthen the U.S. military’s operational efficiency and deterrent capability. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Korean Government, my 

military colleagues, and with the Congress to accomplish this transformation. 

I would also seek to ensure that we continue our vital cooperation with the Republic of Korea in the Six-Party talks to complete the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to implement fully the vision set out in the Joint Statement of 

Principles agreed to by all six parties in September 2005. With successful 

denuclearization, the Joint Statement commits the United States and the other parties to the normalization of relations, to economic and energy assistance to North 

Korea, and to achieving a permanent peace arrangement in Korea, along with a 

peace and security mechanism for the region. It is an ambitious agenda. The United 

States and the Republic of Korea will need to work closely together to succeed. 

As democratic societies, the United States and South Korea also share a deep interest in promoting an improved human rights situation in North Korea. This interest is particularly keen among the many Koreans whose families were tragically 

separated by the Korean War. President Lee and his government have made clear 

the importance the Republic of Korea attaches to this issue. The United States has 

197 

equally deep resolve. If confirmed, I will work closely with the South Korean Government on the issue of human rights in North Korea, including in seeking sustainable solutions to the plight of North Korean asylum seekers. 

The United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement would, upon approval by the legislatures of both countries, open South Korea’s growing market of 49 million consumers to the full range of United States goods and services, from agriculture to 

autos to telecommunications services. The KORUS FTA is the most commercially 

significant free trade agreement the United States has concluded in over 15 years. 

If confirmed as ambassador, and upon FTA ratification, I will make it a top priority 

to work with the United States Trade Representative to ensure that the provisions 

of the agreement are enforced across the board. This includes enhancing our current 

cooperation with the South Koreans on environment and labor standards. 

Moreover, we must ensure that the Republic of Korea follows international guidelines and fully reopens its market to United States beef. If confirmed, and as the 

progeny of Texas ranchers, you can be assured I will do all I can to ensure that 

our safe and delicious beef has unrestricted access to the South Korean market. 

South Korea is a natural candidate for the Visa Waiver Program, and, if confirmed, I will work with the Government of the Republic of Korea to address the 

legislative requirements for entry, including increased information sharing, greater 

law enforcement cooperation, and the timely production of a South Korean electronic 

passport. I will work with the Department of Homeland Security and with Korean 

authorities to ensure that, consistent with congressional and administration requirements, the security, immigration, and law enforcement interests of our Nation are 

strengthened by the inclusion of the Republic of Korea in the Visa Waiver Program. 

Continued progress on all these fronts will indeed grow the United States-Republic of Korea relationship in important ways. I believe we have the opportunity to 

take the alliance to a new level. While I hope my long experience in Korea in the 

1970s and the 1980s, as well as more recently working on Korean issues from Washington, will be useful, I am mindful that, particularly in the beginning, I must be 

careful to observe, listen, and learn. I am concentrating my efforts, at present, on 

improving my Korean language skills. If confirmed, I will be the first United States 

Ambassador to Korea able to speak directly to the Korean people in their own language. I believe that using Korean myself in speeches, with the press, and in engaging in a dialog with Koreans from all walks of life, and supporting and encouraging 

other embassy officers to do the same, will enhance our own understanding of Korea 

as well as get our message out better. I also want to look at our exchange programs, 

such as the range of educational, technical, and business efforts ongoing, and think 

about how we might expand or use them better. We should ensure our educational 

and cultural exchange programs provide expanded opportunities for participation to 

groups that have been traditionally underrepresented but who are now becoming 

important voices in Korean society. I understand how Koreans, at every level of society, look to the Internet for information and news and how important it is to shape 

opinion. And I understand the critical role our Korean employees have in the success of our mission operation in Korea, and I would make sure embassy management continued to nurture this important resource. 

Question. As you are aware, the Republic of Korea is often the destination of 

North Korean refugees, some of whom spend years making their way through China 

and elsewhere in the region, hoping to eventually arrive in Seoul. Challenges of assimilation to a new life in South Korea are genuine. 

In recent weeks, the Government of Thailand has reportedly signaled its interest 

in sending a few hundred North Koreans presently detained in Bangkok, on to 

Seoul. How does the United States Government presently assist South Korea on 

matters related to North Korean refugees, and is the United States encouraging the 

South Korean Government to make necessary arrangements so that the North Koreans presently in Thailand may be moved on to Seoul? 

Answer. The United States Government, since the passage of the North Korean 

Human Rights Act has expanded its efforts to protect and assist North Korean refugees, including working, quietly if necessary, with other governments and international organizations, to help North Korean asylum seekers obtain protection and 

permanent resettlement. 

We are in close and frequent communication with the South Korean Government 

on issues related to North Korean asylum seekers, and if confirmed I will seek to 

expand our work together to find sustainable solutions for this vulnerable population. Numerous United States Government and embassy officials, including Ambassador Vershbow earlier this month, have visited the Hanawon resettlement center and discussed these issues with Republic of Korea Government authorities. Also, 

earlier this month, four North Koreans who have resettled in the Republic of Korea 

198 

and are active in NGOs in Seoul, visited the United States as part of the State Department International Visitor Program to study programs in the United States to 

assist and resettle refugees here. When resettlement in the United States is desired 

by North Koreans and we are able to obtain needed host government cooperation, 

we actively seek to ensure this option is available. Forty-six North Koreans have 

been resettled in the United States as refugees in recent years. We would be happy 

to provide a classified briefing on our efforts in specific countries, including those 

referenced in your question. 

RESPONSES OF WILLIAM TODD TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. What are the primary United States foreign policy objectives related to 

Brunei? 

Answer. Our foreign policy objectives in Brunei mirror those for the Asia-Pacific 

region in general: 

• Regional Security: Strengthening regional security by garnering Brunei’s support for enhanced United States relations with ASEAN and encouraging expansion of its contributions to peacekeeping operations in the region and to other 

multilateral undertakings; • Stability: Safeguarding Brunei’s long-term stability by helping to improve its 

counterterrorism and defense capabilities through law enforcement and military-to-military cooperation and by encouraging broader popular participation 

in the political process through development of the country’s legislative council; • Outreach: Improving perceptions of the United States among Brunei’s largely 

Muslim population and its decisionmakers through outreach, exchange programs, and promotion of United States education; • Sustainable Development: Increasing opportunities for United States firms to 

compete in Brunei through an expanding trade dialog focused on improving protection of intellectual property rights and opening markets for United States 

goods and services, while contributing to sustainable development through conservation of Brunei’s tropical forests. 

Question. How many students from Brunei have studied in the United States during the past 7 years? Does the United States Government, or American colleges and 

universities, actively recruit Brunei students? 

Answer. There have been approximately 136 students who have studied in the 

United States during the past 7 years. The year-by-year breakdown is given below. 

Year No. of 

students 

2006/07 .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 

2005/06 .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

2004/05 .................................................................................................................................................................... 18 

2003/04 .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

2002/03 .................................................................................................................................................................... 17 

2001/02 .................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

2000/01 .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 

Source: International Institute of Education (IIE) Open Doors statistics. 

The embassy in Bandar Seri Begawan actively promotes United States higher 

education as part of our foreign policy objective of creating a greater understanding 

of United States society and policies by Brunei’s majority-Muslim population. Embassy officials often speak to target audiences of prospective students to encourage 

study in the United States. They and other State Department officials also helped 

arrange a visit in 2007 by Brunei’s Deputy Minister of Education to several leading 

United States universities to establish contact with Islamic studies programs. The 

Minister of Education plans to visit the United States in 2008 to build partnership 

relations between United States universities and the University of Brunei 

Darussalam, which the embassy expects will result in increased student exchanges—both short and long term—between the United States and Brunei. 

The embassy in Bandar Seri Begawan worked to place United States institutions 

of higher learning on a list of Ministry of Defense-recommended schools, as part of 

the embassy’s campaign to promote United States schools to Bruneians, who historically have looked to the United Kingdom and Australia for foreign study. As a result, five students entered U.S. universities through this new track for the current 

academic year and our embassy anticipates four more will enter in the 2008/09 acaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
199 

demic year. The embassy is also working with the Ministry of Education to allow 

students to use other Brunei Government scholarship programs to attend United 

States educational institutions. 

In the past year, the embassy also assisted the following American colleges or universities visiting Brunei to recruit students: 

• Tufts University (Fletcher School) • Upper Iowa University • Portland State University • State University of New York—Binghamton • Creighton University • University of Denver • Eckerd College • Herkimer Community College 

Question. What is the present level of Brunei investment in the United States? 

Do you anticipate an increase in such investment in the future? 

Answer. Exact figures for the present level of Brunei’s investment in the United 

States are difficult to obtain, because the United States does not require the registration of investments and the level of Bruneian direct investment flows are small. 

According to industry estimates, Brunei holds substantial foreign assets globally, estimated at $30 billion dollars, through its Brunei Investment Agency (BIA), a sovereign wealth fund. Brunei’s investments in the United States include luxury hotels 

in New York and California. Other financial assets are believed to be managed by 

U.S. financial institutions. 

The current value of the United States dollar would appear conducive to growing 

Bruneian investment in United States equities and bonds, but we are not aware of 

any plans for Brunei to acquire controlling interests or direct equity stakes in additional United States companies. Traditionally, the BIA has preferred passive, indirect investments to direct equity investments. 

Question. During the past 5 years, what cabinet or subcabinet level United States 

officials have visited Brunei? What United States military leaders have visited 

Brunei during the same time period? 

Answer. Assistant United States Trade Representative Barbara Weisel visited 

Brunei in May 2007. In December 2002, the Sultan of Brunei met with President 

Bush at the White House, and with Secretary Powell. In addition, the President has 

met the Sultan of Brunei every year at the annual APEC leaders meeting. Brunei 

hosted APEC in 2000, which President Clinton attended, and the ASEAN Regional 

Forum in July 2002, which Secretary Powell attended. 

The following United States military leaders have visited Brunei in the last five 

years: 

• April 2008: Pacific Commander Admiral Keating 

• May 2006: Deputy Under Secretary for Defense Lawless 

• March 2006: Pacific Commander Admiral Fallon 

• March 2005: U.S. Army Pacific Commander LTG Brown 

RESPONSES OF SCOT A. MARCIEL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. It has been expressed to the committee that congressional passage of 

additional sanctions against Burma could contribute to Thailand turning more toward China in the future. What is the Department’s perspective on this issue? Why 

might Thai officials be concerned by additional Burma sanctions? 

Answer. We would not expect legislation authorizing additional sanctions on 

Burma to significantly affect Sino-Thai relations. 

Economic sanctions are an important tool for pressuring the Burmese regime to 

respect the desire of the Burmese people for a peaceful transition to a democratic 

government that respects their human rights. It is crucial, however, that sanctions 

laws preserve sufficient flexibility for the United States Government to use sanctions as an effective tool to influence the regime’s behavior without unduly jeopardizing other U.S. foreign policy interests. By authorizing, rather than mandating, a 

prohibition on the importation of Burmese-origin gemstones from third countries, 

such as Thailand, for example, sanctions legislation would allow the President the 

necessary degree of flexibility. 

During remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on March 

20, Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama reiterated his government’s opinion 

that sanctions will be counterproductive in Burma, and that Thailand is better 

200 

placed to argue for democratization there in the context of neighborly engagement 

than it would be were it to adopt or support sanctions. He also noted that as Burma’s neighbor, Thailand needs Burmese cooperation on critical cross-border issues 

like trafficking in narcotics and persons and migration, and therefore must maintain 

a working relationship with the Burmese regime. 

Thailand may also be concerned about the impact on the Thai economy of additional sanctions on Burma. Bangkok is a major center for cutting and polishing colored gemstones and Burma exports almost all of its high quality rubies there. Restrictions on importing finished items to the United States that incorporate Burmese stones could negatively affect Thailand’s jewelry industry, which reportedly 

earned $938.8 million from exporting precious stones and jewelry to the United 

States in 2006. 

Question. What is the present status of the military-to-military relationship with 

Thailand? What changes, if any do you project with the military-to-military relationship over the next 5 years? 

Answer. United States-Thailand military relations have returned to full strength 

following the removal of legal restrictions on assistance and policy restrictions on 

other military cooperation imposed after the September 2006 coup. Upon the installment of a democratically elected Thai Government on February 6, Thailand is again 

eligible to receive Foreign Military Financing, International Military Education and 

Training, 1206, and Peacekeeping Operations (as a Global Peace Operations Initiative partner) assistance. The Departments of State and Defense are working to resume those programs expeditiously using available funds. The administration’s fiscal year 2008 budget and fiscal year 2009 request both feature military assistance 

for Thailand. 

Our military-to-military relationship with our long-time treaty ally goes far beyond assistance. Thailand hosts more exercises annually with the United States 

than any other country in Southeast Asia, including our signature Cobra Gold multinational exercise. Thailand has contributed forces to our highest priority military 

missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and has pledged a battalion of peacekeepers for 

the U.N. mission in Darfur. Access to Thai military facilities was critical to United 

States regional humanitarian relief efforts following the tsunami in 2004. Continued 

access is key to our long-term regional security interests. We also recognize the region’s security challenges—natural disasters, maritime security, counterterrorism, 

and piracy—and work closely with Thailand to ensure Thailand obtains and maintains the necessary capabilities to contribute to the region’s security and stability. 

We expect the current high level of cooperation to exist well into the future, and 

communicate regularly with our Thai allies on how to deepen and strengthen our 

military ties to meet future challenges. We expect Thailand’s enthusiastic participation in peacekeeping operations to continue, and its contribution to regional maritime security efforts to increase. The Thai military is also pursuing an ambitious 

defense reform project, having already completed the assessment phase of a United 

States-sponsored Defense Resource Management Study, focusing and tailoring existing Theater Security Cooperation tools to improve training and educational institutions. 

We anticipate hosting a round of strategic dialog talks later this year that will 

include discussion of the military relationship. These talks will build upon the recent visits of Pacific Command’s Admiral Keating to Thailand and the Thai Deputy 

Supreme Commander’s visit to Washington, both of which followed Thailand’s return to elected government and the accompanying reengagement of our militaries 

at senior levels. 

Question. What is the status of Thailand’ military relationship with China? What 

agreements of any kind, have been finalized between Thailand and China during 

the last 6 years? 

Answer. China and Thailand’s military relationship has continued to improve over 

the last several years. Following the September 2006 Thai military coup, many 

countries, including the United States, imposed restrictions on various military-tomilitary programs. At the same time, China intensified its engagement with the 

Thai military. 

China continues to offer seats in its military schools to Thai personnel and is supporting Chinese language classes in Thai military academies in order to increase the 

number of Thais able to train in China. In addition, in 2006–2007, China sent a 

Major to the Royal Thai Army Command and General Staff College, a first in 

China-Thailand military relations. 

China has also used senior visits and offers of assistance to cultivate stronger ties 

with the Thai military. The extent to which the Thai have accepted assistance is 

201 

unclear, but it is widely believed that the two countries made commitments to future military cooperation during senior-level official exchanges over the past 2 years. 

According to Chinese state media, Thailand and China staged a joint search and 

rescue exercise in December 2005. Following an early 2007 visit by then-Thai Prime 

Minister Surayud Chulanont to China, the first ever Thai-Chinese Special Forces 

bilateral training exercise took place in Guangzhou, China, in July 2007; a followon exercise is scheduled to take place in Thailand this summer. Thailand has also 

invited the PRC to send official observers to the annual COBRA GOLD multinational military exercise held in Thailand in 2008. 

Question. Given the diplomatic and economic reemergence of China throughout 

Southeast Asia, what are your recommendations for the United States toward providing a balance in the region consistent with our foreign policy objectives? 

Answer. China’s growing presence in Southeast Asia does not mean that the 

United States will play a smaller role. We do not see this as a zero-sum game. More 

trade between Southeast Asia and China does not necessarily mean less trade between Asia and the United States. And a more capable China acting as a responsible stakeholder in the region may benefit the United States as well as other countries. 

The United States strongly supports ASEAN’s integration efforts as its member 

states work to realize the vision of a dynamic, outward looking ASEAN, living in 

peace, stability, and prosperity. We seek to be a part of and contribute to the successful political, economic, and social integration of the ASEAN community. The 

United States will remain a partner valued by our friends in Southeast Asia by continuing our deep bilateral and multilateral involvement with the region. 

In fact, the United States is increasing its engagement with the Asia-Pacific region in line with our growing interests there. Our engagement is developing through 

our work with individual countries, the enhanced partnership with ASEAN, new cooperation in the ASEAN Regional Forum, and our leadership role in APEC. 

As we develop our increasing engagement with Southeast Asia, in particular, we 

are drawing on America’s unique strengths. No other country enjoys the depth and 

breadth of engagement we have with that region through the work of numerous 

U.S. Government agencies, programs undertaken by our individual states, the deep 

commercial ties developed by our businesses, the cooperation built up by numerous 

educational institutions and organizations outside of government, and the ties of 

millions of families and individuals that span the Pacific. We are involving them all 

in our programs with ASEAN. 

Question. Recent news reports state that North Korea has been selling multiple 

rocket launchers to Burma. What is the projected dollar amount and description of 

annual military—related transfers from North Korea to Burma since and including 

2000? 

Answer. We have seen these press reports. We closely monitor reports of North 

Korean weapons sales to Burma, keeping in mind that U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1718, adopted unanimously on October 14, 2006 after the DPRK announced it had conducted a nuclear test, remains in effect and is legally binding on 

all member states of the U.N. 

As we proceed with denuclearization efforts in the Six-Party Talks process, all 

U.N. member states should continue in parallel to cooperate to ensure the full and 

effective implementation and enforcement of UNSCR 1718, which includes a prohibition on the procurement of large caliber artillery systems from the DPRK. 

While we cannot provide specific information in an unclassified response, we 

would be pleased in a classified setting to brief the committee on the question of 

military related transfers from North Korea to Burma since 2000. 

Question. What is the perspective of the U.S. Department of State regarding the 

reported presence of North Korean military personnel in Burma? 

Answer. Given that U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1718 bans certain 

kinds of military trade and cooperation involving North Korea for all U.N. member 

states, and that the Burmese military continues to repress citizens of Burma, we 

are following closely and with serious concerns the reports of military cooperation 

between Burma and North Korea. 

Question. When did U.S. officials last meet with Aung San Suu Kyi? When was 

she last allowed to meet with her physician? 

Answer. U.S. officials have been unable to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi since she 

was placed under house arrest following the assault on her and her National League 

for Democracy colleagues at Depayin in May 2003. The last senior U.S. official to 

202 

travel to Burma to meet Aung San Suu Kyi was then Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Matthew Daley in April 2003. 

The Burmese regime allows Aung San Suu Kyi’s physician to visit her periodically. We understand that he has visited her earlier this year. 

Question. How do United States officials incorporate issues related to Burma in 

our bilateral discussions with India, China, Japan, Singapore, and other countries 

that actively engage with the Burmese military junta? 

Answer. U.S. officials regularly raise Burma with our interlocutors in these countries. We consistently encourage these and other foreign governments to use the influence that they have with the Burmese military regime to press the regime to 

begin a genuine dialog with democratic and ethnic minority representatives on a 

transition to a civilian, democratic government. 

Question. On an individual country basis, please provide the committee with a list 

of economic, military, and all other agreements finalized between the People’s Republic of China and ASEAN countries, since and including 2000. 

Answer. China has likely concluded hundreds of agreements with individual 

ASEAN countries since 2000. There is no comprehensive register of such agreements. Attached is a list of those currently known to the Department. 

China has also concluded at least 17 agreements with ASEAN, which are also 

noted in the attachment. 

ATTACHMENT—AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC

OF CHINA AND ASEAN COUNTRIES

Agreements between China and Brunei 

1. Seventeen bilateral agreements are mentioned, but no list or dates are available. 

2. Agreement on Investment Mutual Encouragement and Mutual Protection, November 2000. 

3. China International Petroleum and Chemical Industries Joint Company and 

Brunei’s Shell Petroleum Company signed Long-Term Contract on Champion Crude 

Oil, November 2000. 

4. Agreement on Cooperation between the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of 

China and Procuratorate-General of Brunei, 2002. 

Agreements between China and Cambodia 

1. Agreement on Cooperation between the Government of the People’s Republic 

of China and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia in Combating 

Transnational Crime, April 8, 2006. 

2. Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Health of the People’s 

Republic of China and the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Cambodia on Cooperation in the Field of Health, April 8, 2006. 

3. Memorandum of Understanding on the Construction of Greater Mekong Subregion Information Superhighway Network Cambodian Section between the Ministry of Information Industry of People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Posts 

and Telecommunications of the Kingdom of Cambodia, April 8, 2006. 

4. Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation between the Government 

of the People’s Republic of China and the Royal Government of Cambodia (80 Million Yuan Grant), April 8, 2006. 

5. Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation between the Government 

of the People’s Republic of China and the Royal Government of Cambodia (80 Million Yuan Noninterest Loan. April 8, 2006. 

6. Exchange of Notes on the Provisions of 30 Fire Trucks to the Royal Government of Cambodia by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, April 8, 

2006. 

7. Exchange of Notes on the Provision of One Unit of THSCAN Mobile Container 

Scanning System to the Royal Government of Cambodia by the Government of the 

People’s Republic of China, April 8, 2006. 

8. Exchange of Notes on the Survey Study of the Project of Establishment of National Botanical Garden in Cambodia, April 8, 2006. 

9. The General Loan Agreement Regarding the Utilization of 200 Million U.S. Dollar Preferential Buyer’s Credit from the Government of the People’s Republic of 

China to the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia between the Export and Import Bank of China and the Ministry of Economy and Finance of the Kingdom of 

Cambodia, April 8, 2006. 

10. Government Concessional Loan Agreement between the Export and Import 

Bank of China as Lender and the Ministry of Economy and Finance of the Kingdom 

203 

of Cambodia as Borrower on the Project of Upgrading Cambodian National Telecom 

Network, April 8, 2006. 

11. Agreement between the State Administration of Cultural Heritage of the People’s Republic of China and the Authority for the Protection and Management of 

Angkor and the Region of Siem Reap of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the SecondPhase Project of the Joint Protection of Angkor Temples, April 8, 2006. 

Agreements between China and Indonesia 

1. Exchange of notes in regard with the setup of Indonesian consulates general 

in Guangzhou and Shanghai, March 2002. 

2. Air Transport Agreement, Investment Protection Agreement, Sea Transportation Agreement, Agreement on Avoiding Dual Taxation, memorandum for understanding of cooperation in the fields of mining, forestry, tourism, fishery, transportation, agriculture and finance, etc., dates not available. 

3. Agreement on mutually granting judicial assistance, July 2000. 

4. Agreement on Conducting Chinese Examination in Indonesia, May 2000. 

5. Agreement for Cultural Cooperation, November 2001. 

6. Joint statement on the direction of the development of bilateral relations in the 

future, May 2000. 

7. Memorandum of understanding about putting in place a joint committee on bilateral cooperation, May 2000. 

Agreements between China and Laos 

1. Joint Statement on the Bilateral Cooperation, November 2000. 

2. Seven cooperation agreements in the sectors of economy, technology, energy 

and e-governance, March 8, 2008. 

3. Comprehensive agreement to boost all-round cooperative relations to strengthen 

bilateral ties, March 30, 2008. 

Agreements between China and Malaysia 

1. More than 10 agreements on economic and trade cooperation such as Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation, Trade Agreement, Agreement on Investment 

Protection, Shipping Agreement, and Air Transport Agreement. (Dates not available.) 

2. Agreement between the Chinese People’s Bank and the National Bank of Malaya on Bilateral Exchange of Currencies. October 20002. 

3. Memorandum of Understanding on Aviation Cooperation between China and 

Malaysia, 2002. 

Agreements between China and Burma 

1. Seven documents on bilateral cooperation, including Sino-Burmese Agreement 

on Fishery Cooperation, and Sino-Burmese Agreement on Investment Protection, 

and agricultural, natural cum human resources development as well as 

infrastructural construction, December 12–15, 2001. 

2. Intergovernmental Agreement on China’s remittal of Part of Myanmar’s overdue debt, January 2003. 

3. Agreement on investment promotion and protection, (date not available). 

4. Joint Statement Concerning Framework Document on Future Cooperation in 

Bilateral Relations between the People’s Republic of China and Federation of 

Myanmar, June 6, 2000. 

Agreements between China and the Philippines 

1. Joint Statement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines 

and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the 21st Century. Signed in Beijing on 16 May 2000. 

2. Memorandum of Understanding between the Philippine Council of Young Political Leaders (PCYPL) Foundation, Inc. and Chinese Association for International 

Understanding (CAFIU). Signed in Beijing on 5 July 2005. 

3. Memorandum of Understanding on Defense Cooperation between the Department of National Defense of the Republic of the Philippines and the Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China. Signed in Beijing on 8 November 

2004. 

4. Agreement between the Department of National Defense of the Republic of the 

Philippines and the Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China 

on China’s Provision of Military Aid Gratis to the Philippines. Signed in Beijing on 

8 November 2004. 

5. Agreement between the Department of National Defence of the Republic of the 

Philippines and the Ministry of National Defence of the People’s Republic of China 

204 

on China’s Provision of Military Aid Gratis to the Philippines. Signed in Beijing on 

10 October 2006. 

6. Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of the 

Philippines and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Cooperation 

against Illicit Traffic and Abuse of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, and 

Precursor Chemicals. Signed in Beijing in October 2001. 

7. Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of the 

Philippines and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Cooperation 

in Combating Transnational Crime. Signed in Beijing in October 2001. 

(8. Agreement on Cooperation between the National Prosecution Service of the 

Department of Justice of the Republic of the Philippines and the Supreme People’s 

Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China. Signed in Beijing in October 2000. 

9. Treaty on Extradition between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s 

Republic of China. Signed on 30 October 2001. 

10. Letter of Intent between the Philippine National Oil CO. Exploration Corp. 

and the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC). 10 November 2003. 

11. An Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking on Certain Areas in the 

South China Sea By and Between Philippine National Oil Company and China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Signed in Beijing on 1 September 2004. 

12. An Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Survey in Certain Areas in the South 

China Sea by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), the China National 

Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), and the Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation 

(PETROVIETNAM). Signed on 14 March 2005. 

13. Memorandum of Understanding between Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the 

People’s Bank of China on the Establishment of Banking Institutions in Each Other’s Territories. Signed on 17 May 2000. 

14. Cooperation Agreement between the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT). 

Signed in October 2001. 

15. Bilateral Swap Agreement between the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the 

People’s Bank of China. Signed in Manila on 30 August 2003. 

16. Memorandum of Understanding on Mining Cooperation between the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM). 

Signed in 18 January 2005. 

17. Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Philippines 

and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Promotion of Trade 

and Investment Cooperation. Signed in Manila on 27 April 2005. 

18. Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation between the Government 

of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the People’s Republic of 

China. Signed in Manila on 27 April 2005. 

19. Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of 

the Philippines and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Early 

Harvest Program under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the Association of South East Asian Nations and the People’s Republic of China. Signed in Manila on 27 April 2005. 

20. Framework Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Provision of 

Concessional Loan by China to the Philippines. Signed in Manila on 27 April 2005. 

21. Framework Agreement on Expanding and Deepening Bilateral Economic and 

Trade Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and 

the Government of the People’s Republic of China. Signed in Manila on 15 January 

2007. 

22. Memorandum of Understanding between the National Economic and Development Authority and the Department of Trade and Industry of the Republic of the 

Philippines and the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China on Establishing the Economic Working Group. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

23. Memorandum of Understanding between China Export & Credit Insurance 

Corporation and Philippine Government Agencies. Signed in Manila on 15 January 

2007. 

24. Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation between the Government 

of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the People’s Republic of 

China. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

25. Framework Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Provision of 

Concessional Loan by China to the Philippines. Signed in Manila on 15 January 

2007. 

26. Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Trade and Industry of the Republic of the Philippines and the General Administration of Quality SuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
205 

pervision, Inspection, and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China on Cooperation on Industrial Products Safety and TBT Measures. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

27. Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Utilization of US$500 million 

Preferential Buyer’s Credit Between the Department of Finance of the Republic of 

the Philippines and the Export and Import Bank of China. Signed in Manila on 15 

January 2007. 

28. Understanding on the Cooperation in the Fields of Agriculture, Irrigation, and 

Other Related Areas between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and 

the Government of the People’s Republic of China. Signed on 16 May 2000. 

29. Agreement between the Department of Finance and the China National Construction and Agricultural Machinery Import and Export Corporation on a US$100 

million credit facility to finance agricultural development projects in the Philippines. 

Signed on 20 December 2000. 

30. Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Agriculture of the 

Republic of the Philippines and the Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic 

of China on Fisheries Cooperation. Signed in Beijing on 1 September 2004. 

31. Memorandum of Understanding on the Special Treatment for Rice between 

the Governments of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines. Signed in Manila on 27 April 2005. 

32. Memorandum of Understanding on Expanding and Deepening Agriculture and 

Fisheries Cooperation. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

33. Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Agriculture of the 

Republic of the Philippines and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, 

Inspection, and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China in the field of Sanitary 

and Phytosanitary Measures. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

34. Agreement on the Development of 1 million Hectares of Land for Hybrid Corn, 

Hybrid Rice, and Hybrid Sorghum Farming. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

35. Agreement on the Leasing of 40,000 Hectares of Agri-Business Lands for Sugarcane and Cassava Plantation. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

36. Agreement on the Provision of a 5,000-Square Meter Space for Philippine 

Tropical Fruits in the Jiangnan Fruit and Vegetable Wholesale Market. Signed in 

Manila on 15 January 2007. 

37. Agreement for the Establishment of a 150,000 Liter per Day-Capacity Bio-Ethanol Plant in Palawan. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

38. Joint Venture Agreement for the Manufacture of Bio-Ethanol (B.M.S.B). 

Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

39. Joint Venture Agreement for the Manufacture of Bio-Ethanol (Negros Southern). Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

40. Joint Venture Agreement for the Establishment of a 150,000 Liter per DayCapacity Bio-Ethanol Plant. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

41. Memorandum of Agreement on the Provision of Small Mobile Ice Plant and 

Transport Facilities to Municipal Fishery Cooperatives and Associations. Signed in 

Manila on 16 January 2007. 

42. Memorandum of Agreement on the Establishment of a 35-Hectare Demonstration Farm for Sweet Corn. Signed in Manila on 16 January 2007. 

43. Memorandum of Agreement on the Construction of Ship Yard, Establishment 

of a Cold Storage Facility, and Upgrading/Rehabilitation of Certain Facilities at the 

Navotas Fish Port Complex (NFPC). Signed in Manila on 16 January 2007. 

44. Agreement on the Development of Candaba Swamp Resource Project as a 

Source of Water for Irrigation. Signed in Manila on 16 January 2007. 

45. Memorandum of Agreement on Cooperation By and Between the Bureau of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and Guandong Ocean Fisheries Administration (GDOFA). Signed in Manila on 16 January 2007. 

46. Memorandum of Agreement on the Breeding and Culture of Grouper and 

Other High Value Species. Signed in Manila on 16 January 2007. 

47. Joint Venture Agreement on Fisheries. Signed in Manila on 16 January 2007. 

48. Agreement on Breeding and Culture of Abalone, Sea Cucumbers, Sea Urchins, 

and Scallops. Signed in Manila on 16 January 2007. 

49. Visa Agreement allowing Filipino diplomatic and consular personnel to receive 

multiple-entry entry visas from the Chinese Government for a maximum validity 

period of 5 years. Signed on 3 July 2002 and entered into force on 19 December 

2002. 

50. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and 

the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Mutual Visa Exemption for 

Holders of Diplomatic and Official (Service) Passports. Signed in Beijing on 1 September 2004. 

206 

51. Memorandum of Understanding on air services. Signed in Beijing on 2 March 

2004. 

52. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Philippine National Railways 

and China National Technical Import Export Corporation and China National Machinery and Import & Export Corp. Signed in Manila on 15 November 2002. 53. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Utilization of the US$400 million Preferential Buyers’ Credit from China to the Philippines between the ExportImport Bank of China and the Department of Finance of the Philippines. Signed in 

Manila on 30 August 2003. 

54. Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding between North Luzon Railways 

Corporation and China National Machinery and Equipment Corporation (Group). 

Signed in Beijing on 1 September 2004. 

55. Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Trade and Industry of the Republic of the Philippines and the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s 

Republic of China on Infrastructure Cooperation. Signed in Manila on 27 April 

2005. 

56. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Utilization of US$500 million 

Preferential Buyer’s Credit from the Government of the People’s Republic of China 

to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines between the Export-Import 

Bank of China and the Department of Finance of the Republic of the Philippines. 

Signed in Manila on 27 April 2005. 

57. Loan Agreement on the Provision of US$500 million Preferential Buyer’s 

Credit Loan for the Northrail Project Phase 1, Section 2. Signed in Manila on 15 

January 2007. 

58. Concessional Loan Agreement on Nonintrusive Container Inspection System 

Project Phase 2. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007. 

59. Contract Agreement between North Luzon Railways Corporation and China 

National Machinery Industry Corporation for the Northrail Project Phase 1, Section 

2. Signed in Manila on 15 April 2007 (originally signed in Beijing on 15 November 

2006). 

60. Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Contract for the Rehabilitation 

and Upgrading of the Philippine Mainline South Railway Project Phase 1, Section 

1. Signed in Manila on 15 January 2007 (originally signed in Manila on 5 December 

2006). 

61. Memorandum of Understanding concerning Tourism Cooperation. Signed in 

Beijing on 11 September 2002. 

62. Implementation Program of the Memorandum on Tourism Cooperation between the Department of Tourism and the China National Tourism Administration. 

Signed in Beijing on 1 September 2004. 

63. Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Transportation 

and Communications of the Republic of the Philippines and the Ministry of Communications of the People’s Republic of China on Maritime Cooperation. Signed in Manila on 27 April 2005. 

64. Agreement on the Protection of Cultural Heritage. Signed in Manila on 15 

January 2007. 

65. Agreement on the Prevention of Theft, Clandestine Excavation, Illicit Import 

and Export of Cultural Property between the Republic of the Philippines and the 

Government of the People’s Republic of China. Signed in Manila on 15 January 

2007. 

66. Memorandum of Understanding on Sports Cooperation. Signed in October 

2001. 

67. Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding between the Philippine Sports 

Commission and the General Administration of Sports of the People’s Republic of 

China. Signed on 8 April 2005. 

68. Agreement between the National Youth Commission of the Republic of the 

Philippines and the All-China Youth Federation of the People’s Republic of China 

on Youth Affairs Cooperation. Signed in Manila on 27 April 2005. 

69. Memorandum of Understanding on Further Development of Sino-Filipino 

Youth Exchange between the All-China Youth Federation and the National Youth 

Commission of the Philippines. Signed in Beijing on 13 July 2005. 

70. Letter of Intent on Friendly Exchanges and Cooperation between the Office 

of the Press Secretary of the Republic of the Philippines and the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. Signed in Beijing on 3 September 

2004. 

Agreements between China and Singapore 

1. Memorandum of Understanding on Air Services between Singapore and China, 

November 28 to December 2, 2005. 

207 

2. Several MOUs to promote closer bilateral cooperation in areas such as human 

resource development, high-tech cooperation, and agricultural products, September 

19–21, 2005. 

3. MOU on the establishment of the Singapore-China Joint Investment Promotion 

Committee, May 17–19, 2005.4. Defense Agreement formalizing existing exchanges 

between Republic’s Ministry of Defense (MinDef) and the People’s Liberation Army 

(PLA) and pledged to work together on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, 

January 8, 2008. 

Agreements between China and Thailand 

1. Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Drug Prohibition (2000). 

2. Thai-China Agreement on Bilateral Currency Exchange (2001). 

3. Thai-China Agreement on Cultural Cooperation (2001). 

4. Memorandum of Understanding on Strengthening Cooperation in Drug-Prohibition, 2000. 

5. Agreement on Cultural Cooperation, 2001. 

6. Treaty on Assistance in Criminal Judicature, 2003. 

Agreements between China and Vietnam 

1. Memorandum of Understanding on the Hanoi-Naning corridor and the Huu 

Nghi Quan border gate, March 30, 2008. 

2. Nearly 40 documents on cooperation in the diplomatic, public security, trade, 

economic, scientific, technological, cultural, and legislative areas have been signed 

between the departments concerned of the two countries, dates not available. 

3. Treaty on the land Boundary between China and Vietnam on December 30, 

1999 in Hanoi and exchange of instruments of ratification, July 6, 2000. 

4. Agreement on the Demarcation of the Beibu Gulf Territorial Waters, Exclusive 

Economic Zones and Continental Shelf, and Agreement on Fishing Cooperation in 

the Beibu Gulf, December 25, 2000. 

Agreements between China and ASEAN 

1. Accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia by China, 

October 8, 2003. 

2. Joint Statement of ASEAN-China Commemorative Summit, ‘‘Towards an Enhanced ASEAN-China Strategic Partnership,’’ October 30, 2006. 

3. Joint Declaration of the Heads of State/Government of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the People’s Republic of China on Strategic Partnership for 

Peace and Prosperity, October 8, 2003. 

4. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Association of Southeast Asian 

Nations and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Strengthening 

Phytosanitary Cooperation, November 20, 2007. 

5. Memorandum of Understanding between the Association of Southeast Asian 

Nations (ASEAN) Secretariat and the Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China on Agricultural Cooperation, January 14, 2007. 

6. Plan of Action to Implement the Beijing Declaration on ASEAN-China ICT Cooperative Partnership for Common Development, January 14, 2007. 

7. Agreement on Trade in Goods of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive 

Economic Cooperation between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the 

People’s Republic of China, November 29, 2004, plus Annexes. 

8. Agreement on Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the Framework Agreement on 

Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the Association of Southeast Asian 

Nations and the People’s Republic of China, November 29, 2004. 

9. Protocol to Amend the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the People’s Republic of China, October 6, 2003. 

10. Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between 

ASEAN and the People’s Republic of China, November 5, 2002. 

11. Joint Declaration of ASEAN and China on Cooperation in the Field of Nontraditional Security Issues, November 4, 2002. 

12. Joint Statement on ASEAN-China Port Development, China, October 29, 2007. 

13. Memorandum of Understanding between the Governments of Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Transport Cooperation, November 27, 2004. 

14. Memorandum of Understanding between the Governments of Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Government of the People’s Republic of China in the Field of Nontraditional Security Issues, January 10, 

2004. 

15. Plan of Action to Implement the Joint Declaration on ASEAN-China Strategic 

Partnership for Peace and Prosperity, October 8, 2003. 

208 

16. Memorandum of Understanding between the Association of Southeast Asian 

Nations (ASEAN) Secretariat and the Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China on Agriculture Cooperation, November 2, 2002. 

17. Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, November 4, 

2002. 

Question. Japan has actively promoted nonproliferation efforts in Asia, such as 

hosting the Asian Senior-Level Talks on Nonproliferation (ASTOP). Do you view 

ASTOP as a viable means of regional discussion on matters related to the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? 

Answer. The United States appreciates the leadership that Japan shows in the 

Asian Senior-Level Talks on Nonproliferation (ASTOP). Since the first meeting in 

November 2003, Japan has used this forum as a way to engage the 10 ASEAN countries, as well as others in the Asia Pacific region on nonproliferation. At the talks, 

Tokyo encourages political support for nonproliferation objectives, including the Additional Protocol, the Hague Code of Conduct on Ballistic Missiles, strengthening of 

strategic trade controls, and implementation of nonproliferation-related resolutions 

of the United Nations Security Council. 

This forum helps to further develop international norms on nonproliferation in 

East Asia, which will help engender a climate of compliance with the international 

nuclear nonproliferation regime. 

This norm-strengthening work will pay dividends in the future as countries in the 

region turn increasingly to peaceful nuclear power to meet rising energy needs. 

Question. Philippines’ officials, namely Foreign Secretary Albert Romulo, have 

taken the lead on encouraging implementation of an ASEAN energy security plan. 

How do you envision the United States working with ASEAN on matters related to 

energy security? 

Answer. The Joint Vision Statement on the ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership 

provides for cooperation on energy issues, including energy security. Under the Enhanced Partnership, the United States already has sponsored workshops on policies 

and financing needed for energy security, as well as on the use of coal, best practices 

in energy efficiency, and energy efficiency labeling that will contribute to energy security. We will continue to work with ASEAN to promote the adoption of policies 

and best practices in this area. 

In addition, the larger ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) is venturing into the field 

of energy security. Its work includes maritime security exercises, assessing the 

physical security of energy stockpiles and certain infrastructure, and examining how 

militaries in the region approach this new issue. The United States has also engaged the ASEAN members in APEC on a variety of energy security issues, including preparation for energy supply disruptions through such measures as sea lane 

security, real-time emergency information sharing, oil supply emergency response, 

promotion of energy investment, and cooperation in various energy sectors. 

Question. The ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership, as you have noted, sets ‘‘a 

clear framework for boosting cooperation.’’ Please outline specific steps of cooperation and benchmarks achieved since the partnership’s announcement in 2005? 

Answer. The United States and ASEAN have made good progress in implementing the Enhanced Partnership, which supports plans to create an ASEAN Community by 2015 with political/security, economic and social/cultural pillars. Training, technical assistance, and other cooperative programs are being implemented 

with ASEAN in all three areas. 

When President Bush met ASEAN leaders at APEC in November 2006, the U.S. 

and ASEAN cited eight areas as priorities in the Enhanced Partnership: economics 

(including good governance and combating corruption), health, scholarships, information and communications technology, transport, energy, disaster management, 

and the environment. 

An important benchmark under the Enhanced Partnership was the signing of the 

Plan of Action by Secretary Rice and ASEAN Foreign Ministers in July, 2006. The 

Plan of Action calls for the development and implementation of 164 actions and programs between ASEAN and the United States. Work has been completed or is ongoing on 127 of these items that are of importance to both ASEAN and the United 

States, such as: 

• The establishment of the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network, which has provided training to rangers, the judiciary, and policy officials. Last month alone, 

five major seizures in ASEAN countries of illegal wildlife and forestry products 

have resulted from this training. 

209 

• The first four participants in the ASEAN Fulbright Visiting Scholars Program 

will begin their work in the United States in September. 

• By the end of December 2007, 3,500 parliamentarians, prosecutors, lawyers, 

judges, policy makers, regulators, enforcement officers, and business persons 

from ASEAN have participated in 25 capacity-building and other training activities to improve intellectual property rights administration and enforcement. 

• Workshops on industrial standards to increase understanding and cooperation 

on this issue, which is of growing interest to both governments and our private 

sector. 

• Training on disaster management which will help ASEAN officials respond to 

natural and man-made disasters throughout the region. 

Another benchmark in the Enhanced Partnership and the Plan of Action was the 

conclusion of a Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement (TIFA) between the 

United States and ASEAN. USTR Ambassador Susan Schwab and ASEAN Economic Ministers signed the TIFA in August 2006. The TIFA includes a work program to assist in developing the economic pillar of ASEAN’s Community that is supported by USAID and the Department of State. 

(211) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Callahan, Robert, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Nicaragua 

Cianchette, Peter, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Costa 

Rica 

Hodges, Heather, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Ecuador 

Llorens, Hugo, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Honduras 

McFarland, Stephen, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Guatemala 

Speck, Samuel, to be the Commissioner for the United States on 

the United States-Canadian—United States-Canada International Joint Commission 

Stephenson, Barbara, to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Panama 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher Dodd 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Dodd, Feingold, Menendez, Corker, Voinovich, 

and Isakson. 

Also Present: Senators Snowe, Collins, and Martinez. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator DODD. My apologies to our witnesses and others in the 

room. The voting gods always arrange for a vote to occur just about 

the time a hearing is supposed to start. 

So, I see my colleagues are here, as well, to introduce some of 

our witnesses. And I’ll share a few opening comments quickly, and 

turn to my colleague from Tennessee, and then welcome our guests 

here, as well. 

So this morning, or this afternoon rather, this hearing on the 

Committee on Foreign Relations will come to order, and the committee meets to consider the nomination of seven individuals to assume key leadership positions of the administration in this hemisphere. There will be two panels at today’s hearing. 

On the first panel we have four nominees. The President has 

nominated Robert Callahan to be the Ambassador to the Republic 

of Nicaragua, Heather Hodges to be the Ambassador to the RepubVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
212 

lic of Ecuador, Hugo Llorens to be the Ambassador to the Republic 

of Honduras, and Stephen McFarland to be the Ambassador to the 

Republic of Guatemala. 

On the second panel we have three nominees. The President has 

nominated Peter Cianchette—is that the correct pronunciation? 

Thank you very much—to be the Ambassador to the Republic of 

Costa Rica, Samuel Speck to be the Commissioner for the United 

States on the United States-Canadian—United States-Canada 

International Joint Commission, and Barbara Stephenson to be the 

Ambassador to the Republic of Panama. 

So, I want to congratulate all of our nominees on your willingness to serve and congratulate you on being nominated by the 

President to be an ambassador. 

I also welcome my colleagues, Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, 

Senator Martinez—my good friend, as well, from Florida—who’ve 

joined us to introduce Mr. Cianchette and Mr. Llorens. In addition, 

I understand Mr. Voinovich will be here to introduce Mr. Speck. 

You are here, thank you, George. I’m sorry, I didn’t see you 

there. 

Since the end of the cold war, United States foreign policy toward Central and South America has tended to focus narrowly on 

three issues: elections, trade, and drug programs. And while I understand and accept that these three focuses will need to remain 

very much components of any policy in the region, I believe that 

alone they have never been sufficient for bringing about the real 

holistic change that the hemisphere requires, that its people demand, and that serves the interest of the United States, as well. 

In the broadest sense, we need to see political development to include civil society, institution-building, social contracts, and of 

course, the rule of law. We must see beyond free trade as a panacea to Latin America’s social and economic woes, and instead 

work as well to embrace holistic development, which should include 

not only trade, but also investment in infrastructure, education, 

public health, foreign aid, and direct investment. And we must no 

longer stay the course in our failed policies of drug eradication and 

demand reduction, rather we must create smarter, targeted antidrug programs, work to replace black-market economies with legitimate investment, and strengthen civilian law enforcement and justice institutions. 

I credit the administration with proposing the Merida Initiative 

to respond to concerns voiced by our neighbors and their request 

for aid in combating increasing drug trafficking and violence in 

Mexico and Central America. I support the spirit of Merida and I 

hope to work closely with our allies to make sure that we tackle 

these collective concerns. 

But in my view, the Merida Initiative will never fully succeed if 

we don’t also work to put in place adequate institutions that can 

systematically address civil society institution-building, as well as 

corruption and the rule of law. Our Central America neighbors will 

need well-trained and equipped military forces to confront the most 

violent criminals. But I would strongly argue that the region also 

needs equally well-trained and equipped police and civilian authorities operating in a fair and impartial judicial system, to enforce and uphold the rule of law. 

213 

And joining with our neighbors to combat these increasing problems, we must recognize that our neighbors are taking important 

steps to respond to the needs of their citizens, and they are doing 

so because they are closer than ever to completing the transition 

to stable, democratic, civil societies, one with social contracts who 

are tackling some of their society’s most difficult problems. 

With the exception of Cuba, every nation in the Western Hemisphere has a democratically elected government. But many problems still persist as we all know, and inequality plagues our hemisphere, income and wealth disparities in Latin America are the 

worst in the world. Nicaragua, for example, is the second poorest 

country in our hemisphere. In the region, social and economic exclusion are rampant, fostering conditions in which political radicalism thrives and crime rates soar to six times greater than the 

rest of the world. As a result of these debilitating conditions, millions of Latin Americans have emigrated from the region to seek 

better opportunities for themselves and their families. Nearly 100 

million people have left Latin America since World War II. 

Many countries, such as Guatemala and El Salvador, are struggling with impunity. Now given this duality, on the one hand, continuing challenges we face with poverty, impunity, crime, and violence, and on the other hand, democratic governments responding 

to their people’s needs, the question seems to be how we in the 

United States will work to promote our mutual interest in partnership with our neighbors to the South, because a renewed relationship with a stronger, more prosperous, and democratic Latin America, that can handle its own political, social, and economic affairs 

is in everyone’s interest, especially those of the United States. 

Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Panama are diverse countries with proud histories. Some face serious 

challenges with poverty and inequality, others with crime and violence, but all of these countries have democratic governments, and 

the United States must take the lead in engaging these neighbors, 

working in a respectful manner toward advancing our mutual interest in the broader sense. 

So I welcome all of you to the committee this afternoon, congratulate you again on being selected by our President to serve in 

these important posts. And I look forward to engaging and a good 

discussion with you this afternoon, along with my colleagues on 

these critical manners. 

Now, let me turn to my ranking subcommittee chair members, 

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee for his opening statement, and 

then we’ll turn to our fellow Senators who are here to present their 

witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

And I too want to welcome, not only these public servants, but 

their families, who I can see have gathered in large numbers, and 

certainly our colleagues from the Senate who know them well and 

want to speak on their behalf. And as I look at where they’re going, 

except for Mr. Speck, who I know is going to a different part of the 

world, I wonder how we functioned in Central and South America, 

214 

but we’re glad that, hopefully, your leadership is going to be in 

place. I certainly thank you for your dedication. 

There are a lot of challenges, as Chairman Dodd just alluded to, 

that are occurring right now in Central and South America. Both 

poverty, as was alluded to—we have a huge food crisis that’s brewing because of, in some cases our own policies here—HIV/AIDS, 

certainly while there’s been greater cooperation on the narcotics, 

certainly more progress needs to be made. Our Federal—our trade 

agreements, our free trade agreements, certainly we have some 

that need to be approved, and hopefully will take us even further 

down the road towards prosperity in South America. 

But there’s no question, while there are challenges, it’s a time of 

great opportunity, and I’m excited for each of you. I can see it in 

your eyes, you’re excited about the task in front of you. 

I have just recently come from two trips to the part of the world 

you’re going to be representing, and look forward to coming down 

many more times while you’re in service. And again, I think we 

have a tremendous opportunity into the future in Central and 

South America. I’m thrilled to have people of your quality serving 

us there, and look forward to your testimony and confirmation. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very, very much, Senator. 

We now have the opportunity to hear from our colleagues who 

are here this afternoon. I thank them for coming over. And what 

I want to do is ask all of our colleagues who are here to introduce 

their nominees, including the second panel as well. So, I know you 

have very busy afternoons in front of you here, I won’t make you 

wait for the second panel as well to do that. 

So we’ll begin with you, Senator Snowe, welcome, we’re delighted 

to have you here with the committee, and the introduction of Peter 

Cianchette. 

STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DODD. That’s good, the microphone works. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Corker. And I want to express my appreciation, and 

I know along with my colleague Senator Collins, first of all for 

scheduling this timely hearing on the consideration of the President’s nominee Peter Cianchette to be Ambassador to Costa Rica. 

It’s certainly my distinct pleasure to be here, along with Senator 

Collins, to introduce Peter Cianchette as the next Ambassador to 

Costa Rica. He has been a good friend of mine for many years and 

is someone who I’ve had the utmost regard and highest esteem. I 

also want to welcome his family who’s here today, his wonderful 

family, his exceptional wife, Carolyn, their two children, Evan and 

Maria, his parents, Bud and Priscilla, and his brother, Earl. I know 

that this is a proud moment for them as they look forward to a new 

chapter in Peter’s dedication to his country. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, indisputably, 

Costa Rica is a pivotal ally of the United States in a vital and critical region. And we’ve had a history of close, friendly, and supportive relations based on respect for a democratic government, 

shared values, and human rights. The nomination of Peter 

215 

Cianchette to serve as a preeminent diplomat in a Central American nation is an appropriate reflection of his intellect, his ability, 

and his commitment to public and private service. 

Peter brings a wealth of experience in solving problems and securing results, from both his tenure in the service in the Maine 

State Legislature from 1996 to 2000, and his extensive business 

background, both as—including his tenure as a senior executive of 

one of Maine’s top manufacturing companies, as well as his leadership at the helm of his own company, Cianchette Enterprises. 

Peter comes from a tradition of public service. He’s part of a family that has contributed tremendously to the State of Maine over 

the years. And Peter’s own stellar record of combined public and 

private sector service speaks to his ability to ably and well represent the interest of the United States in Costa Rica. 

The United States and Costa Rica share growing concerns for the 

environment and seek to preserve Costa Rica’s important tropical 

resources. Indeed, Costa Rica’s primary foreign policy objective is 

the promotion of environmental sustainability, which is a lynchpin 

of United States-Costa Rican relations that resulted in 2007, the 

largest debt for nature swap to date, in which the United States 

forgave its debt in exchange for Costa Rica’s pledge to preserve 

large swaths of wilderness. 

Peter brings an appreciation for these issues as our natural assets are a vital component of Maine’s quality of life, with 90 percent of our land deforested, probably the only difference is that 

their forests weren’t covered with more than 180 inches of snow 

this winter, but I’m sure Peter could adapt to that. Moreover, 

Peter’s understanding and appreciation of travel and tourism 

issues, as they are the life-blood of Maine’s economy, are especially 

applicable in a country that is host up to 50,000 expatriate American citizens, including many retirees, as well as 700,000 American 

visitors annually. 

As someone who’s devoted himself to the empowerment and wellbeing of young people in Maine, whether it’s Director of the Greater Portland Big Brother/Big Sister of America, member of the 

Southern Maine Community College Foundation, or Director on the 

Board of the Make-A-Wish Foundation, or Yes to Youth, which is 

a charitable organization to prevent at-risk behavior in our young 

people, Peter will be right at home in a country whose emphasis 

on education has produced a remarkable 96 percent literacy rate in 

universal public education. 

So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and members of 

this committee, I know Peter is an individual of tremendous energy, enthusiasm, and dedication to our country and its finest principles, he’s a person of the highest caliber, and I believe there is 

no question he will skillfully represent our nation’s interest in this 

neighboring and critical region. So I want to commend the committee for his consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe. That was 

a very generous introduction, and thank you for being with us. 

Senator Collins. 

216 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN M. COLLINS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Corker. It’s my privilege today to join Senator Snowe in presenting 

Peter Cianchette to this committee. We’re very proud that he has 

been nominated to be our next Ambassador to Costa Rica. 

As Senator Snowe indicated, the United States and Costa Rica 

have a long history of friendship and cooperation. Mr. Cianchette 

is an outstanding choice to strengthen this relationship. With more 

than 20 years of business experience and public service, he has a 

proven ability to work cooperatively with others to achieve 

progress. As a dedicated community leader and civic activist, he 

has a long and distinguished record of using his talents to benefit 

others. 

As Senator Snowe mentioned, Peter served two terms in the 

Maine Legislature, he ably represented the people of South Portland and Cape Elizabeth. He has a long business record as well. 

He’s been a partner in the Maine private investment firm known 

as CHK Capital Partners, and he’s president of one of its portfolio 

companies. He’s also the owner and president of the Cianchette 

Group, a public affairs management and business consulting firm. 

Prior to this, Peter served as the COO and executive vice president 

of Pierce Atwood Consulting. He previously had founded Cianchette 

Enterprises, which owned and operated a successful employee staffing, recruiting, and placement company. He also served, previously, 

as senior executive in one of Maine’s manufacturing firms, the 

Dragon Products Company, a leading manufacturer of cement and 

concrete, and a subsidiary of the largest cement producer in Spain. 

I mention this, in particular, because I know the chairman is always concerned about language capabilities and skills. In that position, Mr. Cianchette participated in meetings conducted in Spanish, and he is continuing to perfect his command of that language. 

I know that skill’s going to be an invaluable asset in the position 

to which he’s been nominated. 

Mr. Cianchette’s impressive business resume is exceeded only by 

his commitment to community service. I won’t repeat the long list 

of community organizations, which Senator Snowe has already alluded to. But suffice it to say, that whenever a community group 

needs a strong leader, they turn to Peter Cianchette, and he always 

answers the call. 

He is also a graduate of the University of Maine, and with his 

wife Carolyn, the proud parents of two children. There’s one particular aspect of Peter’s public service that I believe deserves special mention. His service in the Maine Legislature and his political 

campaigns have always been marked by civility, decency, and integrity. He is one of those rare elected officials who has opponents, 

but does not have enemies. He is able to work with people across 

party lines. These character traits have been evident in his business endeavors and in his community service, and they will serve 

our nation well if he is confirmed for this diplomatic position. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Corker, members of the committee, I 

strongly endorse Peter Cianchette’s nomination to be our next Ambassador to Costa Rica, and I join Senator Snowe in enthusiastically recommending him for your favorable consideration. 

217 

Thank you very much. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe. 

You’ve got a very high bar to climb over now, Peter. I tell you, 

you better be very good in your remarks, given that wonderful introduction. And truth in advertising, of course I think both Senator 

Snowe and Senator Collins are where my brother Tom was the Ambassador of Costa Rica a number of years ago and had the privilege 

of visiting him on numerous occasions, and so it’s more than just 

a passing familiarity with the country. And so, we look forward to 

hearing from you shortly. 

Senator Martinez, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MEL MARTINEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Senator Corker, and members of the committee. I’m really delighted 

today to have the opportunity to be here to introduce Hugo Llorens, 

the former Deputy Chief of Mission to the United States Embassy 

in Madrid, and a Floridian. 

Hugo, like myself, shares an immigrant background to this country, and in one of those poignant coincidences that I like to think 

as, only in America, he came to the United States 46 years ago precisely today, on April 16th of 1962. 

The President nominated him to serve as Ambassador to Honduras, and I know he’s got a long list of accomplishments, but I 

want to speak about Mr. Llorens in terms of my own experience 

with him. I’ve been in Madrid when he was DCM there and I’ve 

also been to Buenos Aires when he was DCM there. And I have 

had the opportunity to work with him and see his work firsthand 

and up and close and personal. 

I know he could play a key role in our strong relations with Hon- duras during his critical time there. Through a $215 million compact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the United States 

is supporting Honduras’ efforts to reduce poverty and improve its 

citizens’ quality of life. Successful implementation of this compact 

will help to consolidate the gains already made with the help of the 

Central America Free Trade Agreement. 

And I totally agree with the chairman’s comments about having 

to have a much broader approach to Latin America than free trade 

and democratic institutions. Those are great and we have to continue that commitment, but it is broader than that and I think the 

MCC is one great way to broaden that. I think that Mr. Llorens 

has that kind of understanding of the balance that we have to 

bring in our foreign policy to all of those issues. 

He has a long—life-long commitment to serving our Nation and 

serving our Nation’s interest abroad. He’s been in four different 

continents and I just want to note that he has, in fact, received 

some wonderful accolades for his work. He has earned three superior and six meritorious awards. He is a past recipient of the prestigious Cobb Award for excellence in promoting of U.S. business 

and trade policy, and was runner-up for the Saltsman Award for 

distinguished performance in advancing U.S. international economic interest, and was also the runner-up for the James Baker 

Award for the best DCM. 

218 

Hugo, I know, as all of the folks here today, not only does this 

job, but they do it as a team with family members. Lisetee, his 

wife, is here. She has been with him through all the steps of his 

distinguished career in the Foreign Service of our Nation. 

And so, I am delighted to be here today. And with a total passion 

and endorsement of Hugo Llorens to be Ambassador to the Republic of Honduras, and commend him to the committee, and thank 

you for allowing me this opportunity. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Senator, and appreciate 

your being at the table to introduce Mr. Llorens. 

George Voinovich, our colleague from Ohio, has got a statement 

to make. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman—— 

Senator DODD. Thank you all very much, and Senators are excused. We won’t have any questions for you here today. [Laughter.] 

Tempting, tempting, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Dodd, Senator Corker. 

I’m pleased to be here today, especially because Dr. Sam Speck has 

been nominated to the International Joint Commission. 

Sam has an outstanding academic record, graduated from Harvard, got his Ph.D. from Harvard, and the was the President of 

Muskingum College for many years, served as a State Representative, State Senator, and his last position was the position as Director of the Department of Natural Resources in Ohio. 

Sam and I met when we were State reps together and worked 

on the creation of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and 

passed the Mine Reclamation Act that served as a model to many 

States throughout the country. And during the years since then, 

we’ve stayed in touch with each other, and more recently we’ve 

spent a lot more time together when he was Director of the Department of Natural Resources. 

In that position, as Director of the Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, he served as chairman of the Council of Great Lakes 

Governors Water Management Working Group, which helped lead 

the development of the Great Lakes Annex Agreement and the 

Great Lakes Water Management Compact. This effort brought together the eight Great Lake States and Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec to devise a strategy to cooperatively manage the 

waters of the Great Lakes. Sam’s work on the Great Lakes Water 

Management Initiative exemplifies his ability to work impartially 

for the best outcome to manage and protect our waters. 

He’s committed to preserving the Great Lakes and has served on 

a variety of Great Lakes commissions and councils. He works well 

with and is respected by a variety of interests to use our waters, 

with his more than 30 years of public service as well as his commitment to making our State of Ohio a better place to work and 

live. I believe that Sam would bring a great deal of knowledge, 

background, and expertise to the commission. 

I’d like to also, Mr. Chairman, ask that two statements, one from 

Governor Strickland from Ohio and one from Senator Sherrod 

219 

Brown, be submitted for the record.[The statements referred to 

above appear in the ‘‘Additional Material Submitted for the Record’’ 

section at the end of this hearing.] 

Senator DODD. They’ll be included. 

Senator VOINOVICH. They both strongly support Sam’s nomination to the Great Lakes Commission. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

Good morning. I am pleased that this committee is holding today’s hearing on all 

of these nominees, and I am particularly pleased to see Dr. Sam Speck’s here today. 

I have worked with Sam for many years on projects in Ohio, and I strongly support 

his nomination to the International Joint Commission. 

Many rivers and lakes lie along or across the border between the United States 

and Canada. The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty had the foresight to establish the 

International Joint Commission to help solve problems and resolve disputes in these 

shared waters. Canada and the United States recognized that each country is affected by the other’s actions on boundary waters. Our two countries cooperate to 

manage these waters wisely and to protect them for the benefit of both of our citizens and future generations. Commissioners are governed by the requirements of 

the Boundary Waters Treaty. They are impartial and work toward the interests of 

the shared boundary waters. 

Sam has had a long history of working on a portion of the United States and Canadian boundary waters—the Great Lakes. In his most recent position as the Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Sam served as the Chair of the 

Council of Great Lakes Governors’ Water Management Working Group which helped 

to lead the development of the Great Lakes Annex Agreement and the Great Lakes 

Water Management Compact. This effort brought together the eight Great Lakes 

States and Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to devise a strategy to cooperatively manage the waters of the Great Lakes. Sam’s work on the Great Lakes 

Water Management initiative exemplifies his ability to work impartially for the best 

outcome to manage and protect our waters. 

He is committed to preserving the Great Lakes and has served on a variety of 

Great Lakes commissions and councils. He works well with and is respected by the 

variety of interests who use our waters. With his more than 30 years of public service, as well as his commitment to making our State of Ohio a better place to work 

and live, I believe that Sam would bring a great deal of knowledge, background, and 

expertise to the commission. 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you very, very much. 

You are welcome, if you want to spread out a little bit. I know 

you’re all going to be close to each other in the years ahead, but 

if you want breathing room there. 

And then what I’ll do is, Mr. Llorens, I want to begin with you 

and then go to Ms. Hodges and Mr. Callahan and Mr. McFarland. 

If you could, I’d like you to try and keep you remarks to about 5 

minutes or so. I’m not going to bang down the gavel, obviously, but 

you understand that. I know the members would like to maybe 

raise some questions with you. And any other supporting documents or information you think would be helpful for the committee 

to consider during the nomination process—we’re happy to include 

those in the record as well. 

And I know they’ve done this already to some degree, but I 

thought, Mr. Llorens, I think these are special moments, and I’m 

sure you’ll make reference, all of you will, to your family and 

friends who’ve gathered here as well, but I always like to welcome 

them to the committee. This is a very important moment, to be 

nominated to be an ambassador to represent our country, is a very 

special moment. 

220 

I’ve been involved in this committee for 27 years and I still find 

that one of the best jobs of all is to have a confirmation hearing 

for people to serve. And I always love the fact that people bring 

their families with them, as well. I don’t know if you have any 

here, and if you do, we’re happy to have them recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HUGO LLORENS, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS 

Mr. LLORENS. Yeah, I’d like to—thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, Senators. I’m truly honored to appear before 

you as President Bush’s nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to Honduras. I’m deeply grateful for the trust and confidence 

President Bush and Secretary Rice have placed in me. If confirmed, 

I look forward to working with members of this committee and 

Congress, as appropriate, to advance United States interests in 

Honduras. 

I would like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to acknowledge 

my wife, Lisetee. She has been my life partner for 25 years—— 

Senator DODD. Would you stand up and be recognized. Welcome. 

Mr. LLORENS [continuing]. And she has been a dedicated representative of our country in seven overseas postings. My son, Andrew, a student at Loyola University in New Orleans, and Dirk, 

who is living with us in Madrid, could not be here today. But I consider myself fortunate to have my family’s constant love and support. 

I came to this great Nation with my family 46 years ago as a 7- 

year-old Cuban refugee. We arrived with a suitcase in hand and a 

buffalo nickel in our pocket, but we knew we were richly blessed 

by America’s freedoms. We worked hard and an unquenchable faith 

in America, as the land where dreams come true. It is difficult to 

convey in words how proud I am to have been given an opportunity 

to serve my adopted land these many years, and what a profoundly 

humbling experience it is to be in the presence of this committee 

today. 

I’ve been a career Foreign Service officer—— 

Senator DODD. The record wants to know, as I heard, it was 46 

years ago today. 

Mr. LLORENS. Today, today. 

Senator DODD. What better way to celebrate that anniversary. 

Mr. LLORENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’ve been a career Foreign Service officer for 27 years. I’m a Latin 

American hand by trade, having served in challenging assignments 

in Bolivia, Paraguay, El Salvador, Honduras, and most recently as 

DCM in Argentina. In the 4 years I served in Honduras, I traveled 

the length and breadth of the country and I know the land and its 

people. I’ve had the privilege of working Latin American issues in 

Washington at the State Department and at the NSC. In my current posting as DCM in Spain, our embassy coordinates actively on 

Latin America with our Spanish counterparts. 

If confirmed, I will bring both the regional and executive experience to lead our diplomatic team in Honduras. 

Honduras has been a faithful and long-standing friend of the 

United States. This year, Honduras will celebrate its 28th year of 

unbroken civilian and constitutional rule, and will hold elections 

221 

for a new president in November 2009. The U.S. mission I hope to 

lead will work closely with the current and future government in 

the spirit of friendship, cooperation, and respect. 

Our hemispheric policy is based on consolidating democracy, promoting prosperity, investing in people, and protecting the security 

of the democratic state. Our key issues in Honduras include the 

rule of law and good governance, regional security, and economic 

development. 

If I am confirmed, I will make the safety and security of United 

States citizens living and visiting Honduras a top priority. I will 

support our common efforts to dismantle narcotics and human trafficking organizations. I will work to increase economic opportunities and enable democracy to address the dramatic social obstacles 

Honduras faces, especially poverty and marginalization, which contribute to insecurity. Criminal organizations and gangs threaten 

our neighbors, and it is in our national interest to strengthen the 

capabilities of the Honduran police and security forces. 

If approved, the Merida Initiative will be a multifaceted tool to 

partner with our Central American allies to build a regional strategy against crime and terrorism. In addition, I will support Honduran initiatives to revitalize the judicial system and ensure that 

the fight against lawlessness and impunity is done in full adherence to the law and respect for individual human rights. 

If confirmed, I will support the Millennium Challenge Corpora- tion’s compact, signed in 2005, that provides Honduras $215 million for building roads and enhancing rural development. I will also 

seek to deepen two-way trade and investment derived from 

CAFTA, promote U.S. business, and protect U.S. property rights. 

We have a strong record of programs with the Honduran people 

thanks to the work of USAID and the Peace Corps, as well as 

many public/private partnerships with United States organizations. 

I will vigorously support these supports and all efforts to deepen 

our engagement with the Government and people of Honduras. 

I would also encourage committee members and staff to visit 

Honduras. When U.S. Senators and staff travel overseas, we’re 

given an enormous opportunity to advance our bipartisan agenda 

with our democratic partners. If confirmed, I look forward to welcoming the members of this committee and other Senators and 

Congresspersons. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for 

granting me the honor of appearing before you today, and respectfully ask for you favorable consideration of my nomination. I pledge 

to you that I will work hard and to the best of my ability in Honduras to represent our great Nation. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Llorens follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUGO LLORENS, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, Senators, I am truly honored to appear 

before you as President Bush’s nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to 

Honduras. I am deeply grateful for the trust and confidence President Bush and 

Secretary Rice have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the 

members of this committee and the Congress as appropriate to advance United 

States interests in Honduras. 

I would like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to acknowledge my wife, Lisett. 

She has been my life partner for 25 years and a dedicated representative of our 

222 

country in seven overseas postings. My son, Andrew, a student at Loyola University 

in New Orleans, and Dirk, who is living with us in Madrid, could not be here today. 

I consider myself fortunate to have my family’s constant love and support. 

I came to this great Nation with my family 46 years ago as a 7-year-old Cuban 

refugee. We arrived with a suitcase in hand and a buffalo nickel in our pocket, but 

knew we were richly blessed by America’s freedoms. We worked hard and had an 

unquenchable faith in America as the land where dreams come true. It is difficult 

to convey in words how proud I am to have been given an opportunity to serve my 

adopted land these many years and what a profoundly humbling experience it is to 

be in the presence of this committee today. 

I have been a career Foreign Service officer for 27 years. I am a Latin America 

hand by trade, having served in challenging assignments in Bolivia, Paraguay, El 

Salvador, Honduras, and most recently as DCM in Argentina. In the 4 years I 

served in Honduras, I traveled the length and breadth of the country and I know 

the land and its people. I’ve had the privilege of working Latin America issues in 

Washington at State and the NSC. In my current posting as DCM in Madrid, I am 

well grounded on European perspectives on Latin America and our embassy cooperates on these issues with our Spanish counterparts. If confirmed, I will bring both 

the regional and executive experience to lead our diplomatic team in Honduras. 

If I am confirmed, a top priority will be the security of the 7,000 American residents in Honduras and the 60,000 who travel to the country each year. This begins 

with the safety of our embassy staff and their families and the service men and 

women who work with our Honduran hosts at the Soto Cano air base. 

Honduras has been a faithful and longstanding friend of the United States. This 

year, Honduras will celebrate its 28th year of unbroken civilian and constitutional 

rule and will hold elections for a new President in November 2009. The U.S. mission 

I hope to lead will work closely with the current and future government in a spirit 

of friendship, cooperation, and respect. 

Our hemispheric policy is based on consolidating democracy, promoting prosperity, investing in people, and protecting the security of the democratic state. Our 

key issues in Honduras include the rule of law and good governance, regional security, and economic development. 

If confirmed, I will support our common efforts to dismantle narcotics and human 

trafficking organizations. I will work to increase economic opportunities and enable 

democracy to address the dramatic social obstacles Honduras faces, especially poverty and marginalization that contribute to insecurity. Criminal organizations and 

gangs threaten our neighbors and it is in our national interest to strengthen the 

capabilities of the Honduran police and security forces. If approved, the Merida Initiative will be a multifaceted tool to partner with our Central American allies to 

build a regional strategy against crime and terrorism. In addition, I will support 

Honduran initiatives to revitalize the judicial system and ensure that the fight 

against lawlessness and impunity is done in full adherence to the law and respect 

for individual human rights. 

If confirmed, I will support Honduran efforts to take full advantage of the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s compact signed in 2005 that provides $215 million for 

building roads, as well as promoting rural development. I also will seek to deepen 

the two-way trade and investment flows derived from the CAFTA–DR. We have a 

solid record of programs with the Honduran people thanks to the work of USAID 

and the Peace Corps, which has one of the largest programs in the world in Honduras. We also have many public-private partnerships with U.S. organizations. I 

will vigorously support these programs and all efforts to deepen our engagement 

with the Government and people of Honduras. 

I would also encourage committee members and staff to visit Honduras. When 

U.S. Senators and staff travel overseas, we are given an enormous opportunity to 

advance our bipartisan agenda with our democratic partners. If confirmed, I will 

look forward to welcoming the members of this committee and other Senators and 

Congresspersons to Tegucigalpa. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for granting me the 

honor of appearing before you today and respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of my nomination. I pledge to you that I will work hard and to the best of 

my ability in Honduras to represent our great Nation. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Hodges, welcome, good to have you with us. 

223 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER M. HODGES, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR 

Ambassador HODGES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I’m honored and privileged to appear before you today to 

consider my nomination as Ambassador of the United States to Ecuador. I deeply appreciate the confidence and trust that President 

Bush and Secretary Rice have placed in me. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I would look forward to working 

closely with this committee, along with your colleagues in the full 

Congress, to advance United States interest in Ecuador. 

I bring to this assignment nearly 28 years of Foreign Service experience. Much of my career has been spent in countries dealing 

with the challenges of developing and strengthening democracies. 

At the moment, I am honored to serve as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of the Director General of the Foreign 

Service and Bureau of Human Resources in Washington, DC. Previously, I served as United States Ambassador to Moldova and 

worked overseas in Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru, and 

Spain. 

Historically, the United States and Ecuador have been close partners in combating narcotics trafficking, fighting corruption, and 

fostering economic development. We share a common vision of a 

democratic and prosperous hemisphere that provides opportunities 

for all its citizens. 

Ecuador is known as a nation of great natural beauty, a nation 

of tremendous natural resources and biodiversity, a country of 

peace whose people and diverse cultures are its greatest strengths. 

The people of Ecuador are committed to building stronger, more 

transparent institutions. The United States stands ready to assist 

them in reaching that goal through continued engagement that reinforces our hemispheric commitment to constitutional democracy, 

strong and inclusive institutions, respect for the rule of law, the 

war on drugs, and greater, more widely shared economic prosperity. If confirmed, supporting these objectives would be among 

my highest priorities. 

The United States is concerned about the destabilizing effects of 

the revolutionary armed forces of Columbia, FARC, on the Andean 

region. Ecuador’s fight against drug trafficking and FARC incursions along the northern border, combined with its efforts to bolster 

alternative development in the region is crucial for United States 

interests. 

Another priority in the United States-Ecuador relationship is 

support for economic development and poverty reduction. United 

States trade and economic growth assistance to Ecuador focuses on 

technical assistance, training, outreach, financial support for free 

and open markets, and poverty reduction. 

As in most countries, Ecuador also holds both challenges and opportunities for United States investors. I was pleased to learn that 

Ecuador and Occidental Petroleum recently reached an agreement 

on payment of an arbitral award in a long-standing investment dispute, and are together addressing another dispute. If confirmed, I 

look forward to continuing our efforts to promote United States exports and commercial interests, while encouraging Ecuadorian economic development. 

224 

Lastly, there are approximately 20,000 American citizens living 

in Ecuador and another 150,000 visit the country every year. Protecting U.S. citizens is the first responsibility of any ambassador 

and, if confirmed, I will ensure that the embassy in Quito and our 

Consulate General in Guayaquil continue to provide a high level of 

service and attention to our citizens. 

I thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts about the 

United States relationship with Ecuador and I’m happy to answer 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hodges follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HEATHER M. HODGES, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored and privileged to appear before you today to consider my nomination as Ambassador of the United 

States to Ecuador. I deeply appreciate the confidence and trust that President Bush 

and Secretary Rice have placed in me. If confirmed by the Senate, I would look forward to working closely with this committee, along with your colleagues in the full 

Congress, to advance United States interests in Ecuador. 

I bring to this assignment nearly 28 years of Foreign Service experience. Much 

of my career has been spent in countries dealing with the challenges of developing 

and strengthening democracies. At the moment, I am honored to serve as Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of the Director General of the Foreign 

Service and Bureau of Human Resources in Washington, DC. Previously, I served 

as United States Ambassador to Moldova and worked overseas in Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru, and Spain. I have been especially privileged to work for and 

with extremely talented people at the Department of State in the Foreign and Civil 

Service, as well as with our very committed locally employed staff. I would also like 

to point out that I completed a Pearson Fellowship in the Senate 20 years ago, an 

experience I still remember fondly and for which I will always be grateful. If confirmed, I hope that all of these experiences and influences in my life will make me 

an effective ambassador to Ecuador. 

Historically, the United States and Ecuador have been close partners in combating narcotics trafficking, fighting corruption, and fostering economic development. We share a common vision of a democratic and prosperous hemisphere that 

provides opportunities for all its citizens. The United States is the most important 

source of Ecuador’s imports and in turn the primary market for Ecuador’s exports. 

Furthermore, Ecuador is known as a nation of great natural beauty, a nation of tremendous natural resources and biodiversity, and a country of peace whose peoples 

and diverse cultures are its greatest strength. 

These are challenging yet promising times for Ecuador. Since the election of President Rafael Correa in 2006, the country’s eighth president in 10 years, there has 

been strong popular support for a new constitution. A constituent assembly was 

elected in September of last year and has taken up the charge of creating a new 

constitution, and the people of Ecuador are committed to building stronger, more 

transparent institutions. The United States stands ready to assist them in reaching 

that goal through continued engagement that reinforces our hemispheric commitment to constitutional democracy, strong and inclusive institutions, respect for the 

rule of law, the war on drugs, and greater, more widely shared economic prosperity. 

If confirmed, supporting these objectives will be among my highest priorities. 

The United States is concerned about the destabilizing effects of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) on the Andean region, and we support 

regional efforts to eliminate narco terrorism and achieve a lasting peace. Ecuador’s 

fight against drug trafficking and FARC incursions along the northern border, combined with its efforts to bolster alternative development in that region, is crucial for 

U.S. interests. As a result of an increased presence on the northern border, Ecuador 

in 2007 was able to destroy three multi-ton cocaine laboratories, eradicated several 

multi-hectare coca plots near the Colombian border, and reported a record number 

of land-based drug seizures. Also in 2007, Ecuador unveiled ‘‘Plan Ecuador,’’ which 

is an integrated approach to northern border security and development aimed at 

countering the influence of Colombian terrorists and narcotraffickers on Ecuador. If 

confirmed, I will continue our robust support for Ecuador’s counternarcotics efforts. 

Another priority in the United States-Ecuador relationship is support for economic 

development and poverty reduction. Supported by favorable global conditions, Ecuador’s economic performance in recent years has been strong. Between 2000 and 

225 

2007, per capita GDP more than doubled to $3,270, while poverty rates fell. United 

States trade and economic growth assistance to Ecuador focuses on technical assistance, training, outreach, and financial support for free and open markets, competitiveness and poverty reduction. Among our projects is one focusing on microenterprises. Approximately one million people in Ecuador—nearly 25 percent of the workforce—work in microenterprises. Helping microenterprises grow contributes to poverty reduction and economic growth. Thanks in large part to United States assistance, Ecuador now has the fastest growing microfinance sector in all of Latin America. The Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), enacted in 1991 and extended three 

times by the Congress in the last year-and-a-half, remains a powerful tool. It has 

strengthened economic ties between our two countries and helped Ecuador create 

new, world-competitive businesses such as its flower industry. The Government of 

Ecuador estimates ATPA has generated over 300,000 jobs. 

Ecuador is an important trading partner for the United States. As in most countries, Ecuador also holds both challenges and opportunities for United States investors. I was pleased to learn that Ecuador and Occidental Petroleum recently reached 

agreement on payment of an arbitral award in a long-standing investment dispute 

and are together addressing another dispute. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing our efforts to promote United States exports and commercial interests while 

encouraging Ecuadorian economic development. 

Lastly, there are approximately 20,000 American citizens living in Ecuador, and 

another 150,000 Americans visit every year. Protecting United States citizens is the 

first responsibility of any ambassador, and, if confirmed, I will ensure that the Embassy in Quito and our Consulate General in Guayaquil continue to provide a high 

level of service and attention to our citizens. Our diplomatic representation in Ecuador includes 11 United States agencies with 155 Americans and 266 locally employed staff. In addition, the Peace Corps has a contingent of over 150 volunteers 

throughout the country. Providing an appropriate and secure work place for our employees is a critical requirement. To that end, the State Department will soon be 

opening a new chancery in Quito, a notable accomplishment under Ambassador 

Jewell’s leadership. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to share my thoughts about the United 

States relationship with Ecuador. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you 

closely, and welcome the opportunity to host you and other interested members of 

Congress in Quito. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very, very much, Ms. Hodges. 

Mr. Callahan, welcome. 

I should have said Ambassador Hodges, by the way. I apologize. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. CALLAHAN, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I may, I’d like to begin by introducing a few of my family members who are here. My wife of 31 years, Debbie, who has been my 

closest confidante in 28 years in the Foreign Service, our younger 

son, Emmett, his older brother, our oldest son, Andrew, is living 

and working in New York and couldn’t be here today, my nephew, 

Tim Morrison, is also here, as are a few of my students from 

George Washington University, all of them very bright young men 

and women who are keenly interested in the government and in 

foreign policy. 

Senator DODD. Why don’t they stand up and be recognized, you 

probably got half the room here. [Laughter.] 

The Callahans. Welcome all of you, nice to have you with us. 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you today as the President’s 

nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Nicaragua. I am 

profoundly grateful to President Bush and Secretary of State Rice 

for the confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the members of this committee and your colVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
226 

leagues in the Congress to promote our policies in Nicaragua and 

when appropriate, throughout the region. 

Should I be confirmed, this will be my eighth overseas assignment and my fourth posting to Latin America, but my first since 

I left Bolivia in 1992. As someone who has developed a keen appreciation of Latin American culture, the Spanish language, and the 

profession of diplomacy, I eagerly welcome the assignment. 

I also think that my varied career with the State Department, 

which has taken me from the diverse cultures of Bolivia to the center of the former Muslim Caliphate in Baghdad, from the enduring 

charms of San Jose and Tegucigalpa to the imperial legacies of 

London, Athens, and Rome, has provided me with the experience 

to lead effectively our mission in Managua, should the Senate confirm me. 

I am no stranger to challenging assignments and I do think that 

Nicaragua will prove to be just that. There is, to begin with, what 

T.S. Eliot called ‘‘the persistence of memory,’’ which of course, is 

not unique to Nicaragua. I would never suggest that we should ignore history, just that our thought and actions should not become 

hostage to the past. There are too many common interests between 

the United States and Nicaragua, too many problems that require 

our mutual attention, resources, and energy, to dwell on what we 

might have done to each other decades or even centuries ago. Acknowledge to be sure, and learn from it, but then move on. 

Every member of this committee and every American who reads 

the paper or watches the news has recently come across intemperate words directed against the United States from certain Latin 

American countries, and unfortunately, Nicaragua has, at times, 

been among them. This kind of rhetoric can sting, even wound, and 

national leaders should always be prudent in their language and 

measured in their criticism. That said, and much to our credit, the 

United States has paid more attention to Nicaraguan deeds than 

words, and this would seem to be the right approach. 

Our commitment to the Western Hemisphere, to help in consolidating democracy, promoting prosperity, investing in people, and 

protecting the security of the democratic state is no where more in 

evidence than in Nicaragua. Working closely with Nicaraguans 

from the government, police, and military, from business and labor, 

and from charitable and religious organizations, we have achieved 

some notable successes on a range of issues. Through the Millennium Challenge account, our bilateral aid, the Central American 

Free Trade Agreement, and other initiatives, we have helped Nicaraguans develop their economy. 

When Hurricane Felix devastated the country’s north coast last 

year, we provided over $15 million in immediate assistance. In the 

fight against drugs, our two countries have worked together to 

seize more than 3 metric tons of cocaine so for this year, which follows a seizure of 13 metric tons last year. If confirmed, I will continue to support our efforts to build a strong, sustainable, and mutually beneficial partnership with Nicaragua, and I will regard as 

my most important responsibility, the protection of American citizens. 

Our official presence in Nicaragua includes representatives from 

a dozen agencies of the Federal Government, as well as 165 Peace 

227 

Corps volunteers, all doing extraordinary work under difficult conditions. I will endeavor, as my predecessors have done, to provide 

a high level of service to American citizens living in and visiting 

Nicaragua. In addition, and should I be confirmed, I would eagerly 

welcome your visiting, which would provide excellent opportunities 

to engage Nicaraguans at every level. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I recognize that there 

are many challenges in further developing our relationship with 

Nicaragua. If confirmed, I will work to promote U.S. interest and 

develop a partnership with the government and people of that 

beautiful country. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before 

your committee. I would be pleased to answer any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Callahan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. CALLAHAN, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and pleasure to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Nicaragua. I am profoundly grateful to President Bush and Secretary of 

State Rice for the confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward 

to working with the members of this committee and your colleagues in the Congress 

to promote our policies in Nicaragua and, when appropriate, throughout the region. 

If I may, I would like to take a moment to introduce several people. First, my 

wife, Debbie, who has been my life partner for over 30 years and my closest confidante during 28 years in the Foreign Service and who, if I am confirmed, will give 

up her job and accompany me once again on a foreign assignment; next, my younger 

son, Emmett, who spent all but 3 years of his youth abroad as I served in various 

cities on two continents, as did his older brother, Andrew, who is living in New York 

and couldn’t be here today; and, finally, a number of my current and former students from George Washington University, who have come to the hearing to witness 

this committee discharge its constitutional responsibilities. 

If confirmed, this will be my eighth overseas assignment and my fourth posting 

to Latin America, but my first since I left Bolivia in 1992. As someone who has developed a keen appreciation of, and a genuine affection for, Latin American culture, 

the Spanish language, and the profession of diplomacy, I eagerly welcome the assignment. 

I also think that my varied career with the State Department, which has taken 

me from the diverse cultural expressions of Bolivia to the former center of the great 

Muslim caliphate in Baghdad, from the enduring charms of San Jose and 

Tegucigalpa to the imperial radiance of London, Athens, and Rome, has provided 

me with the experience and knowledge to lead effectively our mission in Managua, 

should the Senate confirm me. 

I am no stranger to challenging assignments, and I do think that Nicaragua will 

prove to be just that. There is, to begin with, what T.S. Elliot called ‘‘the persistence 

of memory,’’ which of course is not unique to Nicaragua. I would never suggest that 

we should ignore history; just that our thoughts and actions should not become hostage to the past. There are too many common interests between the United States 

and Nicaragua, too many problems that require our mutual attention, resources, 

and energy, to dwell on what we might have done to each other decades or even 

centuries ago. Acknowledge it, to be sure, and learn from it, but then move on. 

Every member of this committee, and every American who reads a paper or 

watches the news, has recently come across intemperate words directed against the 

United States from certain Latin American countries, and unfortunately Nicaragua 

has at times been among them. This kind of rhetoric can sting, even wound, and 

national leaders should be prudent in their language, measured in their criticism. 

That said, and much to our credit and forbearance, the United States has paid more 

attention to Nicaraguan deeds than words, and this would seem to be the right approach. 

Our commitment to the Western Hemisphere—consolidating democracy, promoting prosperity, investing in people, and protecting the security of the democratic 

state—is nowhere more in evidence than in Nicaragua. 

Working closely with Nicaraguans from the government, police, and military, from 

business and labor, and from charitable and religious organizations, we have 

228 

achieved some notable successes on a range of issues. Through the Millennium 

Challenge Account, our bilateral aid, the Central American Free Trade agreement, 

and other initiatives, we have helped Nicaragua develop its economy. We provided 

over $15 million in immediate assistance when Hurricane Felix devastated the 

country’s North coast last year. In the fight against drugs, our two countries have 

worked together to seize more than 3 metric tons of cocaine so far this year, which 

follows the seizure of 13 metric tons in 2007. 

If confirmed, I will continue to support our efforts to build a strong, sustainable, 

and mutually beneficial partnership with Nicaragua, and I will regard as my most 

important responsibility the protection of American citizens in Nicaragua. 

Our official presence in Nicaragua includes representatives from a dozen agencies 

of the Federal Government as well as 165 Peace Corps volunteers, all doing extraordinary work under difficult conditions. 

I will endeavor, as my predecessors have done, to provide a high level of service 

to American citizens living in and visiting Nicaragua. In addition, and should I be 

confirmed, I would eagerly welcome your visiting. Your presence provides excellent 

opportunities to engage Nicaraguans at every level. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I recognize that there are many challenges in further developing our relationship with Nicaragua. If confirmed, I will 

work conscientiously to promote U.S. interests and develop a partnership with the 

government and people of that beautiful country. Thank you for this opportunity to 

appear before your committee. I would be pleased to answer any questions you 

might have. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very, very much. 

Mr. McFarland. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. MCFARLAND, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA 

Mr. MCFARLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’d like 

to introduce my family. I’d like to introduce my wife, Karen McFarland—we met at our first post in Venezuela, and my sons—our 

sons, Christopher, Alexander, Andrew, and Kevin. They’ve been a 

source of inspiration and support to me throughout our career. 

Senator DODD. Well, welcome. Christopher particularly, welcome, 

I like you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is 

a great honor to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to Guatemala. I’m 

grateful to the President and to Secretary Rice for the trust and 

confidence that they have shown in sending my nomination to you. 

I’m a second generation Foreign Service officer with 31 years of 

service. I’ve served nine times in Latin America, mostly in countries with insurgencies, political strife, and post-conflict challenges. 

My earlier assignments in El Salvador and Peru showed me the 

human costs when democracy falters and when social cohesion 

fails. As Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge in Guatemala from 

2000 to 2003, I worked closely with a broad range of Guatemalans 

on bilateral issues. 

My most recent assignment was as team leader of a Provincial 

Reconstruction Team embedded with the 2nd Marine Regiment in 

Western Iraq. There I saw the accomplishments of interagency 

leadership and teamwork, and I bear witness to the dedication and 

sacrifices of Americans and Iraqis. If confirmed as ambassador, I 

would use this experience to lead an active interagency embassy 

team. 

The United States overarching objective in Guatemala is to support democracy. Democracy, in turn, requires security, prosperity, 

and the rule of law. These objectives are mutually reinforcing. GuaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
229 

temalans ended their internal conflict through the 1996 Peace Accords. Out of the ashes of a cruel war, they embarked on an admirable, but unfinished effort to incorporate all citizens of all ethic 

groups, all social classes, into Guatemala’s democratic society. 

Guatemala’s democracy faces great challenges, corruption and organized crime, impunity and human rights abuses, drug and gang 

violence, and extreme poverty, including child mortality and malnutrition rates in some areas among the worst in the hemisphere. 

The United States has been a partner with success of Guatemalan 

Governments and civil society on these interrelated issues, and 

both countries that major progress is vital. If confirmed, I am committed to working with this committee, with the Congress, with all 

executive branch agencies, and with the Guatemalan, and other 

groups to continue efforts to address these challenges. 

President Alvaro Colon took office in January 2008 and is building upon Guatemala’s friendly relations with the United States. He 

has pledged to help the poor and the indigenous, and to improve 

security and transparency. In January, Guatemala and the U.N. 

inaugurated the commission against impunity in Guatemala. As 

President Bush said in his visit to Guatemala last year, ‘‘Strong democracy requires security from drug lords and violent criminals.’’ 

The United States provides Guatemala cooperation in law enforcement and the Merida Initiative, if approved by Congress, would 

greatly increase cooperation on law enforcement and citizen security issues. 

The CAFTA agreement has increased trade, greater security, 

transparency, and infrastructure would encourage even more investment in trade. Health and education, two issues that President 

Bush raised in his visit, also need more investment for Guatemala 

to take full advantage of CAFTA. If confirmed, I will work closely 

with the Guatemalan Government and with Guatemalan and 

American businesses in our shared interests in trade and economic 

opportunities. 

Civil society, including the private sector, plays an important role 

in Guatemala. The ties between Guatemalan and American civil 

society strengthen our bilateral relations. If confirmed, I would 

seek to support these bonds, including through additional public diplomacy outreach. 

Some 350,000 Americans visit Guatemala each year, another 

25,000 live there. Many Americans have also adopted Guatemalan 

children. If confirmed, two of my top priorities would be the safety 

of American citizens and support for a transparent, efficient, adoption process in accordance with Guatemalan and American laws. 

Embassy Guatemala also has some 400 American and Guatemalan employees who work in a dozen agencies, as well as 200 

Peace Corps volunteers. Their safety and support would also be a 

major concern of mine. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McFarland follows:] 

230 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. MCFARLAND, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before 

you today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador 

to Guatemala. I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Rice for the trust 

and confidence they have shown in sending my nomination to you. I would like to 

introduce my wife, Karin, and to thank her for her support throughout our Foreign 

Service experience. I would also like to introduce my sons, Christopher, Alexander, 

Andrew, and Kevin, and to thank them for their support and inspiration. 

I am a second-generation Foreign Service officer with 31 years of service; I have 

served nine times in Latin America, mostly in countries with insurgencies, political 

strife, and post-conflict challenges. My earlier assignments in El Salvador and Peru 

showed me the human costs when democracy falters and social cohesion fails. As 

Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge in Guatemala from 2000 to 2003, I worked 

closely with a broad range of Guatemalans on bilateral issues. My most recent assignment was as team leader of a Provincial Reconstruction Team embedded with 

the 2nd Marine Regiment in western Iraq. I saw the accomplishments of interagency leadership and teamwork, and I bear witness to the dedication and sacrifices 

of Americans and Iraqis. If confirmed as ambassador, I would use this experience 

to lead an active interagency embassy team. 

The United States overarching objective in Guatemala is to support democracy. 

Democracy in turn requires security, prosperity, and the rule of law; these objectives 

are mutually reinforcing. Guatemalans ended their internal conflict through the 

1996 Peace Accords. Out of the ashes of a cruel war, they embarked on an admirable—but unfinished— effort to incorporate all citizens of all ethnic groups and social classes into Guatemala’s democratic society. 

Guatemalas democracy faces great challenges: corruption and organized crime; 

impunity and human rights abuses; drug and gang violence; and extreme poverty, 

including child mortality and malnutrition rates in some areas among the worst in 

the hemisphere. The United States has worked as partners with successive Guatemalan governments and civil society on these interrelated issues, and both countries 

agree that major progress is vital. If confirmed, I am committed to working with 

this committee, with all executive branch agencies, and with the Government of 

Guatemala and other groups to continue our efforts to address these challenges. 

President A ́ lvaro Colom took office in January 2008 and is building upon Guatemala’s friendly relations with the United States. He has pledged to help the poor 

and the indigenous, and to improve security and transparency. In January 2008, 

Guatemala and the United Nations inaugurated the Commission Against Impunity 

in Guatemala. As President Bush said when he visited Guatemala a year ago, 

‘‘strong democracy requires security from drug lords and violent criminals.’’ The 

United States provides Guatemala cooperation in law enforcement, and the Merida 

Initiative—if approved by the Congress—would significantly increase our cooperation on law enforcement and citizen security issues of mutual concern. 

The CAFTA–DR Free Trade Agreement entered into force in Guatemala in July 

2006. It has increased trade, and President Bush’s March 2007 visit to Guatemala 

underscored the ability of nontraditional producers in indigenous areas to improve 

their standard of living under CAFTA. 

However, greater security, transparency, and infrastructure are needed to encourage more investment and trade. Health and education—two issues that President 

Bush raised during his visit—also need more investment to foster the workforce 

Guatemala needs to take full advantage of the trade agreement. If confirmed, I will 

be work closely with the Guatemalan Government, and with Guatemalan and American businesses, on our mutual interests in trade and economic opportunities. 

Civil society, including the private sector, plays an important role in Guatemala. 

The ties between Guatemalan and American civil society strengthen our bilateral 

relations. If confirmed, I would seek to support these bonds, including through additional public diplomacy outreach. 

Some 350,000 Americans visit Guatemala each year, and another 25,000 Americans live there. Many Americans are close to Guatemala as the birthplace of their 

adopted children; in the last 10 years, Americans have adopted over 25,000 Guatemalan children. If confirmed, two of my top priorities would be the safety of American citizens, and support for a transparent, efficient adoption process in accordance 

with Guatemalan and American laws. Embassy Guatemala has some 400 American 

and Guatemalan employees who work in a dozen agencies, as well as 200 Peace 

Corps volunteers; their safety and support would also be a major concern of mine. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions. 

231 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you very, very much. 

I should have made note earlier, but I see my former colleague, 

Ben Gilman, here. Ben, I want to thank you for coming over, a 

former member of the House, where we served together many years 

ago, and a wonderful member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and very active in foreign policy issues. So we’re honored 

to have you on the Senate side. 

I always tell people the story, when I left the House and came 

to the Senate, Morris Udall turned to me and he said, ‘‘By going 

to the Senate, you have improved the intelligence of both bodies.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

So, I thank you for coming over. 

Let me, first of all, tell you how pleased I am the President has 

nominated five of you here that are career Foreign Service officers. 

This doesn’t happen often enough and I think it’s very exciting, the 

fact that your careers are being recognized and the value contribution you’ve made, not only in this region, because I think all of you 

have had tremendous experience in the region as well, and I know 

that’s always a battle back and forth on how these decisions are 

made. 

And as I mentioned earlier, my brother Tom taught at Georgetown, he was never in the Foreign Service per se, but I think he 

was almost considered part of the family since he was so closely associated with the issues over the years, but the fact that there are 

people who work so very hard in this region year in and year out, 

and many times don’t get the opportunity to serve as our ambassadors in these countries, because in so many cases, these ambassadors at embassies end up, sort of, political, so to speak, so there’s 

a value in that, because you can be very good ambassadors. 

But the fact that the President has asked those of you who have 

served so well over the years in these other countries, I commend 

him for that. I think this is something they need to recognize more 

often, so I commend all of you on your service to the region. 

There’s obviously a lot of people in front of us here, and I’m going 

to ask maybe just a couple of generic questions and ask you to respond to them because I think they apply to all of you. 

The Merida Initiative, and my good friend, Bob Menendez, has 

a strong interest in this subject matter as well, and I’m very interested in hearing his comments and thoughts on it. 

I mentioned, Bob, before you came in that I’m supportive of the 

idea, but it needs to be expanded. I’m worried that if it’s just going 

to be a sort of more equipment kind of a program, where we’re 

talking about high priced equipment, helicopters, weapons and the 

like—and I’m not arguing, that can’t be a major contributor to all 

of this, but it seems to me it’s got to be broader based than that. 

I mean, is there sufficient attention being paid to civilian institution-building, the rule of law, in this agreement? Should we begin 

by vetting key units in the police and the judiciary to be sure that 

there’s going to be minimal corruption in the process as we go forward with a major investment in the region? Is serious political 

will a necessary condition for the success of this initiative, in your 

minds? Are they willing to take the difficult steps to actually confront the corruption-laden problems that exist in so many of these 

cases? I say that with a deep regret about what happens in these 

232 

nations. And, are you satisfied to the extent you can be at this 

juncture, that those kinds of concerns are going to be addressed? 

And I’d like to hear all of you comment on whether or not you 

agree with this, or if you have a different perspective on this. 

I think it would be helpful for the committee at this juncture 

here, since you are experienced hands in all of this and know the 

area so well, what are your reactions to this? And as a committee 

of jurisdiction we’re going to be very interested in following this 

and how it works. And I going to be particularly turning to Bob 

and asking him to be the lead on all of this as we go through it 

in this subcommittee. 

But I’d be very interested, Mr. Llorens, beginning with you, and 

maybe on down in the order we’ve talked to each other to share 

some thoughts about this initiative. Is it enough, should it be more, 

are you concerned that it’s limited it seems in one area, and how 

satisfied are you about the will, the corruption issues, the vetting 

process, and the like? 

Mr. LLORENS. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, certainly, I know that for Central America we’re asking for $50 million for this 

year, and I think it’s plussed up to $100 million next year. And 

again, speaking specifically, I do agree that you need to have a holistic approach to dealing with the whole issue of crime and impunity, rule of law, and it has to be holistic and it has to be strategic. 

I’ve looked at the specific—Merida Initiative and we do have 

training, we do have equipment, but you also have issues, you 

know, you do have community outreach, you do have programs to 

work with prosecutors, with the judicial system. Because I totally 

agree—I mean, I think if we don’t build and focus a lot of our assistance to strengthening those institutions, none of this aid is 

going to be sustainable. 

So, I look at the categories that are involved in institution-building and prevention, and community outreach is a critical component of the Merida Initiative, I agree. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Hodges. 

Ambassador HODGES. Sir, of course, the Merida Initiative is not 

related to Ecuador, but—— 

Senator DODD. I’m sorry, I apologize. 

Ambassador HODGES [continuing]. But, I would like to comment 

on the fact that one of the positive things that we have in our relationship with the Government of Ecuador is the government’s, and 

President Correa’s firm commitment to combating corruption and 

to, you know, to work in this area. And much of our assistance already goes to programs that are related to corruption, to working 

on the judicial system, criminal—working on the judicial system in 

areas of criminal investigation, we have provided Ecuador with its 

first-time ever automated database on criminal cases, and things 

like that. 

So, again, I would certainly support something like that. 

Senator DODD. Thank you. 

Mr. Callahan. 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For Nicaragua, yes, I would echo what Hugo Llorens said— 

there’s a very important component in Merida, which addresses the 

233 

rule of law and institution-building. And that goes to the heart of 

trying to reduce, if not eliminate, corruption. Corruption is, unquestionably, a problem. A World Bank study placed Nicaragua in 

the 23rd percentile. 

But in preparing for these hearings, and in talking with a number of my colleagues in the Government, including the DEA and 

the people at the Department of Defense who deal with the Nicaraguan Police, they have a very high regard for the Chief of Police 

in Nicaragua, a woman named Aminta Quinera, who is highly professional, and determined to make her police force professional. 

So, I would think that we can, with some confidence, trust them 

to use the money wisely, and attempt to reduce, if not eliminate, 

corruption, which is a problem. 

Senator DODD. That’s very good, thanks very much. 

Mr. McFarland. 

Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that for the Merida Initiative 

to be successful, there has to be a holistic approach, and there has 

to be support for the institutions that underpin the rule of law, not 

just for the agents that actually execute the actions. 

I’d like to point out, in the case of Guatemala, the part of the 

Merida agreement which—if approved by Congress—would focus 

on gang activities, illustrates some of this approach. 

It starts with prevention efforts that are carried out by NGOs 

and community organizations. Then there is community policing, 

there is support, with support, training, equipment for the police, 

as well as support for vetted units. There’s communications equipment and other training for the police to be able to link up with 

counterparts in other countries, there’s considerable training and 

support, and I think here the political will element is crucial, and 

it’s one we have to monitor carefully for prosecutors, as well. 

There is support for reform of prisons, to ensure that they are 

not simply used as another office by gang members. And at the 

same time, there is additional work on prevention at the prisons, 

focused on first-time offenders and juvenile offenders. And I think 

that kind of holistic approach could be a useful model, sir. 

Senator DODD. That’s very encouraging. And I’d be very interested—I know the committee would be—in any additional thoughts 

as you end up in your posts, any thoughts for the committee to consider as we evaluate the program. 

I want to say to you, Mr. Callahan, I was struck with your testimony and your opening statement, and I appreciate it very, very 

much. I think the T.S. Elliot quote is a very apt one—probably 

could be used a lot of places, about the persistence of memory, and 

I welcome your comments. We’ve had sort of a troubled history over 

the last more than 20 years—more than that now—with Nicaragua, and you can get preoccupied with the history. But as you 

point out, I think, in your testimony—we’ve got to look ahead, as 

well. And it’s important we do that. 

So, your comments, I think, will be welcomed, and it’s an opportunity. And I hope that the Ortega Government and others will 

hear your words this afternoon, and understand what they—as I 

imply them to be—have as an opening, and to take advantage of 

that comment that you made this morning. This is an opportunity 

234 

to try and get on a better track than we’ve been on. So, I appreciate immensely your testimony. Very smart. 

Let me turn to Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I have to say 

that question you ask about rule of law and institutions, building 

institutions—I think is dead-on. And I thought that your responses 

were well-received, I look at the places in the world where so much 

poverty and other kinds of human dilemma exists, it’s in those 

places that lack those two things. And I do appreciate your focus 

on that, or your focus here in the next few months. 

I also agree that, I think it’s wonderful that people of your background and quality are being appointed these jobs. And while certainly political appointees do outstanding work for us all over the 

world, I personally am very thrilled that people who have worked 

so long in Foreign Service are going to be representing us in a part 

of the country—a part of the world—that I actually feel is one of 

the most important that we have to deal with, and I certainly look 

forward to working with Chairman Dodd on initiatives in that 

area. 

And actually I had some questions, but because of the background that you all have and because of the opening statements 

that each of you made, I actually wonder, Chairman, whether they 

shouldn’t be asking us questions. [Laughter.] 

Senator DODD. Believe me, they have them, too. 

Senator CORKER. And as a matter of fact, I’ll take any that you 

might have. [Laughter.] 

Senator CORKER. But I think we all know that each of you is 

very well qualified, you’ve each demonstrated that by virtue of 

what you’ve done already in the way of public service, and I just 

wanted to thank you for being willing to do this, and look forward 

to working with you, and actually have no further comments or 

questions. 

Thank you, each. 

Senator DODD. Thank you, Bob, very much. 

Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me congratulate all of you on your nominations, and certainly thank you for your previous service to our country. I echo 

the chairman’s remarks about seeing career Foreign Service individuals nominated for ambassador positions. I think it is incredibly 

important. And so I’m glad to see the administration is doing that. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments on Merida, and my 

concern as I listen to the answers that you’ve received—and I agree 

with Mr. Llorens, for example, that it needs to be holistic and strategic. I’m just concerned that—as presently devised—it is not holistic and strategic, and that is a real challenge. 

I think we’ve learned from Plan Colombia—which I was a supporter of, when in the House of Representatives that, in fact, it 

came to a point that if you can’t give a coca farmer an opportunity 

to have sustainable development choices, he’s going to sustain his 

family one way or the other. 

Mr. LLORENS. You bet. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And that won’t simply be done at the point 

of a gun. 

235 

And so, part of my concern about how Merida is presently structured is that, that’s largely what it is. 

The other concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is that I appreciated 

the answer that you received from the panel about institutionbuilding. And whenever we talk about Merida, everybody focuses 

on the institution-building, which I think is critical. The problem 

is, that as presently structured, the institution-building, at least in 

the Central America part, only gets about $30 million of the $150 

million to be proposed. So, it’s about one-fifth of the entire effort 

for Central America. Therefore, it is a small amount of institutionbuilding that is going to take place, compared to the enforcement, 

the weapons, the machinery, equipment, and what-not. 

So, if we really believe that institution-building and rule of law 

is the long-term, fundamental nature of what we need to do in 

Merida, then I think the dynamics of how it’s structured need to 

be changed, and I look forward to working with the chairman and 

the ranking member to see that that can happen. 

I think—I agree with you—the spirit of the opportunity, particularly with Mexico, is incredibly important. But the other question 

I’d like to have for the panel is, you know, you will collectively be 

part of—except for Ambassador Hodges—you will collectively be 

part, along with your other colleagues in Central America, of this 

$150 million, if that’s the way it ends up being. And I get a sense 

that the Central American countries were largely an afterthought 

in this initiative. 

Having traveled to Guatemala this past December, and the visit 

between that visit and the visit in Mexico, with President 

Calderon, I got two very clearly different impressions about the 

thinking. Clearly, Mexico has put a lot of time and effort into the 

thinking—at least from their part of this—and I think Guatemala 

wants to do the right thing, but I don’t get the sense that they have 

invested a lot of time and effort in thinking about how they’re 

going to, for example, be at the forefront of this effort. 

So, I’m wondering how you all see the engagement of these countries—not from what we hope they will do—but what we expect 

them to do, and what they’ve already participated in, in terms of 

preparation for the initiative. Can you give us any sense of that? 

Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes, Senator, if I may speak from the perspective of Guatemala—I do understand that the proposal for Mexico 

was, came about in perhaps a better-structured format, in part, because they had the unity of effort of being one country, and the 

Central Americans were coming up with their proposal as part of 

their own regional integration, institution. 

Guatemala also has a new government. If confirmed, sir, one of 

my tasks, in fact, would be to impress upon the government the opportunities that they have and to get a sense for the amount of real 

political will that they are willing to invest in this process, and to 

engage them on that subject. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Any of you others have perspectives? 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, I would just make the point, Senator, that 

we will be working closely with the Nicaraguans, should I be confirmed, and should the Merida Initiative go through as planned— 

we’d be working very closely with Nicaraguans on how they spend 

that money. 

236 

And I take your point about institution-building, and it doesn’t 

seem like a lot of money in Merida, but there are other sources of 

money for institution-building—bilateral aid program, for example, 

the Peace Corps in Nicaragua—all of these entities, American entities, are working with Nicaraguans in an attempt to create robust 

and durable institutions. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I appreciate that—I chair the subcommittee 

on all of our foreign assistance. The problem is, when we talk about 

Merida, in the context of what we are pursuing, some of those programs are great, other bilateral assistance, but they’re focused in 

a different way. And so, how we marry them is going to be very 

important. 

Mr. LLORENS. Senator, it’s a very good question. I agree with you 

in the sense that ultimately, an initiative like Merida, or Central 

America’s ability to deal with the situation, social—socio-economic 

situation that they face. It has to come from within, and they need 

to be able to take the initiative. So, I would like, certainly I think 

the SICA, the Central America System, so that the Central Americans coordinate together and engage with us, I think will be critically important. 

I would just note with regard to Honduras, that I understand 

that they have developed their own national security strategy—I 

think a national security strategy very much focused on some of 

the issues, sort of the challenges that they face—the issues of 

crime, gangs, you know, marginalization of society, so in a way 

there is a challenge there, but it’s absolutely critical for the Centrals to make that change. 

And I assure you, one of my priorities will be to engage with the 

Hondurans, and work very closely with them in this regard. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate your answers, let me just 

say, capacity, ability, and commitment are going to be essential. 

Number two is, the amount is in and of itself, when you look at 

all of Central America, not all that much to try to meet the challenges, which are affected in a variety of ways, including gang violence, and what-not, are all elements of this. 

So, we’re going to—and you all will be so close to each other that 

individual national security strategies, I think, are very good, but 

we need a holistic, regional security strategy, because otherwise 

you have a balloon in which, you know, you push in one end and 

it pops out on the other. 

And so those are some of the things that I think will be incredibly important. 

I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I will wait if you 

will have a second round. 

Senator DODD. We’ll do that. Also to let you know, we’re going 

to submit questions, too, so we can be thorough. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I concur completely with your comment at the outset about the qualification of 

these nominees, and particularly, that they are career Foreign 

Service individuals. Having traveled and seen what you do in some 

of the more challenging places in the world, I thank you for being 

willing to accept this responsibility and certainly hope that you are 

confirmed. 

237 

And Mr. Callahan, you and I had a great conversation about 

some of my experience with Nicaragua when you came to my office, 

and I know Ortega, Sandinista, is back in power and was reelected 

with a plurality. Is there any indication that he has sought aid 

from either Venezuela and Chavez, or Iran? Further, has he received some commitments for the ports from Iran, and housing 

from Venezuela? Do you know the extent to which they are working together? The extent to which Chavez is influencing Ortega, 

and the extent to which he influenced his election? 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, thank you, Senator, it’s nice to see you 

again. 

There was no question that President Ortega does maintain a 

close relationship with President Chavez. President Chavez, 

through the Petrocaribe program is making oil available to Nicaragua at discounted rates. But I would point out that the United 

States also has an economic engagement with Nicaragua, which is 

both broad and deep. Not only our bilateral aid program, but the 

Millennium Challenge Account which, I think, we discussed, which 

is $175 million over 5 years. There is the CAFTA program, the 

CAFTA Free Trade Agreement, which has resulted in a dramatic 

increase in both Nicaraguan exports to the United States and 

American investment in Nicaragua. 

Through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, 

which we play a leading role, about $1.7 billion of Nicaraguan debt 

has been forgiven. So, the Nicaraguan economy depends greatly on 

the United States, both for its trade, and for a lot of its bilateral 

aid. 

In addition to that, as I mentioned in my statement, we have a 

very active Peace Corps program, and these volunteers are all over 

the country. 

To get back to your original point, yes, he does have a relationship with Mr. Chavez, but in a recent poll that I just looked at, the 

approval rating for the United States in Nicaragua is over 80 percent. So the Nicaraguans clearly have a great affection for the 

United States, which is something we can work with, as well. 

Senator ISAKSON. And he won with 37.6 percent, so we’re doing 

better than he did. [Laughter.] 

Right? Well, for all of you, Central and Latin America is critical 

to the interests of the United States, and I’m troubled by the 

amount of power Chavez has through the prices of petroleum and 

how he’s leveraging that money. And I think your presence in those 

countries and your outreach to maintain the great friends that we 

do have, and maybe win over a couple that we may have lost, is 

going to be critically important to us, both in the short run, as well 

as the long run, and I wish you the very best of luck. 

Senator DODD. Is that it, John? 

Senator ISAKSON. Yes. 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you. 

This is a good question Senator Isakson’s raised, not just about 

Nicaragua, but generally in the region. And again, you’re looking, 

what is it—a gallon of gas, I think, in Venezuela is about seven 

cents? And obviously having a huge potential influence in the region, we’re aware of it in Bolivia, and the efforts in Ecuador with 

238 

the recent events that have unfolded between Venezuela, Colombia, 

and Ecuador. The relationship with Brazil—it gets complicated. 

This is all a rosy picture, the world is changing its views regionally on President Chavez, and Brazil is a classic example. I think 

there may have been one relationship, or one attitude to begin 

with, that has certainly been modified, given some of the energy 

issues that have evolved over the years. 

But it’s a good question—certainly struggling countries economically where you can offer low-cost energy at a time when you’re trying to hold your country together is a very appealing offer to receive, and obviously, he’s extracting commitments in return. 

But, I hope we will look at some of these ways in which we can 

expand economic opportunities, as well. I was looking at the remittance issue in Latin America and someone gave me these numbers. 

In 2005, 22 million people from Latin America worked in the developed world. They returned, the 22 million, $54 billion in remittances to the region. That was more than all of the foreign direct 

investment and foreign aid for the entire region, in those remittances coming back. And a good part of that $54 billion, I don’t 

know how it breaks out, of the $54 billion, what percentage comes 

from the United States, but I presume it’s a fairly healthy chunk 

of that, going back. 

We have our own downturn in the economy here, and those numbers get adversely affected. In Honduras, $2.7 billion in remittances were sent back to the country in 2007, that made up a quarter, 25 percent of the GDP of the country. And so there’s a direct 

correlation in terms of what happens here. 

I noticed in foreign aid, Nicaragua, by the way, 26 percent of foreign aid, makes up 26 percent of Nicaragua’s budget in the country. And I presume the bulk of that comes from us, is that true? 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, that’s—— 

Senator DODD. I don’t know if that foreign aid number is U.S. 

foreign aid? 

Mr. CALLAHAN. It’s of all sorts, and it’s international foreign aid, 

as well. 

Senator DODD. But I want you to just comment on this general 

question, because obviously I’m a believer that foreign aid can be 

of help, and certainly there’s a value in all of that. 

But the realities of the world in the 21st century—just given our 

own budget constraints on how much you can actually do, and the 

importance of wealth creation, immigration policy, I mentioned earlier, 100 million people have left the region since World War II, primarily over economic issues. And, I presume, in some cases political reasons that were intolerable to live the way you live, your 

family lived, and you made that decision that many of us at this 

side of the dais families did—to emigrate. The case of Bob Menendez certainly reflects exactly what your family went through. 

And yet, obviously, many others are leaving for economic reasons, and how we begin to get our arms around this issue, in the 

holistic way that I’ve mentioned, that Senator Menendez has mentioned, Senator Corker has mentioned, would be helpful—the IDB, 

U.S. aid—do you have any thoughts as a panel, here, on how we 

might look at this, out of the box, a bit differently? And ways in 

239 

which we can address these issues beyond the traditional ways 

we’ve been talking about it, over the last number of years? 

Mr. LLORENS. That’s a very good question, Mr. Chairman. You 

know, I would say one of the things I think that’s very important 

there, a country like Honduras receives significant economic assistance from the United States. You have $43 million in bilateral assistance, you have the Millennium Challenge Account which is 

$215 million over 5 years. The United States obviously provides a 

lot of money through the multilateral banks, so there is significant 

amount of economic assistance. 

I would look at something, for example, in terms of being really 

effective on the ground, something I’d look at, just to make sure 

that donor coordination is really effective, and maybe it is. But it’s 

something that, you know, I would like to look at in making sure 

that the major donors, the multilateral banks, the major bilateral 

donors are working together, so when you look at the development 

issues, you really—whether it’s education, whether it’s health—are 

we really being holistic and strategic as a donor community, so I’d 

say that’s one thing. 

The other thing I would mention is the fact that certainly, I 

think that the Central America Free Trade Agreement, in the 

sense that it locks in the trade benefits for both countries, but for 

Central America region, and for the United States. I think it provides a certain amount of stability so that it’s sort of a platform 

for growth, I think, for Honduras and Central America. But, the 

overriding issue, of course, is, that you have to get back to the rule 

of law you have to get—you know, the good governance issues, corruption, which you all mention. 

And I think that this is an issue—this is really the task, and it’s 

the task that the Central America democracies have to take the 

lead on, but I think the United States has to make sure that, you 

know, our assistance is, comes with the fact that we’re going to ask 

our democratic friends in Central America to raise the standard— 

to have a better investment climate, to have the rule of law, to improve the basis for an independent judiciary. And that’s going to 

be the key to be able to create sustainable development. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Ambassador Hodges. 

Ambassador HODGES. I would say that one thing that’s very important is to—well, for many, many years we’ve been looking at 

these issues of what’s pushing people, what’s pulling people, and I 

feel—I’m very confident in the programs that we’re working with 

that promote economic prosperity, reasons for people to stay, you 

know, in their countries. 

Ecuador has, I think, something like 2 million immigrants in the 

United States, and probably many of them for many years. I think 

that in Ecuador, we should be looking at, you know, doing more in 

terms of again, working with the Government of Ecuador to reduce 

corruption, the themes that are, you know, corruption really hurts 

the everyday man or woman, their pocketbook. And to help people 

realize that it really is in all of our interest to fight against corruption, and any of the programs related to social justice, the same 

thing. These give people a reason to stay in their own countries, 

240 

and to build their institutions, and believe that they will have a 

better future for themselves and their children. 

Senator DODD. Mr. Callahan. 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and as you and Senator 

Menendez talk about a holistic approach—and I think it’s applicable here, as well—progress does come slowly. If we look—as you 

well know, because you’ve been following this as closely as any of 

us in the State Department for the last 25 years—there has been 

enormous progress in Latin America, not only in the return to democracy, but respect for human rights. Which we should acknowledge, and compliment the Central Americans and the Latin Americans for. 

But, I agree with my colleagues talk about corruption. I think 

this is an enormous problem throughout Latin America and the 

only way to reduce it or eliminate it, is by encouraging the people 

who are governing the country to do so honestly and effectively, 

and I think a lot of our capacity-building, a lot of our money and 

training goes into that, exchanges can help. But, I think we have 

to accept that this will be as slow as was the return to democracy. 

Mr. MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman, in terms of Guatemala, I think 

that if we take a step back, and look at the accomplishments over 

the last, say, 20 years. Certainly peace, the return to democracy, 

putting the military back into what we would consider to be the 

traditional military role of not engage—not carrying out internal 

security missions, but rather defending borders—promoting free 

trade. A lot of the important items have been, have been done at 

least in part—to echo some of my colleagues—several of the missing parts, the parts where I think we really have to focus attention 

on, are transparency and rule of law and investing in health and 

education of the people. 

I think to echo, again, something that some of my colleagues 

have said, it’s important that we try to coordinate the significant 

U.S. donor efforts with other donors, with the countries involved. 

I think the private sector in each of these countries is also a potential benefactor of a better trained workforce, and a potential contributor, if you will, to grassroots programs. 

Ultimately, I think that, you know, Latin Americans watch 

events in Venezuela and Cuba with interest, but I think those models have little direct relevance for them, it’s hard to replicate them 

in other countries. That doesn’t mean, though, that they will continue to support blindly their governments, if they perceive that 

they’re not being fair, or they’re, if they’re behaving unjustly. 

Senator DODD. Well, they’re aspirational qualities, and I agree 

with you. 

I’ll just end on this note, but I spoke last week at the Naval 

Academy—they had the Forestall Lecture, and they asked me to 

come and talk about Latin America, and the point I want to make 

is, Latin America is right on the cusp, with this tremendous advance in democracy, which is no small achievement—it’s really 

been remarkable what’s happened. From one end of the continent 

to the next, with the obvious exception of Cuba, it hasn’t been easy, 

it’s gone through an awful lot to get there. 

But, we’re on the cusp of really breaking open, I think, all of 

these other issues. So, it’s unlike other parts of the world which, 

241 

respectfully fall further behind in this effort—Latin America really 

is on the edge of breaking into a 21st century of achieving all the 

potential greatness that’s capable in this hemisphere. So, this is 

really a critical moment, in my view, of getting this right. And if 

we do as Bob has suggested, and expanding this Merida proposal, 

really working on these other avenues that need to be exploited if 

we’re going to make this program succeed, I think we have an opportunity to really have a big influence, and make a big difference 

in this hemisphere. 

So, it’s sitting there, now. You think of other parts of the world, 

and imagine they had achieved what had been achieved in Latin 

America, think of how much further along and more hopeful we 

might be about some of the potential changes. 

So, it really is a time of optimism, in my view. With all of the 

problems out there, this is a time of optimism in Latin America. 

So, I welcome your nominations. Any additional questions I have, 

I’ll submit along—and obviously there are a ton of—I could think 

of just a load of questions I’d love to ask each and every one of you, 

but I’ll restrain myself, and submit them to questions. 

Bob, you had some additional? 

Senator MENENDEZ. First of all, I appreciate your comments 

about—you know, one of our challenges is that even as we talk 

about the Millennium Challenge Account, that’s a handful of countries that qualify. And the reality is, is that the one place in the 

world over the last several years that we have cut overall development assistance is Latin America and the Caribbean. 

So, you know, I hope that the chairman will look at the bill that 

he has cosponsored with me, on the Social and Economic Development Fund for the Americas as part of a tool to try to see if we 

can reverse that trend, because I think sustainable development 

opportunities to make people eligible to be part of an MCC compact 

is equally as important, as well, and I would look at that. 

I just have one or two quick questions, the rest I’ll submit for the 

record. 

Mr. McFarland, with reference to Guatemala, I’m glad to hear 

your comments about adoptions. I have a fair number of constituency cases that are going, respecting Guatemalan law, but seems 

to take forever and find difficulties, so we hope that if you are confirmed, you said it would be one of your priorities, and we look forward for that to actually take place and happen. 

Mr. Callahan, let me ask you one thing—I am concerned about 

Iran’s growing presence in Nicaragua. Particularly, Iran has 

pledged to invest in Nicaragua’s ports, agricultural sector, energy 

network, Venezuela is cofinancing some of these, and I view this 

as part of a challenge that we have in somewhat of a vacuum that 

we need to be engaged in. How will you work to limit Iranian influence in Nicaragua if you are confirmed as the ambassador? 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Thank you, Senator. Yes, we are all concerned, 

you are correct to be concerned, we are concerned. President Ortega has visited Iran, and President Ahmadinejad has visited Nicaragua. There have been a lot of promises made, the Iranians have 

established a diplomatic mission in Managua, we are monitoring it 

closely, but to date, we really haven’t seen much of these promises 

242 

and the rhetoric that President Ahmadinejad had talked about 

when he was there. 

But it is of great concern, it’s something that we are looking at, 

and I can assure you that if I am confirmed, it will be a priority 

for me to keep my eye on this, and that the—we have to convey 

to the Nicaraguans that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and 

that any kind of close relationship with them would have an effect 

on how we dealt with Nicaragua. 

Senator MENENDEZ. They have a Millennium Challenge Account 

agreement? 

Mr. CALLAHAN. They do, $175 million over 5 years, yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Ambassador Hodges, one quick question— 

Ecuador’s obviously been in the news, with Colombia, President of 

Ecuador said he’s going to file a new complaint with the OAS. How 

do you see the circumstances, and what role do you think the 

United States should be playing—you would be playing as ambassador if, in fact, you were confirmed? 

Ambassador HODGES. Well, sir, obviously we value our friendship 

with both Colombia, and with Ecuador, and with respect to the ongoing incidents or crises between, or the—in the relations between 

Colombia and Ecuador, we look to the OAS and its good offices to 

work with the two countries to see if we can come to a good resolution to these issues between them. 

Now there are a couple of issues in the ICJ, and again, this is 

a matter for both of them. 

No matter what, we—I recognize that both countries really need 

to be talking to one another, we need to—we all have regional interests there, the issues of narcotics trafficking in Colombia are, 

you know, very serious. We are fortunate that in Ecuador there is 

no coca cultivation, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have to 

worry about the transportation of narcotics coming through Colombia, precursor chemicals and things like that. 

So, it is really something that we all have to work on to get the 

two countries back together, and continuing their cooperation. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And finally, Mr. Llorens, I don’t have a 

question for you, but if, in fact, you are confirmed, there are some 

commercial transactions of U.S. citizens that I think have been 

dealt with unfairly along the way and we would want to pursue 

them with you when that opportunity comes, should you be at the 

post. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ll submit the rest of my questions for the record. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Senator, we’ll do that, we 

thank all four of you, and wish you the very best. We’ll try and 

move this along. Over the coming weeks, Senator Biden will schedule the appropriate timing for confirmation votes. I don’t know 

when that will happen, but I’m sure we’ll keep you posted and informed. I presume all of your paperwork and everything else has 

been complete, and there may be some additional questions that 

will come in, and we’ll try to get them to you quickly, and urge you 

to respond to them quickly, as well, that would certainly move the 

process along. 

I thank all four of you, for your service and for your responses 

today. 

243 

Let me invite the second panel to come up, sorry, I apologize, we 

sit on the banking committee together, too, so we do a little banking. [Laughter.] 

I apologize. 

Senator CORKER. I’m going to step out to another meeting, and 

I know that you all are in wonderful hands with the two Senators. 

I want you to know that’s not out of any kind of disrespect—we are 

really, have wonderful, wonderful appointees coming before us 

right now, and I do hope there’s a speedy confirmation, and I want 

you to know that I respect you very much. 

But, with that, Mr. Chairman—— 

Senator DODD. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Since you all already have me two to one, anyway, two to zip won’t matter, so thank you. [Laughter.] 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you all very much and welcome to the 

committee. You’ve been appropriately introduced, I guess, except 

for you, Ms. Stephenson. 

Why don’t we begin with you, Ms. Stephenson, I’ll start with you. 

And welcome to the committee, and welcome again for your service. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA J. STEPHENSON, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA 

Ms. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a great honor 

to appear before you today, as the President’s nominee to serve as 

the next American Ambassador to Panama. 

Mr. Chairman, throughout my career, I have appreciated the 

constructive role that you, personally, have played in achieving our 

foreign policy goals. First, when I was a young officer starting out 

in Panama, and then in El Salvador, and then more recently when 

I was Counsel General in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and you were 

on the right side of the issues over and over. So, I thank you. 

Senator DODD. Thank you. Don’t put your nomination in jeopardy, now. [Laughter.] 

Ms. STEPHENSON. And I do look forward to working with you and 

the other members of the committee, and indeed, Congress, in general, if I’m confirmed as Ambassador to Panama. 

I would like to take the opportunity that you’ve given us though, 

to introduce my family. 

My husband, Matthew Furbush, served as our community liaison 

officer during our first Foreign Service assignment in Panama, 

about 20 years ago—a little more than that—when we were newlywed. And he’s served with me at every single Foreign Service 

post since—six so far. 

And our daughter, Claire, has also earned her Foreign Service 

stripes—six schools on four continents by the 9th grade. And she 

hopes to visit us in Panama when she’s not studying at the University of Virginia. 

And our little son, Brewster, who opted to go to elementary 

school today, hopes to earn some Foreign Service stripes of his own 

to compete with his sister, by joining us in Panama, as well. 

Senator DODD. Welcome, delighted to have you here. And thank 

you for your service, as well. 

Ms. STEPHENSON. It’s the whole family. 

Senator DODD. Good. 

244 

Ms. STEPHENSON. If confirmed as ambassador, I would be embarking on my fourth tour in the region. In addition to my first 

tour in Panama, I served in El Salvador during the final years of 

the civil war there, and more recently in Curacao as our Counsel 

General, leading a big interagency law enforcement effort, essentially. 

As I prepare to return to the region, Mr. Chairman, I am struck 

by the dramatic positive changes that have taken place over the 

years. Instead of wrestling with how to get military governments 

to give way to democratic leadership, with the ravages of war, with 

devastating human rights abuses, we talk today, instead, about 

free trade agreements, about ensuring that the fruits of an expanding economy reach all of the citizens. About strengthening the various institutions that are vital to democracy, and about bolstering 

partnerships with these countries so that we can tackle hemispheric and even global challenges together. 

I look forward, if confirmed, to drawing on the deep well of support for the United States—over 80 percent of Panamanians have 

a favorable image of us—to pursue this positive agenda. 

Approval ratings this high are one of the greatest gifts any diplomat can be given. They mean that our voice counts, and that 

Panamanians who share our enthusiasm for achieving this agenda, 

from President Torrijos, to civic action groups, welcome us as partners. 

But the Trade Promotion Agreement, if approved by Congress, 

would also be a very powerful tool. Because, beyond the Trade Promotion Agreement’s benefits—trade benefits—for both of our countries, the agreement directly supports our broader goals for Panama, such as encouraging transparency and accountability, and 

seeking to ensure that all citizens, including the nearly 40 percent 

of Panamanians who continue to struggle in poverty, benefit from 

Panama’s impressive economic growth and maturing democratic institutions. 

As much as some things have changed beyond recognition, other 

things have remained constant, such as an ambassador’s fundamental obligation to look out for fellow Americans abroad. If confirmed, I assure you that protecting Americans will be one of the 

top priorities of my embassy, and with over 25,000 Americans now 

living in Panama, this is a growing part of the embassy’s work, and 

a task I’ve always taken very seriously. 

Of course, geography remains destiny for Panama. As a vital 

crossroads for the movement of goods, people, and ideas, Panama 

is a third border for the United States. Two-thirds of the 14,000 

ships that transit the Panama Canal each year are either coming 

from or going to United States ports. So, I recognize that protecting 

the Canal and Panama’s core infrastructure is critical to the homeland security of the United States. 

I would want to underscore here that the Panama Canal Authority, the Panamanian Government entity that’s been in charge of 

running the Canal since the handover in 1999, has done a really 

impressive job of running it. And we’re also really pleased to see 

that U.S. firms are getting a very fair shot at work on the ambitious multibillion dollar Canal Expansion Project. 

245 

Our shared history has allowed us to forge an effective and enduring partnership to increase the benefits of Panama’s unique geography, while countering the threats that flow from it. 

If confirmed, I look forward to leading a strong interagency effort 

to help Panama in its efforts to push back against the drug traffickers and the criminals who would exploit Panama’s growing 

transportation hub for illegal ends. 

Close cooperation with Panamanian law enforcement has already 

yielded some important successes—increased drug seizures, a more 

effective police force, and an enhanced capability to counter money 

laundering. 

And the Merida Initiative, if it’s approved by Congress, would 

also add considerably to these efforts, both in Panama and the region. 

As Panama’s democratic institutions mature—and I look forward 

to the 2009 elections—when Panamanians will once again go to the 

polls to bring about a democratic transfer of power—seems humdrum today, it did not awhile back, it’s a miracle—and the country 

enjoys impressive economic growth, it was more than 11 percent 

last year—we recognize Panama’s progress, and bright prospects 

for the future by thinking and speaking of Panama increasingly as 

a partner in the region. 

We’re pleased to see Panama taking a leader role, not only regionally like last summer, when Panama effectively hosted the 

OAS General Assembly, but also more, in global terms as exemplified by Panama’s current work, as a member of the United Nations 

Security Council. 

Mr. Chairman, if would be my great honor, if confirmed, to return to Panama as ambassador to build on this partnership, especially now at this profoundly promising moment in Panama’s history. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for 

granting me the honor of appearing before you, and I’d be happy 

to answer any questions you might have. 

The prepared statement of Ms. Stephenson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA J. STEPHENSON, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA

It is a great honor to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to serve 

as the next American Ambassador to Panama. Mr. Chairman, throughout my career, I have appreciated the constructive role you have played in achieving our foreign policy goal—first as a young officer in Central America and later as Consul 

General to Belfast—and I look forward to working with you and others members 

of this committee and indeed with Congress more generally if I am confirmed as 

Ambassador to Panama. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize my husband, Matthew Furbush. Matt served as our community liaison officer during our first Foreign 

Service assignment—in Panama—over 20 years ago when we were newlywed, and 

he has served with me at every overseas post since then—six so far. Our daughter 

Claire, who has also earned her Foreign Service stripes—six schools on four continents by 9th grade—hopes to visit us in Panama when she is not studying at the 

University of Virginia. Our son Brewster, who opted to go to elementary school 

today, hopes to earn some more Foreign Service stripes of his own by joining us in 

Panama. 

If confirmed as ambassador, I will embark on my fourth tour in the region. In 

addition to Panama, I served in El Salvador during the final years of the civil war 

there and more recently in Curacao as our Consul General, heading a robust interagency counternarcotics effort, partly in support of Plan Colombia. As I prepare to 

246 

return to the region, I am struck by the dramatic, positive changes that have taken 

place over the years. Instead of wrestling with how to get military dictatorships to 

give way to democratic government, with the ravages of war, with devastating 

human rights abuses, we talk instead today about free trade agreements, about ensuring that the fruits of an expanding economy are shared by all citizens, about 

strengthening institutions vital to democracy, about bolstering our partnership to 

tackle hemispheric and indeed global problems together. 

I look forward, if confirmed, to drawing on the deep well of support for the United 

States—over 80 percent of Panamanians have a favorable image of us—to pursue 

this positive agenda. Approval ratings this high are one of the most precious gifts 

any diplomat can be given. They mean that our voice counts and that Panamanians 

who share our enthusiasm for pursuing this positive agenda—from President 

Torrijos to civic action groups—welcome us as partners. 

But the Trade Promotion Agreement, if approved by Congress, would also be a 

very powerful tool. Beyond the TPA’s trade benefits for both countries, the agreement directly supports our broader goals for Panama—such as encouraging transparency, and seeking to ensure that all citizens, including the nearly 40 percent who 

continue to struggle in poverty, benefit from Panama’s impressive economic growth 

and maturing democratic institutions. 

As much as some things have changed beyond recognition, other things have remained constant—such as an ambassador’s fundamental obligation to look out for 

fellow Americans abroad. If confirmed, I assure you that protecting American citizens will be a top priority of my embassy. With over 25,000 Americans now living 

in Panama, this is a growing part of the embassy’s work, and a task I have always 

taken very seriously. 

Of course, geography remains destiny for Panama. As a vital crossroads for the 

movement of people, goods, and ideas, Panama is a ‘‘third border’’ for the United 

States. Given that two-thirds of the 14,000 ships that transit the Panama Canal 

each year are bound for or coming from United States ports, I recognize that protecting the canal and Panama’s core infrastructure is critical to the homeland security of the United States. I would want to underscore here that the Panama Canal 

Authority, which has been in charge of the canal since the handover at the end of 

1999, has done an impressive job of running it, and we are very pleased to see that 

United States firms are getting a fair shot at work on the ambitious multibillion 

dollar canal expansion project. 

Our shared history has allowed us to forge an effective and enduring partnership 

to increase the benefits of Panama’s unique geography while countering the threats 

that flow from it. If confirmed, I look forward to leading a strong interagency effort 

to protect our homeland by helping Panama in its efforts to push back against drug 

traffickers and other criminals who would exploit Panama’s growing transportation 

hub for illegal ends. Close cooperation with Panama in law enforcement and security has already yielded many successes, including increased narcotics seizures, a 

more effective police force, and enhanced ability to combat money laundering. The 

Merida Initiative, if approved by Congress, would add considerably to our efforts 

both in Panama and the region. 

As Panama’s democratic institutions mature—and I look forward to the 2009 

Presidential elections, when Panamanians will once again go to the polls to bring 

about a democratic transfer of power—and the country enjoys enviable economic 

growth—more than 11 percent last year—we recognize its progress and bright prospects for the future by thinking and speaking of Panama increasingly as a partner 

in the region. We are pleased to see Panama taking a leadership role, not only regionally (such as last summer, when Panama effectively hosted the OAS General 

Assembly) but also globally, as exemplified by Panama’s current work as a member 

of the U.N. Security Council. It would be my great honor, if confirmed, to return 

to Panama as ambassador to build on this partnership, particularly now, at this profoundly promising moment in Panama’s history. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for granting me the 

honor of appearing before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you very, very much. And we thank 

you, as well as the previous nominees, for your wonderful service 

to the country—and that of your family. We don’t often recognize 

the family’s contribution but thank you immensely for that great 

work. 

Ms. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

247 

Senator DODD. Well, since we’ll stay in the region, here, we’ll go 

north in a minute Mr. Speck, but if you don’t mind I’ll turn to a 

fellow New Englander. 

And I’ve got to tell you one quick story, Mr. Cianchette. You’ll 

know the individual, I think he’s a majority leader in the State 

Senate in Maine—Brennan, is that his last name? Or was the 

President Pro Tem, I forget what office he holds—— 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. Assistant leader. 

Senator DODD. Assistant leader. I’ll just tell you a wonderful 

story—he introduced me back a number of months ago in an event 

in Maine, and he told me a wonderful story—his grandmother is 

from a little island off of the West Coast of Ireland, which just so 

happens, about 15 years ago, I bought a little house on this island 

off the West coast—about 20 people live on the island. And Senator 

Brennan went back to see the site where his grandmother had left 

in 1911, and there’s one individual on the island, Paddy Folan, 

who’s 94 years old, born on the island, and a great character. And 

he showed Mr. Brennan, Senator Brennan and his family, around 

the island where I have this little cottage, and he turned to Senator Brennan and he said, ‘‘And what do you do in the United 

States?’’ and Mr. Brennan said, ‘‘Well, I’m a Senator.’’ And Paddy 

Folan said, ‘‘Wow,’’ he said, ‘‘the island’s overloaded with them.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

So, I couldn’t resist when I saw you’re from Maine. 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. I’ll be sure to tell him that you—— 

Senator DODD. Please do. 

Mr. CIANCHETTE [continuing]. Recanted that story this afternoon. 

STATEMENT OF PETER E. CIANCHETTE, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. Senator Dodd, Senator Menendez, other members of the committee thank you for granting me this opportunity 

to appear before this august body. I am honored and I’m humbled 

to be here as President Bush’s nominee to be the United States 

Ambassador to Costa Rica. I’m grateful to the President and to Secretary Rice for their confidence and their trust in sending my name 

to the Senate for your consideration. 

I’m further humbled by the comments during the introductory remarks by your colleagues and my beloved Senators, Senators 

Snowe and Collins. I agree with you that they set the bar fairly 

high for me in their introductory remarks, and I will always do my 

best never to disappoint them, nor this institution. 

With the committee’s indulgence I, too, would like to introduce 

my family. I have with me my wife of nearly 22 years, Carolyn. We 

have our children, Evan, who is 16, our daughter, Maria, who is 

14. My family is very excited about the prospect of living and serving in Costa Rica along with me, and they’ve been very supportive 

as we’ve contemplated this major transition. 

I’d also like to introduce my parents, Bud and Priscilla 

Cianchette, and they probably prefer I don’t give their ages, as well 

as my brother, Earl, and my nephew, Dave Toomey. 

Would you all—— 

Senator DODD. We’ve got the whole gang here, why don’t you— 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. They’re all right here. 

248 

Senator DODD. All right here—why don’t you all raise your hands 

so we can see which of you—there you go, all right, right in the 

front row. Welcome, all of you. Nice to have you with us. 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. I might add that my nephew, Dave Toomey, 

works over at the EPA and he’s taking the afternoon off to be here. 

So, I’m grateful for that. I may have to slip him a few bucks to 

make up for his lost compensation. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m truly honored by this potential opportunity to 

serve in Costa Rica, and if I’m confirmed, I believe my extensive 

business and public service experience will help me strengthen our 

relationship with this important regional ally. 

My service in the Maine State legislature gave me valuable experience that I’m confident will be useful if I am confirmed. Legislative work, as you know, requires the ability to demonstrate leadership and build consensus. An effective legislator listens to the citizens he serves, responds to their concerns, as well as those of his 

colleagues and the other stakeholders, in any particular policy initiative. 

Everything I’ve learned suggests that an effective ambassador 

must lead the embassy, staff, and country, but build consensus as 

a team player within the interagency community, so that all U.S. 

equities are well-represented. 

In business, as in public service and diplomacy, the ability to 

connect with people is essential. My experience as an executive 

with a Spanish-owned manufacturing company has prepared me 

well to take advantage of the opportunities presented by working 

in a different cultural context. Indeed, decades of work with people 

at all levels in business, public service, and civic organizations, 

have taught me that one sure way to connect with someone is to 

tap into their aspirations. 

And Costa Rica is a nation of great aspirations. With its rich traditional of individualism and democracy, this staunch U.S. ally is 

a model for other countries in the region, in several respects. 

A bastion of stability in an often troubled region, Costa Rica 

abolished its military in 1948 to channel investments into social 

services such as health care and education. Costa Rica has progressively preserved its abundant national resources. Last year, the 

poverty rate fell to a 30-year low, a historic achievement. 

However, at this critical moment, Costa Rica faces new challenges. Costa Rica, the United States and other countries in the region face shared security threats from human and drug traffickers, 

terrorists, and other criminals. 

In 2006, a greater amount of illicit narcotics was interdicted in 

Costa Rica than any other country in Central America with the exception of Panama. Costa Rica is grappling with domestic crime on 

an unprecedented scale. 

Fortunately, we have a willing partner in the Arias administration that seeks for Costa Rica to play an important and pivotal role 

in the integrated regional response to these threats. If the President’s Merida Initiative is approved, Costa Rica’s law enforcement 

personnel would receive training and equipment to improve their 

ability to disrupt drug traffic, and to combat crime. 

Security concerns already affect hundreds of thousands of United 

States citizens who visit and reside in Costa Rica each year. If conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
249 

firmed, I would have no greater priority than protecting American 

citizens. Having traveled and conducted business abroad, I understand what a tremendous resource the U.S. Embassy can be, 

whether it’s for replacing a lost or stolen passport, or communicating lifesaving information during a natural disaster. 

From among other issues, if I’m confirmed, I would do my utmost 

to help Costa Rica become a full partner in the Central AmericaDominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement. The 

United States has a vibrant trade relationship with Costa Rica that 

is likely to make the Costa Ricans the biggest beneficiary of the 

free trade in this region, once this agreement is fully implemented. 

From 2005 to 2006, trade between Costa Rica and the United 

States rose by almost 14 percent. Having long enjoyed access to our 

markets through the Caribbean Basin Initiative, Costa Rica is now 

ready for CAFTA. President Arias’ leadership on this issue has 

been impressive, and if confirmed, I will use my professional experience to foster stronger trade, tourism, and investment ties between our two nations. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Menendez, members of the committee, I 

truly appreciate the opportunity to be before you today, and I 

would be grateful for your support in this nomination process. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cianchette follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER E. CIANCHETTE, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for granting me the 

opportunity to appear before this august body. 

I am honored and humbled to be here as President Bush’s nominee to be the 

United States Ambassador to Costa Rica. I am grateful to the President and Secretary Rice for their confidence and trust in sending my name to the Senate for your 

consideration. 

With the committee’s indulgence, I would like to introduce my wife of nearly 22 

years, Carolyn, who is here with me today, along with my son, Evan, and my daughter, Maria. My family is excited about the prospect of serving in Costa Rica and has 

been extremely supportive when contemplating the possibility of this major transition. Also with us today are my parents, Bud and Priscilla Cianchette. 

Mr. Chairman, I am truly honored by this potential opportunity to serve in Costa 

Rica. If confirmed, I believe my extensive public service and business experience 

would help me to strengthen our relationship with this important regional ally. 

My service in the Maine state legislature gave me valuable experience that I believe will be useful if I am confirmed. Legislative work requires the ability to demonstrate leadership and build consensus. An effective legislator listens to the citizens he serves and responds to their concerns, as well as those of colleagues and 

the many other stakeholders in any particular policy. Everything I’ve learned suggests that an effective ambassador must lead the embassy staff in the country, but 

build consensus as a team player within the interagency community so that all U.S. 

equities are represented. 

In business, as in public service and diplomacy, the ability to connect with people 

is essential. My experience as an executive with a Spanish-owned manufacturing 

company has prepared me well to take advantage of the opportunities presented by 

working in a different cultural context. Indeed, decades of work with people at all 

different levels in business, public service, and civic organizations have taught me 

that the one sure way to connect with someone is to tap into aspirations. 

And Costa Rica is a nation of great aspirations. With its rich tradition of individualism and democracy, this staunch U.S. ally is a model for other countries in the 

region in several respects. A bastion of stability in an often-troubled region, Costa 

Rica abolished its military in 1948 to channel investment into social services such 

as healthcare and education. Costa Rica has progressively preserved its abundant 

natural resources. Last year, the poverty rate fell to a 30-year low, a historic 

achievement. However, at this critical juncture Costa Rica faces new challenges. 

250 

Costa Rica, the United States, and other countries in the region face shared security threats from human and drug traffickers, terrorists, and other criminals. In 

2006, a greater amount of illicit narcotics was interdicted in Costa Rica than any 

other country in Central America except Panama. Costa Rica is grappling with domestic crime on an unprecedented scale. Fortunately, we have a willing partner in 

the Arias administration that seeks for Costa Rica to play a pivotal role in an integrated regional response to these threats. If the President’s Merida Initiative is approved, Costa Rica’s law enforcement personnel will receive training and equipment 

to improve their ability to interdict drug traffic and combat crime. 

Security concerns already affect the hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens who 

visit and reside in Costa Rica each year. If confirmed, I would have no greater priority than protecting American citizens. Having traveled and conducted business 

abroad, I understand what a tremendous resource a U.S. embassy can be, whether 

for replacing a lost passport or communicating lifesaving information during a natural disaster. 

From among other issues, if confirmed, I would do my utmost to help Costa Rica 

become a full partner of the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States 

Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–DR). The United States has a vibrant trade relationship with Costa Rica that is likely to make Costa Ricans the biggest beneficiaries of free trade in the region once the agreement is fully implemented. From 

2005 to 2006, trade between Costa Rica and the United States rose by almost 14 

percent. Having long enjoyed access to our market through the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), Costa Rica is now ready for CAFTA–DR. 

President Arias’ leadership on this issue has been impressive. If confirmed, I will 

use my professional experience to foster stronger trade, tourism, and investment 

ties between our two nations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for the privilege of appearing before you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, we appreciate that. 

Mr. Speck, thank you. Thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL W. SPECK, NOMINEE TO BE COMMISSIONER ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE 

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND 

CANADA 

Mr. SPECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I’m honored to also have the opportunity to appear before 

you, and grateful for the trust that the President placed in me by 

nominating me to serve on the International Joint Commission. 

I have a special request, however, for this committee, and that 

is, I didn’t have an appreciation that families were also invited, 

and I would greatly appreciate that my wife does not learn of that 

opportunity, as well as the rest of the family. [Laughter.] 

Senator DODD. You’ve got some diplomatic work to do. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SPECK. Yes. 

The United States and Canada share a stewardship over the 

largest concentration of fresh surface water on this planet. Americans and Canadians share a vital interest in the effective management of our shared water resources at the border. And despite 

some occasional, localized disputes, the degree of cooperation between the United States and Canada in managing transboundary 

environmental concerns, remains unprecedented in the world. 

If confirmed, I would bring to the position of IJC Commissioner 

significant—and I believe—successful experience in State and Federal Government, and in higher education, and a strong background in resolving boundary water issues. 

My educational/professional background includes—as Senator 

Voinovich mentioned—Master’s and Doctorate degrees in governVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
251 

ment, extensive college teaching, 13 years of experience as a State 

Representative and as a Senator in the Ohio legislature, where I 

specialized in natural resources issues, including chairing the Senator Natural Resources Committee, and appointment as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s associate Director for State 

and Local Programs and Support, which included responsibility for 

some natural resources issues like flood plain management and 

preparation for dealing with natural resources disasters. 

I also served as the President of Muskingum College for some 11 

years, and of course that was John Glenn’s alma mater, so you 

know it had to be a good institution. 

Most recently, I served as Director of the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, and at present, am involved in natural resources consulting, and on a number of boards, including Ohio 

State Nature Conservancy board, and Audubon board, and on 

International Joint Commission’s International Upper Great Lakes 

Studies Public Information Advisory Committee—or group, I 

should say—known as a PIAG. 

During my tenure as Director of Ohio’s Department of Natural 

Resources, I was an active member and chair of the Lake Erie 

Commission, the Great Lakes Commission, which also included 

representatives of the Great Lakes Provinces—essentially Quebec 

and Ontario—the Ohio Water Resource Council. 

In 2004, I was one of three State officials in the United States 

to receive the National Governor’s Association’s Annual Award for 

distinguished service in State government, and I think that was related primarily to my work in water resources issues, including 

perhaps my most important experience as it relates to the position 

before you, in that I served over 4 years as chair of the Council of 

Great Lakes Governors and Premiers Water Management Working 

Group, which developed the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin 

Water Resources Compact, and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. 

And, in part these were stimulated by the encouragement Congress gave in WERTA, and particularly, WERTA 2000, in urging 

the States to work together, and the Canadian Provinces alike, to 

try to develop a more effective management of the waters of the 

Great Lakes to protect that resource for the future. And during our 

development of those agreements, we received helpful guidance 

from the International Joint Commission. 

In December of 2005, the Ten-Party Agreement was signed by 

the Great Lakes governors and premiers, and the compact was endorsed by the governors and sent on to the State legislatures. The 

compact and agreement represent an unprecedented commitment 

to preserve and protect the world’s largest single source of fresh 

water. 

And I’m pleased to report to you, that as of March 2008, four of 

the State legislatures have enacted the compact. The legislation is 

pending in the other four, three of which have passed it in one of 

the two houses in their respective States. So, I hope that the compact is something that will soon be ready to be presented to Congress for its consent. 

The commission is uniquely positioned to assist the United 

States with cooperatively addressing a number of continuing and 

252 

emerging challenges that exist along the boundary, including responding to the change in demographics and water use and water 

levels and supply conditions along the border, reducing the threats 

to human and ecosystem health from toxic substances, encouraging 

the development of watershed boards that will build cooperative relationships among local stakeholders, like the one recently developed, indeed the first, up in the St. Croix area, between the State 

of Maine and Canada. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would be 

glad to answer any questions you might have, either now or in 

writing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Speck follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL W. SPECK, NOMINEE TO BE A COMMISSIONER ON

THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, 

UNITED STATES AND CANADA

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

today and grateful for the trust placed in me by the President in nominating me 

to serve on the International Joint Commission. 

The United States and Canada share stewardship over the largest concentration 

of fresh surface water on the planet. Americans and Canadians share a vital interest in the effective management of our shared water resources at the border. Despite occasional localized disputes, the degree of cooperation between the United 

States and Canada in managing transboundary environmental concerns remains unprecedented in the world. For almost 100 years, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 

1909 has guided our two countries in developing shared water resources for domestic supply, navigation, hydroelectric power, and irrigation in an amicable and mutually beneficial manner. It also provides a framework for preventing and resolving 

disputes over water quantity and quality issues. The International Joint Commission (IJC) plays a pivotal role in giving impartial science-based advice to assist our 

countries in attaining the goals of the Treaty. 

If confirmed, I would bring to the position of IJC commissioner significant and 

successful leadership experience in State and Federal Government and higher education and a strong background in resolving boundary waters issues. My educational 

and professional background includes earned masters and doctoral degrees in government (Harvard University), extensive college teaching, 13 years of service as an 

Ohio State representative and Senator where I specialized in natural resources 

issues, appointment as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Associate Director for State and Local Programs and Support (l983–1986), and President of 

Muskingum College (l987–1999) during which time the college cut tuition by $4,000. 

Most recently I served as Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

(1999–2007). At present, I am involved in natural resources consulting and serving 

on a number of nonprofit boards (including the Ohio Nature Conservancy and Audubon boards) and on the International Joint Commission’s International Upper Great 

Lakes Study’s Public Information Advisory Group (PIAG). 

During my tenure as Ohio’s Director of Natural Resources, I served on the Ohio 

Lake Erie Commission (member and chair), Great Lakes Commission (member and 

chair), and Ohio Water Resources Council (member and chair). In 2004, I was one 

of three state officials in the United States to receive the National Governors Association’s annual award for Distinguished Service in State Government. 

Perhaps most significant, I served for over 4 years as the chair of the Council of 

Great Lakes Governors and Premiers Water Management Working Group which developed the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact and 

the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. 

In December 2005, the agreement was signed by Great Lakes Governors and Premiers and the compact was endorsed by Great Lakes Governors. The compact and 

agreement represent an unprecedented commitment to preserve and protect the 

world’s largest single source of fresh water. I am happy to report that as of March 

2008, four of the eight Great Lakes States have enacted the compact and legislative 

action is pending in four others. I hope that the compact will soon be ready to be 

presented to Congress for its consent. 

The International Joint Commission has had a long history of carrying out the 

scientific work and consultations that provided the basis for approving the development of hydroelectric power along the border and providing advice to governments 

253 

in defining transboundary water quality objectives and managing shared water resources. 

In addition, the commission is uniquely positioned to assist the United States 

with cooperatively addressing a number of emerging challenges that exist along the 

boundary. These include: 

• Responding to changing demographics, water use, and water levels and supply 

conditions on the border; 

• Reducing the threats to human and ecosystem health from toxic substances; 

and 

• Encouraging development of watershed boards that will build cooperative relationships among local stakeholders on both sides of the border and foster a 

sense of shared responsibility for the health of the watershed. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward continuing communication with appropriate executive branch agencies and with the Congress to help maintain the strong 

and productive relationship with Canada that is so important to our country and 

the shared water resources upon we depend. 

I look forward to answering any questions that you might have for me. 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you very, very much. I appreciate 

that. 

We’ve been joined by Senator Feingold, from Wisconsin, thank 

you Senator for being with us. 

I’ll just ask a couple of questions of you, and then I’ll quickly 

turn to my colleagues and have them raise any other issues that 

they’re interested in. 

Ms. Stephenson, let me ask you about the plans on the Panama 

Canal. This was a remarkable event, I happened to be there in 

nineteen—I’m trying to think what year it was, now, we celebrated—I think it was 1979, and then 1989, it was the 10th anniversary that I went down to celebrate that anniversary, and I was 

very impressed at how things were working. 

At that time, obviously, a very controversial issue, and it was before I arrived in the Senate, but that was about as heated a debate 

in the country and where you stood—and people like Howard 

Baker, Paul Sarbanes, who played a critical role in that issue—and 

a lot of people, Barry Goldwater, people like John Wayne, I recall, 

people have forgotten some of the people who were heroic in that 

effort, and the importance of that conclusion. 

But I know there’s some talk about plans for expanding the 

canal, and the like. Do you want to share with us what you know 

about that? 

Ms. STEPHENSON. Yes, sir. It’s good to have someone who remembers just how controversial that was. Because I certainly—when I 

arrived in Panama—the feelings about that were still very raw and 

bubbling near the surface, I mean certainly with, here on the Senate. 

And I think both sides feel really good about the way that it’s 

unfolded. The handover happened in 1999, so the Panama Canal 

Authority runs the canal. Revenues are up, accidents in canal 

waters are down, transit times have been shortened—so really, by 

every measure, the canal is being run efficiently and effectively, 

and it’s a source of pride for Panamanians, and it’s an excellent 

source of transit for us. 

Panamanians had a referendum in 2007, and decided yes, indeed, they would expand the canal. So, it would add a third set of 

locks, and the work will go on for about the next 10 years. The 

budget right now is about $5 billion—you will remember that are 

254 

ships that are actually built called Panamax which are, you know, 

big boxy ships that just slide through those locks. The third set of 

locks would be bigger, so that you could actually have, not only 

more traffic going through, but you could take through ships that 

are bigger than those specifications. 

So, it’s broken into a number of phases, some U.S. companies 

have already won portions of it, CH2M Hill won the project management contract, an American law firm won the legal advice contract, and there’s a design-build contract that’s going out also— 

some U.S. companies are part of some of the bids that are there 

for that. 

I was reading a piece in the Spanish press, the Spanish-language 

press, boning up on my Spanish, and see that the Canal Expansion 

Project won a big award in Verona, Italy, for sort of the best civil 

engineering going forth this year, so it’s a source of real pride. 

And I think the concerns we’ve had that were very present in the 

1977 debate about whether our interests could be preserved if we 

handed it over to Panama, I think it’s another thing to look back 

on with a real sense of pride, is that our ships still transit it, we’re 

still by far the biggest user. But it runs very well, and it’s a source 

of great pride for Panama, too. 

So, I think it’s one of those where we can all look back on it, and 

feel very good about having done the right thing. 

Senator DODD. Yeah. It’s a remarkable history. 

I was in London about a month ago, and I love maps. I went to 

an old map store and I found an old map, an 1850 map of Panama, 

that identified the potential sources of a canal, drawn onto the 

map, including the one that’s the Panama Canal, but also the San 

Juan River going to Lake Managua—— 

Ms. STEPHENSON. Right, remember? 

Senator DODD [continuing]. Which was the earlier idea that the 

Vanderbilts were promoting at that time. 

Ms. STEPHENSON. Right. 

Senator DODD. So, it’s a wonderful little piece of history to know 

that 50 years before any of this started, there were people already 

moving in that direction. 

On Costa Rica, you know, and I was thinking, in a way, you’ve 

got Torrijos in Panama, you’ve got Oscar Arias in Costa Rica, 

you’ve got Dan Ortega in Nicaragua—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DODD [continuing]. You’ve got the Bushes in the White 

House—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DODD. I mean, I’ll tell you, sort of, nothing’s changed a 

lot in terms of names around the region. 

Oscar Arias is someone that all of us have worked with over the 

years in various points, and explain a little bit about how this is 

working you’re optimistic in your statement about how the CAFTA 

agreement is working in Costa Rica. It was a major election item 

for Oscar Arias in his campaign, he survived, and won the election. 

And it’s the process of ratifying and implementing CAFTA, but it’s 

clear the public remains divided on this issue, still, I think is reports say that we get out of Costa Rica. But you seem to indicate 

otherwise. It is divided, or not? How is this going? 

255 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. Well, Senator, certainly that was a very close 

election. As you most likely well know, there was a public referendum, a country-wide referendum on CAFTA. It was ratified, it 

was narrowly passed, but yet now enjoys a greater level of support 

than when it did, when it went out for that referendum in last fall, 

in October of 2007. 

I think at this—there’s been much discussion around the country, certainly a referendum of that nature causes lots of people to 

be educated, and discussion, and I really believe that from everything that I’ve learned, and the intense research I’ve been doing 

the last couple of months, that Costa Ricans understand, by and 

large, that they’ve been given a unique opportunity to partner with 

other allies, or with other countries in the region, and most importantly with the United States and this is—truly presents them 

with a unique opportunity. 

So, I believe that the support for this agreement has increased, 

and certainly the President, President Arias, has been steadfast in 

his support, and his belief that it is in the best interest of his country. And he’s continued to work with the assembly, they’ve made 

great progress, as you may know, they did receive an extension to 

enter into the agreement fully—had the ratification, but now it’s 

required that they have a number of modifications to their laws 

and regulations to fully implement. 

They’re making very good progress on that. I believe that that 

will happen, and if I am confirmed, and fortunate enough to serve 

there, I will continue to work with the President and other stakeholders to make certain that they understand that this is a last, 

best chance, if you will, for them to join this unique opportunity, 

and I believe they will, and I will lend whatever support I can to 

that. 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you very, very much. 

I’ve got a couple of questions for you, Mr. Speck, but I want to 

respect my colleagues’ presence here and their time constraints, 

and I know Senator Feingold probably has some strong questions. 

But I understand, Bob, you’ve got about 10 minutes before you’ve 

got to be at another meeting, if you have any questions here, and 

then we’ll jump to Russ. 

I’m going to step out for one second, just excuse me, I’ll be in the 

back room, here, so Russ, take over. 

Senator FEINGOLD [presiding]. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I won’t 

ask for unanimous consent for anything while you’re gone. [Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. Again, congratulations to all of you on your 

nominations, and Mr. Speck, I won’t say anything to your wife, but 

I’m not sure today’s proceedings are on C-Span or not, and hopefully she’s not watching if that’s the case, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, let me—Mr. Cianchette, I appreciated 

our two colleagues introduction of you, and your own statement, 

and you come from a bit of a different background than some of the 

other nominees, so you’ll—I hope you’ll understand the nature of 

my questions, in that respect. 

Have you traveled to Costa Rica? 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. Sir, I have not, to date. 

256 

Senator MENENDEZ. How—what is your depth of your command 

of Spanish—I know you said you worked with a Spanish-related 

company—what is the depth of your command of Spanish? 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. Well, during the mid-1980s, I worked for a 

company based from Madrid, Spain, and I traveled often to board 

meetings, and conduct—other opportunities to conduct business 

with them—and tour around Spain. And during that time, I completed a total immersion course in Spanish, and became—what I 

felt was—very comfortable with business and social discussions, 

and able to communicate, both verbally and to understand what’s 

being discussed in Spanish. 

I will admit, sir, that my—I haven’t had many opportunities to 

work with my language in the last—in the Spanish language—in 

the last years, and I have engaged actively with the FSI in distance-learning programs and others, I will avail myself to boost my 

knowledge of the language and to regain much of the ability that 

I had during the time when I worked for this international company. 

Senator MENENDEZ. You know, an ambassador has a lot of skill 

sets that are involved here. Certainly, language is always very 

helpful, customs—an understanding of customs—a sense of the politics of the country, a sense of strategy within the country. I—could 

you give me a sense of the experiences that you’ve had, how you 

believe that some of those skill sets that you’ve had—will help you 

in this regard? 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. Sir, thank you for your question, and I understand the nature of this. I will address that in a number of different ways. 

One, is to say very clearly that since receiving the nomination, 

and having it been sent forth to you all for consideration, I have 

devoted my time to understanding Costa Rica, its history, its culture, and its current issues, and sort of political climate, as well as 

other geo-political issues. So, I have spent a great deal of time, so 

that I can be fully learned about those issues. 

I have sought the counsel of the three most recent ambassadors 

to Costa Rica. One happens to be Chairman Dodd’s brother, who 

I had the great opportunity to make his acquaintance last week, 

and I have sought their counsel from each of those. 

So that’s really what I’ve done to fully immerse myself, and understand the issues that would confront me if I am confirmed. 

Again, I would underscore my work with an international company based in Madrid, Spain, in other years where I—in order to 

really, fully understand their issues and their philosophy, as we 

were business associates—I really needed to understand their cultural, things in their cultural context, and pride myself on the ability to have done that in the past, so that I could be fully engaged 

in a productive way with them. 

Senator MENENDEZ. One last question, on the question of drug 

interdiction in Costa Rica—it’s going to be a significant part of our 

efforts, here—I heard what you said about Merida, which all of you 

have said, to the extent that those previous panelists were involved, as well. But, what do you believe is the extent of the United 

States cooperation with Costa Rica in terms of the whole narcotics 

257 

interdiction effort? And what role do you see yourself playing if you 

were to be ultimately confirmed? 

Mr. CIANCHETTE. Sir, I think we can point to a great deal of success that the United States and Costa Rica has had recently, working collaboratively. There was a bilateral maritime agreement 

that’s been in force and been in place, that gave us great cooperation, with great success in interdicting drugs. Again, as we’ve said, 

we’ve had more cocaine seized in Costa Rica—or they have had 

more cocaine seized in Costa Rica—than anywhere else in the region, with the exception of Panama. 

Their—our opportunities to work with their law enforcement organizations, their security personnel, their Coast Guard, if you will, 

those institutions and those organizations to make sure they are 

highly effective, I believe, has been successful. 

Furthermore, I believe that the willingness that we have from 

the Costa Rican—the interest in our support, in our aid, in our assistance—in training their personnel and building their capacity is 

a very positive sign. And that we’ve been cooperating with them, 

and that they’re a willing partner, we can contribute—excuse me, 

we can build stronger capacity—and that we will continue to have 

successes, and that’s why the initiatives, such as the Merida Initiative—and I understand you are all still contemplating that—but 

the components, or similar components, that underlie that program, I think can help us continue to have those types of successes 

so that we can disrupt the flow of drugs coming into Costa Rica, 

and ultimately, hopefully, prevent them from also coming into the 

United States. 

Senator MENENDEZ. All right. Finally, Ms. Stephenson, let me ask you, we have put nearly $4 

million toward Panama in the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Assistance component for Panama. I wonder if you have 

a view as to whether or not the way we presently have it structured—do you think that is the best way we can engage with Panama? 

And second, can you give me a sense of what you think the banking situation is in Panama as it relates to money laundering? 

Ms. STEPHENSON. Yes, Senator Menendez, certainly I’ll have a 

much better feel once I’m actually, if I’m confirmed, I’m in Panama, 

but I have had extensive consultations with the Department of Justice, and the various components of the law enforcement team leading up to this, and I’m pretty happy with this. 

There are things like the vetted units, are a key component, the 

fingerprint system has been flagged for me by senior Justice officials as kind of if there’s, ‘‘the one thing I could do, this is what 

I would do.’’ So, even in the Pillar 1 part, which is the part that’s 

more hard-core counternarcotics, even in there, I think it’s, we’ve 

placed it on the things that really do pay the big dividends. 

And the other component of it is an information sharing capability, so I think that that’s—I think it’s quite good. 

I really agree with what you say about the importance of a holistic approach and of the institution-building. It’s slow work, it’s hard 

for us to measure institution-building, you know, on a year-by-year 

basis and so I think that that sometimes leads us to question 

whether it’s working, when you look back you see that it did. 

258 

The other thing, though, about institution-building is sometimes 

it’s not as expensive as some of the other things. And so, even 

though it’s a core part of it, measuring it by the dollars that go into 

it is only one of the indicators of its relative importance. And I welcome you insisting that we have a holistic approach, and that we 

build the institutions, but I do flag that the kind of institutionbuilding you’re doing—training just doesn’t cost as much as equipment does, it’s just less expensive. 

I’m happy with this, I have to say, if I had the chance to write 

it, it wouldn’t look very different than this. I am happy that the 

amounts we’ve requested for 2009 are considerably greater. My experience over the years has been that when you go in that first 

year, you’ve got the political will—the Central Americans have 

asked for help in this. You go in, your initial aid money really does 

allow you to scope the problem, and explore the system and see 

where the weaknesses are, and then it allows you to spend larger 

amounts of money in the following years in a much more targeted 

and effective way. 

So, I have to say, I’m very pleased with this, and I’m pleased 

with the political will the Central Americans showed. I’m also really pleased with the amount of inter-agency cooperation that has 

been generated in Washington, in the effort to put this together. 

Because when we pull together with the strategy, we get much better results than when we work competitively. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And money laundering? 

Ms. STEPHENSON. Money laundering—it’s a sophisticated financial system. You know, it’s situated right there where the drugs are 

flowing up, and Colombia is right below it. I think that unmistakably there is—there is some black market peso exchange activity 

that is going on there. We work closely with the Panamanians, like 

with the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, to strengthen the 

systems that fight it, but it is something that I want to get—I want 

to work on when I’m down there. It was a huge problem when I 

was there 20 years ago. I asked this with—at every level of my consultations, and to be honest, I got varying views. With some agencies feeling like it was really looking awfully good, and others worried that perhaps it wasn’t as good as it looked. 

So, I want to get a good assessment of just what’s going on, and 

where we can strengthen the systems to discourage it. But Panama 

is going to be a vulnerability, because of its geography, and because 

of a very robust banking sector. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate you recognizing that, I 

thank my colleague from Wisconsin. 

Ms. STEPHENSON. Thank you, sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Menendez. 

And I thank the chairman and the ranking member for holding 

this hearing, I congratulate all of you on your nominations. I’d like 

to first make some brief remarks and then I do have a few specific 

questions for Samuel Speck. 

Mr. Speck is nominated to be a Commissioner representing the 

United States on the International Joint Commission. The IJC 

plays an important role in the management of the Great Lakes and 

preventing water disputes between Canada and the United States. 

259 

Every year I hold town meetings or listening sessions in each of 

Wisconsin’s counties, and last year I heard from many concerned 

Wisconsinites about the near-record low lake levels in both Lake 

Superior and Michigan. As anyone who has ever visited the Badger 

State knows, those lakes are near and dear to all Wisconsinites. 

Studies of water levels in the Great Lakes suggest that both manmade changes, and abnormal weather conditions may be contributing to the falling levels. 

In September, I was joined by several other Great Lakes Senators in urging the IJC to expedite both its study of potential erosion in the St. Claire River, and its updating of the regulatory plan 

for Lake Superior’s water level and its outflow. I greatly appreciate 

the IJC’s attention to this request, and its announcement last October that part of the study—which is looking into the St. Claire 

River—would be expedited by a full year. 

The IJC’s International Upper Great Lakes Study is also looking 

at updating its 1979 plan for Lake Superior, to determine if its regulation of the lake’s outflows can be improved to take into consideration changing interests, and the impact of climate change and 

other factors on Great Lakes water levels. 

The Great Lakes undoubtedly require our continued commitment 

if they are to remain a vibrant economic and environmental resource for Wisconsin, the Mid-West and the entire nation. 

Mr. Speck, I thank you for joining us today, and again, I congratulate you on your nomination. Given your natural resources 

background, I’m confident you have a strong grasp of the importance of the Great Lakes ecosystem. I know you’ve been involved 

in the International Upper Great Lakes Study, and to your knowledge, let me ask you, is the IJC still on schedule, and will you— 

as a commissioner—commit to meeting the expedited February 

2009 deadline for the St. Claire River Study? 

Mr. SPECK. I share your concern, and as I think is reflected on 

my agreeing to serve on that PIAG. To the best of my knowledge, 

it is on course, it is being given priority, as it was reprioritized. 

The issues that you mentioned are proving to be very complex 

issues, as you look at what has been causing the drop in the waters 

of both Lake Ontario—I don’t mean Lake Ontario, that’s the lower 

Great Lakes study—in Huron and Michigan. And we want to make 

certain that we bring—as one of the main contributions of the 

IJC—the best science for making decisions, and have our arms 

around all of the factors that may have been causing that drop, 

which perhaps was masked by that higher water period a few years 

ago, and we didn’t recognize it maybe as quickly as it should have 

been recognized. 

But yes, we—that’s critical, it has been reprioritized, and we are 

moving ahead—indeed we are holding public hearings throughout 

the area, we’re commencing some at the end of this month. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, will you commit to meeting the expedited February 2009 deadline? 

Mr. SPECK. Certainly, we’ll make every effort to do that. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I hope so. Is the IJC planning to make recommendations to the U.S. Congress about necessary actions, such 

as potentially having the Corps of Engineers finish its environVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
260 

mental mitigation work from several decades ago on the St. Claire 

River? 

Mr. SPECK. I would, you know, Senator Feingold, and members 

of the committee, the IJC is sort of a strange organization, in that 

it is binational and the role of the IJC is to make recommendations 

to the Federal Government and the same goes with Canada. And 

we would certainly be coming back to do that, because it will be— 

Congress will likely have a critical role in the future there. 

Senator FEINGOLD. We look forward to getting some of those recommendations. There are some very serious concerns, as you’re 

aware, and I hope the IJC continues to work with and listen to all 

of the stakeholders, and I look forward to the final results. 

In regard to the second part of the IJC study assessing low lake 

levels, can you tell me when the IJC intends to complete its recommendations for updating Lake Superior’s regulatory plan—is 

this still expected to take 5 years? 

Mr. SPECK. At this point, that’s the best of my information, but 

I have no, you know, I can’t tell you if there’s any change afoot on 

that, but I certain can get back to you that, and to the committee 

on that. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Good. 

Do you personally think, sir, that we can maintain Great Lakes 

water quality protection if discharges of pollution are no longer regulated at the source, as required by the Clean Water Act of 1972? 

Mr. SPECK. That is a matter of justifiable concern, and we’d want 

to give attention to that. 

Senator FEINGOLD. As you’re probably aware, due to recent Supreme Court decisions, currently over 50 percent of the Nation’s 

streams, and millions of acres of wetlands are in jeopardy of losing 

Clean Water Act protections, which means discharges of pollution 

into these waters could no longer be regulated. I don’t see how the 

United States can fulfill its obligations under the United StatesCanada Water Quality Agreement, which I understand the IJC 

wants to update—if these waters do not remain protected. 

The agreement and the Clean Water Act share the same goal of 

reducing the discharge of pollutants into the Great Lakes system, 

in an effort to restore or maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. 

I hope that as commissioner, you’ll support my efforts, and those 

of Chairmen Oberstar, Dingell, and Ehlers, to restore the Clean 

Water Restoration Act, to restore the 35-year old protections, and 

fulfill our obligations under the Water Quality Agreement. 

As you know, the Great Lakes supply drinking water to more 

than 40 million United States and Canadian residents, so a lot is 

at stake, if you’d like to respond to that. 

Mr. SPECK. I am not prepared to make a commitment—I understand the problem, and would certainly be glad to work within the 

commission to see where it would be appropriate for us to address 

it, in terms of recommendations that might be made. 

As you know, with what you mentioned, in terms of the Great 

Lakes Protection Act itself, one of the things that the IJC has been 

recommending is that it be more active in this area. Those recommendations, I think, have been submitted to the respective FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
261 

eral Governments. And so, something has been underway in that 

regard. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Good, well, I just wanted to put that issue 

and legislation on your radar screen, and I wish you well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DODD [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator. 

And I want to thank all three of you, and I wish you well in the 

coming days. You may have heard what I said to the previous 

panel. We’ll try and move this process along, and any additional 

questions members have, and I suspect there may be some, we’ll 

try and get them to you very quickly. 

For those who are staff, I’d like you to notify your respective 

members of how important it is to get these questions asked, and 

then responses to it, and we’ll try and see if we can’t schedule a 

mark-up of these nominations. 

Congratulations to all three of you. And thank you, again, for 

being here today. 

The committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to offer my strong support for the nomination of my fellow Ohioan, Dr. Samuel W. Speck, Jr., to the International Joint Commission. There are numerous important issues affecting the 

international boundary waters that separate the United States and Canada, including ballast water and other issues related to the continued presence of invasive species, and ongoing water quality concerns, just to name a few. We must have smart, 

confident U.S. representation on the commission. Samuel Speck is a perfect fit for 

this job. 

Dr. Speck has a long and distinguished career as a public servant and as an educator, including his longtime service to his alma mater, Muskingum College, as a 

faculty member and then college President, his work as a State legislator and with 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and more recently his tenure as Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. At ODNR, Dr. Speck was greatly 

involved in improving Lake Erie and championing new protections for the Great 

lakes, both as ODNR Director and as Chairman of the binational Great Lakes Commission. His knowledge of the Great Lakes—home to 1⁄5 of the world’s fresh water— 

and familiarity with the numerous issues affecting our shared waterways would be 

of great benefit on the IJC. 

As a former colleague of Dr. Speck’s, I can speak to his willingness to bring different sides together, his integrity, and his dedication to the task at hand. He has 

spent his life committed to educating our children, protecting the environment, and 

improving our world for future generations. I offer my wholehearted support for the 

nomination of Dr. Samuel W. Speck, Jr., to the International Joint Commission. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATE OF OHIO, 

Columbus, OH, April 15, 2008. 

Hon. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., 

U.S. Senate,Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BIDEN: On behalf of the people of the Great State of Ohio, please 

accept my letter of support for the nomination of Dr. Samuel W. Speck to the position of Commissioner on the part of the United States on the International Joint 

Commission, United States and Canada. I support this nomination based on Dr. 

Speck’s proven expertise, experience, and leadership in the area of natural resources 

at both the State and Federal level. 

262 

Dr. Speck served as Ohio’s director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

for 8 years and in this position Dr. Speck was responsible for the management of 

Ohio’s 74 State parks, 20 State forests, and 125 State nature preserves, in addition 

to numerous other management responsibilities. Dr. Speck chaired the Council of 

Great Lakes Governors and Premiers Water Management Working Group that led 

to the development of the Great Lakes Annex Agreement and Compact—an historic 

and much needed protection for our Great Lakes. 

Dr. Speck worked collaboratively and in a bipartisan manner over the years to 

protect our natural resources and build a consensus around some of the most important issues for the State of Ohio. I am confident that he will continue to offer vision 

and perspective in this position. 

I appreciate the attention your office and your committee have directed to this important appointment. Please be assured that I am available to lend any assistance 

to the process. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Kindest Regards, 

TED STRICKLAND, 

Governor. 

RESPONSES OF PETER E. CIANCHETTE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. President Arias nearly lost reelection because of his support for CAFTA. 

Costa Rica is in the process of ratifying and implementing CAFTA but it is clear 

that the public remains seriously divided regarding this trade agreement. What are 

some of the key concerns the public has raised on this issue? 

Answer. CAFTA was narrowly ratified in a historic public referendum on October 

7, 2007, but the Costa Rican public has come to view the agreement more favorably 

in the ensuing months. Public opinion polls conducted in Costa Rica in January 

2008 revealed that two-thirds of Costa Ricans expect CAFTA to benefit the country, 

and that a strong majority—even among those who voted ‘‘no’’ to the referendum— 

want CAFTA to be implemented. In addition, President Arias currently enjoys the 

highest approval rating—64 percent—among Central American leaders. 

This shift in public opinion about CAFTA can likely be attributed to three factors. 

First, in Costa Rica’s vibrant, long-standing democracy, the will of the people is 

paramount. Now that the public has spoken in the referendum, the national debate 

is largely over. Second, the public, in addition to the political sector, including most 

of the parties that had opposed CAFTA, is anxious to complete CAFTA in order to 

focus on other priorities, such as addressing Costa Rica’s growing domestic security 

problems. Third, the public remains confident that the Arias administration is proceeding along the right track. 

There is still a vocal, very small minority opposed to CAFTA, but they are out 

of the political mainstream. This minority argues that CAFTA would weaken the 

statist model that has historically provided Costa Ricans a generous social welfare 

safety net, and would jeopardize small farmers, once the backbone of Costa Rica’s 

economy. Environmentalists also fear that the rapid economic development CAFTA 

is expected to promote will come at the expense of environmental protection. 

Question. How is the United States working with President Arias to address these 

issues? 

Answer. The Arias administration believes that the state institutions to be opened 

by CAFTA (telecommunications and insurance) need reformation in order to provide 

better service to the people. The Arias administration, with other political parties, 

is also working on legislation to offset any CAFTA-related impact on small businesses and farmers. 

The United States and the other CAFTA signatories agreed to grant Costa Rica 

sufficient time to implement CAFTA. At Costa Rica’s request, all of the CAFTA 

countries agreed to a one-time entry-into-force extension from March 1, 2008, as required in the agreement, until October 1, 2008. 

The United States is also providing $100 million in regional Trade Capacity 

Building assistance from fiscal year 2005–2007 to improve environmental protection 

and labor rights protection as CAFTA is implemented. Costa Rica is receiving a 

share of those funds, and has invested in the strengthening of the capacity of the 

Ministries of Environment and Energy, and Labor. If confirmed, I will support 

CAFTA-linked environment and trade capacity building. USAID has funded training 

and programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EnVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
263 

vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen Costa Rica’s regulatory systems 

and ultimately increase trade with the United States. 

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes. I have read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes. I understand and unreservedly agree to abide by the principles set 

forth in 04 STATE 258893. The more than 3,000 Peace Corps volunteers who have 

served in Costa Rica since 1963 have advanced United States objectives significantly 

and contributed to Costa Rica’s development through a variety of projects including 

health, education, environment, agriculture, small business development, and youth 

development. If confirmed, I will strongly support Peace Corps Volunteers in Costa 

Rica in their mission to focus on addressing the needs of the most vulnerable populations throughout the country, strengthening agencies and communities to serve 

these populations. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’ role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. government agencies’’? 

Answer. I understand that the Peace Corps must remain substantially separate 

from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy and wholly accept 

and endorse this separation. I comprehend the Peace Corps’ unique role and realize 

that its need for separation from the day-to-day activities of the mission is not comparable to those of other U.S. government agencies. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. I pledge that, if confirmed, I will exercise my chief of mission authorities 

so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy and flexibility in its dayto-day operations as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives 

and policies. 

RESPONSES OF PETER E. CIANCHETTE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. Throughout my career and in my public service, I’ve worked with people 

at all levels in manufacturing, investment, personnel, public, and other sectors. I 

have found that the one sure way to connect with someone is to tap into aspirations. 

I have then sought to use those aspirations to promote an appreciation for individual and human rights, democracy, and decency. As examples, I would cite my 

support, as a state legislator, for expanding the Maine Human Rights Act to extend 

protections from discrimination (in employment, housing, credit, etc.) based on sexual orientation. As a legislator and private citizen, I have also broadly encouraged 

individuals to participate in the democratic process at all levels. Further, I am especially proud of my work with charitable foundations including the Make-A-Wish 

Foundation, YES! to Youth, and the Greater Portland Big Brothers/Big Sisters. 

These opportunities have allowed me to witness the impact that the time and attention of concerned community-oriented citizens can have on the scores of children and 

families served by these programs. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Costa Rica? What 

are the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human 

rights and democracy in Costa Rica? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. Costa Rica is a stable, long-standing democracy with an admirable history of protecting and defending human rights, domestically and internationally. 

While there are far fewer in Costa Rica than elsewhere in the region, the most 

pressing human rights issue in Costa Rica is trafficking in persons. Costa Rica is 

264 

a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked 

for the purpose of sexual exploitation, and to a lesser degree, for labor exploitation. 

Other urgent human rights concerns the U.S. government has noted in recent years 

focus on prison overcrowding, a slow and complex legal justice system, and the protection of refugees. 

If confirmed, I will make promoting human rights a central issue. I will support 

use of the ambassador’s fund for programs that help resettle refugees. I will encourage Costa Rica to adopt comprehensive legislation to criminalize all forms of human 

trafficking and to provide greater legal protections and assistance for victims. 

Through these actions, I hope to promote human rights and democracy through the 

reduction of trafficking in persons and increasing governability. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Costa Rica in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. Embassy San Jose’s Mission Strategic Plan notes that the broader challenge is not to make Costa Rica more democratic, but to make it a more effective 

democracy by increasing the effectiveness of the legislative and judicial systems, a 

key governability issue. If confirmed, I will work with the Arias administration with 

the goal of increasing governability through new legislation, improve 

intragovernment coordination, devote additional resources for prisons, and increase 

the focus on trafficking in persons issues. Lack of staff resources and funding are 

the main obstacles to combating trafficking in persons. Prosecutors and the judiciary 

are woefully understaffed and underfunded, resulting in relatively few prosecutions. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the activities of the United 

States Embassy-Costa Rica? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that 

Foreign Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and 

professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. If confirmed as ambassador, I would emphasize the importance of monitoring, promoting, and reporting on human rights and labor rights as a fundamental 

goal of the U.S. Mission. I would ensure that the embassy cooperates with the Costa 

Rican Ministry of Labor on child labor prevention and school retention programs. 

I would ensure that embassy personnel continue to make much-needed judicial and 

other training available to the Costa Rican public sector through our various assistance programs. The Merida Initiative, if approved, includes funding to improve prison management. 

As a businessman who has managed hundreds of employees, I would take a highly personal approach to motivating embassy staff to excel in promoting human 

rights. As ambassador, I would recognize and reward embassy employees who are 

proactive in this area by nominating them for Department of State-wide awards as 

well as recognizing them in the presence of peers to indicate that this issue is a 

high priority. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Costa Rica who are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will regularly meet with major nongovernmental organizations that share our interest in combating sexual exploitation and forced 

labor. If confirmed, I will also encourage embassy personnel to actively engage with 

these NGOs and to broaden their social networks to allow the mission to gain a 

fuller understanding of the conditions that drive these crimes. Through consultation 

with civil society, we will be better able to generate innovative means of helping 

Costa Rica to address root causes. 

RESPONSES OF HEATHER M. HODGES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Poverty and inequality are enormous problems in Ecuador, particularly 

among indigenous populations. According to a recent World Bank study, 87 percent 

of indigenous Ecuadorians live in poverty. What can the United States do to assist 

Ecuador in reducing poverty and inequality? 

Answer. Economic development and poverty reduction are priorities in our relationship with Ecuador. The Andean Trade Promotion Act (ATPA) is an important 

tool in our continuing efforts to assist the people of Ecuador in creating economic 

opportunity and alleviating poverty through market-based solutions. Our trade and 

economic growth assistance to Ecuador focuses on technical assistance, training, fiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
265 

nancial support for free and open markets, competitiveness and poverty reduction. 

Our programs help farmers increase productivity and product quality, link them to 

end users, and improve family incomes. We also work with local governments to increase tax collection and improve transparency. Last year, our infrastructure programs financed the construction of 14 bridges, 20 water systems, and 9 sewage systems, which benefited 70,000 of the poorest Ecuadorians. 

Question. The Andean Trade Preference Act is an enormously important trade 

provision for Ecuador and for the Government of Ecuador. ATPA was recently extended by Congress, but is scheduled to expire in the fall. Is it your expectation that 

the administration will seek an extension beyond this fall? What are the implications of letting ATPA lapse? 

Answer. ATPA is a key component of our continuing efforts to assist the people 

of Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia in combating drug production, creating economic opportunity, and alleviating poverty by using the power of the free sector. 

This people-to-people program has strengthened economic ties between businesses 

and workers in Ecuador and the United States, and has helped Ecuador create new, 

globally competitive industries in such areas as its flower sector. The Government 

of Ecuador estimates ATPA has generated approximately 350,000 jobs in Ecuador. 

ATPA will expire on December 31, 2008. I believe it is premature to speculate 

what the administration’s position will be when Congress must again deliberate extending this important program. 

Question. My understanding is that the Andean Parliament is going to convene 

a regional security conference next month in Quito. Do you believe that these regional efforts can be productive in reducing tensions and fostering greater regional 

cooperation and integration on a host of issues? 

Answer. The Andean Parliament has stated that one of the issues that will be addressed during the May 29–30, 2008 conference will be the tensions between Ecuador and Colombia over Colombia’s raid of a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 

(FARC) camp across the Ecuadorian border. The overall purpose of the conference 

will be to discuss with experts how to avoid such incidents from occurring again.We 

value our strong relationship with both Colombia and Ecuador and support efforts 

that reduce tensions between them. However, the countries of the region must also 

address the underlying cause of this tension, which is rooted in the presence of the 

FARC in the territory of Colombia and its neighbors and the need for the affected 

states to work together to combat the threat of the FARC. 

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes. I have carefully reviewed this cable. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes. I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in 04 

State 258893 regarding Peace Corps-State Department relations. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day to day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy and that the Peace Corps role and its need for separation from the day 

to day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies?’’ 

Answer. Our mission in Ecuador assiduously respects keeping the Peace Corps removed from any and all policy areas. As an illustration of that principle, the Peace 

Corps will be the only United States Government element that will not be colocated 

at the New Embassy Compound when the Embassy in Quito moves this summer. 

I understand the need to keep the Peace Corps substantially separate from the 

day to day conduct of our foreign policy and, if confirmed, will strongly support this 

policy. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. When I was ambassador in Moldova we had a large and successful Peace 

Corps program (approximately 115 volunteers). I considered the Peace Corps one of 

our greatest assets and did everything to support and promote their programs. 

Whenever I traveled outside Chisinau, I made it a point to meet with our volunteers 

and visit their programs. I was extremely proud one day when Moldovan President 

266 

Voronin started talking about the Peace Corps volunteers with genuine admiration 

and knowledge of their grassroots activities. He seemed particularly pleased that 

there were English language programs. 

I am sure the Peace Corps directors I worked with would concur that I exercised 

my chief of mission authorities to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy 

and flexibility in their day-to-day operations as possible. If confirmed, I pledge to 

do the same in Ecuador. 

RESPONSES OF HEATHER M. HODGES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career, to 

date, to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. Democracy and human rights have been an important part of the agenda 

in most of the countries I have worked in overseas and in Washington. 

My assignment to Moldova, however, provides the best recent examples of work 

I have done to promote human rights and democracy. In the early post-Soviet period, Moldova had a good reputation for free and fair elections, but over time this 

reputation was becoming tarnished. Just before I arrived in 2003, municipal elections throughout the country had clearly been flawed. I realized that the upcoming 

national elections in 2005 would be a challenge. I worked closely with the OSCE 

and a few other diplomatic missions, especially the handful of European Union embassies, to carry out both private and public activities to promote free and fair elections. 

One of the best things the embassy did was to support the creation of the ‘‘Coalition for Free and Fair Elections,’’ a group of over 60 nongovernmental organizations 

that represented the range of the political spectrum in Moldova and became a 

watchdog for independent assessment of the way in which the Government of 

Moldova was organizing and carrying out the elections. Our support to the coalition 

cost us little money but throughout the elections we saw evidence that the coalition’s vigilance was contributing to the democratic process all over the country. Although it was a close call, the national elections were declared by the OSCE and 

other international observers to be free and fair. I am convinced that the results 

would not have been the same without the coalition. 

Also in Moldova we had a large program to combat trafficking in women and 

young girls, a serious problem in one of Europe’s poorest countries. Meeting battered 

victims who had managed to return to their country thanks to improved police work 

in Moldova and in the region was an experience I will never forget. It also convinced 

me we had to do more to educate the population about this terrible scourge. The 

embassy organized dozens of conferences, workshops, and focus groups around the 

country. And I persistently discussed our program with the highest levels in the 

government. Soon the Deputy Prime Ministers started holding monthly meetings 

outside the capital with municipal authorities and NGOs to monitor progress in 

fighting trafficking. We also helped vulnerable youth learn job skills that would help 

them earn a decent living and resist the ploys of the traffickers. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Ecuador? What are 

the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights 

and democracy in Ecuador? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. Inconsistency in the judicial process, issues of overcrowding, lack of medical care, and suspicious deaths of prisoners in Ecuadorian prisons are the most 

pressing human rights issues in Ecuador. The United States is working with Ecuador through our assistance programs to help address rule of law issues. One of our 

projects is to create automated data bases that will streamline criminal prosecutions 

and enhance the use of precedent in trials. 

If confirmed, it will be one of my priorities to continue and strengthen programs 

such as this one. It is my hope that these efforts will make a long term contribution 

to improving the human rights situation in Ecuador. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Ecuador in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The largest potential obstacle to addressing human rights concerns in Ecuador is lack of enforcement of existing laws. The United States is working with 

the Government of Ecuador, especially the judicial sector, to provide training to 

prosecutors and other legal professionals. 

267 

I believe that education is one of the most important ways in which we can advance human rights. If confirmed, I would strongly support our existing training 

and outreach efforts and look for opportunities to expand these initiatives. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the activities of the United 

States Embassy-Ecuador? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. Promoting human rights is one of the highest priorities of our mission 

in Ecuador. The United States stands ready to assist Ecuador through continued engagement and programs that reinforce our commitment to constitutional democracy, 

strong and inclusive institutions, respect for the rule of law, counternarcotics efforts, 

and greater, more widely shared economic prosperity. 

If confirmed, supporting these objectives will be among my highest priorities. I believe that every member of our mission in Ecuador can play a role in meeting this 

objective, and I will support and encourage each member of the team to contribute 

to this effort. As appropriate, I will recognize Foreign Service officers on my team 

for their human rights contributions by using the Department’s evaluation and employee rewards programs. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Ecuador who are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. If confirmed as ambassador, I would make it a priority to reach out to 

all segments of society in Ecuador. You have my assurances that I would meet regularly with a range of American and Ecuadorian nongovernmental organizations, in 

particular those working to promote human rights. 

RESPONSES OF SAMUEL W. SPECK TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Concerns have been raised in the past that both the United States and 

Canadian Governments are often too slow in implementing the International Joint 

Commission’s recommendations. How will you work with both countries’ governments to ensure better United States and Canadian compliance with and expedited 

implementation of the commission’s decisions and recommendations? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully look into delays in implementing the International Joint Commission’s recommendations. I would work with my fellow commissioners in continuing to urge United States and Canadian compliance through 

our semiannual meetings with governments, commission reports and letters, and in 

personal contacts with policymakers. 

Question. Since 2005, the IJC has been reviewing its management plans for controlling the water level of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The current 

management regime minimizes fluctuations in water levels, which some scientists 

have argued has produced significant changes in shoreline ecosystems. After months 

of study and review, it proposed several alternatives to the current management regime. Just last month, the IJC released a proposed plan for public comment, called 

Plan 2007. New York State has had concerns with Plan 2007, but the IJC released 

it despite earlier promises to work with the State to find a compromise. Can you 

assure this committee that, if confirmed, you will work with the State of New York 

to address their concerns with Plan 2007? 

Answer. Since I was not involved in the study or development of the plan or in 

any subsequent discussions with New York State, I am not positioned to comment 

on the issues you raise. I can assure you that, if confirmed, I will participate actively in public hearings and review all public comments received on the IJC’s plan. 

I have an open mind on the merits of the plan and will carefully consider the views 

of the public and key stakeholders in forming my opinion on its merits and any 

needed modifications. If confirmed, I will look into the concerns of all stakeholders 

impacted by the plan and do everything I can to ensure that views of all interested 

parties, including the State of New York, are taken into consideration as the commission makes its decision. 

268 

RESPONSES OF BARBARA J. STEPHENSON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career, to 

date, to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. As a member of the generation of Foreign Service officers whose careers 

began with the writing of the annual human rights report, I have always seen respect for human rights as a central and integral part of U.S. foreign policy. My service in the Netherlands, where Dutch Foreign Ministry colleagues vied for a copy of 

the annual human rights report reinforced for me how important it was that our 

human rights reports be accurate, balanced, and credible. With too small a diplomatic service to produce their own reports, they relied on ours for key judgments. 

Beyond my work in various assignments to ensure the quality of our human 

rights reporting, I would cite my work in 1991 in El Salvador to ensure that the 

legislative assembly elections could take place peacefully. Week after week, I organized teams of embassy observers to cover significant campaign events—hoping that 

our presence would discourage violence and knowing that, if violence occurred, we 

would, at a minimum, bear witness to it. Partly because of our observer effort, leftist candidates returned from exile, participated in the political process, and won 

some seats in the legislative assembly, where they became articulate advocates for 

their political point of view. When the peace agreement was signed 10 months later, 

a Salvadoran friend, who was a member of the government’s negotiating team for 

the peace talks, told me he believed that the key difference between war and peace 

in El Salvador was that now there was ‘‘espacio politico’’—political space. The embassy’s observer effort helped open up that political space. 

I would also cite my work as Consul General to Belfast, Northern Ireland, from 

2001–2004. Friends from Northern Ireland tell me how much they value the time 

and attention I devoted to modest community workers attempting to build peace 

and decent lives for working class people from the ground up. Some of those friends 

see the platform I gave them—opening up the official residence to them for strategy 

sessions, helping shift the focus of the White House St. Patrick’s Day events from 

political leaders to these everyday heroes—as central to the ultimate success in 

achieving a major shift in government policy. Under the ‘‘Shared Future’’ policy, the 

government moved away from segregated schools and public housing (which reinforced the divisions at the heart of the conflict) toward a deliberate policy of increasing contact between Catholics and Protestants through shared schools, neighborhoods, recreation facilities, and the like. Many of the community leaders whose efforts I championed with all the resources available to me as Consul General have 

grown in influence and become powerful voices for social justice and peaceful resolution of conflict, not only in Northern Ireland but abroad as well. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Panama? What are 

the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights 

and democracy in Panama? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. The most significant human rights problems in Panama include harsh 

prison conditions, with reports of abuse by prison guards; prolonged pretrial detention; corruption, ineffectiveness, and political manipulation of the judicial system; 

political pressure on the media; citizenship determination; discrimination and violence against women; trafficking in persons; discrimination against indigenous communities; and child labor. 

If confirmed, I intend to build upon the embassy’s work with civil society, human 

rights defenders, and the Government of Panama to discuss and find ways of addressing these issues. As I have in previous assignments, I will bring concerned 

stakeholders together to develop strategies to support adherence to the rule of law, 

government accountability and transparency, and strengthening the role of civil society and an independent media. My embassy would continue to consult with nongovernmental organizations, indigenous communities, and other groups to continue 

to bolster those groups in their work to support and strengthen human rights in 

Panama. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Panama in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. Corruption, lack of transparency, and an ineffective judicial system are 

some of the obstacles Panama faces in addressing its human rights situation. If confirmed, I will seek to overcome these challenges by working with civil society to 

build its capacity to hold government accountable. I will also work with the PanVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
269 

amanian Government to encourage them to continue to work to adopt transparent 

systems to fight corruption and impunity particularly within the judicial system. I 

will also work with the press to encourage a free and open debate on the issue of 

human rights. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the activities of the United 

States Embassy-Panama? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. Because I see respect for human rights as so central to our foreign policy, 

I have no doubt that, if confirmed as Ambassador to Panama, I will give human 

rights a central place in our strategy discussions, our public diplomacy outreach efforts, our reporting, and other facets of the embassy’s work. I will, of course, reward 

officers who share my passion for human rights, both with formal tools such as evaluation reports and awards, and informally, by devoting my own time and attention 

to these issues. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Panama who are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. Certainly. As my discussion of most important actions indicates, I am 

proud of my association with such NGOs and of the success of my efforts to give 

their voices greater weight. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT J. CALLAHAN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. What effect, if any, has the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) 

compact had on poverty reduction in Nicaragua, and on United States-Nicaraguan 

relations? Please describe the current status of MCC work in the country. 

Answer. MCC’s 5-year (2006–2011), $175 million compact with Nicaragua will 

help the country to build the necessary productive capacity to seize opportunities 

to achieve growth by taking advantage of regional economic integration and trade 

openings. The compact focuses on improving insecure property rights, underdeveloped infrastructure, and rural business activities that were identified as the 

greatest barriers to economic growth that could be addressed with Millennium Challenge Account assistance. We expect the MCC program to improve the lives of the 

800,000 residents of Leo ́n and Chinandega by raising household incomes in the region and transforming the region into an engine of economic growth. 

The MCC compact is helping Nicaragua accomplish this objective through: 

1. A property regularization project to provide secure, registered titles to an 

estimated 70 percent of rural and 50 percent of urban properties; 

2. A transportation project upgrading roads to reduce transportation costs between the region and domestic, regional, and international markets for an estimated 3,300 current road users per day; and 

3. A rural business development project to benefit directly thousands of farmers by providing help in transitioning into higher-value agriculture, creating an 

estimated 7,000 jobs. 

Examples of how the MCC is effecting poverty reduction are steadily growing. The 

rural business project has helped producers develop and implement nearly 1,000 

business plans. New investment commitments are expected to create 1,300 jobs in 

Leo ́n and Chinandega. Through the MCC, 1.2 million trees have been planted to improve soil conservation. More than 1,000 clean property titles have been issued, allowing landholders access to the credit needed to fulfill their business plans. 

MCC’s works with Nicaragua not as a recipient of aid, but rather as a full partner 

in this program that aims to reduce poverty through economic growth. This has 

yielded enormous benefits in our bilateral relations. MCC’s CEO Ambassador John 

Danilovich visited Nicaragua in January 2008 to inaugurate the beginning of road 

construction and to deliver clean property titles, forest fire prevention equipment, 

and irrigation systems to beneficiaries. His visit produced many examples of how 

MCC’s engagement has strengthened our bilateral relations and enjoys the strong 

support of both the Nicaraguan people and the country’s leaders, including President Ortega. 

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

270 

Answer. Yes, I have read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. I understand and wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree to abide by the 

principles set forth in this cable. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that 11the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I understand, accept, and fully endorse the fact that the Peace Corps 

must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our 

foreign policy and that the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. I pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise my 

chief of mission authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy 

and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT J. CALLAHAN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. Throughout my career I have been intimately involved in promoting 

human rights, especially during my assignments to Honduras and Bolivia. Both 

countries were making the transition from military rule to democracy—Honduras in 

1982, while I was there, and Bolivia a few years before my arrival in 1989. I encouraged the press in those countries to monitor human rights and speak out on any 

abuses they uncovered. Through seminars and training sessions organized by the 

public affairs office in the embassy, in talks to journalism guilds and schools, we 

reminded reporters and editors of their duty to serve as guarantors of human rights, 

most notably when the government remained silent or unresponsive. 

We also regularly brought American experts, many of them practicing journalists, 

to talk to their counterparts in those countries. Our intention was to show solidarity 

with them and to let them know that they had powerful supporters elsewhere. We 

also used many of our international visitor grants for reporters, again hoping to provide them an object lesson in how American journalists guard tenaciously their 

independence, comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. 

While serving in Rome, and shortly after Milosevic left power in Serbia, my office 

organized a week-long seminar in Italy for about 20 Serbian journalists. As they 

emerged from years of governments that attempted to control and intimidate the 

press, we thought that they needed some training and encouragement, both of which 

our team of experienced American writers and editors, including the managing editor of the American Journalism Review, provided. 

In my one year in Baghdad, where I served as the embassy spokesman and press 

attache ́, I regarded as my most important responsibility the nurturing of a woefully 

inexperienced and timid press corps. We told them of the role of a free and active 

media in a democratic society. We emphasized that paramount among their duties 

was ensuring that human rights of every sort—freedom of the press, speech, and 

religion, freedom from fear, exploitation, and arbitrary arrest—be respected. I also 

worked closely with the Commission on Public Integrity and the Human Rights 

Commission and detailed officers to work with each. This gave them both confidence 

to pursue their mandates and a sense of security. 

If I am confirmed as Ambassador to Nicaragua, I will ensure that respect for 

human rights, and the honest and timely reporting on them, be a priority for the 

mission. I think that this is one of our most effective foreign policy initiatives and 

that it is perfectly consonant with—in fact, reinforces—our other policy objectives. 

271 

I believe that respect for human rights is a core American value, a source of pride 

for our Nation, and a universal imperative. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Nicaragua? What 

are the most important steps you expect to take,if confirmed, to promote human 

rights and democracy in Nicaragua? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. Nicaragua is a constitutional democracy that still struggles with the 

issue of human rights. Arbitrary application of justice, lack of respect for the rule 

of law, widespread corruption, the politicization of the judiciary and other government organs, intimidation and harassment of nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) and journalists, widespread child labor, discrimination against indigenous 

communities, and trafficking in persons are some of the most pressing human rights 

issues in Nicaragua. If confirmed, I will devote our resources to ensuring that supporting human rights and democratic principles remain central elements of our foreign policy in Nicaragua. 

This will mean focusing our efforts on programs that support adherence to the 

rule of law, government accountability and transparency, and strengthening the important role of civil society and an independent media. I will consult with civil society, nongovernmental organizations, indigenous communities, and other groups to 

develop a human rights strategy that is responsive to the needs of Nicaraguans suffering from human rights abuses. These consultations will guide us as we draft the 

Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Nicaragua, which will bring 

attention and much-needed information about this issue in Nicaragua. 

As part of the implementation process of the Central America-Dominican Republic 

Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–DR), the United States will provide additional resources that will be essential in improving Nicaragua’s labor justice system, its capacity to enforce labor laws and reduce the adverse affects of gender and other 

forms of discrimination in Nicaragua’s labor sectors. I believe these efforts together 

will advance the recognition and respect of human rights in Nicaragua. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Nicaragua in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. Some principal obstacles Nicaragua faces in addressing its human rights 

problems are widespread government corruption, arbitrary application of justice, 

politicization of the Supreme Electoral Council, and a fragmented and fragile civil 

society and divided political opposition that lack unified strategies for furthering democracy and respect for human rights. If confirmed, I will seek to overcome the 

challenges I will face in advancing human rights, the lack of transparency and accountability within the Nicaraguan Government, and fragile judicial and prosecutorial institutions to name a few, by working with civil society to build its capacity 

to meet the needs and interests of the Nicaraguan people. I will also work with the 

Nicaraguan Government to encourage respect for the rule of law and address widespread corruption and arbitrary application of justice. To overcome the challenge of 

advancing human rights in Nicaragua, I will also advocate for greater technical and 

financial assistance to aid civil society groups in their efforts to depoliticize the judiciary and increase citizen awareness of these issues. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the activities of the United 

States Embassy-Nicaragua? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that 

Foreign Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and 

professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will make the advancement of human rights in Nicaragua 

one of the central tenets of the embassy’s mission to fulfill our commitment to the 

Nicaraguan people. To accomplish this objective, I will encourage the embassy staff 

to meet with civil society groups and to conduct outreach programs to foment greater ties with remote communities, like Puerto Cabeza or Bluefields, which historically have been overlooked. Providing technical assistance to nongovernmental organizations, civil society groups and the Nicaraguan Government will help build their 

capacity to develop plans specifically tailored to Nicaragua’s human rights situation 

and will be critical for us to achieve our objectives. I will also continue to support 

the embassy staff in its preparation of the Annual Country Report on Human Rights 

Practices in Nicaragua. In recognition of staff efforts to promote human rights, I will 

recognize exemplary work through the embassy and Department of State’s evaluation and employee rewards programs. 

272 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Nicaragua who are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. I intend to make outreach with Nicaraguan and United States nongovernmental organizations a central element of the embassy’s policy for advancing 

human rights. I will encourage and seek to ensure that embassy personnel, including myself, extend our outreach throughout the country to work with historically 

disenfranchised communities and other populations that live in remote or difficult 

to reach areas within Nicaragua. I believe the embassy must demonstrate to these 

communities that their voice, concerns, and livelihood is no less important by virtue 

of who they are or where they live. 

RESPONSES OF HUGO LLORENS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Many human rights defenders in Honduras peacefully protest their displacement by large landowners and corporations and as a result are often attacked 

or threatened. How will you support Honduran human rights defenders and ensure 

that those who attack them are prosecuted? 

Answer. Over the past several years, embassy staff has met with several environmental justice advocates to discuss these threats with the Honduran security authorities and have advocated for prompt and effective investigation of these incidents. In addition, the mission sponsored a joint letter with other G–16 donor countries, which requested that the Government of Honduras take action to properly investigate the death of an environmental activist. If confirmed, I will make support 

for democratic governance and the protection of human rights a top priority of my 

embassy. I am committed to ensuring that the mission continues to strongly advocate on behalf of human rights defenders in our discussions with the government, 

particularly through underscoring our deep desire that the government take appropriate steps to ensure security for defenders and investigate promptly and effectively abuses committed against them. 

Question. Many human rights violations occur in remote areas of Honduras. How 

will you work to support the rights of marginalized communities in Honduras? 

Answer. If confirmed, I plan to continue the embassy’s efforts to reach out to the 

marginalized communities throughout Honduras. It is my intention to lead my country team in promoting human rights in Honduras. Along with the embassy team, 

I will travel widely throughout Honduras to raise human rights issues with local 

and national government officials, NGOs, and civil society groups. Moreover, on certain matters, constructive comments from the ambassador on human rights receive 

positive press coverage, stimulate discussion, and could lead to positive action. 

Through speeches, op-eds, and meetings with relevant officials, I will continue to 

highlight the issue of human rights with the objective of moving, as appropriate, 

Honduras toward increased legal protection and guarantee the rights for all communities. 

Question. What is the status of CAFTA implementation in Honduras? What are 

the major issues that need to be addressed? 

Answer. The United States-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA– 

DR) entered into force for Honduras on April 1, 2006. Honduras has not made as 

much progress as some of its neighbors in implementing CAFTA–DR or in enacting 

the reforms necessary to benefit fully from the agreement. CAFTA–DR requires 

modernization and greater transparency in government procurement and services, 

such as locking in structural reforms, especially opening up the telecommunications 

industry to competition and greater levels of private investment. Passage of the new 

telecommunications law and implementing regulations for the intellectual property 

rights laws passed to implement CAFTA are is still pending. 

The embassy continues it work with the Government of Honduras to increase capacity and compliance of environmental requirements under CAFTA. If confirmed, 

I intend to work hard to ensure full implementation of CAFTA. 

Question. Has there been any improvement in worker’s rights since the implementation of the free trade agreement with the United States? What is the status of 

Honduran cooperation with the International Labor Organization to improve working conditions? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will build upon the Mission’s current active dialog with 

the government, employers, and workers to underscore the importance of full adherVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
273 

ence to labor rights in a democracy. Along with the embassy team, I will work to 

strengthen the Honduran labor ministry’s ability to enforce labor law, modernize 

labor justice systems, seek to eliminate gender and other types of employment discrimination, build a culture of compliance with labor law, and support the ILO in 

its State Department-funded tripartite benchmarking/monitoring work in the region. 

One such successful example is the ‘‘Cumple y Gana’’ (Comply and Win) project implemented by the Department of Labor with Department of State funding. I will 

also ensure that we continue our support for the International Labor Organization’s 

IPEC program and similar U.S. Department of Labor-sponsored initiatives to eradicate the worst forms of child labor, which include plantation, agriculture, and commercial sexual exploitation. 

While Honduras had a comprehensive labor code, worker education has been the 

most significant area of improvement for workers under CAFTA. Basic and detailed 

brochures on worker’s rights, a well-publicized Web site with information on labor 

rights (www.leylaboral.com), and a number of radio spots that play widely on local 

and national radio stations have helped disseminate information on workers rights. 

Embassy officials routinely meet with the Honduran Ministry of Labor officials, 

NGOs, labor unions, and others to discuss CAFTA–DR issues, progress, and areas 

for improvement. 

Question. The State Department’s report last month on human rights conditions 

in Honduras notes that ‘‘Representatives of sexual diversity rights NGOs asserted 

that their members were killed, beaten, and subjected to other mistreatment by security authorities.’’ The State Department also noted that ‘‘the government [of Honduras] required, as a condition for legal registration, sexual diversity rights organizations to remove any reference in their bylaws to promotion of respect for the 

rights of gay, lesbian, or transgender persons. In March the secretary general of the 

Ministry of Governance and Justice commented publicly that the government denied 

registration to gay rights advocacy NGOs because their stated purposes did not comport with ‘good custom.’ ’’ Would you, Mr. Llorens, be willing to meet some of the 

leaders of the LGBT human rights community in Honduras once you take up this 

post to discuss these serious findings? How do you think the United States Embassy 

in Honduras should address these findings and help convey to the Honduran Government that they represent a serious human rights issue? 

Answer. Respect of human rights is central to any thriving democracy. If confirmed, very early on in my tenure, I will seek a meeting with members of the LGBT 

community in Honduras to develop a strong working relationship and to discuss the 

findings. Consolidating democracy and strengthening adherence to the rule of law 

is crucial for human rights. There are no discriminatory laws based on sexual orientation, but in practice there is widespread social discrimination against persons 

based on sexual orientation in Honduras. I intend to include the findings of human 

rights violations in the LGBT community as integral to our overall effort to improve 

the human rights situation in Honduras, and convey the importance of this issue 

to senior officials of the Government of Honduras. 

Question. Honduras has the highest HIV prevalence rate in Central America. Can 

you please describe how the United States is assisting Hondurans as they combat 

this epidemic? 

Answer. Honduras has the second-highest rate of HIV prevalence in Central 

America, after Belize. The U.S. Government’s HIV/AIDS program focuses on five objectives: 

(1) To prevent transmission of HIV through activities to reduce high-risk behavior; 

(2) To expand voluntary counseling and testing for most-at-risk populations; 

(3) To provide care and support services for people living with HIV/AIDS; 

(4) To strengthen the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) HIV/AIDS epidemiologic 

surveillance and monitoring and evaluation systems; and 

(5) To provide the Global Fund and MOH assistance for improved service delivery, including supply chain management. 

The U.S. Government supports an umbrella grants program that provides technical and financial assistance to 13 local NGOs to reduce high-risk behavior among 

most-at-risk populations. In fiscal year 2007, this program trained 2,256 community 

volunteers to promote HIV prevention through abstinence and fidelity. These volunteers reached 29,663 people with abstinence/be faithful messages, mostly Garifuna 

youth, an Afro-Caribbean population highly affected by HIV/AIDS. 

Through these NGOs, condom marketing, and mass media communications activities, 173,420 additional people were reached with prevention messages beyond ‘‘abstinence/be faithful,’’ including correct and consistent condom use and prevention of 

274 

drug and alcohol abuse. The social marketing program expanded sales of affordable 

condoms to 359 new high-risk outlets, such as brothels, for a total of over 800 highrisk outlets now selling condoms. The scale-up of rapid HIV testing services by 10 

NGOs in highly affected communities has been highly successful. In addition, the 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to provide technical assistance to the Ministry of Health for the operation of three sentinel surveillance sites that provide testing for HIV and sexually transmitted infections for commercial sex workers. 

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read the cable. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. I agree to abide by the principles set forth in the cable. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’ role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. Yes. In preparation for my possible assignment as ambassador, I met 

with the Peace Corps to get a full understanding of Peace Corps activities in Honduras and its need for separation of the day-to-day activities of the mission. I pledge 

to keep the Peace Corps day-to-day activities substantially separate. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. I pledge to keep the Peace Corps day-to-day activities substantially separate, as per Secretary Rice’s request in 3.B of the cable. 

RESPONSES OF HUGO LLORENS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career, to 

date, to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. As a 27-year veteran of the Foreign Service, I have been engaged in support of human rights and democracy in one way or another in every one of my assignments. In my very first tour as a junior consular officer in the Philippines, colleagues and I met with Filipino citizens opposed to the Marcos dictatorship. We 

learned from them about the repression against the democratic opposition and independent media, as well as the thousands in jail or exiled because of their political 

views. As U.S. diplomats, we encouraged their efforts and reported what we learned 

to our supervisors. I was in Manila on the terrible day in August 1983 when 

Benigno Aquino was murdered. I remember volunteering with fellow officers to 

cover the massive and spontaneous anti-Marcos demonstrations, and I provided political reporting of the Filipino people’s public demand for elections and democracy. 

Serving in Bolivia in 1984 was a challenging assignment. Our embassy’s principal 

objective was to support the newly-elected government of President Hernan Siles 

following 20 years of authoritarian rule by a long succession of military governments. Our embassy team played a critical role in the democratic transition, which 

included helping to block a coup attempt by disgruntled military officers. As an economic officer, we worked with Bolivian workers to strengthen the trade union movement and nominated several young Bolivian labor leaders to travel to the United 

States on international visitor programs. It was also greatly gratifying for me to 

serve as one of the embassy’s observers in the free and fair elections of 1985 that 

resulted in the constitutional transfer of power to a new civilian president, Victor 

Paz Estenssoro. I also worked with the Bolivian Government and local business organizations to promote the rule of law and more transparent judicial systems. Indeed, in my many economic assignments in Latin America, my work to create a 

trade and investment climate favorable to U.S. commercial interests invariably 

meant promoting good governance, openness, democracy, and human rights. 

I am particularly proud of my work temporarily running a combined political and 

economic section in 1989 in the immediate aftermath of the coup that overthrew the 

275 

35-year-old dictatorship of General Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay. During this historic transition, our embassy played a crucial role. In this effort, we supported 

democratic forces in Paraguay to bring about radical positive change. For example, 

over a 6-month period, we worked closely with the new Paraguayan authorities and 

civil society that resulted in the release of political prisoners, the recognition of 

banned political parties, the restoration of press freedoms, including the reopening 

of the main opposition newspaper—ABC Color—and the holding of the first truly 

free elections in Paraguay’s 150 year history. Today Paraguay faces many difficulties and challenges, and its democracy is highly imperfect and still fragile. However, 

for the Paraguayan people and for many of us who remember the repression and 

total impunity of the Stroessner era, Paraguay has moved in freedom’s direction. 

Over the years, I have continued to engage actively to support human rights and 

democracy. As an economic officer in El Salvador and Honduras, I worked with colleagues in the American Institute for Free Labor Development to advance labor 

rights and push for the recognition of trade unions. Serving as Director of Andean 

Affairs on the National Security Council, I made sure the protection of human 

rights continued to be a front burner issue for us in Colombia. We pressed for the 

investigation of extrajudicial killings of journalists and labor leaders and made sure 

that a significant chunk of our assistance dollars were devoted to good governance, 

strengthening the rule of law, and civil society. Finally, over the 5 years that I have 

served as deputy chief of mission, I have sought to make sure that both the Governments of Argentina and Spain worked closely with us in multilateral fora to support 

democracy and human rights around the world. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Honduras? What 

are the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human 

rights and democracy in Honduras? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. Honduras suffers from human rights problems that include: unlawful 

killings and beatings by members of the police, government agents, vigilantes, street 

gangs, and former members of the security forces; failure to provide legal due process; politicization, corruption, and institutional weakness of the judiciary; erosion of 

press freedom; intimidation of human rights defenders; government restrictions on 

recognition of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); trafficking in persons; and 

ineffective labor law enforcement. 

If confirmed, I will make the promotion of democracy and human rights a top priority. I will advocate forcefully for the rule of law and transparency. I will work with 

the Government of Honduras to support free and fair elections in November 2009. 

Along with my embassy team, I will consult with government institutions, NGOs, 

labor unions, and other organizations. I will work closely with these groups to encourage reforms and discuss problems related to human rights and democracy. 

Addressing corruption and institutional weaknesses is a major part of the mission’s current activities, and if confirmed, I will continue this work. The United 

States offers technical and financial resources to public and private organizations, 

including providing speakers and training to Honduran Government officials, NGOs, 

and civil society representatives on transparency, rule of law, citizen participation 

and accountability. I will also advocate for the implementation of the new transparency law and civil procedure code to provide greater access to public information 

and modernize the civil justice system. 

By continuing to focus on the broad theme of human rights in Honduras, I hope 

to further the important and historical goals of United States engagement in Honduras, to broaden participation in the democratic system to assure ordinary citizens 

have a role in the political process; and to assure that the economic opportunity 

brought to Honduras by CAFTA will increase Honduran citizens’ ability to lift themselves out of poverty. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Honduras in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. Corruption, impunity, and insecurity are principal obstacles to addressing the human rights situation in Honduras. In addition, weak institutions and the 

difficulty of making necessary microeconomic and national changes to extend the 

benefits of democracy and free markets to all people has generated impatience and 

frustrations. 

If confirmed, my team and I will continue to help the Honduran Government 

reach Millennium Challenge Corporation compact goals through a remediation plan 

that promotes transparency and combating corruption. We will support compliance 

with this plan, and we will promote respect for the rule of law and general good 

276 

governance by providing training to government officials, NGOs, law students, and 

others on the newly enacted civil procedure code and transparency laws. 

If confirmed, I will also work with the Honduran Government to encourage them 

to respect the rule of law and address widespread corruption and the ineffective judicial system. I will also work with civil society and the press to create an open, 

honest debate on the issue of human rights and the challenges corruption and impunity place on the development of Honduras. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the activities of the United 

States Embassy-Honduras? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that 

Foreign Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and 

professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. If confirmed, the advancement of human rights in Honduras will continue be one of the top priorities of the embassy’s mission. I will encourage the embassy team to meet with civil society groups and to conduct outreach programs to 

strengthen ties with communities, which historically have been overlooked. 

The promotion of human rights objectives is central to all of our work to encourage representative democracy, economic integration, and faith in the transformative 

power of freedom in individual lives. We will work to encourage the consolidation 

of sustainable economic growth and political stability so that all Hondurans can 

benefit from the political system, economic opportunity, and social justice, especially 

for poor and marginalized populations. 

I will lend my voice to my team’s work and acknowledge and reward their efforts 

through formal means of recognition and promotion of human rights. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Honduras who are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, I plan to reach out early in my tenure and develop 

strong working relationships with NGO representatives from both the United States 

and across Honduras who are working to advance human rights in Honduras. NGOs 

and civil society members are integral to the effort to promote human rights in the 

country and will be valued allies for me and the embassy team. 

RESPONSES OF STEPHEN G. MCFARLAND TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. How will you work to encourage the Guatemalan Government to bring 

to justice former military officials accused of committing these crimes? How will you 

support Guatemalan human rights defenders and ensure that those who attack 

them are prosecuted? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will stress in my discussions with the President, Attorney 

General, and other key government officials the importance of promoting the rule 

of law, and to achieve justice, national reconciliation and closure for families of the 

victims of the human rights abuses committed during the internal conflict. I will 

engage with the Ministry of Government, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Judiciary to press for investigation and prosecution, as well as raise the issue with 

senior military authorities to ensure their continued cooperation in legal proceedings. 

As other U.S. ambassadors before me, if confirmed, I would continue to meet with 

human rights defenders, particularly in public, to raise the profile of the work they 

are doing on behalf of all Guatemalans. I will continue the embassy’s practice of 

showing public solidarity with human rights defenders who have been the victims 

of threats and urge the government to strengthen efforts to protect those defenders. 

And I will continue to raise the investigation and prosecution of crimes against 

human rights defenders with appropriate senior-level government officials. 

Question. What will you do to support the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) important mandate? How will you encourage the Guatemalan Government to provide CICIG with the necessary cooperation to enable it 

to fulfill its critical mandate? How do you plan to encourage lasting improvements 

to the judicial system, both through CICIG’s recommendations and by other means? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will maintain the vigorous United States support for 

CICIG by continuing the embassy’s strong relationship with CICIG Commissioner 

Carlos Castresana and other CICIG staff; by advocating for CICIG technical and financial resources within the U.S. Government, the diplomatic community, and multilateral institutions; and by continuing to highlight the importance of CICIG in 

277 

combating Guatemala’s culture of impunity and violence, and promoting the rule of 

law. 

I will encourage the Guatemalan Government to meet and go beyond its obligation to provide its best investigators, prosecutors, and security professionals. I will 

continue to raise the United States’ and broader interest in the success of CICIG 

in my meetings at the highest levels of Guatemalan Government, including the 

President, Vice-President, and Attorney General, as well as with members of civil 

society and the private sector. 

By Mr. Castresana’s and others’ intentions, a good portion of the CICIG staff is 

Guatemalan, which is crucial if the effects of CICIG are to last. I think the key to 

lasting improvements is CICIG’s own performance in the 18 months remaining on 

its mandate. If Guatemalans understand that impunity is not inevitable, that violent criminals can be held accountable, then they will come to expect no less from 

their own institutions. I know that the United States Embassy has already begun 

to plan for rule of law assistance for coordination between CICIG and Guatemalan 

institutions, and if confirmed, I will earnestly advocate to make available the additional resources needed for the United States to assist Guatemalan institutions to 

carry on the work started by CICIG. 

Question. What information do you have about the recent assassination of President Colom’s security advisor? Does this assassination reflect the same corrupt influence that resulted in the killing of Salvadoran parliamentarians recently in Guatemala? 

Answer. Former Security Advisor Victor Rivera was murdered April 7 at 11:30 

p.m. by unknown assailants who intercepted his vehicle on a main thoroughfare in 

Guatemala City. His companion, who was a passenger in his car, was wounded. The 

murder occurred one week after he was dismissed from his position in the Ministry 

of Government. 

Investigation of his murder is ongoing. Thirteen investigators of the National Civil 

Police and the Attorney General’s Office have been assigned to the case. 

This high-profile murder, like the February 2007 PARLACEN murders, demonstrates the extent of Guatemala’s climate of violence and the need for continued 

Guatemalan efforts, with international assistance, to improve the rule of law. 

Question. The Hague Conventions on adoption came into force in the United 

States on April 1. Is the United States permitting adoptions from Guatemala now 

that this convention has been adopted? Have all outstanding issues surrounding 

adoptions been resolved? 

Answer. The Guatemalan Government has started creating the structure necessary to process adoptions in accordance with the Hague compliant provisions of 

its new internal legislation. However, they are not yet ready to initiate new adoptions that meet these provisions. The embassy is working closely with the new National Adoption Council (CNA) so as to be in a position to confirm the CNA’s ability 

to process Hague compliant adoptions once regulations are drafted and implemented, and the critical portions of the new adoption procedures are functional. 

Meanwhile, both the United States and Guatemala continue to process under preHague rules adoptions initiated in Guatemala prior to December 31, 2007, the date 

Guatemalan adoption reforms took effect. 

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read the cable on Peace Corps-State Department Relations 

(04 State 258893). 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I do. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’ role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. government agencies’’? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and I accept that the Peace Corps must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy, 

and the Peace Corps’ role and its need for separation from the day-to-day activities 

of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. government agencies. These 

principles have guided my earlier work as Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge in 

Paraguay and in Guatemala, which have large Peace Corps programs. 

278 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed I pledge to exercise my chief of mission authorities so 

as to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy and flexibility in its day-today operations as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and 

policies. 

RESPONSES OF STEPHEN G. MCFARLAND TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. Support for democracy and human rights has been a major U.S. objective 

in my previous posts, and it has been an important component of my work, as well 

as a personal commitment. As the human rights officer in Peru, 1985–1988, I visited 

human rights and community leaders in areas affected by the internal conflict. 

These meetings sent a message of support for human rights groups—some of which 

were threatened by security force members as well as the guerrillas—and they provided accurate information on human rights abuses that the United States used to 

engage the Government of Peru. As political counselor in El Salvador, I led the U.S. 

reporting and assessment of the 1988 San Francisco killings, and I contributed to 

our reporting on the cover-up of the Jesuit murders; these cables assisted the 

United States in challenging the government to punish human rights abusers. I also 

carried out considerable outreach to the political left and right in El Salvador to 

support the emerging peace process, and I made personal recommendations to the 

Bureau of Inter-American Affairs at the State Department to leverage United States 

assistance to better support the peace process and the Jesuit murders investigation. 

As political counselor in Peru, I led the reporting effort on the clandestine ‘‘Colina’’ 

death squad supported by then-national intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos. 

These cables contributed to a vigorous debate within the U.S. Government about our 

relationship with Montesinos. I also reported on the increasing authoritarian measures of the Fujimori government, and I met often with the opposition as well as government officials to express our concerns about democracy. As the United States 

representative on the 1995 interim cease-fire monitoring group on the Peru-Ecuador 

border, I contributed to United States efforts to disengage the opposing military 

forces and to facilitate the eventual diplomatic resolution of this dispute. As Charge 

in Paraguay, I led the rapid United States response to oppose the April 2000 coup 

attempt; I then made a public (and successful) request for the government not to 

mistreat the captured coup participants. As Charge in Guatemala I led the embassy’s support for human rights; as part of that effort, I made public visits to human 

rights workers who had received threats, and I attended two high-profile human 

rights trials. These actions underscored U.S. concerns about the protection of human 

rights groups and about impunity. I also led U.S. efforts to engage the Portillo government, first privately and then publicly, on official corruption, organized crime, 

and narcotics trafficking. This initiative led to subsequent public expressions of concern by other international donor countries about corruption, and it encouraged 

Guatemalan civil society groups that advocated greater transparency and accountability. Guatemalan prosecutors subsequently began numerous judicial actions 

against corrupt officials. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Guatemala? What 

are the most important steps you expect to take to promote human rights and democracy in Guatemala? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. The most pressing human rights issues in Guatemala are a weak judicial 

and law enforcement system that does not protect citizens from violent crime; impunity of human rights offenders; and organized crime and clandestine armed groups. 

These human rights issues in turn are one of the most important challenges to Guatemala’s democracy; other major challenges are corruption, poverty, and social exclusion. If confirmed as ambassador, I would continue the vigorous United States 

support, in public and in private, for human rights and democracy, to include meeting throughout Guatemala with members of the government and with civil society. 

I would also support ongoing U.S. programs that address these issues, to include 

community policing, rule of law, police professionalization, human rights, transparency, and programs in rural and indigenous areas. I would also work closely with 

the U.N.-Guatemalan Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), to 

279 

which the United States is contributing, and which will support Guatemalan judicial authorities in investigating clandestine groups. The Merida Initiative, if approved by the Congress, would increase significantly our ability to cooperate with 

Guatemalan institutions on citizen security and rule of law issues. If confirmed, and 

if the Congress approves the Merida Initiative, I would scrutinize any Merida-funded proposals in Guatemala to ensure that they support our broader democracy and 

human rights goals, particularly Guatemala’s ability to strengthen transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. I would also use ongoing assistance programs, as 

well as public diplomacy outreach, and our engagement on CAFTA, to work with 

our Guatemalan partners to improve living standards for those Guatemalans most 

in need, in particular the indigenous. 

Question. What are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific human rights 

issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges will you face 

in Guatemala in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The principal challenges to democracy in Guatemala are security, transparency, prosperity, and social inclusion. Greater citizen confidence in the ability of 

elected government to address these issues in a fair and timely way will strengthen 

democracy. A weak judicial and law enforcement system is the primary obstacle to 

protecting human rights in Guatemala. This manifests itself in extremely low prosecution rates for all crimes, and in particular homicide, and violent crimes against 

women, which in turn lowers citizen confidence in police and prosecutors, and increases the temptation for some to take the law into their own hands. The police 

have not been able to provide sufficient security for most citizens, and in many cases 

have been involved in crimes. Guatemalans acknowledge that corruption and intimidation are two additional obstacles to improving the judicial system. While gangs 

and drug traffickers are responsible for considerable violent crime, there are also 

organized crime groups that seek political influence and protection, who pose a 

major challenge to democracy. 

These obstacles notwithstanding, there are important partners with whom the 

United States can work with on these issues. The Colom administration, which took 

office in January, seeks to work with the United States on a broad range of human 

rights, democracy, and economic issues, to include improving rule of law institutions, and citizen security. There are also many members of the police and the judicial institutions committed to improving the rule of law and human rights, in addition to Guatemalan human rights, media, private sector, and other civil society 

groups. 

Question. What steps will you take to ensure that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of post activities? What steps will you take to ensure 

that Foreign Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged 

and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. Human rights are an integral part of Embassy Guatemala’s activities. 

The embassy has an interagency Rule of Law Committee that addresses human 

rights in a collective forum. The political section has the lead on tracking and promoting human rights, but personnel throughout the embassy regularly promote 

human rights through public outreach, exchanges, training, and dialog. The embassy has undertaken human rights programs with the military, the police, prosecutors, and immigration authorities, among others. Promoting human rights is a priority in the mission strategic plan. If confirmed as ambassador, I will ensure that 

human rights remain of critical import across the range of embassy functions, including my own duties; I believe that ambassadorial involvement in human rights 

outreach also underscores within the embassy the importance of this effort. I will 

also ensure, as I have in the past, that Foreign Service officers and other personnel 

who work on human rights receive due recognition through the employee evaluation 

and award processes. I will also ensure that the embassy continues to have a spirit 

of openness in which issues such as human rights can be freely and frankly discussed and assessed. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Guatemala that are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. Yes. I have worked with human rights organizations throughout my career in the Department of State, both in the United States and abroad. As DCM 

and charge in Guatemala I met frequently with human rights NGOs, and I participated in activities that they organized to promote human rights; if confirmed as ambassador, I will continue to do so. Human rights NGOs are important partners in 

the quest to protect and promote human rights. The embassy team maintains close 

280 

contact with a range of human rights leaders and civil society leaders, and if confirmed, meeting with them will be among my first acts. 

Question. With regard to international adoptions, how many adoption cases initiated prior to December 31, 2007 remain to be processed? What efforts are the U.S. 

Embassy and the Bureau of Consular Affairs making to resolve these cases? Does 

the embassy have sufficient resources in the consular section to devote to this issue? 

Can you provide an estimate of how long it will take to conclude processing of these 

cases? 

Answer. Statistics of the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) section 

at the United States Embassy in Guatemala City show 2,965 pending adoption 

cases as of April 1, 2008, down from 3,387 on March 1. Before USCIS and the Consular Section can complete processing of any of these cases, they must have a finalized adoption according to Guatemalan law. The embassy believes that nearly all 

of these cases have been registered with the new National Adoption Council (CNA) 

before the February 12, 2008 deadline created by Guatemala’s new Hague compliant 

legislation, and will, therefore, be entitled to be processed under the notarial adoption system that existed prior to the new law. Completed adoption documentation 

is being presented daily to the embassy, currently running at a rate slightly slower 

than last year’s record numbers (4,729 adoption immigrant visas issued in fiscal 

year 2007). Current USCIS and consular staff at the embassy is therefore sufficient 

for timely processing of these cases. The average number of days from receipt of 

final adoption documentation by the embassy’s USCIS office to issuance of the immigration visa by the consular section is now under 14 calendar days. For most of 

last year this processing and scheduling time averaged approximately 21 days. If 

Guatemalan Government adoption processing continues at rates similar to March 

and April, most such ‘‘grandfathered’’ cases (barring problems discovered in individual cases) should be completed by the end of calendar year 2008. 

Question. What is the status, in particular, of cases involving the children from 

Casa Quivira? How many prospective adoptions involving American citizens remain 

pending? 

Answer. Thirty-five children remain in Casa Quivira, though one child’s adoption 

has been completed adoption and is scheduled for final visa interview on April 22. 

We believe that 30 of these children continue to be matched with American prospective adoptive families, according to the records of USCIS. However, we have recently 

learned of several withdrawals by U.S. families, and we have not been informed of 

new matches for those children. Eight of these children (counting the April 22 final 

interview above) have been released by the investigating prosecutor’s office for completion of adoption processing. In 18 more cases, the prosecutor has been unable to 

locate birth mothers for interview. Several parents, however, have engaged additional assistance to help locate these mothers and to bring them for interviews by 

Guatemalan authorities. In nine cases, the prosecutor has discovered serious irregularities, mainly consisting of false identifications of the birth mothers. All such 

cases will have to be processed as abandonment cases, requiring court determinations, and almost certainly requiring processing in accordance with the new law. 

The embassy and the Bureau of Consular Affairs continue to dedicate extensive efforts to these cases. 

(281) 

NOMINATIONS 

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Burns, William J., to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs 

Jacobs, Janice L., to be Assistant Secretary of State for Consular 

Affairs 

McMahan, Vance, to be the U.S. Representative on the Economic 

and Social Council of the United Nations 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:53 p.m., in room 

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

Present: Senators Casey and Lugar. 

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

U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator CASEY. The hearing of the Committee on Foreign Relations will now come to order. 

Today, the committee meets to consider three important nominations: Ambassador William J. Burns, Under Secretary of State for 

Political Affairs; Ambassador Janice L. Jacobs to be Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs; and Mr. Vance McMahan to 

be the U.S. Representative on the Economic and Social Council of 

the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador. 

I want to congratulate all of you on your nominations and express the gratitude of the Senate for your willingness to engage in 

public service on behalf of our Nation. 

Ambassador Burns, you’ve been nominated for what is, in effect, 

the third-ranking position in the State Department—the Under 

Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Like Secretary of State Rice 

and Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte, you’re responsible for 

not just one region or one functional area, but the broad sweep of 

U.S. foreign policy. While this position is always important, if confirmed, you will be assuming it in an especially important time. Regardless of who is elected President this fall, you may be the senior 

official at the State Department during the transition period, and 

even perhaps during the first weeks of the new administration. 

And I know you have some big shoes to fill. Your predecessor as 

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador Nick 

Burns, played a key role on leading foreign policy challenges, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
282 

cluding the United States-led initiative to halt Iran’s nuclear activities that violate a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and 

the efforts to hammer out a civil—or, I’m sorry—a civilian nuclear 

cooperation agreement with India. I’ll be interested to hear your 

views on how you intend to approach the upcoming presidential 

transition as the senior career officer at the State Department and 

which foreign policy challenges you intend to focus upon when you 

assume your new position. 

I’m also happy to learn, today, that you’ve got some roots in 

Scranton, PA. We always appreciate that. 

Ambassador Jacobs, you have been nominated to assume the 

leadership of the State Department’s Consular Affairs Bureau, 

which, unfortunately, has been in the news, of late, for the wrong 

reasons. Last summer, we witnessed thousands of Americans having to postpone or cancel their trips abroad due to lengthy delays 

in receiving their passports. Unfortunately, the State Department 

had badly miscalculated the level of demand for U.S. passports in 

the wake of new rules established under the Western Hemisphere 

Travel Initiative. 

While passport processing times have now returned to normal, 

many of us in the Congress are concerned about a repeat of this 

scenario next year, when new regulations come into effect requiring 

all Americans transiting our borders by land or sea to have U.S. 

passports or passport cards. I look forward to your views on how 

the State Department plans to assess likely demand, and the steps 

it is taking to get ready. 

More recently, we learned the disturbing news that State Department employees and contractors illegally accessed the passport 

files of the three remaining presidential candidates. Perhaps of 

greater concern, there was a significant lag before these unauthorized disclosures were reported to senior Department officials and 

the three candidates themselves. I understand that the State Department inspector general is conducting an investigation, and I 

look forward to hearing the status of that investigation and the 

steps the Department is taking to better protect the privacy and integrity of passport files for all Americans. 

Finally, Ambassador Jacobs, I want to raise an issue raised by 

a number of our constituents in Pennsylvania. Many families, including those in Pennsylvania, have encountered lengthy delays 

and uncertainty in the processing of adopting children from foreign 

nations, especially Vietnam and Guatemala. While I understand 

the critical need to follow careful rules and regulations, especially 

to deter intolerable kidnapping and selling of infants for adoption, 

too many families have often been left in the dark regarding individual cases. 

I strongly urge the Department of State and your Bureau to recommit to frequent communications with both congressional casework staff and the general public so that affected families receive 

regular updates on their adoption cases and suffer less unneeded 

stress. 

Our final nominee before us today, Mr. McMahan, has been nominated for the position of United States Representative to the 

United Nations Economic and Social Council, or ECOSOC— 

‘‘ecosock,’’ for those of us who focus on acronyms. The ECOSOC is 

283 

a U.N. body that addresses international economic, social, and cultural issues and is currently undergoing significant reform efforts. 

However, I was disappointed when ECOSOC, last year, voted to 

deny—to deny—the Jewish National Fund of the United States 

general consultative status at the body, a status that roughly 2,800 

other nongovernmental organizations already enjoy. 

Such actions, which appear to stem from an anti-Israel bias, only 

serve to undermine the trust of the American people in the 

evenhandedness of the United Nations as a whole. I look forward 

to your views on how to make ECOSOC a more effective and nondiscriminatory organization. 

With Americans dying in combat in foreign lands and our international prestige at an all-time low, our Nation demands capable 

representatives to advocate for our interests overseas. I look forward to hearing your views on how you intend to serve as representatives of our great Nation. 

And at this moment I think we’ll go to our nominees. We may 

be joined by other members of this committee. We’ll turn to our 

nominees for their opening statements. And I’d encourage you to 

keep your remarks brief, as we always say, no longer than 5 minutes each, if you can hold to that, so we can move to questions. And 

if you’re summarizing your statement, the text of your full statement will be included in the hearing record. 

And I also know this is a proud moment for each of you, and also 

for your families, and maybe friends, as well, so I’d encourage you 

to introduce family and friends who are present today when you 

deliver your opening statement. 

And at this moment I think we’ll start, first of all, with Ambassador Burns. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. BURNS, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS 

Ambassador BURNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It 

truly is an honor to appear before you today as President Bush’s 

nominee to become Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. 

I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Rice for their 

confidence in me and in our diplomat service, in which I am proud 

to have served for the last 26 years. If confirmed, I will do my best 

to live up to their trust and to work closely with you and all of your 

colleagues on this committee, as I have throughout my career. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to begin by expressing deep appreciation to my family—to my wife, Lisa, and 

daughter, Sarah, who are still in Moscow, and my daughter, Lizzy, 

now in the midst of her final exams at Duke University. As in so 

many Foreign Service families around the world, their love and 

sacrifice are a very large part of why I am here today. I can never 

repay them adequately. 

This is the fourth time, Mr. Chairman, that I’ve appeared before 

this committee for confirmation. I approach this new challenge 

with considerable humility, with great respect for Nick Burns, 

Mark Grossman, Tom Pickering, and all those who have come before me, with an abiding commitment to public service, with faith 

in the power of clear-eyed diplomacy in the pursuit of American inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
284 

terests and human freedoms, and with few illusions about the complicated world around us. 

It is a world with no shortage of troubles, but also plenty of opportunities for creative and determined American leadership. It is 

a world which faces the spreading dangers of weapons of mass destruction, new and more malignant forms of terrorism, unresolved 

regional and sectarian conflicts, failed and failing states, global economic dislocation, and transnational health, energy, illegal narcotics, and environmental concerns. It is a world in which American vision and leadership are essential in crafting relations with 

emergent and resurgent great powers, in deepening their stake in 

global institutions and a stable international system. It is a world 

in which other people and other societies will always have their 

own realities, not always hospitable to ours. That doesn’t mean we 

have to accept those perspectives, or agree with them, or indulge 

them, but it does mean that understanding them is the starting 

point for sensible policy. It is a world in which a little modesty in 

the pursuit of American interests is often a good thing, and in 

which there’s still no substitute for setting careful priorities and 

connecting means to ends. 

But, it is also a world in which the power of our example and 

our generosity of spirit can open the door to profound advances, as 

President Bush has shown in his historic initiative against HIV/ 

AIDS in Africa. It is a world in which our leadership should serve 

as a catalyst for making common cause with others. Nowhere is 

that more true today than in the broader Middle East, where it is 

hugely important to build on the Annapolis Conference and realize 

the promise of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and where we must strengthen regional and international 

support for a better future for Afghanistan and Iraq. 

It is a world, as Secretary Rice has said, in which America has 

no permanent enemies and in which tough-minded engagement of 

our adversaries, such as North Korea and Iran, is a mark of 

strength and confidence, not weakness. And it is a world, as Secretary Gates has argued, in which the many instruments of American soft power ought to be expanded alongside the tools of hard 

power. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward, if confirmed, to assisting Secretary Rice and Deputy Secretary Negroponte in coordinating our 

diplomacy across the major regions of the globe and toward the alliances and international organizations which are so important to 

U.S. national security. I will draw, as best I can, on my experience 

in Russia and the Middle East, two regions of the world which are 

rarely dull, but always central to American interests. I will work 

hard, with my friends and colleagues in other agencies, to promote 

an effective policy process. And I will also wholeheartedly support 

Secretary Rice’s efforts, building on the world of Colin Powell, to 

transform and strengthen America’s diplomatic capabilities for the 

new century before us. 

Taking care of our people, of the members of the Foreign and 

Civil Services and the Foreign Service nationals who serve our 

country with such dedication and courage in so many hard places 

around the world, is not only the right thing to do, but also a powerful contribution to America’s best interests. 

285 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration. I know 

the period ahead is an important one, with a political transition 

looming in our country in a world which doesn’t stop for our political processes. I’ll do all I can, if confirmed, to work with all of you 

to help meet the formidable challenges before us. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Burns appears at the 

end of this hearing transcript.] 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, sir. 

I wanted to note the presence of our distinguished ranking member, Senator Lugar, who joins us, as well, and I appreciate his presence here at the hearing. 

Ambassador Jacobs. 

STATEMENT OF JANICE L. JACOBS, NOMINEE TO BE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSULAR AFFAIRS 

Ambassador JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lugar, it’s a distinct 

honor to appear before you today. 

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to President 

Bush and Secretary Rice for nominating me to be Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. 

I would also like to introduce and give special thanks to my husband, Ken Friedman, who is here with me today. 

Consular work is fundamentally about service to our mission, to 

our citizens, and to the security of our Nation. As a career consular 

officer for 28 years, I have gained a broad perspective of the many 

and varied consular challenges our country faces. In leadership positions, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, I have 

worked on the full range of consular issues, implementing changes 

that have transformed the security and efficiency of consular work 

across the range of our activities. 

As Deputy Chief of Mission in Santo Domingo, and as Ambassador to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau, I have seen, firsthand, the 

outstanding work that all consular personnel—officers, locally engaged employees, eligible family members—do at our posts overseas. If confirmed, I will consider it my great privilege to lead the 

Bureau of Consular Affairs in protecting our Nation’s security and 

providing the highest-quality services to our citizens. 

One of those services is providing American citizens with reliable, secure passports. The Bureau took immediate action when we 

learned, recently, that the passport records of Presidential candidates had been improperly accessed by Bureau employees. As 

Acting Assistant Secretary, and under the guidance of the Under 

Secretary for Management, we informed the candidates, reminded 

all Bureau employees of their legal obligation to safeguard the privacy of passport records, and requested the Office of the Inspector 

General to begin an investigation, which is ongoing. We are exploring further measures to protect the privacy of American citizens 

and strengthen the integrity of the passport process. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will be vigilant in ensuring that 

the American public’s trust in the Bureau is well placed and that 

the personal information they provide to us is kept safe. 

286 

CA has greatly improved the efficiency of passport processing. 

Despite demand that now runs 7 percent above last year’s record 

18.4 million passport issuances, I’m pleased to report that there is 

no backlog of passport applications. We are meeting higher demand 

by hiring hundreds of new staff, establishing new passport agencies, expanding existing facilities, and producing a passport card to 

meet the needs of our citizens on the northern and southern borders. If confirmed, I will ensure that we continue to provide reliable passport services to our citizens. 

In discharging our visa responsibilities, consular officers sit literally on the front lines on the global war on terror, contributing 

to national security. They strengthen our borders by detecting and 

deterring the entry of those who seek to break our laws. They 

strengthen our society by helping reunite American families 

through legal immigration. Since 9/11, the Department’s challenge 

has been to enhance the security of our borders while keeping 

America’s doors open to the world. Our commitment to the ‘‘Secure 

Borders, Open Doors,’’ joint vision of Secretaries Rice and Chertoff 

has transformed visa processing and enabled us, for example, to 

issue an all-time record of 651,000 student and scholar visas last 

year. If confirmed, I will continue this commitment to improve the 

security and efficiency of visa processing and ensure that America 

continues to welcome legitimate international visitors. 

Of course, our primary responsibility is to serve and protect 

American citizens overseas. We provide our citizens with services 

around the cycle of life. We register births, replace lost passports, 

help people vote, and comfort families when Americans are sick, in 

jail, or have died. Consular officers touch people’s lives. 

We devote special effort to protecting children. On April 1st, we 

implemented the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption to 

provide better protections and transparency for children and families in intercountry adoptions. If confirmed, I will work tirelessly 

to ensure CA continues our outstanding record of service to our 

citizens. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will look forward to working with 

the Secretary to ensure consular support for America’s foreign policy objectives. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the committee to ensure that the world’s finest consular corps continues to 

meet its obligations to our citizens and to our Nation. 

Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today, and 

I would be happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jacobs appears at the 

end of this hearing transcript.] 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Mr. McMahan. 

287 

STATEMENT OF T. VANCE MCMAHAN, NOMINEE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE ECONOMIC 

AND SOCIAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, WITH THE 

RANK OF AMBASSADOR AND AN ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE SESSIONS OF THE 

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, DURING HIS 

TENURE OF SERVICE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ON THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL OF THE 

UNITED NATIONS 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the committee. I’m honored to appear before you today as 

the President’s nominee to serve as the U.S. Representative to the 

United Nations Economic and Social Council. I’m deeply grateful to 

President Bush and Secretary Rice for their confidence in me. 

I hope that my legal background in the field of banking and finance, as well as my extensive experience in government and work 

on a number of public policy issues, from education to healthcare 

to global competitiveness, will contribute to my effectiveness in this 

position. 

I strongly believe the United States role as a force for good in 

the world, that, working with global community, we can help free 

people from hunger and disease, poverty and illiteracy, tyranny 

and violence, allowing them to realize their full potential as human 

beings. 

The United States has led an effort to bring new ideas and fresh 

approaches in a number of areas, including the economic policy debate at the United Nations. Our approach, in line with the 

Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development, emphasizes 

the importance of sustainable economic growth in development policy, linking new aid from developed nations to real reform in developing ones. 

Our guiding principle is based on building partnerships. It’s a 

balanced approach which promotes a central role of national governments in their own development and the importance of international investment, trade, and credit markets, and expanding economic opportunities for the world’s poor. If confirmed, I will continue to advance our view that foreign assistance, in the context of 

good governance and sound domestic policy, can play a catalytic 

role, but it cannot substitute for open international trade and the 

ability to attract private capital. 

The Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, is at the center of 

these activities, and, through its resolutions, functional commissions, and regional commissions, is an important venue to promote 

key U.S. interests. The United States, as an ECOSOC member, has 

worked closely with our member states to integrate our shared 

views into U.N. policies on the role of economic growth and national development strategies that can bring real change to the 

lives of many. 

Through the work of ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies, we are 

also pursuing the global goals, in the Millennium Declaration, of 

reducing poverty and hunger, improving health and education, and 

combating major diseases. Achieving these goals will require greater focus on, and innovative approaches to, sustainable development 

in the fragile and failing states where many of the so-called ‘‘botVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
288 

tom billion’’ live, those who have been left behind as the rest of the 

developing world has moved ahead. The extreme poverty and instability in these states affects the entire global community. If confirmed, this will be one of the most important items on my agenda. 

In addition to its important work on economic growth and development, ECOSOC also plays a critical part in the promotion of 

human rights and social justice. Unfortunately, the Geneva-based 

Human Rights Council, which, in 2006, replaced the former Commission on Human Rights, has been a grave disappointment in this 

regard. To date, that body and many of its members remain unwilling to meet the council’s mandate of addressing gross and systematic violations of human rights. Until the council improves, we will 

not legitimize it with our formal participation. If confirmed, I will 

continue to press for the council to approach its work with the seriousness that the United States and the international community 

expect, and to eliminate the selective bias that we’ve observed in 

its work so far. 

I would also continue to work with our partners to push for action by the General Assembly’s Third Committee to hold accountable violators of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In addition, I would also work to build on existing initiatives of the United 

States in the General Assembly and other fora to fight human trafficking, to improve the status of women, and increase their political 

participation and economic influence around the world. 

I would also like to emphasize our strong commitment to the promotion of democracy. The United Nations Democracy Fund, created 

by Secretary General Annan in 2005, plays an important role in 

strengthening democratic institutions at the level of civil society. 

The fund is already supporting 122 projects in 110 countries, and, 

if confirmed, I will look forward to continuing our work as members 

of the Advisory Board to further the goals of the fund. 

Finally, I would like to underscore that I believe our work at the 

U.N. will only succeed insofar as the U.N. as an institution succeeds. The United States is spearheading the U.N. Transparency 

and Accountability Initiative to improve the organization’s efficiency across the entire U.N. system. The U.N.’s daily impact on 

the well-being of so many around the world makes it vital that the 

entire U.N. system join this initiative to safeguard the U.N.’s resources and its credibility. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for 

the opportunity to testify today and for considering my nomination. 

If confirmed, I intend to work closely with members of the committee and the committee staff to advance U.S. efforts at the U.N. 

to promote international peace and security, sustainable economic 

development, and respect for human dignity. 

I’d be happy to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McMahan appears at the end of 

this hearing transcript.] 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Mr. McMahan. I appreciate it. 

And we appreciate the presence of the ranking member, Senator 

Lugar, and he’ll start our questioning. 

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

Ambassador Burns, it’s a privilege to have you before the committee once again and to have an opportunity to thank you and 

289 

commend you for remarkable service in Russia and, before that, in 

the Middle East—many people are not as well aware of your 

achievements in that sector—in addition. 

I was pleased just to note, over your right shoulder, former Ambassador Jim Collins, who is here today, and it is wonderful to 

have Jim Collins in the audience, likewise, an old comrade in spirit 

regarding Russia. 

Let me just ask—turning, a moment, to a near neighbor of Russia—about recent Georgian actions. Without attempting to characterize the motivation for movement in those two parts of Georgia 

in which Russia continues to play an active role, what do you perceive is the motivation? Is this coercion of Georgia or, really, an attack upon NATO in the discussion of Georgian membership or— 

give us some feel for where that is headed. 

Ambassador BURNS. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar. 

As you know, the United States has made very clear our support 

for Georgia’s territorial integrity and our strong concern about 

some actions, which the Russian Government has recently taken, 

which undermine Georgia’s territorial integrity. Part of the calculation on the part of the Russian Government may have to do with 

its clear opposition to the further enlargement of NATO along its 

own borders. I think, in terms of our response, it’s very important 

for us to do all we can to make common cause with our European 

partners and to stress, in a strong and steady fashion, that ours 

is a collective concern. As one small indication of that, in Moscow 

in the next couple of days we’re going to be approaching the Russian Foreign Ministry again—not separately, but collectively, along 

with the Germans and some of our other key European partners 

in the so-called Friends of Georgia—again, to underscore our concern. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I appreciate that response. I am certain he 

reached out in directions to friends, wherever he can find them, but 

I received an urgent call from President Saakashvili last Thursday, 

in which he was most hopeful that our administration would speak 

out; likewise, individual Members of Congress. Senator Biden and 

I drafted an op-ed piece, which appeared in the Washington Times 

yesterday, trying to affirm the importance of Georgia, and, likewise, the importance of its territorial integrity and its aspirations 

to us. So, I appreciate your statement today, and we look forward 

to the administration’s vigorous pursuit of that idea. 

Let me just ask, for a moment, about the START treaty. We had 

an opportunity to discuss this privately earlier today, but, just for 

the record, is the administration now committed to trying to reach 

agreement with regard to a START treaty verification regime before that expires next year? What are the sticking points? What do 

you foresee, really, to be the course of activity of the United States 

and Russia with regard to the START situation? 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, sir, President Bush reaffirmed, when 

he met with President Putin in Sochi earlier this month, the U.S. 

commitment to a legally binding post-START agreement, and I 

think the administration feels a sense of urgency about this, not 

only because of the importance of a post-START agreement for relations between the United States and Russia and for our bilateral 

interests in strategic stability, but also, I think, because Russia 

290 

and the United States have both unique capabilities and unique responsibilities in the nuclear field, and I think the successful conclusion of a legally binding post-START agreement would send a powerful signal to the rest of the world of our responsible exercise of 

that leadership in managing our own remaining nuclear arsenals. 

And at a moment when the danger of the spread of nuclear weapons is as serious as it’s ever been in human history, I think that 

kind of United States-Russian leadership is very important. 

Senator LUGAR. How vigorous do you perceive our leadership in 

the remainder of this current Presidential term? 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, President Bush was very clear when 

he met with President Putin and President-elect Medvedev in 

Sochi, and also in the Strategic Framework Declaration that was 

released by the two presidents afterward, about our commitment to 

trying to conclude a legally binding post-START agreement. 

As you know, Ambassador Boyden Gray has a new assignment; 

namely, to go out and visit with countries about energy issues— 

Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, a good number of 

other countries in which the need for the flow of oil and natural 

gas to the rest of the world—it’s a portfolio that increases the flow 

from something that is more exclusively Russian to much more 

worldlike, on behalf of our European allies, as well as our own 

country. How can we work with the Russians or others for them 

to understand this, in addition to these countries that Ambassador 

Gray will be visiting? How coordinated is the administration’s point 

of view in taking a look at potential hazards to our European allies, 

quite apart from the need for us to work in developing relations 

with other countries through personal visitation? 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, Senator Lugar, I can think of two or 

three steps which are very important for us to take. 

The first is to recall the set of principles which were agreed at 

the G–8 Summit in St. Petersburg that was hosted by Russia in 

the summer of 2006, principles which emphasized the importance 

of diversity, of diversification of sources, of transit routes, principles which emphasized the importance of sanctity of contracts, as 

well as transparency in the way in which the global energy market 

works. And so, I think it’s very important, at the upcoming G–8 

Summit, in our own diplomatic efforts with our partners in the European Union and directly with Russia, to strengthen adherence to 

those principles. 

Second, I think it is also very important, just as you discussed 

with Ambassador Gray, for the United States to engage in the most 

active diplomatic efforts possible throughout Central Asia, because 

active personal diplomacy, it seems to me, is extremely important 

in the pursuit of those principles from the St. Petersburg G–8 Summit, especially diversification. 

And finally, it is important to engage Russia. It is, today, the 

world’s largest producer of hydrocarbons, of oil and gas. It is, by 

any definition, a major player in the global energy market. There 

are some overlapping interests with regard, for example, to energy 

efficiency, especially as Russia moves to the liberalization of its domestic gas prices; that’s going to become a more important goal for 

Russia itself, and there are things we can learn from each other 

291 

on that. So, engaging the Russians is also an important element of 

any successful strategy. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, this concludes the questions I 

have for Ambassador Burns, so I would either relinquish or carry 

on, as your instruction. 

Senator CASEY. Go ahead and carry on. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me, first of all, introduce a statement for the 

record by Senator Hagel, our colleague. 

Senator CASEY. Without objection. 

[The information previously referred to appears at the end of this 

hearing in the ‘‘Additional Material Submitted for the Record’’ section.] 

Senator LUGAR. Now, let me now turn to questions for Secretary 

Jacobs. 

Many of us have been contacted by constituents specifically regarding adoptions in Vietnam, Guatemala, and Romania. I know 

these issues have come to your attention. But, what can you tell 

us about the situation in these and other countries of concern? And 

how has our formal adoption of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions changed our situation in these or other countries? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

First of all, let me say—in my statement, I talked about how CA 

touches people’s lives. And, I think, on the issue of intercountry 

adoptions, perhaps there’s no issue that is more emotional for everyone involved—for the adoptive parents, certainly. We are looking out for the interests of the adopted child and the biological parents, as well. The State Department has long supported intercountry adoptions as a viable option for children in need of placement in a permanent home. And, as we have done that, we have 

also supported two principles: one of transparency, another is the 

practice of ethical standards and procedures in carrying out the 

adoptions in the adoption process itself. 

Our recent accession to the Hague Convention, on April 1st, we 

think really reaffirms our commitment to those principles. We are 

strong supporters of the Hague’s processes and abilities to introduce more transparency into the system and to really have the protections necessary for all parties involved in the adoption process. 

With regard to the countries that you mentioned, Guatemala is 

a member of the Hague. They actually joined in 2003, but they did 

not pass the implementing legislation necessary to create the infrastructure necessary to do processing until December of last year. 

And so, they are still going through what we went through, quite 

frankly, for a number of years, in setting up the rules and the infrastructure in order to allow adoptions under Hague standards. 

We, as a Hague country now, have to wait until they have their 

infrastructure in place before we can do new adoptions; however, 

there are cases that were in process before December 31, which we 

are working on, and we are working very closely with the Guatemalan Government and others to see how we can do those on a 

case-by-case basis. 

In Vietnam, the situation is a little more troubling. Vietnam is 

not a member of the Hague. It is something that we strongly encourage the Vietnamese Government to do. We and the GovernVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
292 

ment of Vietnam actually stopped adoptions in 2002 because of serious irregularities. We signed a memorandum of agreement with 

them in 2005 that allowed adoptions to begin again, and we saw 

a resurgence. We processed about 800 adoptions out of Vietnam 

last year. However, over the course of time, our embassy in Hanoi 

has discovered a number of troubling practices, suggesting corruption, perhaps baby-buying, baby-selling, things that we really cannot condone. We have raised our concerns with the Vietnamese 

Government. We have told them that we are not going to be able 

to renew the current agreement in its current form because there 

has been little progress on some of the things that we were looking 

for in that agreement: transparency—transparency in the fees that 

are paid is especially important. And so, the Vietnamese Government announced, just today, that, in fact, we are not going to be 

able to renew the memorandum. 

So, our plan is to continue to work with the government to try 

to address some of these concerns, the fraudulent patterns that 

we’ve noticed, and perhaps, once we have been able to work those 

out, to sign another agreement. In the meantime, cases that are already entrained—we will be working on those on a case-by-case 

basis, up until the time that the MOA expires in September. 

We do certainly want to work with the families. We have a 60- 

day standard that we have in place, where we try to answer families with any questions or concerns. And I know that people in the 

Bureau are in frequent contact with the families. If I’m confirmed, 

I commit to you that we will continue that close interaction with 

the families. 

Senator LUGAR. How about Romania? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Romania is another situation where the 

government itself has decided to limit adoptions, and we are in the 

process of talking to them, as well. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me just indicate that I’m certain all committee members are pleased with your report that the wait times 

for passport applications have not only dramatically dropped, and 

you’re back to normal. As you’ve stated, there’s not a perceptible 

backlog. Can you, just for the sake of the record, remind each of 

us of the cost of a U.S. passport, as well as the new passport card 

that can be used for Mexico and Canada? And, likewise, how much 

does it cost to apply for a U.S. visa to enter this country? Are there 

cost problems there that you perceive, with regard to foreign students and/or other entry persons to the United States, that deserve 

your attention or congressional attention? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you, Senator. 

The current cost for a first-time passport applicant is $100; and 

for a renewal, is $75. The passport card—I have a sample of it, actually, here—we’ve talked a lot about this new card that we’re getting ready to start printing in June—will be in full production by 

July. If you are renewing—if you have a passport book, and you are 

getting a card, it’s only $20. If you are simply buying the card 

itself, it’s $45 for adults, $35 for children. 

All of our costs, of course, are based on what it costs us to provide the service. The Bureau of Consular Affairs is fee-based; and 

so, we do carry out periodic cost-of-service studies in order to tell 

us what it is costing us to provide the services that we do. 

293 

We know, on the student visas, that there is a lot of concern 

about trying to keep the price as low as possible in order to encourage foreign students. We are very happy to see that the number of 

foreign students is increasing; in fact, the overall number of foreign-student enrollment in the United States went up by 3 percent 

last year. I mentioned the number of visas that we actually issued. 

We’re very happy about that. 

We are doing a cost-of-service study right now. The current fee 

for, not just students, but for nonimmigrant visas—applicants 

around the world—is $131. We had to raise that in January, primarily because of a new fee that the FBI is charging us in order 

to check the fingerprints that we collect on applicants against the 

FBI database. We are doing this cost-of-service study now. It is 

possible that that fee may change once that study is completed, 

later in the fall. I don’t know how that’s going to come out. But, 

I certainly remember, sir, sitting before you in previous hearings, 

and you raised concerns about that fee, and I can commit to you 

that we will try to keep it to cover just our costs, and try to keep 

it at a reasonable level. 

Senator LUGAR. I think you made an excellent explanation of 

how you arrive at it, and I hope the study can lead to a more favorable result. The fact that there are 3 percent more students, as opposed to the trend the last time we met—and the committee has 

been concerned with this, really, for 5 years, as we saw, really, a 

caving-in of the numbers, and now some resurgence, which is very 

promising. And, of course, the more volatile hearings of the committee on the subject were with regard to the long lists of constituents who were calling all of our offices in a state of emergency, or 

worse. The fact that that has been relieved is further a godsend for 

all of us, and we appreciate work that has accompanied that. 

Let me just ask, How is the status of passport production components going along—specifically, the microchip security issue? And 

why is it that no American companies are capable of manufacturing the chip domestically, as I understand it? Why do we have 

the chips made overseas? And are there security implications involved in that production? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you, sir. 

First of all, I want to assure you and the American public that 

the State Department is committed to providing the most secure 

document possible in compliance with ICAO standards that allows 

international travel. Back when we decided to do our electronic 

passport, in 2003, we did a request for information; and, at that 

time, it was apparent to us that there were not going to be any 

U.S. suppliers who could provide the type of chip that we were 

looking for. And so, we did turn to overseas companies, primarily 

European, to produce both the chip and the antenna that goes into 

the electronic passport. Those components, though, are all sent by 

secure delivery to the GPO here in the United States, and the passport itself is assembled in secure facilities here in the United 

States. The components themselves are commercially available. 

They are used in other documents, such as DHS’s Trusted Travel 

Card and credit and debit cards. And when they are sent to the 

GPO, they are actually locked, so there’s no way to enter information on them or fool around with them in any way. 

294 

And so, once, the chips and the antenna that are put together— 

just really actually glued on a piece of plastic overseas, and it’s 

that piece of plastic that gets sent to the GPO. It is only when we 

receive the books that the personal data is put on the chip, and it’s 

locked down so it cannot be tampered with or changed in any way. 

The GPO, at some point, will be recompeting the contract, and 

if, at that time, there are American suppliers who can provide the 

chip in the quantity that we need, then I’m sure that that will be 

taken under consideration. But, let me just say that, at the time, 

there really were no U.S. suppliers. 

Senator LUGAR. You’ve gone backward and forward on the security situation, convinced yourselves and others that this is okay? In 

other words, we’re not going to come back to the committee with 

people indicating that some devious practice, something is known 

in the United States that we did not want to have known? 

Ambassador JACOBS. No, sir. Our whole process has been looked 

at by NIST and others who have really looked at the process and 

also the security features of the document and the passport card 

themselves, which have been looked at by a number of scientists 

and the forensic document lab at DHS. And we are quite confident 

that it is secure. 

Senator LUGAR. Finally, I’d just note that, really, through your 

data, that the visas are rising in requests from China and from 

India. Not surprising, given the economic activity, students, everybody. Are we prepared to meet this rising demand? This, hopefully, 

will not cause a crisis at the desks, but you’ve sensed the demand. 

And maybe there are other demand situations you also have 

sensed. Can you give us reassurances in that area? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes, sir. Certainly, one of the biggest challenges that Consular Affairs faces right now is this growing demand; and it’s not just on the visa side, but across the board, in 

all the services that we provide. But, you correctly point out that 

in China, India, Brazil, Mexico—really those are the big-four countries for us, where we’re seeing double-digit growth every year 

right now—we are very focused on the problem, the challenge of 

trying to meet that demand. And I can assure you that, if I’m confirmed, that we will do the planning necessary so that we have the 

resources in place to address those challenges. 

Senator LUGAR. May I continue? 

Senator CASEY. Sure. 

Senator LUGAR. All right. 

Let me ask Mr. McMahan—you’ve already addressed the problems of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, as we perceive it. 

And why does this persist, at least in your judgment? Clearly, the 

United States has been offering suggestions. You even suggested 

our lack of participation, if things don’t shape up. What are the 

fundamental causes of this malaise that spreads over this Geneva 

situation? 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

I know we’ve been very disappointed, as you said, in the failure 

of the Council to address gross violations of human rights, and 

we’ve been working closely with our allies to try to improve the 

Council. But, at this point, we feel like we have more leverage from 

the outside, and that actually joining the Council, as some people 

295 

have urged, would actually legitimize it, and the Council has not 

earned that, at this point. I think we’ll continue to work with our 

allies to try to change the Council, to try to make it more effective 

and fair. 

What I think we could also do is work with the Third Committee 

at the United Nations, where we’ve had more success in passing 

country-specific resolutions. Last year, we passed resolutions on 

Belarus, Iran, and North Korea, and Burma. 

So, while we will continue to work to improve the Human Rights 

Council, we’ll also continue to work through the Third Committee 

at the General Assembly to make sure our concerns in the human 

rights area are addressed. 

Senator LUGAR. For the sake of information and the hearing 

record, try to differentiate the Third Committee, as opposed to the 

Human Rights Council, or the relationship between the two, and 

why one might work, apparently, more effectively, and the other, 

Third, is not. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. To the best of my knowledge, the Human Rights 

Council is a separate council, and the membership blocs there can 

prevent—well, so far, effective response on the more egregious 

human rights violations. Working through the Third Committee— 

it’s part of the General Assembly, a broader group of member 

states—we feel like we can form more effective coalitions to address—— 

Senator LUGAR. So, it’s a broader membership. 

Mr. MCMAHAN.—Right. 

Senator LUGAR. You have a larger constituency in the Third 

Committee. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Correct. Yes, sir. 

Senator LUGAR. Please discuss, for just a moment, the current relationship between the Economic and Social Council and the 

Peacebuilding Commission, which seeks to ensure that recently recovering fragile states not lapse into chaos. What bearing does this 

have on our agenda? Of what assistance is it to us, or what assistance can we give to that effort? 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Thank you, Senator. 

If confirmed, this would be an important issue for me, in the 

sense I believe that we need to focus on the fragile and failing 

states. There’s a—quite a bit of discussion on the Millennium Development pact goals to reduce poverty and hunger, to improve 

health and education, to combat diseases. And we think that those 

challenges are particularly acute in those failing states. And to the 

extent that we can build infrastructure, institutions of good governance, sound economic policies, and aid civil society, provide civilian 

expertise, and increase capacity, then we will have better success 

in addressing those fundamental challenges. 

So, I look forward, if confirmed, when I’m up there, to evaluating 

the effectiveness of that organization, and working with you and 

your staff to see if it can meet those goals. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I appreciate the responses of each of the 

witnesses. 

And let me just pay tribute, again, to our distinguished chairman, Senator Casey, for stepping forward to chair the hearing. It’s 

very important that the nominations have a very timely action in 

296 

the committee and the Senate, because each of the roles that you 

play, for the very reasons we’ve been discussing this afternoon, are 

tremendously important to our country and to international organizations. So, thank you very much for stepping forward. I appreciate 

very much my chairman’s indulging these questions, ad seriatim. 

Thank you. 

Senator CASEY. Senator Lugar, I want to thank you. I’ve learned 

a great deal from you in my time—short time in the Senate, and 

I’m—we’re honored to have you here. 

I want to just start, Ambassador Burns, with you, with regard 

to Iran. We hear an awful lot about Iran in the news, as we have 

for many years. I guess, if you’re an American who is not following 

the news closely every day, or not following every development in 

our relationship with a lot of countries, but especially Iran, you 

might miss some things. I guess from your vantage point, as someone who’s had broad experience, not only most recently in Russia, 

but your experience in the Middle East and your experience in diplomacy, generally, what do you think is our central challenge 

when it comes to Iran? If you can please do two things. One is, 

identify the threat, as best you can articulate it, and then, the challenge that that threat presents to us. 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think, first, it’s important to understand that the challenge that 

Iran poses is a challenge to the international community, and that 

the problem that we face today with regard to Iran is not just 

about the United States and Iran. I think we, like other members 

of the international community, have serious concerns about Iranian behavior, the behavior of this Iranian regime across a wide 

range of issues, whether it’s the support for extremist militias in 

Iraq or whether it’s Iran’s continuing efforts to develop a nuclear 

weapons program. I would say those are the—are among the principal challenges we face today. 

I think it’s very important, as we’ve been trying to do, to make 

common cause with others, with other countries who share those 

concerns and trying to deal with Iranian behavior. We have dealt 

directly with the Iranians in the past over Afghanistan, we deal directly with Iran today with regard to our concerns over Iraq, and 

we may have another meeting in the coming weeks which will be 

an opportunity for us to emphasize the seriousness of our concerns 

about support for extremist militias. Because it seems to me, in 

Iraq, that the issue is not whether or not Iran has interests; Iraq 

is a big neighbor which has a complicated history with Iran. The 

issue is how it pursues those interests and whether or not it’s pursuing those interests in a way which destabilizes Iraq or contributes to stability in Iraq. 

With regard to the nuclear issue, we’ve worked hard in recent 

years with the other Permanent Members of the U.N. Security 

Council, as well as Germany, to try and sharpen, for Iran, international concern about its nuclear weapons program, about the— 

of its nuclear program, the importance of Iran meeting its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to the 

U.N. Security Council, where Iran is still in defiance of three U.N. 

Security Council resolutions, as well as the IAEA. And I think we 

need to continue to pursue that kind of strong, steady, diplomatic 

297 

approach with regard to Iran, because the nuclear issue, I think, 

remains one of the most serious challenges that we face anyplace 

in the world today. 

Senator CASEY. And when you look at the—upon your confirmation, when you look at the next 9 months, the remainder of this administration, what do you see as the game plan? What do you see 

as the strategy for the administration over the next 9 months? Because I think there are those who would say—in fact, I think your 

predecessor said that the Iranian problem will remain for the next 

administration, at least with regard to—if not beyond—the nuclear 

threat. But, what do you—how do you see the next 9 months playing out, in terms of—if you were able to choreograph, as none of 

us can—but, if you were able to choreograph the positive set of developments for the next 9 months, how would you see that? 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think, as I said, our 

aim is to try and find a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear 

challenge. And what we’ve tried to do with our partners in that effort is to sharpen the choice for the Iranian regime, to make clear 

what’s possible if Iran meets its obligations to the U.N. Security 

Council, to the IAEA, if it agrees to suspend enrichment and reprocessing activity. What’s possible is a suspension of the existing 

U.N. Security Council sanctions, as well as a direct engagement 

at—even at the ministerial level, with the United States and our 

other partners to talk about a range of issues. But, at the same 

time, it’s important, as we did in the most recent Security Council 

resolution, to reinforce the point that there are consequences for 

noncompliance, as well, with the requirements of the international 

community. 

I think the sanctions which have been implemented so far have 

begun to have some impact on the Iranians; there are 35 or 40 

major banks which don’t do business with the Iranian Government 

anymore, it has become a little bit more difficult for the Iranians 

to finance projects, there’s greater scrutiny of materials and cargo 

that passes toward Iran, and of individuals who have been connected with a nuclear program before. And so, we need to reinforce 

that track of our efforts, as well. 

But, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, I have no illusions. I mean, 

this is a very complicated problem, but it’s one which is going to 

require a really determined diplomatic effort. 

Senator CASEY. And I would argue that there needs to be a strategy to this. We know we have to deter their ambitions, we know 

that the effects—the positive effects, from our vantage point, that 

financial sanctions can have. I think what a lot of Americans are 

confused by, or sometimes misled by, often because of what some 

public officials say, but also because of the way these issues are 

covered—they see Mr. Ahmadinejad make incendiary statements, 

but they also, at times, have seen our government say some things 

that sometimes aren’t consistent with what the diplomatic strategy 

should be—and often, it is. I don’t think it helped when the President used the phrase ‘‘World War III,’’ although I would agree with 

a lot of the strategies that have been employed with regard to sanctions, with regard to developing an international—or a response by 

the international community to the threat. So, I think language is 

important. 

298 

But, how do you see—when our Government talks about leaving 

options on the table, how do you see that playing out in the next 

9 months? I think there’s a sense that this administration might 

skip over or not fully discharge every option on the table before it 

gets to a military option. How do you view that? And how do you 

view that threat from our Government? Do you view it as credible, 

or do you view it as something that’s been dissipated by recent 

events? 

Ambassador BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I think the President and 

Secretary Rice have been very clear about our determination to 

pursue a diplomatic approach, as complicated as that is. And that 

remains our policy. It’s prudent not to take options off the table, 

but our focus right now is very much on the diplomatic effort on 

which we’ve been engaged for some years now. It’s often frustrating, but I think it’s very important to pursue that with all the 

vigor that we can. 

Senator CASEY. How do you see—in your recent experience in 

Russia—the significant role that Russia is playing in a lot of our 

foreign policy challenges, not the least of which is the challenge 

posed by Iran, and we know that Russia recently initiated fuel 

shipments to the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. How do you 

see the impact of that kind of relationship, generally; but, in particular, that particular economic relationship with the shipment of 

fuel? 

Ambassador BURNS. Mr. Chairman, the Bushehr Project and the 

recent shipment, I think, actually can provide an opportunity to 

drive home to the Iranians that the nuclear issue is not about their 

right to pursue civilian nuclear power, and that if the Iranians are 

simply interested in having a civilian nuclear plant, they have no 

need to enrich fuel on their own or to master the fuel cycle on their 

own, because the Russians, through the Bushehr Project, are providing fuel for the plant, and then have very carefully arranged for 

the spent fuel to be returned to Russia, which strikes us as being 

a sensible approach, not just in Iran, but, more widely, with regard 

to the challenge of making civilian nuclear power available to developing countries and to countries around the world, but to do it 

in a way which guards against the dangers of weapons proliferation. So, I think Bushehr, about which, in years past, we have had 

quite legitimate concerns, has evolved into a project which can be 

an opportunity to sharpen the reality that, if the Iranians are only 

interested in developing civilian nuclear power, they don’t have a 

need to enrich fuel at this stage, because Bushehr doesn’t require 

them to do that. 

Senator CASEY. So, you see it as more helpful than harmful. 

Ambassador BURNS. I think it can be. Yes, sir. 

Senator CASEY. I wanted to ask you—and I know we want to 

move to our other witnesses, as well, but I wanted to ask you also 

about Russia, your most recent assignment. 

We’ve seen a lot of changes. Most recently, President Putin has 

presided over a lot of developments. Just by way of a quick summary: cracking down on civil society groups and democratic reformers—in a sense, creating almost a de facto one-party state, employing energy resources to intimidate and coerce neighbors into engaging in bellicose rhetoric against proposed U.S. missile defense deVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
299 

ployments; and finally, suspending compliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, something that I raised months 

ago. What’s your sense of the—of our relationship, in the context 

of those developments? And also—just broadly, in terms of the past 

or history—recent past—and also in the context of a new President, 

Mr. Medvedev, who we’re learning a little bit about, but we don’t 

yet know, (a) what kind of leadership style he’ll bring, and (b) 

whether or not he’ll be unduly influenced by Mr. Putin. 

Ambassador BURNS. Mr. Chairman, we have a big, complicated 

relationship with Russia which combines elements of cooperation in 

some very important areas with elements of competition and conflict. And I think those are going to be the contours of our relationship for some time to come. You rightly listed a number of areas 

where we’ve had real differences with the Russian Government, 

whether it’s as a result of the overcentralization of power at home 

in Russia, differences over missile defense, differences of NATO’s 

enlargement, but, at the same time, I think, when you look at nuclear cooperation, what we can do together to set a good example 

for the rest of the world to work against the proliferation of nuclear 

weapons, when you look at our increasing economic ties, when you 

look at ways in which we can work well together in resolving some 

regional conflicts around the world, I think you also see those parts 

of the relationship in which we really do need to invest. It’s not a 

relationship that we have the luxury of ignoring, because Russia is 

not only, as I said before, the world’s largest producer of hydrocarbons today, it’s the only nuclear power in the world comparable 

to the United States, it’s a Permanent Member of the U.N. Security 

Council, it’s a huge country which connects Europe to Asia and sits 

astride the broader Middle East. So, by any of those calculations, 

it’s a relationship that requires our careful attention, to be 

plainspoken where we have differences, but, at the same time, to 

try to expand areas of common ground. 

In Mr. Medvedev’s presidency, I think a lot of the focus for Russia itself is going to be on addressing the opportunities it has before it. You know, you’ve had very rapid economic growth—7-percent annual growth over the course of the last 8 or 9 years—enormous economic potential. But, the question now, I think, for Russia 

is, So, what are you going to do with that moment of opportunity? 

And I think there are areas in our relationship where we can help 

reinforce the potential for Russia to take advantage of those opportunities in a way which integrates it into the global economy and 

into the global system and makes it a more responsible international player. That’s going to take time, but I think it’s worth 

working on, on our part. 

Senator CASEY. How do you see—if you can comment on this— 

that relationship between those two individuals? Are we likely to 

see, in the near future, a declaration of independence by the new 

President, or do you think it’s going to be a more intertwined or 

dependent relationship? 

Ambassador BURNS. Mr. Chairman, it’s—if there’s one thing I’ve 

learned over the years about Russia, it’s to be humble in making 

predictions. So, it’s—Russia doesn’t have a great deal of experience 

with dual-leadership kind of arrangements. Assuming that President Putin becomes the next Russian Prime Minister—from everyVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
300 

thing I can see, the personal relationship between President Putin 

and President-elect Medvedev is a strong one. But, this is going to 

be a challenging period for Russia, and a lot rides on it, in terms 

of how Russia addresses some of those challenges that I described 

before, in its own self-interest. So, it’s going to be fascinating to 

watch. 

Senator CASEY. I’ll jump ahead, and then I want to have Senator 

Lugar continue. 

Ambassador Jacobs, I wanted to ask you about two passport matters, both of which you’ve heard a good bit about. One, in the instance where we had a breakdown, where people weren’t getting 

their passports in a timely fashion, and the other involving a much 

smaller group—in this case, three Americans who just happened to 

be running for President. I wanted you to comment on both—(a) 

why you think there was such a breakdown in both instances, and 

(b) what’s being done about it now—if you can update us on both. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With regard to your first question about the passport surge of 

last year, we had predicted a certain number of passports—we had 

commissioned a study that told us that there would be around 16 

million people applying for passports—when, in fact, in the end, we 

wound up issuing about 181⁄2 million. What we did not expect was 

the very rapid response to the new information about Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative deadlines. As a result of that, starting last December and then for about a 3-month period, we had 

around 5 million applications that came in. And as you can expect 

with that kind of demand, we found ourselves with long backlogs. 

Our normal processing time is around 4 weeks. We went all the 

way up to 12 weeks. 

The Department, through a number of resources, went into action to address the situation. We used people in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. We also used other people in the Department who, 

thankfully, helped us out. We used our officers overseas to help us 

adjudicate renewal applications at our overseas posts, and set up 

task forces and use volunteers. We managed to get back to our normal processing times by Labor Day last fall, which we’re very 

happy about. 

I’m very happy to tell you that the situation today is very different. We, in fact, are implementing a long-term strategy to provide the staffing levels and infrastructure that we need to handle 

what we consider to be a permanent rise in passport demand. In 

fact, we will probably do anywhere between 19 and 21 million passports this year. We could do as many as 30 million next year, and 

as high as 36 million in 2010. 

We have hired hundreds of new passport specialists to help us 

adjudicate applications. We are expanding some of our current facilities. We are building new printing facilities that will be able to 

handle up to 10 million passport books and cards a year. And I am 

clearly confident that we are going to be able to handle the demand 

that I just described to you. 

If I’m confirmed, I commit to you that I will stay on top of this. 

We, in fact, have put together a so-called ‘‘battle plan’’ with trip 

wires; whereby, as soon as certain numbers are reached, we have 

a ready reserve force trained and ready to come in and help us out. 

301 

Again, we can use our overseas posts to help us with renewals of 

passport applications. And so, I believe we are going to avoid a repeat of what happened before, and I think that we will be able to 

provide the American public the service that they deserve. 

On the issue of the passport breaches, the unauthorized access 

of the three remaining Presidential candidates, I can tell you that 

as soon as senior management was informed about these breaches, 

we launched into action. I went to the Under Secretary for Management, Pat Kennedy; we talked about it; we informed the candidates about the situation; we asked the inspector general to conduct a full investigation of what happened, and that investigation 

is ongoing. And we formed a working group, made up of senior people and other people from around the Department, to look at our 

current procedures and processes, to make sure that we have adequate safeguards in place. 

We know that we have the American public’s trust to guard the 

information that is given us in connection with passports, and we 

certainly want to adhere to that and to meet that expectation. 

We will be putting new procedures in place. We will wait for the 

inspection or the investigation results to come out to know exactly, 

perhaps, the extent of the problem, but we are ready to move 

against people who have made these unauthorized accesses into 

files, and we will be taking necessary steps. Our ultimate goal is 

to provide every passport file with equal protections. 

Senator CASEY. And when you say that—I’m paraphrasing—that 

‘‘actions will be taken,’’ or—can you identify any changes, any systemic changes that have already been implemented? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes, sir. We have started doing random 

checks, audits of people who are working on passport files. We have 

a warning that goes on the screen as soon as you log into the system. We have reinforced that warning, made it very clear about the 

penalties involved with looking at files without a reason to do so, 

and we are looking now at our systems itself to see how we might 

be able to provide more tiered access to passport files. 

Senator CASEY. Do you think there were—in terms of the number of files that were accessed—do you know the numbers? 

Ambassador JACOBS. What we have in place, sir, is a flag system; 

and for people who are on the flag list, as soon as anyone accesses 

that file, there’s an e-mail notification that goes to an office where 

this is monitored. And so, we know about all of those, and we have 

followed up on those. The inspector general is actually looking at 

a random list of passport files, and we’ll have a better idea about 

the number of people who have looked at files after that study is 

completed. 

Senator CASEY. Well, we’ll see what—once that is completed. Do 

you have any sense of the timing or duration of that investigation? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I expect the results will be coming out in 

the next few weeks. 

Senator CASEY. I want to let Senator Lugar continue, and I’ll 

jump back in. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. McMahan, I wanted to ask you a few questions and focus principally upon something that I had a strong interest in that I was greatly disappointed about. It was the applicaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
302 

tion of the Jewish National Fund of the United States for general 

consultative status with the—or, I should say, at the U.N. Economic and Social Council. And I know the vote was 8 to 7; and, for 

the life of me, I can’t understand why that wouldn’t have passed. 

And if you can shed some light on why it—why that wasn’t able— 

why they weren’t able to be given that consultative status, and (b) 

whether or not you think that could change in the near future if 

we had another vote. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

I wasn’t there, so I can’t speak to the intricacies of that particular vote, but I did see the concern expressed by your office on 

that issue. As you know, it’s important to grant consultive status, 

and we certainly seek to find those organizations that are sympathetic to our democratic values to be granted consultive status. 

There are over 3,000 organizations that currently have that status, 

and it’s important to nongovernmental organizations, because, not 

only can they attend meetings of the United Nations, its various 

bodies, but they can testify as a witness. 

So, I think that—if confirmed, and once I’m working in New 

York, I will seek to grant NGO status to those organizations that 

are sympathetic to our democratic values, and I think we have to 

work hard to make sure that those organizations that are providing 

needed services, like humanitarian services, are not denied 

consultive status for political or, in this case, anti—possible antiIsraeli reasons. 

Senator CASEY. And what’s your game plan with regard to that? 

How do you use your influence? And, by extension, how do you see 

the influence of the United States Government to make sure that 

this kind of discrimination doesn’t persist? 

Mr. MCMAHAN. I think it’s important to work with your allies 

where you find them, to make sure that organizations that are applying for this important consultive status are not denied for reasons that really have nothing to do with the core function of the 

organization. And that’s something that I’d like to work with your 

office on and make a priority when and if I get to New 

York.Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

And I wanted to go back to Ambassador Burns, on Iran, for a second. We’ve had a good deal of discussion in the last 6 months or 

more about the recent NIE that some people here in Washington, 

in both parties, interpreted as, ‘‘Everything’s okay, don’t worry.’’ I 

didn’t interpret it that way, against—I think, sometimes in conflict 

with my own party. But, what’s your sense, if you can tell us—and 

I know you’re transferring to a different area of responsibility—but, 

what’s your sense right of the current situation as it pertains to the 

NIE saying that Iran may not have had in place the mechanics to 

develop a nuclear weapon, but there were, in fact, some elements 

of it? The uranium enrichment, for example. Where do you see that 

right now? What’s your sense of where Iran is? 

We’ve had recent information, where President Ahmadinejad announced his intention, at least, to add 6,000 new centrifuges to the 

already existing 3,000 at the one facility, in Natanz. But, what’s 

your sense of that, in the context of this debate about what—what 

was the meaning and what was the value or the content of the NIE 

conclusions? 

303 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think, as you pointed out, the NIE really addressed only one 

of the, sort of, three essential ingredients in the pursuit of a weapons program, and that is the issue of weaponization itself. But, 

what it did not address are two areas which are at least as important, and that has to do with the production of the fuel that you 

need for a weapons program and the development of advanced missile systems or means or delivery. In both of those areas, it’s clear 

that the Iranians are working as hard as they can to move as fast 

as they can. 

Now, it is also true, historically, that oftentimes the Iranian leadership will exaggerate—seems to exaggerate the pace at which it’s 

moving in some of those areas. But, I think the trend line is clearly 

a very troubling one, not only, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, for 

the United States, but for the international community, because 

the reality remains that Iran has not met its obligations to the 

International Atomic Energy Agency, to the U.N. Security Council. 

And so, it seems to me that the totality of Iran’s nuclear efforts remains a source of very serious concern for us, notwithstanding the 

NIE, or at least some people’s interpretation of it. 

Senator CASEY. Senator Lugar. Nothing more? 

Senator LUGAR. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Let me just— 

Well, with that, I wanted to, first of all, commend and thank our 

nominees for, not only your presence here today and your—the 

questions that you answered, but, in a broader sense, your willingness to serve the United States Government and the American people. 

And I know that, for committee members who weren’t here, the 

record will be open for 2 days to submit additional questions for the 

record, and I’d ask each nominee to respond in a prompt manner 

to those questions. 

But, if there’s no further business to come before the committee, 

we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHUCK HAGEL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today’s nomination hearing of the Senate 

Foreign Relations committee. One of the nominees, Ambassador William J. Burns, 

is the President’s choice to be the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs at 

the Department of State—one of the most important positions in our country’s diplomatic service. The Under Secretary for Political Affairs is the most senior Foreign 

Service post in the U.S. Government and carries with it immense responsibility, requiring an experienced and steady hand. 

Ambassador Burns is one of America’s most able diplomats and I am proud to 

strongly support his nomination to this position. 

Today, the world faces one of the most dangerous and transformational times in 

our history. The world faces defining challenges . . . great instability in the Middle 

East, genocide in Africa, tensions with Russia and China, a resurgence of turmoil 

in the Balkans, growing unrest and transnational threats in Latin America, a global 

food crisis, and mounting anti-Americanism throughout the world. 

Bill Burns has dedicated his career to public service, and he has done so with excellence and honor, earning widespread respect both here and around the world. I 

have had the opportunity of working with Bill for many years. He brings a strong 

304 

record of diplomatic experience to this important position, having served as the U.S. 

Ambassador to Russia, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Ambassador to Jordan, and . . . as acting Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs 

. . . the position for which he is being considered today. 

In the challenging times that we face, there are also historic opportunities for the 

United States across the world . . . opportunities that will extend well beyond 2008. 

A principle task for the administration must be to make every effort to set the stage 

for the next administration to address the pressing challenges of the 21st century. 

I believe that Ambassador Burns will meet this responsibility. I am proud to support the nomination of Ambassador William Burns to be Under Secretary of State 

for Political Affairs. 

I want to thank Bill’s family—his wife, Lisa, and his two daughters, Elizabeth 

and Sarah—whose support, as we all know, is essential to succeeding in a demanding job such as this. 

The outgoing Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nick Burns, deserves 

the committee’s recognition and appreciation for his lifetime of diplomatic service. 

Nick served this country well as Under Secretary over the last 3 years. I wish him 

much continued success in his future endeavors. 

The committee looks forward to hearing the testimony of Ambassador Burns, as 

well as that of the other nominees, Janice Jacobs to be Assistant Secretary of State 

for Consular Affairs and Vance McMahan to be the U.S. Representative on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. I believe that both these nominees 

are qualified and deserve speedy consideration by the committee. I wish all three 

of these professionals continued success and look forward to working with them at 

this critical time in our history. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. BURNS, NOMINEE TO BE

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as President Bush’s nominee to become Under Secretary of State for Political 

Affairs. I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Rice for their confidence in 

me, and in our diplomatic service, in which I am proud to have served for the last 

26 years. If confirmed, I will do my best to live up to their trust, and to work closely 

with all of you on this committee, as I have throughout my career. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing deep 

appreciation to my family—my wife, Lisa, and daughter, Sarah, who are still in 

Moscow, and my daughter, Lizzy, now in the midst of her exams at Duke University. As in so many Foreign Service families around the world, their love and sacrifice are a very large part of why I am here today. I can never repay them adequately. 

This is the fourth time, Mr. Chairman, that I have appeared before this committee for confirmation. I approach this new challenge with considerable humility; 

with great respect for Nick Burns, Marc Grossman, Tom Pickering, and all those 

who have come before me; with an abiding commitment to public service; with faith 

in the power of clear-eyed diplomacy in the pursuit of American interests and 

human freedoms; and with few illusions about the complicated world around us. 

It is a world with no shortage of troubles, but also plenty of opportunities for creative and determined American leadership. It is a world which faces the spreading 

dangers of weapons of mass destruction; new and more malignant forms of terrorism; unresolved regional and sectarian conflicts; failed and failing states; global 

economic dislocation; and transnational health, energy, illegal narcotics, and environmental concerns. It is a world in which American vision and leadership are essential in crafting relations with emergent and resurgent Great Powers, and deepening their stake in global institutions and a stable international system. 

It is a world in which other people and other societies will always have their own 

realities, not always hospitable to ours. That doesn’t mean we have to accept those 

perspectives or agree with them or indulge them, but it does mean that understanding them is the starting point for sensible policy. It is a world in which a little 

modesty in the pursuit of American interests is often a good thing, and in which 

there’s still no substitute for setting careful priorities, and connecting means to 

ends. 

But it is also a world in which the power of our example and our generosity of 

spirit can open the door to profound advances, as President Bush has shown in his 

historic initiative against HIV–AIDS in Africa. It is a world in which our leadership 

should serve as a catalyst for making common cause with others. Nowhere is that 

305 

more true today than in the broader Middle East, where it is hugely important to 

build on the Annapolis Conference and realize the promise of a two-state solution 

to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and where we must strengthen regional and international support for a better future for Afghanistan and Iraq. 

It is a world, as Secretary Rice has said, in which America has no permanent enemies, and in which tough-minded engagement of our adversaries, such as North 

Korea and Iran, is a mark of strength and confidence, not weakness. And it is a 

world, as Secretary Gates has argued, in which the many instruments of American 

‘‘soft power’’ ought to be expanded alongside the tools of hard power. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward, if confirmed, to assisting Secretary Rice and Deputy Secretary Negroponte in coordinating our diplomacy across the major regions of 

the globe, and towards the alliances and international organizations which are so 

important to U.S. national security. I will draw, as best I can, on my experience 

in Russia and the Middle East, two regions of the world which are rarely dull but 

always central to American interests. I will work hard with my friends and colleagues in other agencies to promote an effective policy process. And I will also 

wholeheartedly support Secretary Rice’s efforts, building on the work of Colin Powell, to transform and strengthen America’s diplomatic capabilities for the new century before us. Taking care of our people—of the members of the Foreign and Civil 

Services and the Foreign Service Nationals who serve our country with such dedication and courage in so many hard places around the world—is not only the right 

thing to do, but also a powerful contribution to America’s best interests. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration. I know the period ahead 

is an important one, with a political transition looming in our country, in a world 

which doesn’t stop for our political processes. I’ll do all I can, if confirmed, to work 

with all of you to help meet the formidable challenges before us. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANICE L. JACOBS, NOMINEE TO BE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSULAR AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Foreign Relations Committee, it is a distinct 

honor to appear before you today. I would like to express my sincere appreciation 

to President Bush for nominating me to be Assistant Secretary of State for Consular 

Affairs. I am grateful to the President and Secretary Rice for the confidence and 

trust they have placed in me in selecting me for this position. I would also like to 

introduce and give special thanks to my husband, Ken Friedman, who is here with 

me today. 

As a career consular officer for 28 years, I have had the privilege of serving the 

United States in places as varied as Mexico, France, and Nigeria, with people I have 

come to know as the world’s finest consular corps. 

Consular work is fundamentally about service—to our mission, to our citizens, 

and to the security of our Nation. If confirmed, I will consider it my great privilege 

to lead the Bureau of Consular Affairs in meeting our current and future challenges 

and provide the highest quality services to our citizens. 

In the course of my career, I have gained a perspective on the challenges our 

country faces. As Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services and Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, I worked on the full range of consular 

issues and have seen how the Bureau of Consular Affairs has prepared for and responded to those issues. 

As Deputy Chief of Mission in Santo Domingo and as Ambassador to Senegal and 

Guinea-Bissau, I know the outstanding work that all consular personnel overseas— 

officers, locally engaged employees, eligible family members—do to protect American 

citizens and America’s borders. 

I was there in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, when we instituted new practices and implemented new legislation to improve visa security. I was 

there when we implemented procedures to address the post-9/11 decline in visa applications—measures that led to record-high student and exchange visitor visa 

issuances last year. I was there when the Departments of State and Homeland Security launched the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to implement Congressional legislation requiring Americans to present passports when crossing our borders. I was there as we drafted regulations to increase protections for children and 

implement the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions. 

KEY CONSULAR CHALLENGES

The mission of the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) is to protect the lives and interests of American citizens abroad and to strengthen the security of U.S. borders 

through the vigilant adjudication of visas and passports. CA is keenly aware of its 

306 

direct and tangible role in the overarching mission of the Department of State to 

‘‘create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.’’ 

CA faces compelling challenges across the range of our activities and continues 

to rely on a tradition of innovation and a dedication to excellence to meet these challenges. 

Providing American Citizens With Secure, Reliable Passports 

CA is charged with adjudicating applications for one of the most valuable travel 

documents in the world: the U.S. passport. We are responsible for issuing passports 

in a manner that ensures that the application process is accessible to all Americans, 

and that only those entitled to the privileges and benefits of U.S. citizenship receive 

one. 

Integrity of the process and the product is an essential ingredient of this responsibility. Americans who apply for passports need to know that the information they 

provide in a passport application will be appropriately safeguarded. They need to 

know that the document is secure, and that they will receive their passports in a 

timely manner. The American public entrusts the Bureau of Consular Affairs with 

millions of personal records. As a service organization, CA is determined to ensure 

that trust is well-placed. 

Over the past several months we have learned of cases in which passport records 

of current presidential candidates were accessed for other than official business. 

While the Department has no indication that the incidents were motivated by other 

than imprudent curiosity, no one is more aware than I of the impact that such actions have on the public trust placed in us. 

We took immediate action from the moment these incidents were reported. As 

soon as I was notified, in my role as Acting Assistant Secretary, of the incidents 

of improper access on March 20, 2008, I conferred with the Under Secretary for 

Management. We then informed the Presidential candidates and their staffs of the 

incidents and our response. We asked the Office of the Inspector General to begin 

an investigation of the incidents; that investigation is ongoing. I also sent a notice 

to all consular employees and other agency partners to remind them of their legal 

obligation to safeguard the privacy of passport applications and passport holders. 

The Department of State’s passport database tracking system includes an invisible flag on individual passport records of high-profile individuals. When such 

records are accessed, an alert is automatically sent to two headquarters managers. 

Based on the alert, a manager contacts the individual who accessed the record for 

an explanation, and informs the supervisor and other senior managers for appropriate action. 

Three individuals have been terminated, to date, for improperly accessing passport application records. While our safeguards for detecting improper access to passport records worked as intended, the experience demonstrated that there were areas 

where we could improve. 

On March 24, we formed a working group with representatives of all key bureaus 

to conduct a comprehensive review of internal management and controls procedures 

for passport processing and develop initiatives to strengthen the security of the 

passport process. Our goal is a more secure system that will provide equal and effective safeguards to all passport applicants’ records, and in which all Americans can 

have confidence that their data will be appropriately safeguarded. 

If confirmed, I am determined that we will reach that goal, and continue to be 

responsible stewards of the information with which we are entrusted. 

Meeting Passport Demand 

Preserving the integrity of the passport process is essential given that we are adjudicating more passport applications than ever before. In fiscal year 2007, the Department issued 18.4 million passports—a 52 percent increase over fiscal year 2006 

and an 80 percent increase over fiscal year 2005. Thus far in fiscal year 2008, there 

is a 7 percent increase in passport demand over the same time period in fiscal year 

2007. 

Last year’s record-setting growth in demand for passports resulted in unusually 

long delays in passport application processing. In response, and with the committee’s support, CA expanded hours at all agencies; stood up domestic task forces; deployed consular officers, Presidential Management Fellows, retirees, and other personnel from throughout the Department to domestic passport agencies; piloted electronic adjudication of renewal cases at overseas posts; and hired over 400 additional 

personnel. This concerted effort succeeded, and the Department returned to an average of 4 to 6 weeks’ turnaround for passport applications by September 30. 

307 

CA has made tremendous progress since last spring and summer. Our efforts to 

staff, expand, and equip the domestic passport agencies and centers are paying off 

in much improved service to our customers this year. Today, I am pleased to report 

that there is no backlog of passport applications. Current processing times are well 

within our established customer service standards of 4 weeks for routine applications and 2 weeks for expedited applications. 

Implementation of WHTI has created a permanent increase in passport demand, 

and the Department believes it will continue to grow. Approximately 88 million 

Americans—about 28 percent of all citizens—currently have passports. CA’s initial 

workload projections for fiscal year 2008 indicated demand for U.S. passports could 

reach as high as 26–29 million in 2008, 30 million in fiscal year 2009, 36 million 

in fiscal year 2010. Although the Department continues to prepare for that possibility, current workload indicates that fiscal year 2008 demand may be more in the 

range of 20–21 million passports. The Department attributes this decline to Congressional action mandating implementation of the final phase of the land and sea 

rule of WHTI no earlier than June 1, 2009. This legislation passed subsequent to 

the most recent demand study. The Department fully expects demand to increase 

as the June 1, 2009 implementation date approaches. 

The Department is implementing a long-term strategy to provide the staffing levels and infrastructure necessary to meet the increased passport demand. CA has 

hired hundreds of additional passport adjudicators and support staff and continues 

to recruit aggressively. CA has established a reserve corps of passport adjudicators 

to supplement its full-time Passport Services staff, providing the ability to react 

quickly to demand surges. We have also developed the capability to adjudicate passport applications remotely at select consulates overseas, leveraging the expertise of 

our consular officers abroad. 

To increase production capacity, in March 2007 the Department opened a megaprocessing center in Hot Springs, AR (APC). The APC differs from our other passport centers in that it focuses solely on printing and mailing passports and has the 

capacity to produce 10 million travel documents per year. The centralization of passport printing and mailing frees up space and personnel at our existing passport 

agencies to focus on the critical areas of customer service, fraud detection and prevention, and adjudication, thus processing more passport applications. Using APC 

as a model, the Department will open a second printing and mailing facility in Tucson in May. This facility, like the one in Arkansas, will have the capacity to produce 

over 10 million travel documents per year. 

In addition to its 18 passport facilities, the Department will open three new passport agencies in Detroit, Dallas, and Minneapolis to serve border communities by 

providing personal, direct passport services to customers with immediate travel 

needs. These agencies will have the capability to issue passport books and cards on 

site to qualifying applicants. The Department is also expanding existing agencies in 

Seattle, Chicago, Houston, Miami, and New Orleans, and doubling the size and 

processing capacity of the National Passport Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 

Production of U.S. passports is secure. The U.S e-Passport is assembled by the 

Government Printing Office (GPO) at its secure facilities in the United States with 

components and an inlay manufactured in Asia, as well as European manufactured 

electronic components. GPO receives blank, locked chips connected to a commercially available antenna via secure delivery from an overseas supplier. The use of 

foreign-source chips does not pose significant security issues since the chips themselves are commercially available, and are used for other government and commercial purposes such as trusted traveler and first responder cards issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as credit and debit cards. 

In response to the expressed desire for a more portable and less expensive document than the traditional passport book on the part of American citizens who live 

in border communities, the Department will begin issuing a wallet-sized passport 

card in June, with full production beginning in July. The passport card will facilitate entry and expedite document processing at United States land and sea portsof-entry when arriving from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean region, and Bermuda. 

The card may not be used to travel by air. It will otherwise carry the rights and 

privileges of the U.S. passport book and will be adjudicated to the exact same standards. The passport card is designed for the specific needs of border resident communities and is not a globally interoperable travel document as is the traditional passport book. 

Taken together, the enhancements the Department proposes in the production 

and distribution of U.S. passports will represent the most significant advancement 

in passport delivery in U.S. history. These combined efforts will ensure the delivery 

308 

to the American public of one of the most secure and valuable documents on the 

planet. 

Visa Issues 

In discharging our visa responsibilities, consular officers sit literally on the front 

lines of the global war on terror, contributing to national security. They strengthen 

our borders by detecting and deterring the entry of those who seek to break our 

laws. They strengthen our society by helping reunite American families through 

legal immigration. 

The events of September 11, 2001 redefined our approach to visa work. In the 

aftermath of that terrible day, our challenge was to move swiftly and decisively to 

implement several significant changes to visa processing practices—some mandated 

by law, others by regulation or other agency direction—more or less simultaneously. 

We have worked hard to increase visa security measures, completely changing the 

business model for processing visas and vastly improving our communication with 

other agencies. 

Our latest list of security enhancements to the visa process runs to more than 10 

pages. Many of these changes reflect innovative uses of technology to detect and prevent fraud in visa applications. We are also working closely with our colleagues in 

the Department’s Diplomatic Security Service to ensure vigorous criminal prosecution of visa and passport fraud. Our close coordination and exchange of information 

with the Department of Homeland Security is also a vital part of our shared bordersecurity mission. 

Security is and always will be our top priority in visa operations. At the same 

time, however, we have never forgotten that welcoming legitimate international visitors is an equally important element of national security. We firmly believe that the 

goals of security and openness are not contradictory, and we are determined to meet 

both. Our approach is guided by the January 2006 Joint Vision of Secretaries Rice 

and Chertoff for Secure Borders and Open Doors in the Information Age. 

The drop in visa demand experienced immediately after 9/11 has been reversed, 

and our metrics are up across the board. For example, in fiscal year 2007 overall 

nonimmigrant visa demand climbed 10 percent to 8.5 million. We issued 650,000 

student and scholar visas, surpassing pre-9/11 figures for the first time. This is due 

to the changes we have implemented, changed global economic conditions, but also 

to the relentless outreach we have conducted with industry, academic groups, and 

foreign audiences around the world to deliver the message that America’s welcome 

mat is out for legitimate foreign travelers. 

Our challenge now is to continue to improve service and security while meeting 

demand that is rising worldwide, and particularly in key countries such as India, 

Brazil, and China. We have developed a 2-year plan that integrates technology with 

innovative process changes. 

We have implemented a number of enhancements as part of this plan. All nonimmigrant visa applicants use an electronic visa application form. We have implemented electronic interagency clearance of security advisory opinions. All visaissuing posts collect 10 fingerprints, the biometric standard selected by the U.S. 

Government to ensure consistent screening of foreign nationals entering the United 

States. We established a worldwide goal of 30 days for an NIV appointment (exclusive of respective programs already in place to expedite student and business applications), and are meeting this goal at over 80 percent of our posts. 

The next phase will be the rollout of a completely online visa application process—which will consolidate existing forms and permit applicants to submit data directly before visiting a consular section. We are currently piloting this process at 

our posts in Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey, Mexico, and hope to pilot it in a nonMexico post this summer. We hope that this process will be available for posts 

worldwide to use later this year. 

The online application system can be used in tandem with an offsite data collection (ODC) process, where data entry, photo capture, and fingerprint collection can 

be done at an offsite facility, thereby removing much of the administrative tasks 

burdening most consular sections. Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey are using the ODC 

process, which we plan to expand to other Mexican posts in preparation for the increase in renewal applications for border crossing cards. 

This year we will also begin to develop an online form for immigrant visa applications, as well as a secure electronic way to manage immigrant visa medical forms. 

By fiscal year 2009, we expect to have in place a system that results in significantly more data reaching consular officers prior to an applicant’s personal appearance for interview, allowing consular officers to identify high-risk applicants early, 

and permit more rapid processing of readily approvable cases. 

309 

Protecting American Citizens Overseas 

Of course, our primary responsibility is to serve and protect the approximately 4 

million Americans who reside overseas and 30 million who travel abroad each year. 

We continue to improve the quality and the access to reliable information for travelers through our Consular Information Program and our Web site, travel.state.gov—which received 343 million page views last year. Toll-free call centers 

are available to answer questions about the full range of consular services. Our 

Internet-based registration system has over one million registrations, and has proven invaluable as a means to communicate directly with Americans abroad during 

crises. 

Yet despite new technologies, consular work continues to be about touching individual lives as we provide services around the cycle of life. Last year, for example, 

we registered 55,000 babies as American citizens, visited 7,377 jailed American citizens, assisted families of 7,092 Americans who died overseas, and helped thousands 

of others with information, notarials, welfare and whereabouts, and other services. 

When called upon to assist Americans abroad during crises—such as the South 

Asian tsunami in 2004, Hurricane Wilma in 2005, or Lebanon in 2006—our crisis 

management team launches into action, managing task forces staffed by consular 

personnel and volunteers from other bureaus, and providing affected posts with 

human and technological support. We developed Web-based crisis software that allows us to track emergency cases involving American citizens and to communicate 

with concerned family members—we used it to track 120 Americans evacuated from 

Chad and 200 Americans who requested embassy assistance in Cameroon this year, 

for example. We conduct regular crisis management exercises, and plan for anticipated increases in demand for services—we will deploy additional personnel to assist our posts in China to be able to swiftly and effectively assist American citizens 

during the upcoming Beijing Olympics. 

Consular sections help American citizens overseas to exercise their fundamental 

right to vote. We work closely with the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program to provide absentee voting information to diplomatic, official, and 

private American citizens abroad. We have reached out to a large number of groups, 

scheduled a record number of voting workshops at posts abroad, arranged with courier companies to transport absentee ballots, coordinated with the Department’s diplomatic pouch management to speed transmission of ballot requests and voted ballots, and publicized information widely to ensure that American citizens will be able 

to participate in this year’s elections. 

Children’s Issues 

As it is in every area, our workload in children’s issues—intercountry adoptions 

and international parental child abduction is growing as well. Our Office of Children’s Issues was founded in 1994 with four people. We now have over 40 officers 

handling adoption, abduction, and abduction prevention cases. 

In our work on intercountry adoptions, we are guided by a simple yet vital principle: that the best interests of children be respected in every intercountry adoption. 

Americans adopted over 19,000 children from overseas in 2007. The Department 

of State will continue to assist American parents and strongly support intercountry 

adoption as an option for children in need of permanent family placement, and continue to encourage transparency and ethical practice as safeguards against fraud 

and abuse in intercountry adoptions. 

This is why the Department has strongly supported U.S. membership in the 

Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. I am proud to say that on April 1, the 

Convention entered into force for the United States. This was a major milestone. 

The Department must continue its outreach to key stakeholders on the impact of 

the Convention, and to continue to develop the procedures and capacity to fulfill our 

responsibilities as Central Authority for the Convention. If confirmed, I look forward 

to solidifying U.S. implementation of this important treaty. 

The Hague Convention, and the safeguards it promotes, is the best protection 

against fraud and abuse in intercountry adoptions. If confirmed, I will continue to 

use our best efforts to encourage the establishment of meaningful safeguards in 

countries where we see problems, offering assistance and support as they work to 

establish transparent and ethical adoption programs. I will continue robust efforts 

to encourage non-Hague countries to accede to the Convention, and to adopt Haguecompliant procedures to the greatest extent possible, in the case of those that have 

not yet decided to join the Convention. 

International parental child abduction is one of the most agonizing situations a 

parent or child can face. We will never stop pushing on these issues, because the 

pushing—even if it takes years—yields results. We have helped 161 children return 

to their parents in the first 6 months of fiscal year 2008. After years of dedicated 

310 

efforts to resolve a series of sad and difficult cases, we are heartened that Saudi 

Arabia has adopted a policy that when a Saudi marries a foreigner he must sign 

a statement guaranteeing that the foreign spouse and any children will be free to 

depart the Kingdom without condition. If confirmed, I will continue this vital work. 

We are focused on assimilating the incoming case work that used to be done by 

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). As of April 1, 

OCS/CI is now handling all international parental child abduction cases involving 

the United States—some 1,260 cases, involving 1,600 children. 

In countries that are party to the Hague Abduction Convention, we will continue 

to work with Central Authorities to encourage returns. In countries not party to the 

Hague Abduction Convention, we will continue to look for creative, lawful ways to 

resolve these cases. 

I know that adoption and abduction cases are emotional issues that touch children 

and parents at the most personal level. If confirmed, I will work with this committee 

to do all we can to assist children and families. 

Training and Leadership 

The Bureau’s procedures and processes have changed dramatically. We have similarly improved how we prepare consular staff. CA provides robust training in fraud 

detection and prevention skills. Our Consular Training Division at the Foreign Service Institute has added training in how to assist victims of crime, countering international parental child abduction, interviewing techniques, and procedures for intercountry adoptions under the Hague Convention. 

CA is dedicated not only to preparing outstanding consular officers, but outstanding leaders in the Department and U.S. Government service. With input from 

consular staff at 87 posts, we developed 10 Consular Leadership Tenets, a set of 

shared principles of what we in CA believe leadership looks, acts, and feels like. We 

have integrated leadership training into every course offered in the Consular Training Division at the Foreign Service Institute. A Consular Leadership Development 

Committee continues to explore ways and develop tools to help consular staff at all 

levels to model leadership in their work environment. 

If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to promote training and leadership development in CA, to ensure that America benefits from the best-prepared consular 

professionals. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Consular Affairs continues to face compelling challenges across the range of our activities. We are fortunate to have talented staff and 

creative ideas for meeting them. We have developed detailed strategies and have 

moved aggressively to implement them. 

If confirmed, I will look forward to working with the Secretary to ensure consular 

support for America’s foreign policy objectives. If confirmed, I will continue to keep 

you informed of our resource needs, and work with you to ensure that the world’s 

finest consular corps will continue to meet its obligations to our citizens and to our 

Nation. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF T. VANCE MCMAHAN, NOMINEE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE UNITED STATES ON THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR AND AN ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE UNITED STATES TO THE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED

NATIONS, DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED

STATES ON THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

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

today as the President’s nominee to serve as the U.S. Representative to the United 

Nations Economic and Social Council. I am deeply grateful to President Bush and 

Secretary Rice for their confidence in me. 

I hope that my legal background in the field of banking and finance, as well as 

my extensive experience in government and work on a number of public policy 

issues, from education to health care to global competitiveness, will contribute to my 

effectiveness in this position. I strongly believe in the United States role as a force 

for good in the world and that, working with the global community, we can help 

free people from hunger and disease, poverty and illiteracy, tyranny and violence— 

allowing them to realize their full potential as human beings. 

If confirmed, I will do my best to represent the values of this great country at 

the U.N. and build upon efforts to promote reform and increased effectiveness and 

311 

accountability across the U.N. system. Our success is critical to people around the 

world whose day-to-day livelihoods depend on an effective United Nations. 

The United States has led an effort to bring new ideas and fresh approaches in 

a number of areas including the economic policy debate at the U.N. Our approach, 

in line with the Monterrey Consensus on financing for development, emphasizes the 

importance of sustainable economic growth in development policy, linking new aid 

from developed nations to real reform in developing ones. Our guiding principle is 

based on building partnerships. It is a balanced approach, which promotes the central role of national governments in their own development, and the importance of 

international investment, trade, and credit markets in expanding economic opportunities for the world’s poor. If confirmed, I will continue to advance our view that 

foreign assistance, in the context of good governance and sound domestic policy, can 

play a catalytic role, but it cannot substitute for open international trade and ability 

to attract private capital. Achieving sustainable economic growth will also help 

achieve the fundamental principles of the U.N.—peace, human rights, social 

progress, and a better quality of life. 

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is at the center of these activities, 

and through its resolutions, functional commissions, and regional commissions, is an 

important venue to promote key U.S. interests. The United States, as an ECOSOC 

member, has worked closely with other member states to integrate our shared views 

into U.N. policies on the role of economic growth and national development strategies that can bring real change to the lives of many. Through the work of ECOSOC 

and its subsidiary bodies, we are also pursuing the global goals in the Millennium 

Declaration of reducing poverty and hunger, improving health and education, and 

combating major diseases. Achieving these goals will require greater focus on and 

innovative approaches to sustainable development in fragile and failing states, 

where many of the so-called ‘‘bottom billion’’ live, those who have been left behind 

as the rest of the developing world has moved ahead. The extreme poverty and instability in these states affects the entire global community. If confirmed, this will 

be one of the most important items on my agenda. Greater prosperity for all builds 

stronger institutions, better governments, peaceful societies, and a safer world in 

which the United States can thrive. 

In addition to its important work on economic growth and development, ECOSOC 

also plays a critical part in the promotion of human rights and social justice. Unfortunately, the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, which in 2006 replaced the 

former Commission on Human Rights, has been a grave disappointment in that regard. To date, that body and many of its members remain unwilling to meet the 

council’s mandate of addressing gross and systematic violations of human rights. 

Until the council improves, we will not legitimize it with our formal participation. 

If confirmed, I would continue to press for the council to approach its work with 

the seriousness that the United States and the international community expect; and 

to eliminate the selective bias that we have observed in its work so far. I would also 

continue to work with our partners to push for action by the General Assembly’s 

Third Committee to hold accountable violators of human rights and fundamental 

freedoms. In addition, I would also work to build on existing initiatives of the 

United States in the General Assembly and other fora to fight human trafficking 

and improve the status of women and increase their political participation and economic influence around the world. 

I would also like to emphasize our strong commitment to the promotion of democracy. The United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF), created by Secretary-General 

Annan in 2005, plays an important role in strengthening democratic institutions at 

the level of civil society. The fund is already supporting 122 projects in 110 countries and, if confirmed, I would look forward to continuing our work as members 

of the advisory board to further the goals of the fund. 

Finally, I would like to underscore that I believe our work at the U.N. will only 

succeed in so far as the U.N. as an institution succeeds. The United States is spearheading the U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI) to improve 

the organization’s efficiency across the entire U.N. system. The U.N.’s daily impact 

on the well-being of so many around the world makes it vital that the entire ITN 

system join the UNTAI effort to safeguard the U.N.’s resources and its credibility. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify today and for considering my nomination. If confirmed, I intend to work 

closely with members and committee staff to advance U.S. efforts at the U.N. to promote international peace and security, sustainable economic development and respect for human dignity. I would be happy to respond to your questions. 

312 

RESPONSES OF WILLIAM J. BURNS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. Based on your long experience in government, how important is it that 

our collection of intelligence and unclassified information is truly global and that 

we don’t continue to allocate what the Intelligence Community has called disproportionate resources to current crises, rather than to strategic challenges and emerging 

threats around the world? 

Answer. The Intelligence Community always has to strike the right balance between current and longer term intelligence requirements. It needs to anticipate developments 10 or more years into the future and still have crucial intelligence that 

informs our approach to today’s crises and negotiations. Secretaries of State have 

long looked to the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) to help meet both 

those needs. In response, INR has continuously refined its analytic focus. In late 

2001, for example, INR determined its daily intelligence summary duplicated other 

IC products and discontinued it in favor of devoting more time and resources to providing the Secretary with longer range analysis. INR has and will continue to refine 

and rebalance its analytic efforts in line with our Secretaries’ requirements and intelligence reform. 

Question. I am gravely concerned that we do not have strategic collection plans 

that address all the ways that the United States Government gets information 

about the world, not just from the intelligence community but from diplomatic reporting and open sources, and that, in turn, we have failed to allocate budgetary 

resources in a strategic fashion. This kind of strategic planning and resourcing 

should presumably be the job of the interagency process, but in many cases it appears broken, ineffective, or simply nonexistent. Do you agree, first, that the U.S. 

Government’s need for information about the world is met through a combination 

of intelligence and nonclassified information gathering, and, second, that interagency strategies are vital for collecting this information? 

Answer. Yes, I agree on both points. At State, both on the policy and intelligence 

side, we have always argued that good information is good information, regardless 

of its source. For example, few in the intelligence community would deny the high 

value diplomatic reporting provides, despite its relatively low level of classification. 

In recent years, the Internet has magnified the value of open source reporting. For 

example, State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research has a Humanitarian Information Unit that relies entirely on unclassified open sources, including overhead photography, to support humanitarian and disaster relief. We are likely to turn increasingly toward open sources as more and more information becomes available online, 

and traditional intelligence collection systems are retargeted to meet our highest 

priority challenges like international terrorism and proliferation. Fully exploiting 

open source material clearly demands interagency cooperation and approaches. At 

State, we welcome the DNI’s creation of the Open Source Center and increased 

funding for open source collection and exploitation. On an equally important level, 

INR has increased its investment in language training, sometimes with ODNI support, to improve its ability to exploit the very rich environment of the Internet. We 

also continue to cooperate with the DNI to develop strategies and priorities to collect 

information. 

Question. How would you see your role—and the role of the State Department 

more generally—in implementing and coordinating initiatives such as public diplomacy, democracy promotion, and foreign assistance when both State and the Defense Department, as well as other agencies, are involved? This is something we see 

frequently on the African continent so I am particularly interested to hear your 

thoughts regarding that region of the world. 

Answer. The Secretary of State has specific and distinct authorities on foreign assistance and in the conduct of foreign policy. Under the Foreign Assistance Act and 

the Arms Export Control Act, the Secretary, under the direction of the President, 

is responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of economic assistance, military assistance, and military education and training programs. Under 

current authorities the Secretary of State has approval authority over 87 percent 

of the entire Foreign Operations request (fiscal year 2009). If confirmed, as Under 

Secretary for Political Affairs I would coordinate closely with the Director of U.S. 

Foreign Assistance and partner with counterparts at DOD and other U.S. Government agencies to balance the U.S. presence and efforts internationally and to ensure 

a comprehensive, integrated, and deconflicted implementation of foreign policy and 

foreign assistance, including in Africa. 

313 

The establishment of a dual-hatted Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and 

USAID Administrator has led to continued improvement in the interagency coordination of activities such as public diplomacy, democracy promotion, foreign assistance, and budget planning. For fiscal year 2008, for example, with the establishment of common objectives, a common program lexicon, and common budget and 

program planning processes, State (including PEPFAR) and USAID were able to improve coordination, with steps taken toward greater MCC and DOD coordination. 

For fiscal year 2009, MCC and DOD were formally added as participants in State 

and USAID’s budget and program planning process, in addition to their coordination 

in the field. 

The evidence of such coordination is illustrated by a number of examples: In 

Ghana, for instance, USAID is focusing its programming on enhancing the capacity 

of local government, which is responsible for implementing MCC compact activities 

in economic growth. In Honduras, USAID programming focuses on trade and investment capacity building and private sector competitiveness, in order to complement 

MCC compact investments in infrastructure and agricultural diversification. 

In addition, a number of joint Department of State and Department of Defense 

initiatives are being successfully implemented. DOD’s section 1206 authority has 

been used, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide vital train and 

equip assistance to foreign countries to strengthen their capabilities in counterterrorism and in engaging in stability operations with U.S. Armed Forces. Section 1207 

authority has been relied upon to provide DOD resources in support of State Department reconstruction, security, and stabilization programs. 

A number of additional activities are ongoing for this year that we hope will further improve coordination. A strong interagency country strategy development process is being planned for specific pilot countries. The 3-to-5-year strategic plan will 

be developed by the field, under the leadership of ambassadors, and is explicitly targeted to include full interagency, other donor, and where appropriate, host government participation. As with last year, the annual operational plan process will provide additional opportunities for the interagency in the field to develop comprehensive program plans, working together to ensure coordination. 

Question. As you know, there has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the 

concerns about how underfunded and underresourced the State Department is. How 

much of an increase in both human and financial resources would you recommend, 

and what are the budgetary implications? What do you think is needed to partner 

with the Defense Department in order to anticipate crises and properly address 

complex emergencies? 

Answer. We are doing all that we can to meet the challenges of staffing more than 

265 missions worldwide and effectively carry out the Department’s critical foreign 

policy mission. Despite our best efforts, however, the Department’s staffing needs 

exceed our current resources. Not only has our mission grown, but the number of 

language-designated positions in ‘‘critical needs’’ languages such as Arabic and Chinese, some of which require 2 years of training to reach a basic professional level 

of proficiency, has increased 170 percent since 2001. In addition, the number of 

State Department positions overseas that are designated ‘‘unaccompanied’’ or ‘‘limited accompanied’’ for reasons of hardship or danger has quadrupled since 2001, 

from less than 200 in 2001 to more than 850 today. 

Workforce planning studies done by the Department, as well as recent reports 

from GAO, the Foreign Affairs Council, CSIS, and other groups, have acknowledged 

that the Department’s funded personnel intake has not kept pace with our expanding responsibilities. We have requested additional positions for each of the past 3 

years, but Congress has not approved any new positions outside of consular and security positions since 2004. As a result, the Department has been unable to overcome midlevel deficits due to hiring shortages in the 1990s and has been forced to 

leave some positions vacant to ensure our highest priority positions are filled with 

qualified personnel. 

The Department’s fiscal year 2009 budget request includes 1,543 new positions 

(1,095 from State Operations Appropriations and 448 MRV-fee funded positions) at 

a cost of $325,398,000. The Department’s request for 520 new hire positions funded 

by Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) appropriations includes 300 positions 

to expand language training for Foreign Service generalists and specialists and 20 

positions to improve public diplomacy efforts within the framework of the National 

Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication. 

The other 200 new positions funded by D&CP appropriations are required to allow 

the Department to increase collaboration with DOD and other national security 

agencies to more effectively plan for and respond to national security challenges. We 

have requested 75 new positions to allow for increased participation of Foreign ServVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
314 

ice personnel in military training and joint exercises, 50 new Foreign Policy Advisor 

(POLAD) positions to provide invaluable support to commanders who operate in an 

increasingly complex world where U.S. military and diplomatic objectives intersect, 

and 75 new positions to facilitate the interagency cooperation and exchanges called 

for under the National Security Professionals Initiative (E.O. 13434). 

In addition to the 520 new D&CP positions, the fiscal year 2009 budget includes 

200 positions for worldwide security protection; 10 positions for embassy construction, security, and maintenance; 19 positions for educational and cultural exchanges; 

and 448 fee-funded positions under the Border Security Program. We have also requested 351 positions to support the Civilian Stabilization Initiative, which will permit the Department to partner effectively with the military to stabilize countries in 

crisis. The fiscal year 2009 budget also includes $92.1 million to hire 300 Foreign 

Service officers for the United States Agency for International Development—above 

attrition—in fiscal year 2009, a 30 percent increase in AID’s Foreign Service workforce. 

In addition to funding these new positions, the State Department operations request for fiscal year 2009 includes $395 million for public diplomacy to allow us to 

utilize new and emerging technologies to communicate America’s views, values, and 

policies. New initiatives to be undertaken with this funding include the new Web 

site for foreign audiences America.gov and the inception of the digital outreach team 

that will engage audiences on the Internet in Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu. Our request 

for an investment of $414 million in information technology in fiscal year 2009 will 

support anytime, anywhere connectivity for our diplomats around the globe and facilitate greater collaboration among the more than 40 civilian agencies with overseas operations as well as DOD. 

Question. I’d like to ask you about Iran and what you think the critical next steps 

are regarding this extremely difficult relationship. How should the United States go 

about addressing Iran’s role in Iraq, its support for Hezbollah, and nuclear issues? 

If confirmed, what course do you intend to chart during the remainder of this administration? 

Answer. We are deeply concerned by Iran’s actions, including its destabilizing influence in the region, its sponsorship of terrorism, and its pursuit of technology that 

would give Iran a nuclear weapons capability. 

IRAN-IRAQ

As pledged by the President, our forces, in cooperation with our Iraqi and Coalition partners, are destroying Iranian-supported lethal networks, recovering large 

weapons caches, and disrupting cross-border arms trade. In the past few years, we 

have learned a great deal about these networks and their Islamic Revolutionary 

Guard Corps-Qods Force (Qods Force) sponsors, particularly from individuals captured and detained by our forces. This knowledge has allowed us to improve our 

methods for tracking and disrupting their operations. 

President Bush noted on April 10, that the Iranian regime has a choice to make: 

It can choose to live in peace with its neighbors, enjoying strong economic, religious, 

and cultural ties, or it can continue to arm, fund, and train illegal militant groups, 

which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran continues down the current path, Iran’s leaders should know that we will take active 

measures to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners. 

HIZBALLAH

Iranian influence is of great concern in Lebanon where Iran, Syria, and Hizballah 

are undermining the legitimate institutions of the government and seeking to create 

a state within a state in Lebanon. We continue to see evidence that Hizballah, with 

support from Syria and Iran’s Qods Force, is rearming in Lebanon in violation of 

UNSCR 1701. Hizballah’s own statements claiming it has rearmed since the 2006 

summer war also imply serious breaches of the arms embargo. Hizballah also continues to support other terrorist groups, including and Hamas in the Palestinian 

territories and provides aid to militant groups in Iraq. 

We will continue to take all necessary measures to prevent Hizballah from taking 

hostile action in Lebanon and abroad, as well as prevent the organization from assisting groups seeking to destabilize or derail the Middle East peace process. We are 

working closely with partners in the region to halt weapons flows and other Iranian 

support to prevent Hizballah from building its capabilities. 

315 

NUCLEAR ISSUE

The Iranian regime’s continued defiance of its UNSC and IAEA obligations warrants a strong international response. We are utilizing multilateral diplomacy to 

those ends. We remain committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear 

problem while taking no option off the table. The P5+1 has endorsed a dual-track 

policy toward Iran since June 2006 in which we have both pursued sanctions at the 

United Nations Security Council and offered Iran a generous package of incentives 

were Iran to take the steps necessary to restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program. 

The demands upon Iran include the suspension of uranium enrichment-related 

and other proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Iran’s implementation of the Additional 

Protocol to its IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which would provide greater transparency into Iran’s nuclear program. We are very pleased that in March 2008, the 

U.N. Security Council (UNSC) acted for a third time to impose legally binding chapter VII sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply with the council’s demands 

(UNSCR 1803). The council’s actions, and the high level of support for this third 

sanctions resolution, reflect the international community’s continuing and profound 

concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program. 

At the time UNSCR 1803 passed, Foreign Ministers agreed to revisit our inducements for cooperation to Iran. P5+1 Political Directors met in Shanghai April 16 

and Foreign Ministers on May 2 in London where they worked to update the incentives package, originally offered in June 2006, that will be conveyed to the Government of Iran. This updated package of incentives, which we expect to be finalized 

soon, is an important step in the P5+1 approach to addressing Iran’s nuclear program. 

Moving forward, we will focus our efforts and attention on the robust implementation of the provisions of UNSCRs 1737, 1747, and 1803 to clarify to Iran’s leaders 

the consequences of its continued noncompliance, while also keeping open the door 

to direct negotiations. On next steps, the resolution includes a request for a report 

from the IAEA Director General within 90 days (on or about June 3) on whether 

Iran has complied with its obligations. If the report shows that Iran has not complied, the council has expressed its intention to adopt further measures to persuade 

Iran to comply. 

Already there are several important areas where we see our multilateral, diplomatic pressure strategy is having an impact. In implementing the U.N. Security 

Council resolutions, many countries have expanded scrutiny of cargo shipments, 

hampering Tehran’s ability to acquire materials to advance their development of nuclear and missile programs. On the financial front, the cost of doing business for 

the Iranian regime has increased. Iran’s credit risk rating has gone up, and many 

banks have stopped issuing letters of credit to companies seeking to do business 

with Iran. Major international banks—including Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, 

and Commerzbank—have scaled back or completely severed their Iran-related business. This has resulted in the Iranian regime having increasing difficulty utilizing 

the international financial system for their proliferation or terrorist financing activities. 

RESPONSES OF WILLIAM J. BURNS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. On April 16, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, 

China, Russia, and Germany) met in Shanghai to discuss the next diplomatic steps 

on Iran’s nuclear program. 

(a) What were the concrete achievements of the Shanghai meeting? Some reports 

say that there is consideration of offering a fresh set of incentives to Iran—what 

is being contemplated? 

(b) What are the prospects for a meaningful international consensus to increase 

diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran? 

(c) Given your experiences in Moscow, how far do you assess the Russians are 

willing to go in pressuring Iran and under what circumstances? 

Answer. The international consensus that Iran should not be permitted to acquire 

nuclear weapons is, in our view, strong and sustained. The P5+1 has endorsed a 

dual-track policy toward Iran since June 2006 in which we have pursued both sanctions at the United Nations Security Council and offered a generous package of incentives to Iran in exchange for taking steps necessary to restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program. 

316 

Foremost of these steps is the suspension of uranium enrichment-related, reprocessing, and other proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, full cooperation with the 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Iran’s implementation of the Additional Protocol to its IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which would provide greater 

transparency into Iran’s nuclear program. 

The United Nations Security Council has adopted three resolutions imposing 

chapter VII sanctions on Iran. There was not a single negative vote cast for these 

resolutions and two were adopted unanimously (Indonesia abstained on UNSCR 

1803); this demonstrates the will and resolve of the international community to take 

steps necessary, including imposing sanctions, to prompt Iran to choose the path of 

negotiations rather than continued confrontation. 

To buttress our dual track strategy, P5+1 Foreign Ministers issued a statement 

on March 3, 2008, alongside the adoption of U.N. Security Council resolution 1803 

committing to update the original incentive package offered to the Government of 

Iran in June 2006. The P5+1 Political Directors met on April 16 in Shanghai and 

Foreign Ministers in London on May 2 to finalize the updated incentives package, 

an important step in our way forward on the basis of the P5+1’s dual track approach. 

Each of our P5+1 partners, including Russia, has committed to the dual track 

strategy. Through their work within the P5+1 and votes at the UNSC, the Russians 

have shown that they are serious in pursuing our shared strategic objective of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. We will continue to work 

with our Russian partners to increase the pressure on Iran bilaterally and within 

all appropriate multilateral fora. 

Question. The third Iraq ministerial neighbors’ conference was held in Kuwait on 

April 21 and 22. 

(a) What were the concrete achievements of the Kuwait conference? 

(b) Please provide the committee with a copy of the statement that emerged from 

the conference. 

(c) Working groups have been set up in three areas—border security, energy, and 

refugees. What has been accomplished by these working groups to date? 

(d) Is there any consideration to including Iraqi political issues (for example, political reconciliation, ethnic and sectarian tensions, the disposition of Iraqi federalism) 

within the ambit of future neighbors’ conferences? 

(e) Are there plans to establish a secretariat for the neighbors’ conference? When 

will the next meeting be held? 

Answer. (a) The support of Iraq’s neighbors remains key to achieving the goal of 

a sovereign, democratic, and prosperous Iraq that is at peace with itself and with 

its neighbors. The third Expanded Neighbors Ministerial held in Kuwait on April 

22 provided participants the opportunity to express that support and for Prime Minister Maliki to speak directly to Iraq’s neighbors about the progress that the Government of Iraq has made and about what more Iraq needs its neighbors to do. The 

group also approved the Terms of Reference of the Ad Hoc Support Mechanism, a 

joint Iraqi-U.N. body intended to help keep the Neighbors Process on track by handling administrative and organizational tasks. The Organization of the Islamic Conference announced the opening of its office in Baghdad, and all participants, including Iran and Syria, signed on to the final communique, which included a pledge to 

adhere to the principle of noninterference in Iraq’s internal affairs. 

(b) A copy of the final communique issued at the conclusion of the April 22 Ministerial is attached. 

(c) The Neighbors working groups on border security, energy, and refugees have 

served as useful fora for Iraq and its neighbors to discuss issues of mutual concern. 

The Border Security Working Group, cochaired by Iraq and Syria, met August 8– 

9, 2007 and April 13, 2008 in Damascus. The Energy Working Group, cochaired by 

Iraq and Turkey, met June 28–29, 2007 and March 2, 2008 in Istanbul, Turkey. The 

Refugee Working Group, cochaired by Iraq and Jordan, met on July 26, 2007 and 

March 18, 2008, in Amman, Jordan. Each working group prepared a list of recommendations to be followed up on at later meetings. The Neighbors Support Mechanism is intended to improve follow-up on the efforts of the working groups by assisting with substantive, technical, and organizational issues. 

(d) The Expanded Neighbors process has focused on (1) supporting the Iraqi Government and (2) issues that are of common concern to all participants and most appropriately addressed in a multilateral setting—refugees, border security, energy, 

and other similar issues. Internal Iraqi political issues are inevitably raised, but 

participants generally are careful to adhere to the principle of noninterference in 

Iraq’s internal affairs. In the final communique at Kuwait, the participants committed both to supporting the efforts of the Iraqi Government in broadening the poVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
317 

litical process and reinforcing political dialog and national reconciliation, and to adhere to the principle of noninterference. 

In lieu of a Secretariat, the participants in the Expanded Neighbors process have 

created an ad hoc Support Mechanism. The Support Mechanism is located in the 

Iraqi MFA in Baghdad and actively assisted by the United Nations on substantive, 

technical, and organizational issues. The Support Mechanism is intended to liaise 

with member states on preparations for upcoming meetings, prepare draft agendas, 

maintain records of decisions reached, and carry out other administrative tasks necessary to ensure that the process continues to be successful. Participants expressed 

their desire to hold the fourth Expanded Neighbors Ministerial in Baghdad. A date 

has not yet been set. 

FINAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE EXPANDED MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE OF THE NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES OF IRAQ, EGYPT, AND BAHRAIN AND THE PERMANENT MEMBERS

OF THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE G–8 

KUWAIT, 22ND OF APRIL 2008

Upon the invitation of the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq, the Foreign 

Ministers of the Neighbouring Countries of Iraq, Egypt, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, and 

the Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council and the G–8 held a meeting 

in Kuwait on the 22nd of April, 2008. The United Nations, the Organization of the 

Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States, the Gulf Cooperation Council and 

the European Union also took part in the meeting. The meeting was designed to 

contribute concretely to the Iraqi Government’s efforts to restore permanent peace, 

stability, and prosperity through invigoration of the existing national reconciliation 

dialog, in combating terrorism, strengthening the rule of law, and widening participation in the political process. The meeting aimed to provide ongoing strong and effective support to both the Government and people of Iraq. The meeting also served 

the purpose of the participant countries to reiterate their commitment to Iraq’s territorial integrity, unity, full sovereignty and independence, and noninterference in 

its internal affairs. The meeting affirmed its continuous implementation of the obligation that it has committed to undertake in this regard. 

The participants agreed to: 

1. Reaffirm the respect of national unity, independence, full sovereignty, territorial integrity, Arab and Islamic Identity of Iraq; commit to the preservation of 

Iraq’s internationally recognized borders, and pledge to adhere to a comprehensive 

and consistent commitment to the principle of noninterference in Iraq’s internal affairs; stressing the right of the Iraqi people to freely determine their political system 

and political future and control their natural and financial resources; 

2. Affirm the full support for Iraq and its people and the efforts of the constitutionally elected Iraqi Government and Council of Representatives; to achieve the 

goals of the Iraqi people in a speedy and effective manner for a free, prosperous, 

stable, united, democratic and federal Iraq that ensures the fundamental and equal 

rights of the Iraqi people to peacefully participate in the ongoing political process; 

3. Reconfirm the commitment of the International Community and Iraq’s neighbors to promote peace, stability, and security in Iraq which shall reflect positively 

on the security and stability of the region and the interests of its people and the 

international community as a whole; 

4. Welcome the establishment of the Ad-Hoc Support Mechanism formed by the 

Iraqi Government within the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs as adopted in the Expanded Iraq Neighbours Ministerial Conference held in Istanbul on November 3, 

2007; also approve the Terms of Reference of the Ad Hoc Support Mechanism, and 

call upon all concerned countries and organizations to cooperate with its work; 

5. The conference reviewed and adopted the recommendations of the three working groups (the Energy Working Group, the Refugee Working Group, and the Security Cooperation and Coordination Working Group) as attached to this final communique; affirmed the importance of their implementation by all concerned states; and 

looked forward to the three committees convening their next sessions—on security 

in Damascus, energy in Istanbul, and displaced persons in Amman—as soon as possible; 

6. Support the efforts of the Iraqi Government in broadening the political process, 

strengthening the elected institutions, reinforcing political dialog and national reconciliation, assisting vulnerable groups including the internally and externally displaced persons, and promoting the protection of human right and judicial and legal 

reform; 

318 

7. Encourage all Iraqis to engage in comprehensive political dialog and national 

reconciliation for the sake of Iraq’s stability, unity, and its sustainable development; 

8. Stress the importance to achieve Iraqi national reconciliation and accord, praising the role of the Iraqi Government in this regard, and calling on the League of 

Arab States to continue its efforts in coordination and cooperation with the Iraqi 

Government and concerned parties; 

9. Applaud the continuous effort by the Iraqi Government to confront those who 

foment violence throughout Iraq; commend the role of the Iraqi armed and security 

forces in confronting and deterring the recent threats posed by armed groups; and 

welcome the Government’s commitment to disarm and dismantle all militias and 

extragovernmental armed groups, enforcing the rule of law, and ensuring the state’s 

monopoly on armed forces; 

10. Stress the principle of the Iraqi national identity and invite all components 

of the Iraqi people to work for the enhancement of the National Unity, regardless 

of their political trends and ethnic and sectarian affiliations; and seek to employ the 

historical multicultural heritage as a means of unification not division; 

11. Call upon international and regional concerned organizations (UNESCO, 

ALECSO, ISESCO, and IRCICA) to contribute to the preservation and revitalization 

of the historical heritage of Iraq, that has been destroyed or damaged due to the 

war; and welcome active support from the neighbours and international community 

for their effort, and to help the Iraqi people to retrieve their stolen heritage; 

12. Acknowledge the determined endeavors of the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian Governments in generously hosting Iraqis; recognize the obligations of Iraq and 

the international community in supporting host countries to address the resulting 

burdens on their services, infrastructure, and resources and to create conditions conducive to a voluntary, safe, and dignified return; 

13. Acknowledge the importance of the International Compact with Iraq for the 

political reconciliation and reconstruction of this country, and its commitment to assist the Government of Iraq through political and economic reform, capacity building 

and providing conditions for sustainable development; in this context, recognize the 

role and potential of neighbouring countries in the construction of Iraq, welcome the 

decision of the Paris Club, and invite all the creditors to Iraq to follow its example, 

in a way that contributes in reducing Iraqi debts; welcome the willingness of the 

Government of Sweden to host the next session of the International Compact with 

Iraq; and welcome the contribution of Iraq’s neighbours and regional states in the 

development of economic progress in Iraq; 

14. Affirm the efforts of the United Nations and commend UNAMI’s important 

role in providing support, consultation, assistance, and coordination with the Iraqi 

Government according to the Security Council Resolution 1770 of (2007), and other 

relevant Security Council resolutions; welcome the active assistance of UNAMI to 

the establishment of the Ad Hoc support mechanism and to its activities to support 

and develop regional dialog on Iraq; 

15. Encourage and urge all states, in particular the neighbours of Iraq, to open 

or reopen their diplomatic missions, and enhance those existing by raising the level 

of representation, and expedite the sending of their ambassadors to Iraq, which will 

contribute in the improvement and development of bilateral relations; welcome the 

opening of the Office of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Baghdad as 

an encouraging development that will enable the Organization to follow up its initiatives more actively, including its Mecca Declaration initiative; welcome states 

who decided to reopen their embassies in Baghdad; and urge the Government of 

Iraq to expedite its appointment of ambassadors to neighbouring countries and others; 

16. Condemn the aggression and war crimes of the former regime of Iraq against 

peoples of Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran,and the State of Kuwait; condemn the killing of Kuwaiti war prisoners and nationals of other countries at the hands of the 

former regime in Iraq, and the former Iraqi regime’s coverage of these crimes for 

over 10 years, which is considered a violation of international humanitarian law; 

and welcome the steps being taken by Iraq to take the perpetrators of these crimes 

to courts, and also welcome the appointment of Ambassador Gennady Tarasov as 

U.N. high-level coordinator and commend the efforts of his predecessor, the late Ambassador Yuli Voronstov, and his achievements during his work in this humanitarian issue; invite all concerned parties to continue their cooperation with the 

International Red Cross Committee to uncover the fate of the rest of the missing 

Kuwaiti citizens and others; 

17. Condemn all acts of terrorism in all its forms in Iraq, call for the immediate 

cessation of all such acts, support the Iraqi Government’s increasing efforts in combating terrorism including all efforts to prevent Iraqi territory from being used as 

a base for terrorism against neighbouring countries and vice versa; and takes note 

319 

of the bilateral arrangements concluded between Iraq and neighbouring countries 

regarding the fight against terrorism, in this regard, support Iraqi Government efforts to strengthen the capabilities of its armed and security forces to assume full 

security responsibility in the country; 

18. Reaffirm the obligations of all states, in accordance with international law, 

relevant international agreements, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1546 (2004) 

and 1618 (2005), and other relevant Security Council resolutions, to combat terrorist 

activities and prevent the use by terrorists of their territory for supplying, organizing, and launching terrorist operations, and help Iraq to expel the terrorist organizations out of its territories; 

19. Support the joint efforts of Iraq and its neighbouring countries to prevent the 

transit of terrorists and illegal arms to and from Iraq; reemphasize the importance 

of strengthening cooperation between Iraq and its neighbouring countries to control 

their common borders and prevent all kinds of illicit trafficking, including financial 

and logistical support for terrorists and terrorist organizations; and refuse instigation of violence and terror; 

20. Reconfirm the decisions of the Neighbouring Countries Interior Ministerial 

Meetings and welcome the outcome of the last meeting which took place in Kuwait 

on October 23, 2007, and call for the cooperation with its secretariat based in Iraq; 

and 

21. Welcome the convening of the Arab Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference 

which took place in the city of Irbil in Iraq on 11 March, 2008. 

The participants expressed their appreciation to the State of Kuwait for hosting 

the conference, and expressed their desire and hope to hold the Fourth Expanded 

Ministerial Meeting in Baghdad. 

RESPONSES OF JANICE L. JACOBS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. Taiwan meets or exceeds nearly every criteria established by the Visa 

Waiver Program (VWP). Specifically, it: 

• Offers visa-free travel privileges to U.S. citizens; • Has issued machine-readable passports (MRPs) since 1995; • Has completed a program to incorporate biometric identifiers into passports in 

2007, and plans to issue E-passport starting in the second half of 2008; • Reports the lost and stolen passports to the U.S. Government on a weekly basis; 

and • Had an average 3 percent refusal rate for nonimmigrant visa applications to the 

United States in past years—lower than several countries now being considered 

for Visa Waiver Program participation. 

I also understand that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has signed 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) regarding the VWP and related enhanced security measures with 8 of 13 ‘‘roadmap countries’’ that were selected with the nomination of the Department of State (DOS). The MOU is the first step before those 

countries are included into the VWP, and DHS will not consider any new aspirant 

country without the nomination of the DOS. 

Taiwan is not a roadmap country, and DHS has no MOU with Taiwan. Nonetheless, I understand that Taiwan has volunteered to cooperate with the United States 

Government to implement the measures contained in the above-mentioned MOUs, 

such as air passenger data sharing, air marshals, and airport security upgrades, to 

enhance overall travel security. 

If confirmed, would you endorse a review by DHS of Taiwan’s VWP eligibility as 

soon as reasonably possible? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with DHS on evaluating Taiwan for VWP candidacy. DHS has expressed a willingness to work with all who meet the technical 

requirements for the Visa Waiver Program once they have established a mechanism 

to evaluate all additional potential roadmap countries, of which Taiwan is one. DHS 

and State currently lack the resources and procedures to consider any nonroadmap 

countries at this time. In addition, any potential security barriers to Taiwan’s participation in the VWP would be identified during a DHS-led comprehensive evaluation to determine the impact of the country’s designation on United States security, 

law enforcement, and immigration security interests. 

Question. If Taiwan is willing to sign a document with DHS to cooperate on enhanced security measures (as described in the memoranda signed by the roadmap 

countries), would you encourage DHS to conclude an MOU with Taiwan, leading 

eventually to Taiwan’s inclusion in the VWP when eligible? 

320 

Answer. On a general level, we do note that Taiwan has taken a number of steps 

to improve travel document and border security and we welcome further improvements in these areas. These steps have been taken in line with international trends 

and best practices as part of a general program to improve passport and immigration practices and without reference to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. Some of the 

factors you mention such as offering visa waiver tourist travel for up to 90 days admission to U.S. citizens and issuance of machine-readable passports are met by a 

large numbers of countries, most of which are not under consideration for Visa 

Waiver Program candidacy. Taiwan does not yet issue e-passports, though they are 

required for VWP candidacy. Our information indicates they do not share information on the theft or loss of blank passports with the United States at this time. The 

VWP law requires sharing of data not only on blank passports, but also on personalized passports. Taiwan’s visa refusal rate was above 3 percent in the last fiscal year. 

State and DHS are currently working with nations who have engaged the U.S. 

Government for the past several years in discussing these issues. We continue to 

work on confidence building measures with those countries. There is no plan at this 

time to expand the roadmap process but it may be possible to discuss similar confidence building measures with countries beyond the roadmap as improvements in 

international travel security are in our collective interest. On a technical and legal 

level, the conditions do not presently exist for nominating additional countries for 

VWP participation based on a waiver of the 3 percent visa refusal rate. To use this 

waiver the Secretary of Homeland Security must certify to Congress that the preconditions set in law have been met. Although dialog and negotiation continue with 

those countries already engaged in the roadmap process, I am unaware of plans to 

deal with additional countries on the same footing until sometime after DHS is in 

a position to exercise the waiver of the 3 percent visa refusal rate for the countries 

currently in the pipeline. The prospect of dialog, however, remains open. 

Question. What are your top three priorities for this position? 

Answer. The mission of the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) is to protect the lives 

and interests of American citizens abroad and to strengthen the security of U.S. borders through the vigilant adjudication of visas and passports. My top priorities relate directly to this mission. 

Our number one priority is to ensure that the Bureau of Consular Affairs continues to provide outstanding services to protect the lives and interests of American 

citizens overseas. We will use our Web site, www.travel.state.gov, and revised Consular Information Program to provide timely, accurate information to American citizens. We conduct crisis management exercises and plan for anticipated increases in 

demand for services, for example by deploying additional personnel later this year 

to assist our posts in China during the upcoming Beijing Olympics. Now that we 

have implemented the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions, we will work 

with the American adoption community to adjust to the changes, and work with the 

international community to encourage more countries to join the Convention to expand the Convention’s protections for children and parents worldwide. 

I will work to ensure the Department provides secure, reliable passport services 

to American citizens. The Department took immediate action when we learned that 

some passport records had been improperly accessed, and are reviewing management controls in order to strengthen procedures and to ensure a more secure system 

that will provide equal and effective safeguards to all passport applicants’ records. 

Although passport demand is currently four percent higher than last year’s recordsetting pace of 18.4 million passport issuances, there is no passport backlog and 

processing times are less than our 4-week standard. We are hiring hundreds of employees, opening new facilities, expanding existing passport agencies, and preparing 

to issue a new passport card in order to meet the American public’s demand for reliable travel documents. 

My third key priority is to fulfill the ‘‘Secure Borders, Open Doors’’ Joint Vision 

of Secretaries Rice and Chertoff. Since September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs has implemented changes in procedures, technology, and information-sharing to enhance the security of our Nation’s borders while keeping America’s doors 

open to the legitimate travel we encourage and value. The changes have transformed the visa process, and helped reverse a decline in visa applications that began 

after 9/11. We issued an all-time record of 651,000 student and scholar visas last 

year, for example, and visa demand is growing by double digits in key countries 

such as China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. Our challenge is to meet that demand as 

we make further enhancements to the security and efficiency of visa processing. 

Question. What management skills and experiences qualify you for this position? 

321 

Answer. As a career consular officer for 28 years, I have had the privilege of serving the United States in places as varied as Mexico, France, and Nigeria, and 

gained a broad perspective on the consular challenges our country faces. As a consular manager, a DCM, an ambassador and a senior executive in the Department 

I have managed thousands of people, millions of dollars in resources, and a broad 

spectrum of policies for my entire career. I have been involved in strategic and 

budget planning. I have made the difficult personnel decisions that are the hallmark 

of a DCM’s responsibilities. I fought the budget and human resource battles during 

the Department’s leanest years. 

The Bureau of Consular Affairs comprises nearly 10,000 employees—Foreign and 

Civil Service, locally engaged staff, contractors and others—working in 219 posts 

overseas, in Washington, and at 18 passport agencies and two visa processing centers around the United States. The Bureau managed a $2 billion budget last year. 

As Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, I helped lead this 

bureau of diverse, talented employees. I worked on the full range of consular issues 

and have seen how the Bureau of Consular Affairs has prepared for and responded 

to those issues. 

As Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services from 2002 to 2005, I was part 

of the team that negotiated the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of State and the new Department of Homeland Security that clarified the 

agencies’ respective roles and responsibilities in visa policy. I was the change manager in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, when we instituted new 

practices and implemented new legislation to improve visa security, and when we 

implemented procedures to address the post-9/11 decline in visa applications. I 

reached out to stakeholders in the academic, scientific, industry, and government 

communities to explain our actions and obtain support for our initiatives. 

As Deputy Chief of Mission in Santo Domingo and as Ambassador to Senegal and 

Guinea-Bissau, I managed all aspects of our missions, ensuring that the consular 

dimension was represented in mission work on the global war on terror, countering 

human trafficking, and other foreign policy objectives. I also know the outstanding 

work that all consular personnel in what I have come to regard as the world’s finest 

consular corps do to protect American citizens and America’s borders. 

Question. With regard to the unauthorized accession of the passport application 

files of Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama, please answer the following questions: 

(a) When did you first become aware of this matter? What steps did you take 

when you were informed of this matter? 

Answer. We took immediate action from the moment these incidents were reported. I was notified, in my role as Acting Assistant Secretary, of the incidents of 

improper access on March 20, 2008. I immediately conferred with the Under Secretary for Management. We informed the presidential candidates and their staffs of 

the incidents and our response. We asked the Office of the Inspector General to 

begin an investigation of the incidents; that investigation is ongoing. I also sent a 

notice to all consular employees reminding them of their legal obligation to safeguard the privacy of passport applications and passport holders. 

The Department of State’s passport database tracking system includes an invisible flag on individual passport records of high-profile individuals. As the system 

worked when this incident occurred, an alert was automatically sent to two headquarters managers. Based on the alert, one of those managers contacted the individual who accessed the record via e-mail for an explanation, and copied the supervisor for appropriate action as well as other managers for informational purposes. 

Three individuals have been terminated to date for improperly accessing passport 

application records. While our safeguards for detecting improper access to passport 

records worked as intended, the experience demonstrated that there were areas 

where we could improve. 

On March 24, we formed a working group with representatives of all key bureaus 

to conduct a comprehensive review of internal management and controls procedures 

for passport processing and to develop initiatives to strengthen the security of the 

passport process. Our goal is a more secure system that will provide equal and effective safeguards to all passport applicants’ records, and in which all Americans can 

have confidence that their data will be appropriately safeguarded. 

Question. (b) Given that unauthorized access of these files first occurred last summer and winter, why do you believe employees in passport services waited until 

mid-March to report this matter to you or other senior level managers? 

Answer. Due to the quick resolution of the cases through the immediate termination of two contract employees and reprimand of the contract third employee (who 

322 

was subsequently terminated), and the well-founded belief that these cases were 

motivated by imprudent curiosity, information on these cases was not passed to high 

level management. Since these events, we have developed and implemented written 

procedures for reporting incidents of unauthorized access. The new procedures include notifying the appropriate high level management members on every e-mail 

sent regarding a suspected incident of unauthorized access. 

Question. (c) Do you think it is likely there were additional improper or unauthorized accessions of passport application files? 

Answer. The Department of State’s Inspector General is currently investigating 

the extent to which passport records may have been subject to unauthorized access. 

We are awaiting the OIG’s final determination. 

Question. (d) What systemic changes do you intend to implement to prevent a recurrence of such unauthorized accessions of passport files, and what is your timetable for implementing them? 

Answer. On March 24, we formed a working group with representatives of all key 

Department bureaus to conduct a comprehensive review of internal management 

and controls procedures for passport processing, develop initiatives to strengthen 

the security of the passport process, design a comprehensive management plan to 

mitigate any unauthorized access of passport records/applicant personal data, and 

develop well-defined reporting procedures should an authorized access occur. Our 

fundamental goal is a more secure system that will provide equal and effective safeguards to all passport applicants’ records, and in which all Americans can have confidence that their data will be appropriately safeguarded. 

The Department has implemented several short-term measures including adding 

more than 1,000 names of high-profile individuals into the passport records monitoring system, initiating random audits of the passport records database, and implementing revised standard operating procedures for reporting incidents of unauthorized access. 

Over the next 90 days, the Department’s Vulnerabilities Working Group will focus 

on the following initiatives: 

• Standard operating procedures and criteria on updating, auditing, and maintaining the Monitor List. • Simple technology enhancements to the Monitor List program and the Passport 

Information Electronic Records System (PIERS). • Study of best practices at other agencies and businesses. • Vulnerability assessments on all databases and tools. • Track/create historical file of incidents of unauthorized access. • Finalize random audit program. • Standardize disciplinary procedures for unauthorized access. • Review of organizational structure, duties, and responsibilities for monitoring of 

unauthorized access. 

Question. How many contractors or contract employees were employed as of October 1, 2007? How does that compare to 5 years ago (approximate figures are sufficient to answer this question)? Do you believe the Bureau of Consular Affairs has 

become too reliant on contractors or contract employees to perform its key functions? 

Answer. As of October 1, 2007, the Bureau of Consular Affairs employed 4,083 

contractors. Of that number, 1,605 were dedicated to passport services, 868 to IT 

development and support, 526 to visa services, 210 at our Kentucky Consular Center performing a range of services, 836 passport call center employees at the National Passport Information Center, and 38 assisted with American Citizen Services 

and administrative functions. The total number is approximately double what it was 

5 years ago. 

I do not believe the Bureau of Consular Affairs has become too reliant on contractors or contract employees to perform its key functions. All key policy and management positions are filled by U.S. Government employees, all ‘‘core government functions,’’ such as adjudicating passport and visa applications, are performed by permanent United States Government employees. Contract employees tend to perform administrative and clerical tasks that, while invaluable to accomplishing our mission, 

are under the direction and oversight of Government employees. Hiring contractors 

allows a certain amount of flexibility to respond quickly to changing needs, whether 

a surge or a decline in demand for services. 

Question. The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption entered into force on 

April 1. Of the U.S. agencies that have applied for accreditation, how many await 

a decision by the Council on Accreditation? By what means is the Department overseeing the accreditation process? How transparent is this process intended to be? 

323 

Answer. As of April 30, 325 adoption service providers have applied to the Council 

on Accreditation for Hague Convention accreditation or approval. According to the 

records of the Council on Accreditation, 65 applicants are in process at this time. 

Applications are now submitted and completed on a rolling basis. 

Title II of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 gives the Department-designated 

accrediting entities (AEs) the responsibility for accreditation or approval and oversight of adoption service providers working on Hague Convention cases (IAA, 

§ 202(b)). The Department is required to monitor the performance by each AE and 

its compliance with the Convention, the IAA and other relevant laws and regulations (IAA, § 204(a)). 

As required by the IAA, the Department drafted and published regulations setting 

the standards and procedures to be used by the accrediting entities for the accreditation of agencies and the approval of persons to provide adoption services in the 

United States in Convention cases (IAA, § 203(a)(1)). The Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Office of Children’s Issues, which performs the day to day responsibilities of 

the U.S. Central Authority for the Convention, is in daily contact with the designated accrediting entities, the Council on Accreditation and the Colorado Department of Human Services. We provide clarification of standards and procedures. We 

also collect and convey to the AEs information on applicants received through our 

Hague Complaint registry, from our posts abroad and from other sources. We request and receive regular updates on the accreditation process. We participate in 

telephone conferences and Webinars with both AEs, and make regular visits to COA 

in New York. 

The process should be as transparent as possible. We have urged both AEs to 

focus on transparency and to communicate specific issues to applicant agencies. 

With regard to issues related to specific applications, we ask agencies to contact 

their AE directly. We are aware that this initial accreditation phase has been a difficult process for some; COA received more than 300 applications, almost double the 

number anticipated. The workload has been difficult. We believe that the accreditation process will improve as the AEs become more familiar with the process and applications and renewals are staggered over time. 

Hague accreditation should be seen as the United States Government ‘‘stamp of 

approval’’ for U.S. adoption service providers providing adoption services in a Convention case. In light of this, we have asked the AEs to take the time necessary 

to review each applicant to ensure that it is in substantial compliance with applicable standards. It is important to ensure that adoption service providers that have 

been found to be not in compliance with mandatory standards are not accredited 

until they have established credibility and a track record of compliance. The Department is committed to the integrity of the process established by the IAA. 

Question. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security, responsibility for regulatory authority involving the Immigration and Nationality Act rests with the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), but State Department consular officers in embassies and consulates around 

the world implement those policies, although DHS also has offices overseas for the 

purpose of immigrant visa work. It has been over 5 years since the creation of DHS, 

and both State and DHS have been given many new security mandates. You have 

seen it from the perspective of an ambassador and a senior officer in the Bureau 

of Consular Affairs. How is the relationship working between your bureau and 

DHS? What measures need to be taken—by you or your counterparts at DHS—to 

strengthen the relationship? 

Answer. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), State 

and DHS now have shared responsibilities with regard to visas and border security. 

I was part of the team that negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding that established the respective roles and responsibilities of the two departments in visa policy. 

Over the past 5 years, we have developed a cooperative relationship with DHS on 

many fronts—the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, implementing the Hague 

Convention on Intercountry Adoptions, and refugees, to name a few. 

In January 2006, Secretaries Rice and Chertoff launched an initiative to strengthen border security while facilitating international travel for legitimate visitors. As 

part of the Rice-Chertoff ‘‘Secure Borders, Open Doors’’ Joint Vision, State and DHS 

work closely to: 

• Renew America’s welcome to foreign travelers with improved technology and efficiency. This includes further improving visa processing and creating ‘‘model 

ports of entry’’ that foster a more welcoming environment for foreign visitors. 

• Develop secure travel documents for the 21st century, including our electronic 

passports and a secure, inexpensive alternative—the passport card—to meet the 

needs of border communities. 

324 

• Improve interagency and international coordination and information sharing to 

enable smarter screening of international travelers. 

State works closely with DHS on the deployment of the Visa Security Program, 

the goal of which is to push out the boundaries of the United States and to ensure 

that only qualified applicants receive visas. Posts in more than 10 countries currently have Visa Security Units, and we plan to open other units later this year. 

The DHS/ICE Special Agents serving in the Visa Security Units have established 

positive working relationships with consular officers, for example by providing DHS 

training for consular officers in interviewing techniques, fraudulent document 

awareness, and terrorist travel tradecraft. 

The creation of DHS was the largest restructuring of the executive branch since 

the Department of Defense was established in 1947–1949. While there are still some 

growing pains, we are committed to working with our partners in DHS to ensure 

that we together deliver to the American people the border security program they 

deserve. 

Question. After the attacks of 9/11, we understandably took a number of steps to 

tighten security, including in the issuance of visas. There has been concern expressed by a number of voices—universities, businesses, and the tourist industry— 

that the changes went too far. There are competing pressures on consular officers— 

to help secure the border, but to do so in a manner that does not disrupt legitimate 

commerce, education and tourism. The administration’s own rhetoric—‘‘secure borders, open doors’’—reflects this dichotomy. How does the Department balance these 

competing pressures? How do you train and guide these officers who make hundreds 

of visa decisions every day? 

Answer. ‘‘Secure borders, open doors’’ is based on the principle that protecting our 

borders and welcoming legitimate travelers are not contradictory and can often be 

complementary and we can achieve both. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, 

our challenge was to implement significant changes to visa practices more or less 

simultaneously. We worked hard to increase visa security measures, completely 

change the business model for processing visas, and vastly improve our communication with other agencies. 

As we implemented changes to the visa process in the early post-9/11 years, there 

was a decline in visa application numbers and the number of visitors to the United 

States. There were many reasons for the decline, including some—such as the SARS 

crisis and changes in the world economy—that were beyond our control. But it’s also 

true that there were delays in the processing of some visa applications. 

That is an outdated picture that is far from the current reality. We have invested 

in systems, staffing, training, and coordination with our U.S. Government partners 

to ensure that America’s welcome to foreign visitors begins with a secure, transparent, and accessible visa process. We have instituted appointment systems, modern queuing systems, Web sites and consular information lines. We reach out to students and businesses to explain the visa process and we allocate extra appointments 

for time-sensitive visas. In most countries, we have reduced wait times for visa appointments. We use technology and training to work smarter, to move qualified applicants faster and identify cases of concern earlier. 

The results are impressive and visa interviews have never been more secure. In 

fiscal year 2007 we issued over 6.4 million nonimmigrant visas. That is the highest 

figure since 9/11. We issued 651,000 student and exchange visitor visas last year, 

up 10.2 percent compared to the same period last year. That is an all-time high, 

and surpasses the figures from before 9/11. Since 9/11, we have seen visa demand 

grow in every region of the world. In China, for example, the number of nonimmigrant visa applications went from 320,000 in fiscal year 2003, to 544,000 in fiscal year 2007, an increase of 70 percent; in India, during that same period, the numbers went from 400,000 to 725,000, an increase of more than 80 percent. Department of Commerce figures released last December indicate international arrivals 

were up about 10 percent in 2007. 

We have invested heavily in ensuring that our interviewing officers have the 

training and tools to make excellent decisions. Diplomats are well suited to visa adjudication. Making decisions about visa eligibility under immigration law obviously 

requires knowledge of the laws and procedures, but just as importantly, the adjudicator must apply those laws to each applicant, keeping in mind the applicant’s 

qualifications, the country’s political and economic conditions and cultural background. The interviewing officer must be able to communicate clearly and effectively 

in the applicant’s language, both to assess eligibility and to communicate the decision. 

Entry level Foreign Service officers, all of whom are required to have at least one 

consular tour, are chosen through one of the most competitive selection processes 

325 

in either the U.S. Government or private sector. They enter the Foreign Service 

from a wide variety of backgrounds and bring with them an entire spectrum of skills 

and abilities. All consular officers must pass a rigorous 31-day basic consular training course before arriving at post. This training covers the legal and procedural aspects of consular work, reinforced with over 35 mock interviews where each officer 

must interview an applicant for a visa, make a decision based on immigration law, 

and communicate that decision clearly to the applicant. As part of this training, our 

new officers also receive a 4-day course on consular interviewing techniques where 

they are taught the best way to build rapport, gather information, and make a decision. The course includes briefings and hands-on analysis of documents to help officers distinguish between genuine supporting documentation and those that have 

been altered or counterfeited. Classified sessions at the CIA cover terrorist travel 

trends and terrorist indicators. 

We also provide numerous technological and management safeguards throughout 

the visa process. Every applicant undergoes security checks before a visa can be 

issued. Our system automatically runs a name-based check in a database with more 

than 20 million entries. These entries include State Department information, FBI 

files, immigration violations, and intelligence from other agencies. We also collect 

10-print fingerprints from almost all applicants, which are checked against our 

database to detect imposters, criminals, and terrorist, as well as the DHS fingerprint database, and are verified by DHS at the port of entry. Certain categories of 

applicants also are screened in a facial recognition program, which checks their 

photo against our consular database. Applicants may undergo additional security 

screening if they are from certain countries, have technical expertise of concern to 

the United States or if our database indicates a match. In addition, supervisors are 

required to review a randomly selected group of the issuances and refusals of each 

officer, which always include any issuances over a permanent ineligibility category, 

to ensure decisions were made within the law. 

The Department recognizes that potential terrorists may not necessarily be detectable through documents. Some may attempt to travel, or apply for visas, using 

genuine passports without any terrorist indicators. However, such an applicant is 

vulnerable to betraying signs of deception or revealing a back story that is inconsistent during a face-to-face interview with a consular officer, resulting in a determination of ineligibility or paving the way for a more detailed follow-up interview 

that often unmasks mala fide visa seekers. 

The Department uses a variety of additional training courses beyond the basic 

consular course to keep consular officers current and to enhance their ability to conduct effective interviews and detect, intercept, and disrupt terrorist travel. We know 

that our officers are on the front lines of diplomacy as well as national security, and 

we feel both are equally important. 

(327) 

NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Beecroft, Robert Stephen, to be Ambassador to Jordan 

Cunningham, James, to be Ambassador to Israel 

Hoagland, Richard, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Kazakhstan 

LeBaron, Joseph Evan, to be Ambassador to Qatar 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry presiding. 

Present: Senators Kerry, Lugar, Coleman, and Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much for coming to order. 

This hearing on the four important nominations for ambassadorships is now open, and I apologize for starting a few minutes late. 

Thank you for being here. 

I should apologize also for the hiatus of 2 days. We had an emergency in terms of scheduling, and I really appreciate everybody’s 

understanding. I presume you understood. [Laughter.] 

I am delighted to be here with my ranking colleague, Senator 

Coleman, and we both welcome you, and Senator Voinovich also. 

It is really excellent, the best moments of sitting on this committee when we get to have confirmation hearings is when we get 

a group of professionals in front of us who have distinguished careers. And each and every one of you brings that to the table. 

This is just a process by which we can examine your thoughts 

about the countries and regions that you are being charged with 

the responsibilities for, and we will certainly try to expedite these 

nominations as rapidly as we can. I am confident that will be pretty rapid in the next days. 

So, having taken the edge off all of your testimony, I gather a 

number of you have family here. Let me just make a few opening 

comments, and then we would love to have you introduce your family. And then we look forward to your statements. 

First of all, we have James Cunningham, the nominee to be ambassador to Israel, whose distinguished career includes postings in 

328 

Italy, the United States mission to NATO, the U.N., and most recently, as consul general in Hong Kong. 

Robert Stephen Beecroft, the nominee to be ambassador to Jordan, served in the State Department as executive assistant to Secretaries Rice and Powell. Before that, he was posted to Syria and 

Saudi Arabia and brings extensive experience in the region. 

Ambassador Joseph Evan LeBaron, nominee to be ambassador to 

Qatar, comes to us after serving as ambassador of Mauritania and 

has had several other postings in the region, including Istanbul, 

Amman, Ankara, and Doha. 

Ambassador Richard Hoagland, the nominee to be ambassador to 

the Republic of Kazakhstan, has previously served as ambassador 

to Tajikistan. And before that, Ambassador Hoagland served in 

Russia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan twice, and in Afghanistan. 

These are all significant positions that you have been nominated 

for. Our relationships with each of these countries—Israel, Jordan, 

Qatar, and Kazakhstan—offer enormous opportunities and very 

real challenges. I just met a moment ago with Wali Khan from 

Pakistan, who led a successful effort to win seats in the FATA area 

in Pakistan and beat back the religious parties, which was a surprise to a lot of people. So it is a very interesting development. 

And yesterday, I met with the foreign minister from Jordan, 

where we have a terrific relationship and a lot of ongoing issues, 

obviously. 

Over the past six decades, there is no one on this committee who 

needs to be reminded of the special nature of our relationship with 

Israel, based on any number of different values—shared history, 

culture, political, and strategic interests. And those connections extend well beyond our governments, as we know. 

In my numerous trips there in the last 24 years, I have had the 

pleasure of gaining an even deeper respect and affection for that 

relationship, and I think it is known throughout the world that the 

United States is never going to waver in that commitment. 

But Israel faces grave threats. Hezbollah is stronger. Hamas is 

stronger in many ways and has complicated the issues of the peace 

process. And so, there are tens of thousands of people in Israel, 

southern Israel, living under constant threat of rocket attack. And 

I might say I think were it us or any other country under similar 

circumstances, they might not have exercised as much restraint as 

the leadership in Israel has. 

Needless to say, it is vitally important at this moment to continue forward in the peace process and to work toward that agreement. We all understand the goal—two States living side-by-side in 

peace and security. Getting there is the hard part. We came so 

close at Taba a few years ago. The framework, I think most people 

who study it understand, it is the getting from A to that framework 

that is critical. 

I might add that in the visits I have made there, it is my judgment that the administration has too long been sitting on the sidelines in that effort. That began to change for the better with the 

Annapolis conference. 

But I can remember meeting with President Abbas in Ramallah 

3 years ago, when he was first elected, and listening to him express 

his knowledge that he knew what we needed to do—what he needVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
329 

ed to do, which was disarm Hamas. But then he asked me the 

pregnant question, ‘‘You tell me how I am supposed to do that,’’ 

and pointed to the lack of radios, cars, police, basic Politics 101, 

when measured against Hamas and their ability to deliver in the 

street. 

So I think that there is much time to make up for here, and last 

week we met with President Abbas when he was here. And I think 

it is important for the administration and Congress to work together to forward that. 

Next door, the United States has a very strong and growing partnership with Jordan, undoubtedly one of our most important allies 

in the Middle East. And Jordan’s contributions in the fight against 

terrorism in Iraq and the Middle East peace process have really 

been quite extraordinary. 

King Abdullah was an early and visionary voice in warning of 

the dangers of three civil wars in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. He has been indefatigable in his support of the 

post Annapolis negotiations, consistently encouraging the President 

and the Israelis and the Palestinians with a sense of urgency, and 

we are grateful for that and have enormous respect for those efforts. 

And Jordan’s efforts to bolster the Abbas government are key to 

countering the influence of Hamas in laying any groundwork for a 

lasting peace. So continuing that relationship is one of our principal goals. 

The war in Iraq, I might add, has exacted a very heavy toll on 

Jordan, and all of us are concerned about some 400,000, 500,000 

Iraqis living in Jordan. The foreign minister and the ambassador 

this week underscored their request for $500 million in additional 

supplemental funds, which includes assistance for displaced Iraqis 

in Jordan, and I look forward to hearing from Mr. Beecroft sort of 

where we are heading on that. 

The United States also counts on Qatar as an important partner 

in counterterrorism efforts and host to major United States military facilities. So we look forward to hearing how we are coordinating our security cooperation, and what could be done to 

strengthen regional organizations like the Gulf Cooperation Council. 

At the same time, there have been some concerns the Qatari citizens may have provided support to al-Qaeda. Fatah officials affiliated with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas publicly asserted 

that the Qataris have provided financial assistance to Hamas. 

In 2003, the Qataris approved a new constitution giving women 

the right to vote and run for office through elections for the advisory council, but they have still not been held. 

Despite those and other reforms, the State Department found 

that ‘‘serious problems’’ remained in Qatar’s human rights record, 

and Qatar is 1 of only 16 Tier 3 human trafficking countries, meaning that it has neither implemented minimal trafficking standards 

nor made significant efforts to do so. And I hope you can discuss 

today sort of what we can expect with respect to those issues. 

And finally, Kazakhstan is a key partner—Sacha Baron Cohen 

notwithstanding—a key partner on issues including combating extremism, proliferation, and human trafficking. And it is also obviVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
330 

ously a very important petroleum producer. Very persistent concerns linger over the human rights issues, including the government’s treatment of prisoners, arbitrary arrests, limitations on 

freedoms of speech, assembly, and association. 

It is always tricky in a country in that part of the world when 

there are those kinds of interests—those kinds of issues balanced 

against a set of interests that are compelling in their strategic importance to us. And working through those things is the art of diplomacy, and we look forward to hearing thoughts about how that 

will work, particularly given the fact that Kazakhstan is slated to 

take over the chairmanship of the Organization for Security and 

Cooperation in Europe in 2010. 

So, Ambassador Hoagland, we look forward to hearing from you 

about the promised improvements in those areas, and we can have 

a good conversation today. 

So let me turn it over to Senator Coleman. When he is finished, 

I hope each of you will make an opening statement. I know you are 

all well schooled by the State Department. We listen to a 5-minute 

or so opening. Your full testimony will be placed in the record as 

if stated in full, and we look forward to a good conversation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a more in-depth opening statement. I 

would like to have that put in the record. 

Senator KERRY. Without objection, that is in the record. 

Senator COLEMAN. I appreciate that. 

Your opening statement touched on so many of the salient points. 

We do have before us a group of professionals with distinguished 

careers. It makes our job much easier. This would be a good opportunity to visit with them and kind of lay out some of the concerns, 

issues of great concern, and get their perspective. 

I would note to Ambassador Hoagland, who came before this 

committee as a nominee to ambassador of Romania and I was not 

able to support moving that forward, it had nothing to do with the 

distinguished career and service of the ambassador, and I really 

look forward to moving this nomination forward. 

I do appreciate all of the gentlemen here. I really appreciate the 

quality of your service, and you are willing to take on some tough 

challenges. All of these nominees are nominees to countries which 

are important to this country. They have been friends. They have 

been allies. They are of strategic importance in an area of the 

world in which there is great danger today. 

Earlier today, I participated in a Holocaust memorial service. It 

is the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, and our relationship with 

Israel transcends current-day issues. It goes way beyond that. 

These are, I think, the most challenging times. The threat of Iran 

getting a nuclear weapon, how do we handle that? Rockets being 

launched on an almost daily basis into Israel from Gaza. How do 

we move forward in other areas without resolving that? So there 

are areas of deep concern. 

King Abdullah in Jordan has been an incredible leader, a unifying force in, again, an area that is of the greatest importance to 

331 

us. And Jordan now is facing, as the chairman has noted, challenges—Iraqi refugees. Jordan in the past has dealt with Palestinian refugees, now Iraqi refugees, and what have we learned? 

And we have an interest in the stability and the economic security 

of Jordan. And so, I would be—look forward to visiting with the 

ambassador about that. 

And in terms of Qatar, a military partner, a leader in counterterrorism. Also, by the way, the home of Al Jazeera, and questions to 

be raised there in terms of what is their role and what is Qatar’s 

role? And there have been, I have noticed, some developments visa-vis Al Jazeera and Saudi Arabia, which is kind of a lessening of 

some of the conflict there. And are there things that we can learn 

from that or things that can be done to work with our ally? 

And then, finally, in terms of Kazakhstan, this is a key partner 

in Nunn-Lugar cooperation in threat reduction. They are a key 

partner in reducing the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

I think that is the single-biggest threat, the threat of somebody 

getting a bomb and a nuclear bomb and using it. It transcends any 

of the dangers that we have faced in the past. There isn’t margin 

of error for wrong choices. 

And so, we have before us distinguished professionals who are 

nominees to be ambassadors to important friends and allies in an 

area where the margin of error for the wrong choice and the wrong 

policy and the wrong judgment is very, very thin. And the consequences of wrong choices are pretty overwhelming. 

So there is a great responsibility. I simply end where I started 

in thanking these gentlemen for their commitment to service, for 

their distinguished careers, and I look forward to moving these 

nominations forward, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Coleman. 

Why don’t we begin? We will just sort of run down one side to 

the other. I think it is just easy. So do you want to begin? 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT, NOMINEE TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN 

Mr. BEECROFT. Sure, happy to, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as ambassador to Jordan. I am grateful to the President and to Secretary 

Rice for the confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, I will 

do my best to live up to their trust and to work as closely as possible with this committee to carry out my responsibilities. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing appreciation for my family. My wife, Anne, my children, 

Blythe, Warren, Sterling, and Grace, are here with me today. It is 

my family’s support and sacrifice that has, more than anything 

else, helped me to carry out my responsibilities as a Foreign Service officer. 

Mr. Chairman, we have no closer friend or ally in the Arab world 

than Jordan. In the Middle East and around the world, Jordan 

work closely and constructively with us to promote peace and security and to fight terrorism. At home, it is engaged with the sometimes difficult and complicated task of reform, a process that we actively support and encourage. 

332 

There is no more telling example of Jordan’s positive efforts in 

the region than its close cooperation with us to help realize a twoState solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As one of only two 

Arab states to sign a peace accord with Israel, Jordan is committed 

to the roadmap and is tangibly supporting the process, including by 

providing such things as police training for Palestinian security 

forces. 

With Iraq, Jordan is actively involved on the humanitarian front, 

taking in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees. It has increasingly taken steps to ensure the dignity and well being of those refugees, opening its schools and hospitals to them, working with the 

international community to provide assistance, and facilitating our 

own refugee admissions program. 

Jordan is also working with us and the Iraqi Government to increase security. It has, for example, hosted over 54,000 Iraqi police 

officers for training. 

Outside its immediate region, Jordan was at the forefront of publicly supporting our efforts in Afghanistan, where it has deployed 

a field hospital and a demining unit. Jordan has also become a 

leading troop contributor to U.N. peacekeeping operations worldwide, having sent military and police personnel to places such as 

Haiti, Cote D’Ivoire, and Darfur. 

Jordan has also begun pursuing reform at home. For example, in 

2006, the government rolled out a 10-year roadmap for economic 

and political development. It then took a step forward by allowing 

Jordanian monitors to observe its 2007 parliamentary elections. 

Through our assistance programs, we are supporting Jordan’s reform agenda. We are, however, also engaged with its government 

and its people to encourage broader democratic development. Our 

efforts include work to expand citizen participation in the country’s 

political and economic systems, strengthen independent media, the 

judicial system, and the rights of women and laborers, and increase 

religious tolerance. 

If confirmed, I will work diligently with the Jordanian Government and people to pursue our democratic reform, development, 

and security goals and to strengthen the bilateral relationship. I 

will also work to ensure that all of our assistance effectively and 

efficiently advances those goals. 

I appreciate and value this committee’s oversight of our mission 

in Jordan. If confirmed, I look forward to welcoming the committee’s members and staff to Amman. Your presence and interest are 

a vital element in ensuring that we remain productively and successfully engaged for the Government and the people of Jordan. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beecroft follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as ambassador to Jordan. I am grateful 

to the President and Secretary Rice for the confidence they have placed in me. If 

confirmed, I will do my best to live up to their trust and to work as closely as possible with this committee to carry out my responsibilities. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing appreciation for my family. My wife, Anne, and my daughters, Blythe and Grace, are here 

with me today. My two sons are unable to be here because of school obligations. It 

333 

is my family’s support and sacrifice that has, more than anything, helped me carry 

out my responsibilities as a Foreign Service officer. 

Mr. Chairman, we have no closer friend or ally in the Arab world than Jordan. 

In the Middle East and around the world, Jordan works closely and constructively 

with us to promote peace and security and to fight terrorism. At home, it is engaged 

with the sometimes difficult and complicated task of reform, a process that we actively support and encourage. 

There is no more telling example of Jordan’s positive efforts in the region than 

its close cooperation with us to help realize a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As one of only two Arab states to sign a peace accord with Israel, 

Jordan is committed to the roadmap and is tangibly supporting the process, including by providing police training for Palestinian security forces. 

With Iraq, Jordan is actively involved on the humanitarian front, taking in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees. It has increasingly taken steps to ensure the 

dignity and well-being of those refugees, opening its schools and hospitals to them, 

working with the international community to provide assistance, and facilitating our 

own refugee admissions program. Jordan is also working with us and the Iraqi Government to increase security. It has, for example, hosted over 54,000 Iraqi police officers for training. 

Outside its immediate region, Jordan was at the forefront in publicly supporting 

our efforts in Afghanistan, where it has deployed a field hospital and a demining 

unit. Jordan has also become a leading troop contributor to U.N. peacekeeping operations worldwide, having sent military and police personnel to Haiti, Cote d’Ivoire, 

and Darfur, among other places. 

Jordan has also begun pursuing reform at home. For example, in 2006, the government rolled out a 10-year roadmap for economic and political development. It 

then took a step forward by allowing Jordanian monitors to observe its 2007 parliamentary elections. Through our assistance programs, we are supporting Jordan’s 

reform agenda. We are, however, also engaged with its government and its people 

to encourage broader democratic development. Our efforts include work to expand 

citizen participation in the country’s political and economic systems; strengthen 

independent media, the judicial system, and the rights of women and laborers; and 

increase religious tolerance. 

If confirmed, I will work diligently with the Jordanian Government and people to 

pursue our democratic reform, development, and security goals and to strengthen 

the bilateral relationship. I will also work to ensure that all of our assistance effectively and efficiently advances those goals. 

I appreciate and value this committee’s oversight of our mission in Jordan. If confirmed, I look forward to welcoming the committee’s members and staff to Amman. 

Your presence and interest are a vital element in ensuring that we remain productively and successfully engaged with the Government and people of Jordan. 

Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Beecroft. 

We have been joined by the ranking member of the full committee. Senator Lugar, do you have any opening comment you want 

to make? 

Thank you very much. 

We will turn then to your testimony, Mr. Cunningham. I begin 

by noting you had the good sense to be born in Allentown, PA. My 

wife is thrilled. [Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. CUNNINGHAM, NOMINEE TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman, 

members of the committee. 

It is an honor to appear before you as President Bush’s nominee 

to become the United States next ambassador to Israel. I thank the 

President and Secretary Rice for the trust they have placed in me, 

and I look forward, if confirmed by the Senate, to working very 

closely with this committee and with the Congress. 

334 

Unfortunately, my wife, Leslie, and our two daughters, Emma 

and Abigail, could not be here today. But I do want to thank them, 

and particularly my wife, for their support. 

Mr. Chairman, I am truly honored, as I may have the opportunity to serve our Nation in Israel at this particular time. We 

have always had a special relationship with Israel, stretching back 

to its founding 60 years ago. Over those six decades, we have 

forged a bond based on historic, personal, and cultural ties, on mutual interest and shared values, and on a record of together confronting difficult issues. 

We have a vibrant and growing economic relationship, which I 

look forward to building on. Israel has been a close partner in combating terrorism and extremist violence, especially over the past 7 

years. And the United States has always been a stalwart advocate 

of Israel’s security, a result of the exceptional support Israel enjoys 

in this country. That will, I am confident, continue to be the case. 

Our interests in Israel are strategic and enduring. 

This past August, the United States and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding that will underpin our security relationship through 2018. The arrangement calls for $30 billion to be provided over 10 years, subject to congressional approval of the yearly 

appropriation. This will allow Israel to maintain its qualitative 

military edge and to strengthen its ability to defend against terrorism. 

A strong partnership with a secure Israel is at the core of our 

goals in the Middle East. The President has now undertaken a new 

initiative to promote progress along the roadmap and the realization of his vision of a two-State solution. At Annapolis, President 

Bush and Secretary Rice brought together Prime Minister Olmert, 

Palestinian President Abbas, Foreign Minister Livni, Prime Minister Fayyad, and leaders from nearly 50 other nations. 

The decision by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas to 

launch negotiations on core permanent status issues with the aim 

of agreement by the end of this year is a significant achievement. 

The parties are meeting regularly, and there is underway now a 

structured process. 

While this process will not be easy, there is now a way ahead to 

reach an agreement that will break the history of conflict between 

Israel and the Palestinians and pave the way for two states to live 

side-by-side in peace and security. 

The President traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territories 

in January. Secretary Rice will be there again this week for the latest in what have become nearly monthly trips to the region. Just 

last week, both King Abdullah and President Abbas were in Washington. We continue our efforts through the quartet and through 

the mandates of General Dayton, General Jones, and General Fraser to solve problems and monitor the parties’ adherence to roadmap commitments. 

If I am confirmed, my highest priority will be to contribute to the 

strongest possible relationship with Israel and to help make the 

goal of peace and stability among the peoples of Israel and their 

neighbors a reality. 

Mr. Chairman, for more than 30 years, I have tried to advance 

America’s interests, to enhance America’s security, and to promote 

335 

our bilateral and multilateral relationships. I have spent much of 

that time working with regions in conflict, societies in transition, 

and people trying to move beyond their histories in search of a better future. 

In 5 years as ambassador to the U.N. in New York, I learned a 

great deal about the dynamics and pain of this troubled region so 

vital to U.S. interests. I think no one underestimates the difficulty 

of reaching the goals we have set for ourselves. 

I am both a realist and an optimist, and I am thrilled that the 

President and Secretary Rice have offered me the prospect of being 

part of this historic endeavor. If confirmed, I will do everything I 

can to support their efforts. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Cunningham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES. B. CUNNINGHAM, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you as President Bush’s nominee to become the United States next ambassador to Israel. I thank the President and Secretary Rice for the trust they have 

placed in me. I look forward, if confirmed by the Senate, to working closely with 

the Congress to advance our interests in the region. I will welcome frequent opportunities to consult with you, and I encourage you to visit often. 

I would like to begin by noting that unfortunately, my wife, Leslie, and our two 

daughters, Emma and Abigail, could not be here today. I want to thank them, and 

particularly my wife, for their support, and for the important contributions they 

themselves have made to the pursuit of America’s interests over the course of my 

career. Mr. Chairman, I am truly honored that I may have the opportunity to serve our 

Nation in Israel at this particular time in history. We have always had close and 

special relationship with Israel, stretching back to Israel’s founding 60 years ago. 

Over those six decades, as our friendship with Israel has grown stronger, we have 

forged a bond based on historic, personal, and cultural ties, on mutual interests and 

shared values, and on a record of together confronting difficult issues of consequence 

to both our nations. Over the course of our relationship, and especially over the last 

7 years, Israel has been a close partner in combating terrorism. And the United 

States has always been a stalwart advocate of Israel’s security, a result of the exceptional support Israel enjoys in this country—among the American public, from the 

11 American administrations that have held office since Israel’s founding, and from 

Congress. That will, I am confident, continue to be the case. Our interests in Israel 

are strategic, and enduring. 

This past August, the United States and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding that will underpin our security relationship through 2018. The arrangement calls for $30 billion to be provided over 10 years, subject to Congressional approval of yearly appropriations. This will allow Israel to maintain its qualitative 

military edge and to strengthen its ability to defend itself against terrorism. This 

is essential for Israel to maintain its vibrant, successful, and entrepreneurial society. 

A strong partnership with a secure Israel is at the core of our goals in the Middle 

East. The President has now undertaken a new initiative to promote progress along 

the roadmap and the realization of the President’s vision of a two-state solution. At 

Annapolis this past November, President Bush brought together Prime Minister 

Olmert, Palestinian President Abbas, Foreign Minister Livni, Prime Minister 

Fayyad, and leaders from nearly 50 other nations. The decision by Prime Minister 

Olmert and President Abbas to launch negotiations on core, permanent status 

issues, with the aim of reaching an agreement by the end of this year, is a significant achievement. The parties are meeting regularly and a structured process is 

now underway. While this process will not be easy, there is now a way ahead to 

reach an agreement that will break the history of conflict between Israel and the 

Palestinians and pave the way for two states to live side-by-side in peace and security. 

The priority the administration attaches to this effort is clear. The President traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territories in January and recently announced his 

intention to return in May. Secretary Rice will be there again this week for the latVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
336 

est in what have become nearly monthly trips to the region. Just last week both 

King Abdullah and President Abbas were in Washington. We continue our efforts 

through the quartet and through the mandates of General Dayton, General Jones, 

and General Fraser to solve problems and monitor the parties’ adherence to roadmap commitments. If I am confirmed, I assure you that my highest priority will be 

to contribute to the strongest possible relationship with Israel, and to help make 

the goal of peace and security between the people of Israel and their neighbors a 

reality. 

I would also like to mention our economic relationship with Israel. 2007 was a 

monumental year for Israel’s economy, which maintained its robust expansion of the 

past 4 years in achieving annual growth rates over 5 percent. Unemployment was 

at its lowest level in a decade and the government deficit has not been lower since 

the mid-1980s. 2007 was also a critical year in United States-Israel economic relations. Trade between our countries increased by 12 percent and United States tourism in Israel reached the highest level ever. I look forward to building further upon 

these very positive trends in our economic relationship with Israel. 

Mr. Chairman, on a personal basis, for more than 30 years I have tried to advance 

America’s interests, to enhance America’s security, and to promote our bilateral and 

multilateral relationships. I spent significant portions of that time working with regions in conflict, societies in transition, and people trying to go beyond their histories in search of a better future. In 5 years as ambassador to the U.N. in New 

York, I learned a great deal about the dynamics and pain of this troubled region, 

so vital to U.S. interests. I do not think anyone underestimates the difficulty of 

reaching the goals we have set. I am both a realist, and an optimist, thrilled that 

the President and Secretary Rice have offered me the prospect of being part of this 

historic endeavor. If confirmed, I will do everything I can to support their efforts. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, sir. 

Ambassador Hoagland. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD E. HOAGLAND, NOMINEE TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. 

I am deeply honored that President Bush and Secretary Rice 

have entrusted me with their confidence and nominated me for the 

post of ambassador of the United States to Kazakhstan. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I will work diligently and faithfully 

on behalf of the American people to pursue United States foreign 

policy goals and to deepen the strategic partnership between the 

United States and Kazakhstan. I look forward to working in close 

consultation with the Congress in pursuit of those goals. 

Before I go further, with your permission, may I recognize three 

people who have traveled to—— 

Senator KERRY. Please, we invite you to do so. We were wondering who they belong to back there. [Laughter.] 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to recognize two dear friends, Mr. Igor 

Lanskoy and Vladimir Sadov, one who has traveled many thousand 

miles to be here today. 

I would also like to recognize Elizabeth Jones, former ambassador to Kazakhstan, former Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia. And I especially want to thank her for her trust 

and support when she pushed me forward for my first ambassadorship. A very great lady, and I am grateful to her. 

Kazakhstan is an important partner for the United States. It is 

geographically strategic, ethnically diverse, resource rich, ninthlargest country in the world, roughly the size of Western Europe. 

Located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia and bordered by RusVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
337 

sia, China, and the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan’s size, location, and 

resources make it key to regional stability. 

Kazakhstan’s hydrocarbon reserves should rank it in the top 10 

oil producers in the world by 2015. Kazakhstan established its credentials for leadership immediately after its independence. It was 

the first country to renounce its nuclear weapons voluntarily after 

the breakup of the Soviet Union. 

Today, Kazakhstan is contributing to coalition efforts in Iraq, 

where it has deployed eight rotations of engineering troops since 

2003. In addition, Kazakhstan is implementing almost $3 million 

in reconstruction for Afghanistan in 2008. 

Kazakhstan is a strong and reliable partner on nonproliferation. 

Through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, 

Kazakhstan has cooperated extensively with the United States for 

over a decade to ensure that weapons of mass destruction-related 

materials and technical knowledge will not fall into terrorist hands. 

If confirmed, I would continue to promote the United StatesKazakhstan strategic partnership’s three primary goals. First, we 

seek to advance democratic and market economic reforms. Second, 

our common security interests include bolstering Central Asian 

sovereignty and independence, fighting terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and stemming narcotics trafficking. Third, we have a strategic interest in fostering the development of Central Asia’s very significant energy resources. United 

States companies have recognized Kazakhstan’s potential and are 

cooperating with Kazakhstan to develop its tremendous oil and gas 

resources. 

Mr. Chairman, we supported Kazakhstan to act as chairman in 

office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 

for 2010. If I am confirmed, I will work with Kazakhstan to fulfill 

its commitments to that organization, to reform its election and 

media laws, to liberalize its political party registration requirements by the end of 2008. 

In addition, Kazakhstan pledged to preserve the current mandate of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights 

within the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent a large part of my career serving in 

countries of the former Soviet Union. The historic, cultural, and 

economic ties between Russia and Kazakhstan are strong, and no 

one disputes the value of those ties. However, we are gratified that 

Kazakhstan values its national independence and sovereignty and 

chooses its own multiple partners based on its own national interests. Kazakhstan is in no one’s special sphere of influence. 

If confirmed, I will draw on my many years of experience in the 

region to ensure that the already-strong United States-Kazakhstan 

partnership continues to grow and prosper. Kazakhstan is an important country with a promising future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hoagland follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD E. HOAGLAND, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

appear before you today. I am deeply honored that President Bush and Secretary 

Rice have entrusted me with their confidence and nominated me for the post of amVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
338 

bassador of the United States to Kazakhstan. If confirmed by the Senate, I will 

work diligently and faithfully on behalf of the American people to pursue United 

States foreign policy goals and to deepen the strategic partnership between the 

United States and Kazakhstan. I look forward to working with the Congress in pursuit of those goals. 

Mr. Chairman, Central Asia is a region of significant importance to United States 

national interests. Recognizing the uniqueness of each of the five Central Asian nations and their sovereignty and independence, United States policy supports the development of fully sovereign, stable, democratic nations, integrated into the world 

economy and cooperating with one another, the United States, and our partners to 

advance regional security and stability. We do not view Kazakhstan or any other 

Central Asian nation as any external state’s special sphere of influence; rather we 

seek to maintain mature bilateral relations with each country based on our foreign 

policy goals and each country’s specific characteristics and dynamics. 

Kazakhstan is an important international partner. It is geographically strategic, 

ethnically diverse, and resource rich. It is the ninth largest country in the world, 

roughly the size of Western Europe. The population is 15.6 million, 59.2 percent 

Kazakh, 25.6 percent Russian, with the remainder divided among many ethnic minorities. The largely secular population is 65 percent Muslim, 30 percent Russian 

Orthodox, with the remainder divided among many smaller faiths. Located at the 

crossroads of Europe and Asia and bordered by Russia, China, and the Caspian Sea, 

Kazakhstan’s size, location and resources make it strategically important and key 

to regional stability. Kazakhstan’s hydrocarbon reserves should, by 2015, rank it as 

one of the top 10 world oil producers. 

Kazakhstan established its credentials for leadership early. It was the first country to renounce its nuclear weapons voluntarily after the break-up of the Soviet 

Union. Today, Kazakhstan is contributing to coalition efforts in Iraq. Kazakhstan 

has deployed eight rotations of engineering troops to Iraq, working on water purification and explosive ordnance disposal. To date, they have destroyed 4.5 million 

pieces of ordnance. Since 2001, Kazakhstan has provided cost-free over flights to 

over 6,000 U.S. military aircraft supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. In addition, Kazakhstan announced almost $3 million in assistance for 

Afghanistan for 2008, which includes funds for food and seed and to build a hospital, road, and school. Kazakhstan has established a peacekeeping battalion and is 

working to ensure that unit is trained and equipped to be compatible with NATO 

forces. Following an intense debate within the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Kazakhstan was selected to be Chairman in Office of the organization in 2010, the first former-Soviet republic to achieve that goal. 

Kazakhstan is a key partner on nonproliferation. Through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, Kazakhstan has cooperated extensively with the 

United States for over a decade on a host of projects to eliminate its Soviet-legacy 

weapons of mass destruction infrastructure, secure materials of proliferation concern, and redirect former weapons of mass destruction scientists to peaceful purposes. United States-Kazakhstan cooperation has ensured that weapons of mass destruction-related materials and technical knowledge will not fall into terrorist 

hands. Our bilateral Cooperative Threat Reduction agreement was extended for an 

additional 7 years on December 13, 2007, allowing programs and projects to continue uninterrupted. 

Recognizing Kazakhstan’s important role in Central Asia, in September 2006, 

President Bush and Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev reaffirmed the strategic 

partnership between our two countries, declaring our commitment to a shared vision 

of stability, prosperity, and democratic reform in Central Asia and the broader region. 

If confirmed, I would continue to promote the United States-Kazakhstan strategic 

partnership’s three primary strategic interests. First, we seek to advance democratic 

and market economic reforms. Economic reform attracts and sustains foreign investment while democratic reforms will improve opportunities for Kazakhstanis to participate openly in civic life. Together these are the only reliable ways to establish 

long-term stability. Second, our common security interests include bolstering Central Asian sovereignty and independence; fighting terrorism and the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction; and stemming narcotics trafficking. Third, we have a 

strategic interest in fostering the development of Central Asia’s very significant energy resources. The region’s resources can substantially advance international energy security, provided they have a reliable path to global markets via multiple 

pipelines that avoid geographic chokepoints or transportation monopolies. Energy 

can also form the basis of long-term economic growth and prosperity. All three sets 

of interests—democratic development, security cooperation, economic reform and energy—are interrelated and must advance together. 

339 

Economically, Kazakhstan has laid a solid foundation for its market economy and 

future prosperity. Financial reform has created a banking system comparable to 

those in Central Europe. Pension reform has created a fully funded pension system 

with $9.89 billion in assets. Kazakhstan’s oil-driven economy has averaged 9.6 percent real growth over the past 3 years. Growth toward the end of 2007, however, 

slowed due to a tightening of credit largely related to global liquidity problems and 

the overvalued local real estate market. Growth in 2008 is predicted to be between 

5 and 7 percent. Nonetheless, thanks to strong economic policies and oil wealth, 

Kazakhstan has dramatically reduced the percentage of its population living below 

the level of subsistence from 28.4 percent in 2001 to 13.8 percent in 2007. 

United States companies have recognized Kazakhstan’s potential and are cooperating with Kazakhstan to develop its tremendous oil and gas resources. They hold 

major stakes in Kazakhstan’s two largest oil and gas projects, Tengiz and 

Kashagan. Our companies do face some difficulties, including problems with the tax 

authorities and stiff environmental fines. Kazakhstan also passed legislation last 

year allowing it to terminate oil and gas contracts in the name of the country’s national economic security interests, though President Nazarbayev stressed that the 

legislation would not be used retroactively against contracts already in place when 

the legislation went into effect. Despite these concerns, it is clear that our companies and the Government of Kazakhstan are committed to a long-term partnership 

in Kazakhstan’s energy sector. 

Exchange programs are at the core of the United States-Kazakhstan strategic 

partnership. Academic, cultural, and professional exchanges are one of the most effective tools to promote the free exchange of information and ideas and to increase 

mutual understanding between citizens of the United States and Kazakhstan. 

Kazakhstani students study in the United States under the auspices of the Future 

Leaders Exchange, Hubert Humphrey Fellowship, Muskie Graduate Fellowship, and 

Fulbright Fellowship programs. Since 2005, Kazakhstan’s Presidential Scholarship 

Program, ‘‘Bolashak,’’ has sent annually 3,000 plus students to universities in the 

United States and many other countries around the world. 

Democratic political institutions, civil society and the independent media remain 

underdeveloped in Kazakhstan; the presidency dominates the political system; and 

the parliament elected in 2007 has representation from only one political party— 

the President’s. We regularly encourage the government to move forward by taking 

concrete steps toward reform, and we have assistance programs that promote democratic reform and the development of civil society and independent media. 

We supported Kazakhstan’s candidacy to act as chairman in office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but recognizing its political reform 

trajectory, we asked Kazakhstan to delay its chairmanship from 2009 to 2010 so 

that it would have time to undertake several democratic reforms. If I am confirmed, 

I will work with Kazakhstan to prepare for its 2010 chairmanship and to fully meet 

the commitments it made to Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 

participating states when it accepted the chairmanship. Kazakhstan committed to 

work closely with the organization to reform its election and media laws, and liberalize its political party registration requirements by the end of 2008. It committed 

to reform the media law in line with recommendations from the Organization for 

Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Freedom of Media Representative, which include, among others, to reduce criminal liability for defamation in the media and 

to liberalize registration procedures for media outlets. 

Kazakhstan has begun engaging the Organization for Security and Cooperation 

in Europe and civil society on the election and media laws, and we are continuing 

to monitor and encourage its progress. I will work with government and civil society 

partners alike to ensure that these reforms are implemented. In addition, 

Kazakhstan pledged to support and preserve the current mandate of the Office for 

Democratic Institutions and Human Rights within the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe, including the integrity of its election monitoring efforts. 

Our broader vision is for a strong, independent, and democratic Kazakhstan that 

is a leader and anchor of stability in the region. We believe Kazakhstan’s service 

as chairman in office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 

will help serve that broader vision. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent a large part of my career serving in countries of the 

former Soviet Union. The historic ties between Russia and Kazakhstan are strong— 

Kazakhstan has the largest ethnic Russian population of the Central Asian republics. These historic, cultural, and economic ties with Russia are important to 

Kazakhstan. However, we are aware that Russia is often at odds with United States 

efforts to promote democracy and the sovereignty of the Central Asian republics. 

Kazakhstan values its national independence and chooses its own partners. 

Kazakhstan is in no one’s sphere of influence. If confirmed, I will draw on my many 

340 

years of experience in the region to work with the Government of Kazakhstan and 

to reach out to the people of Kazakhstan to ensure that the already strong United 

States-Kazakhstan partnership continues to grow and strengthen. Kazakhstan is an 

important country with a promising future. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

Ambassador LeBaron. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH EVAN LEBARON, NOMINEE TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF QATAR 

Ambassador LEBARON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a great privilege to appear before you today as the 

President’s nominee to serve as United States ambassador to the 

state of Qatar. I am grateful to President Bush and Secretary Rice 

for the confidence they have placed in me. 

Unfortunately, my wife, Ellie, and my daughter, Petra, could not 

be here today. They are in Indiana right now, where my daughter 

is finishing her final exams at Indiana University in Bloomington. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KERRY. Is she registered? 

Ambassador LEBARON. Hope so. I have been involved in the Middle East for over 35 years. That includes serving as ambassador to 

the Islamic Republic of Mauritania during that country’s historic 

transition to free and fair elections. Confirmation by the Senate as 

United States ambassador to Qatar would be a special honor for 

me because I began my diplomatic career there. It was my first assignment. 

Qatar is a strategically located country right in the middle of the 

Gulf. We have many interests there. There are nearly 10,000 private United States citizens living in Qatar, and 200 more arrive 

every month. They are business representatives, their families, 

military contractors, university faculty, and medical professionals. 

There is a large United States military presence in Qatar, a presence deeply valued by both countries. This presence is enormously 

important. It plays a pivotal regional role in our efforts to stabilize 

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. 

Qatar’s natural gas reserves, they are the third largest in the 

world after Russia and Iran. United States energy companies already have invested over $40 billion in Qatar’s oil and gas sectors. 

Qatar is the world’s largest exporter of liquid natural gas, LNG. 

And Qatar will become one of the largest suppliers of LNG next 

year to the United States, when a large LNG terminal in southwest 

Texas is completed. 

There are huge business opportunities in Qatar. Over the next 

5 years, Qatar plans to spend billions of dollars on domestic infrastructure projects. If confirmed as ambassador, I will work closely 

with our Foreign Commercial Service to advise United States companies on business opportunities in Qatar and to advocate for 

United States companies. 

Qatar is the home of Al Jazeera, the influential satellite news 

service that broadcasts around the clock to the Middle East, North 

Africa, and elsewhere. Qatar can play a major role in helping us 

tell America’s story to the millions of Arabs and Muslims who 

watch Al Jazeera. 

341 

Qatar has been a friend to the United States. In 2006, Qatar provided over $70 million to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. 

The aid included a $17 million grant to Xavier University, the only 

historical black Catholic university in the United States. 

Back at home in Qatar, Qatar is engaged in several important 

reforms, and we are helping. It is overhauling its primary and secondary educational system along a U.S. model. At the university 

level, Qatar has imported not just the United States model, but the 

United States universities themselves. There are now several wellknown United States universities with branch campuses in Qatar. 

They include Georgetown, Carnegie-Mellon, Texas A&M, Virginia 

Commonwealth, Northwestern, and Cornell’s medical school. And 

we think more will come. 

There is also some good news on Qatar’s political development. 

Qatar has held successful elections three times for seats on the 

country’s central municipal council, an important institution. And 

there are plans to hold elections for a national parliament, with the 

United States assisting through the Middle East partnership initiative. 

Amid all of this growth and development and good news, there 

are challenges, however. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of foreign workers in Qatar who too often live in poor conditions. They have few avenues of redress in employment disputes. 

If confirmed, I will continue the sharp focus of the United States 

on the plight of these workers. 

Another example, Qatar has a highly activist foreign policy that 

often involves issues of direct concern to the United States Government, issues such as Iran, Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 

Lebanon, and Sudan. This regional activism sometimes requires intense diplomatic effort by the United States to ensure that Qatari 

and United States interests and approaches are compatible. 

That said, Israeli foreign minister Livni just paid an important 

official visit to Qatar just a few days ago. It was her first visit to 

an Arab state beyond Egypt and Jordan. Also, Israel has a trade 

office in Doha. The United States has been urging Arab States to 

take actions exactly such as these to improve Israeli-Arab ties and 

to further the peace process. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if confirmed by the 

Senate, I look forward to working closely with you, with the Congress to strengthen the partnership and to deepen the trust between Qatar and the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador LeBaron follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH EVAN LEBARON, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF QATAR

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great privilege to appear 

before you today as the President’s nominee to serve as United States Ambassador 

to the state of Qatar. I am honored by the confidence that President Bush and Secretary Rice have placed in me. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working with this committee, and 

with other Members of Congress, to strengthen the partnership between the United 

States and the state of Qatar and to advance the strategic objectives of the United 

States in the Gulf and in the broader Arab and Islamic worlds. 

I began my diplomatic career in Qatar. I am thrilled that, if confirmed, I will be 

returning there as ambassador. I have been involved in Middle Eastern affairs for 

342 

over 35 years, including serving as United States ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania in 2003–2006, during Mauritania’s historic transition to free and 

fair elections. To serve now as the United States ambassador to the state of Qatar 

would be a special honor. If confirmed, I will do my utmost to forge personal and 

governmental ties with the Qatari people and with the Qatari Government in order 

to deepen the trust between our two countries and to expand the security and prosperity of our two countries. 

The country to which my wife and I would return looks very different from the 

place we left over 25 years ago. What was once a quiet corner of the Middle East 

is now a thriving and cosmopolitan society. It is one of the wealthiest countries in 

the world. 

It is also a place where the United States has many interests. Over 9,000 private 

United States citizens now live in Qatar, and our embassy estimates that 200 more 

arrive each month. They include business representatives and their families, military contractors, university faculty, and medical professionals. 

This large influx of Americans has created a sharp increase in the demand for 

American Citizen Services last year—it was up nearly 30 percent last year. The demand for visa services rose 70 percent between 2006 and 2007, and it is continuing 

to increase at a similar pace this year. Everywhere I look in the relationship between Qatar and the United States, there is growth. From the burgeoning trade relationship, the new direct air service between Qatar and the United States, to the 

increase in American tourists to Qatar and the growing enrollments at United 

States universities. 

If confirmed as ambassador, I will work to ensure this growth continues, that the 

United States mission continues to meet the needs of our citizens in Qatar and to 

encourage Qataris and Qatar’s many foreign residents to travel, study, and invest 

in America. 

There is, as well, a large United States military presence in Qatar, one that plays 

a critical role in our efforts to bring stability to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn 

of Africa, and to confront al-Qaeda and its associated networks in the region. The 

United states-Qatari military relationship is extremely strong, deeply valued by 

both. Qatar’s Al Udayd Air Base hosts the United States Air Force’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing as well as the Combined Air Operations Center. Over a billion dollars in construction projects is either planned or already underway at Al Udayd. 

More than 70 percent of that money comes from the Qatari Government. 

The U.S. mission plays an important role in advancing U.S. regional policy goals 

through the Gulf Security Dialog, and its interconnecting pillars on regional security, Iraq, defense cooperation, counterterrorism, counterproliferation, and critical 

energy infrastructure protection. 

Qatar hosts important United States military facilities, the CENTCOM Forward 

Headquarters, al-Udayd air base, and CENTCOM’s Combined Air Operations Center. These bases are critical for United States military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Mission plays a vital role in coordinating this relationship. The 

mission also participates in the planning for further development of U.S. installations through the Military Cooperative Committee. It is in daily contact with 

Qatar’s armed forces. It consults frequently with senior U.S. military and civilian 

officials, as well as with visiting Members of Congress. 

United States strategic interests in Qatar include Qatar’s critical and growing role 

in United States energy security. United States energy companies have invested 

over $40 billion in Qatar’s oil and gas sectors. Qatar’s natural gas reserves are the 

third largest in the world, after Russia and Iran. Qatar is already the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. When the Golden Pass LNG terminal in southwest Texas is completed in 2009, Qatar will become one of the largest suppliers of 

imported LNG to our country, if not the largest. 

The income Qatar derives from oil and gas exports is very large, especially given 

the small size of Qatar’s native population, just 200,000 in a total population of 

about 1 million. Over the next 5 years, the Qatari Government plans to spend billions of dollars on domestic infrastructure projects. Even with all that spending, the 

Qatari Government projects annual national budget surpluses in the tens of billions 

of dollars starting in 2010, as production from its gas fields increases. 

Clearly, Qatar presents immense opportunities for American businesses and investors. If confirmed as ambassador, working closely with Commerce Department 

and State Department offices, I will advocate aggressively for United States bidders 

on major Qatari Government tenders. I will work closely with the embassy’s Commercial Service office to advise United States companies on developing business opportunities in Qatar and I will lead trade missions to the United States. I will support the U.S. defense industry, as appropriate, in the context of advancing our Nation’s security objectives. Qatar’s wealth also creates many opportunities for direct 

343 

inward investment to the United States. If confirmed as ambassador, I will have a 

special responsibility to ensure that the United States is an attractive destination 

for Qatari investment, both private and official. 

In addition to its importance in military, energy, and commercial affairs, Qatar 

can play a pivotal role in helping the United States tell its story to the Arab and 

Muslim world. Qatar is the home of the Al Jazeera satellite television network, 

which broadcasts around-the-clock in Arabic and English. If confirmed as ambassador, I intend to work closely not only with the Qatari media, but also with Al 

Jazeera to strengthen understanding of the United States and our policies among 

the millions of Arabs in Al Jazeera’s audience. 

Transnational terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remain at the forefront of United States concerns in the Middle East. Qatar’s strategic 

location and its plans to become a major transit point for people and cargo in the 

Middle East, Asia, and Africa will further increase the need for the United States 

to strengthen United States-Qatar collaboration on counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts, including law enforcement and judicial cooperation, information 

sharing, and training. 

In the area of democratization and education, Qatar is using its wealth wisely by 

investing in important reforms. Qatar is completely overhauling its primary and secondary schools along a United States model of competitive charter schools. At the 

university level, Qatar has imported not just the American model, but the United 

States universities themselves. There are six well-known United States universities 

with branch campuses in Qatar: Georgetown, Carnegie-Mellon, Texas A&M, Virginia Commonwealth, Weill-Cornell Medical School, and Northwestern. Even more 

will come. 

Qatar has been a friend of the United States. In 2006, Qatar provided $100 million to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The aid included a $17.5 million grant 

to Xavier University, the only historically black Catholic university in the United 

States. 

In terms of Qatar’s political development, there is also good news to report. Qatar 

has held successful elections three times for seats on the country’s Central Municipal Council. There are plans to hold elections for a national parliament. The United 

States is assisting this important development. Through technical training under 

the Middle East Partnership Initiative, Qatar will be able to strengthen this elected 

legislative body. Transparency International favorably ranks Qatar in terms of perceived corruption, listing it as 32nd in a global ranking of 179 countries. That’s the 

best ranking in the entire Arab Middle East and North Africa. The United States 

is 20th. 

Amid all this growth and development and good news, there are challenges, of 

course. Freedom House continued to list Qatar as Not Free in its 2007 report, in 

terms of political rights and civil liberties. The latest State Department Human 

Rights Report also highlighted those issues, adding that legal and cultural discrimination against women limited their full participation in society. Moreover, hundreds 

of thousands of foreign workers in Qatar too often live in poor conditions, and have 

few avenues of redress in employment disputes, the report noted. If confirmed, I will 

continue the deep engagement by the United States with the Government of Qatar 

on developing and implementing solutions to these problems. 

Qatar has a highly activist foreign policy, often on issues of direct concern to the 

United States Government, including Iran, Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 

Lebanon, and Sudan. This often requires intense diplomatic efforts by the United 

States Government to ensure that Qatari and United States interests and approaches are compatible. That said, Qatar is unique among its neighbors in that 

Qatar maintains a public relationship with Israel; Israel maintains a trade office 

there, and Israeli FM Livni recently participated publicly in a conference in Doha. 

We welcome this important engagement. The United States has been urging Gulf 

states to take actions exactly such as these to improve Isareli-Arab ties and to further the peace process. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an exciting time to be in 

Qatar. It is an important time. Qatar is opening up. It is on the move. If confirmed, 

I look forward to working closely with the Congress to strengthen the partnership, 

and to deepen the trust between Qatar and the United States of America. 

Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much. 

Again, let me just to repeat that there is a tremendous amount 

of experience at the table in all of you, and we appreciate that. 

344 

I think perhaps, Ambassador Hoagland, interestingly, you have 

perhaps the most time in place in a sense. Others have been in 

other places and other parts of the world, but I think your background in that region is particularly helpful and important in understanding what is happening there. 

Let me begin, if I can, with you, Ambassador LeBaron, since you 

just wrapped up and just sequentially flows that way. But what is 

your view of the current level of support? We have heard consistently about some of the elite circles within Qatar supporting alQaeda and some money going to Hamas, et cetera. Can you share 

with us your perception of that and how that might or might not 

complicate the relationship? 

Ambassador LEBARON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We have seen those reports. We are concerned about those reports. The Qatari Government has denied providing that financial 

support to Hamas. It is certainly a subject of great concern to us. 

There is overt political relationship between Qatar, the Government of Qatar and Hamas, clearly. But the full extent of that relationship, all of the dimensions of it are not fully clear to us. 

If I am confirmed, I certainly will take this up with the Government of Qatar and present the point that with great wealth comes 

great responsibility. And is it responsible the positions, the policies 

that they have adopted in relation to Hamas? I would like to explore that. I would like to hear how they explain it, what their rationale is, and to express the very deep concern that the United 

States has and to carry on that dialog. 

Senator KERRY. Is it your judgment that we have sufficient initiatives in place now to protect against currency export/import? 

Ambassador LEBARON. They are being put in place. Certainly 

there is a high level of United States Government engagement with 

Qatar on this very subject, and there has been a response, a positive response by the Government of Qatar. So I am encouraged by 

this. I think that it can be better. I think it will be better, but 

it—— 

Senator KERRY. I hope you would take, when you get on the 

ground there, a hard initial look at that and convey our concern, 

the Congress and the committee’s concern with respect to that 

issue. Because, clearly, there is a lot of money flowing in the region 

to Hamas, Hezbollah, to al-Qaeda, et cetera. And in a sense, perhaps our most effective tool is the finance structure in terms of 

really having an impact. 

Ambassador LEBARON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. That would be great. 

Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Beecroft, you kind of—you are coming, 

Mr. Beecroft, from the role of executive assistant to the Secretary, 

and obviously, she has enormous confidence and trust in you. And 

Mr. Cunningham, from Hong Kong and from a series of places that 

other than the U.N. are not sort of directly Israel-centric or Mideast-centric. 

So, share with us, is this an effort in both of your parts, is there 

a portfolio that you are carrying specific to the talks in the next 

months, and if so, do you have some specific expectations with respect to your roles in those talks? Why don’t you begin, Mr. 

Cunningham? 

345 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the attributes that I bring to this enterprise are not just 

my experience in New York, but the way I was—the way I used 

my time in New York to learn about the dynamics of the region. 

And when you are negotiating under difficult circumstances with 

strongly contrasting parties, you have a chance to see where their 

core interests lie and to understand better how they view their 

problems and their challenges. 

And I was continually impressed, for instance, during my time 

there with the sensitivities that Israel, quite correctly, places on its 

security interests and its need to defend itself. 

Senator KERRY. Did you travel there? Did you get a chance to 

meet any of the current leaders? 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. I did not meet the current leaders. I 

have met some of the previous leaders. 

Senator KERRY. In New York or—— 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. In New York, not in the region. I met 

the foreign minister, for instance, who came to—came to meet with 

us. We had mounted a major effort to get Israel introduced into the 

Western group in the U.N., which seems like a simple thing but 

actually required engagement at the presidential level to get it 

done. 

What I hope to do over the next 6 months, if confirmed, is to help 

the Secretary and the President understand as clearly as possible 

what is happening within Israel and their concerns as we go 

through this process. The Secretary keeps talking about the difficult decisions that will have to be made, and they are difficult, 

and we will need to have the best understanding possible of what 

the calculus is that goes into making those decisions. 

And as I have said in my statement, I have worked in my career 

in a number of areas where things have been very difficult and reconciling different interests has been difficult, and I hope I can help 

in that regard. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Beecroft. 

Mr. BEECROFT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start by saying I spent 3 years in the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau at the State Department, working closely with Ambassador Cunningham when he was up in New York on the full 

range of Middle Eastern issues, particularly Iraq. This was trying 

to keep sanctions in place and make them effective. 

I have also served in Damascus and in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for 

a number of years. And in addition to that, my responsibilities with 

Deputy Secretary Armitage and with Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice have been, first and foremost, to keep an eye on the 

Middle East, coordinate with the bureaus and the interagency, and 

travel to the countries with those individuals to meet with the foreign leaders and meet with them back here in Washington. 

So I believe I do have some experience in the region, and I look 

forward to applying it and carrying out what the administration 

and this committee would like to see done there across the range 

of issues. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Cunningham, currently Prime Minister 

Olmert is expressing the hope that what they might be able to 

achieve is sort of a broad outline of principles with respect to the 

346 

Palestinian Authority. We met this past week with President 

Abbas, who was here, who, on the contrary, hopes that there is 

going to be quite a detailed and specific statement with respect to 

what is achieved. 

Where are we in sort of bringing that together, in your judgment, 

and how do you see that, if you do, coming together? How do we 

bring such a diverging view of what the expectations are to a mutual understanding? 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. I think what we do is push forward 

or help the parties push forward as far and as quickly as they can 

to sort out the issues between them and to highlight the decisions 

that need to be made. I understand what you are saying about 

President Olmert. I think that we need to remember that we are 

not just dealing with a document. We are dealing with a process 

that has different facets. 

And I don’t think anybody can predict that this—at this stage 

how far down the path that we have opened up at Annapolis we 

will be able to go. We have the bilateral negotiation component of 

that, but we also have the building capacity component for the Palestinian Authority, the security component. 

We have the push underway to identify progress under the roadmap and to monitor what is being achieved in implementing the 

roadmap on both sides. And we have, very importantly, a regional 

context that we are trying to build to broaden support for a successful solution, however far we can get in the region among 

Israel’s Arab neighbors and countries in the Gulf. 

So there is much more involved here than what comes out in 

terms of a document or an agreement, although that is obviously 

very important. These other efforts should flow into supporting a 

maximal outcome on terms of an agreement that we can get in this 

period. 

Senator KERRY. Well, obviously, we wish you well with that. It 

is tricky, especially given the timeframe. I think the politics may 

be difficult. 

Just a last question before my time is up. Ambassador 

Hoagland—well, let me just say, I want to welcome, the Kazakh 

ambassador Idrissov is here. I am delighted to welcome him to this 

hearing. 

Mr. Hoagland, can you just very quickly sort of share with the 

committee where Kazakhstan is right now with respect to the keeping of its commitments made in 2007 in terms of assuming the 

leadership of the security and cooperation? 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. I am talking about the democratization, human 

rights commitments. 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. Right. With very intense negotiations, 

with a lot of help from European partners, with some forward 

thinking by the leadership of Kazakhstan, there was agreement 

reached that Kazakhstan would have four commitments, four primary commitments in moving forward toward its chairman in office 

for OSCE for 2010. 

Those included electoral law reform, media law reform, liberalizing political party registration, continuing to refine the system of 

local governance, and another one that is very important also, a 

347 

commitment to preserve OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions 

and Human Rights and its current mandate and oppose any attempt to weaken it. 

Work is moving forward in all of these. For example, on reforming the media law, working groups have just been established to 

put together public input from journalists, from civil society, from 

the government for the reforms that will be needed and that should 

be implemented before the end of 2008. The process is underway. 

Certainly, if confirmed, I would very much look forward to working closely with the government and with civil society to move this 

process toward a successful completion. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much for that. 

And before I recognize Senator Coleman, pro forma question that 

we need to ask everybody. Does anybody here—and I would like 

just an affirmation for the record—have any issue which might 

present a conflict of interest in the performance of your responsibilities as an ambassador to the place you have been named? 

Ambassador LeBaron. 

Ambassador LEBARON. I have no such conflict, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Ambassador Hoagland. 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. I have no conflict of interest, sir. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Cunningham. 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. None. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Beecroft. 

Mr. BEECROFT. No, sir. 

Senator KERRY. And is there any issue from which any of you 

would see that you would have to recuse yourself with respect to 

any deliberations in any of those countries? Ambassador LeBaron. 

Ambassador LEBARON. No, sir. 

Senator KERRY. Hoagland. 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. I have been told by the Office of Legal 

Ethics that I need to divest myself of Microsoft stock because 

Microsoft is active in Kazakhstan. 

Senator KERRY. Anywhere you go, you have to divest—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KERRY. I am sorry, go ahead. 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. No, I don’t have any conflict of interest. 

Mr. BEECROFT. No, sir. 

Senator KERRY. Well, thank you all very much. I appreciate it. 

Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Cunningham, I appreciate the opportunity I had to 

meet with you before this hearing. I did indicate at that time some 

concern about the relatively light background in Israeli or Arab affairs. And certainly your understanding of the diplomatic process 

at a time that we are engaged in very sensitive negotiations, I 

think, is important, and we really can’t afford not to have an ambassador to Israel. And so, you are going to be there, assuming you 

are confirmed, at a very important time. 

Let me throw out a question, and it probably can be touched 

upon by Mr. Cunningham and actually Mr. LeBaron and Mr. 

Beecroft. It is about Hamas. 

348 

On the one hand, there is a concern about the Qatar relationship 

with Hamas. Hamas right now presents one of the greatest kind 

of challenges and obstacles. We have met with President Abbas 

earlier this week, and the battle is between extremism and moderation, and Hamas represents the extremism. 

And if I could just get kind of a sense from all three—and obviously, the Jordanians have such a critical role. They have a stake 

in the forces of moderation prevailing over extremism. So if I could, 

Ambassador Beecroft, in terms of the Jordanians, do they have any 

role, can they be helpful in supporting forces of moderation in the 

Palestinian areas and lessening the influence of Hamas? 

Mr. BEECROFT. Thank you, Senator Coleman. 

Yes, I believe they are actively playing a role that is helpful and 

that is encouraging moderation, tolerance, and lessening the influence of Hamas. Among other things, Jordan has just completed 

training of approximately 400 Palestinian security forces, Presidential Guard, in Jordan. They have returned to the West Bank. 

They are currently training 600 more, which will be deployed up 

in the north—the hope is near between Nablus and Jenin—in order 

to take responsibility there that the Israelis will allow them to 

take. This has been carefully coordinated with Israel and, of course, 

with the Palestinians. 

In addition to that, they are providing things like electricity to 

build stability on the West Bank and encourage President Abbas’s 

government. They are no friend of Hamas. They have repeatedly 

made that clear. I think it is a benefit to Israel to have a country 

that is stable, secure, and moderate on its eastern border and one 

that takes border security very, very seriously to prevent infiltration of extremists, terrorists, and/or shipment of arms and that 

type of thing. 

So, yes, I think they are playing an active role. They do coordinate closely with the Israelis and with the legitimate Palestinian 

Government that we recognize. 

Senator COLEMAN. Ambassador LeBaron, I would come to you 

and come to Ambassador Cunningham last on this question. 

Doesn’t the folks in Qatar see the negative influence of Hamas in 

the region? I am concerned about their relationship with Iran. 

What can we do, what can we expect of them, and is there anything that we can do to influence them at this very kind of delicate 

time in the peace process? 

Ambassador LEBARON. Qatar has followed for some time now an 

activist foreign policy in which they have relationships with both 

the moderates and the extremists across the Arab world to include 

North Africa. This seems to be a deeply engrained principle in their 

current foreign policy. 

By that, I mean clearly they have an overt relationship with 

Hamas at a time that the United States Government properly is 

trying to isolate Hamas. At the same time, Qatar has opened relationship, a continuing relationship with Israel and has welcomed 

visits by the foreign minister, as we have just seen. 

As I understand it, sitting here in Washington preparing, if confirmed, to go to Qatar, this is part of a general principle in their 

approach toward the region in its entirety to include an open relationship with Iran. So is there more that we can do? Yes. 

349 

In recent weeks, there have been a series of higher and higher 

visits by top United States officials to the Gulf to include Qatar. 

At every one of those visits, this concern by the United States is 

expressed. I think this introduces pressure to take another look by 

the Qataris at their principle of an open set of relationships across 

the region with extremists that actually work against development 

in the region, that work against progress to include the peace between Arab and Israelis. 

You know, the Qataris participated in Annapolis, too. They have 

implicitly recognized the right of Israel to exist through a recognition of the two-State principle, which they have adopted. So I think 

that there is a chance, there is an opportunity to press this point 

with the Qataris to get them to reassess and to change and to join 

us in a more effective approach to the region, one that promotes 

not extremism, but moderation. One that promotes development 

and not sort of a return to conflict and violence. 

Senator COLEMAN. Ambassador Cunningham, when President 

Abbas was here last week and visiting with Members of the Senate, he was very critical of President Carter’s visit and discussion 

with Hamas, very critical. And made the point that it really—I 

think his comment was something to the effect of President Carter 

is speaking to Hamas, and Hamas thinks the current President is 

going to call next, that somehow this is a step of some kind of recognition, and he made it clear it undermined his efforts. 

So I presume we are not going to be talking to Hamas. What can 

we do to kind of stop them from tossing rockets into Israel on a 

regular basis? Is there something we can do that we are not doing? 

And not, by the way, just vis-a-vis our relationship with Israel, 

but since you are going to be in the region, are there any of the 

other Arab neighbors that we can lean on to play a more constructive role in lessening the level of violence so as to allow a peace 

process to move forward? 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. First, let me say I don’t think there 

is much danger of this President picking up the phone and calling 

anybody in Hamas. So that is—we have a very clear view on that. 

I don’t want to get into the merits of President Carter’s visit. But 

let me say from a strategy and policy point of view, it seems to me 

what all of us who want to have peace—peace in the region have 

a common goal and obligation. You put it quite correctly. We have 

a conflict here between extremism on one side and moderation and 

political responsibility on the other. 

We need to find a way to place a premium in the region and a 

commitment to moderation and political responsibility and 

strengthen the effort to isolate and ultimately wear down, however 

we can do that, the extremists. That is the process—that is part 

of the process that is underway now after Annapolis. It will take 

time and effort to do that. 

We can certainly play a part. We have a very active dialog with 

the Israelis about how they might enhance their security from various threats all the way from Iran to local threats from Hezbollah 

and from Hamas. We can help them through that. 

We can help keep the issue before the political leadership of the 

states in the region that are not now playing such a prominent 

role. There is a good dialog going on between Egypt, Israel, and 

350 

Jordan. But there are other countries in the region that can and 

should be playing a role in bringing more and more pressure to 

bear on Hamas to make it more and more unrewarding and 

unpalatable to engage in the kind of politics and behavior that they 

are engaging in. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. I think we could be here all day 

pursuing this issue. My time is up, and I yield. 

Senator KERRY. Thanks a lot, Senator Coleman. 

Senator Lugar. 

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

Let me just respond to Ambassador LeBaron that we were delighted to have Petra as an intern in this committee during the 

summer. She has experience on the committee that perhaps has 

been a guide for you as you have prepared for the hearing today? 

[Laughter.] 

Ambassador LEBARON. I ride on her coattails, Senator. 

Senator LUGAR. I look forward to being on the campus in Bloomington this weekend as a commencement speaker for the law school 

and perhaps will have an opportunity to see her there. 

Ambassador LEBARON. Thank you, sir. 

Senator LUGAR. I just want to ask Ambassador Hoagland some 

questions, first of all, about Turkmenistan. You were most helpful 

during our visit in January. During the change of the presidency 

in Ashgabat, you have been instrumental in representing American 

interests and inviting Americans to visit the country. I appreciate 

the time you took with me and helping me better understand 

Turkmenistan. I appreciate your assistance in meeting the President of the country, and leaders in the energy business that is of 

tremendous significance. 

But first you were serving there as a charge because we have not 

had an ambassador in Turkmenistan for quite some time. And for 

the moment, we are unlikely to have a nominee. A nominee was 

withdrawn for that position, and now you are moving on to 

Kazakhstan. 

This troubles me and many others because this is a critical moment in the development of the relations between the new President and his neighbors, as well as with the United States. I am 

hopeful that this will be a promising course. Would you just state 

for the record again the importance of having an ambassador to 

Turkmenistan at this time? 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. Thank you, Senator. I would be glad to 

state that. But first, let me thank you personally for the effort you 

made to visit Kazakhstan—Turkmenistan in January. That was a 

really important visit. The country is changing dramatically with 

its new leadership, and the more that we can engage at high levels, 

the stronger our relationship will be. 

I think your visit was especially important because of a cultural 

factor. You remember the President said that you are a living legend. He listened very, very closely to you, and we saw movement 

on a number of our issues after your visit. So I thank you for that. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. Of course, I feel it is important that we 

should have a confirmed and an accredited ambassador. We haven’t 

351 

had one since July 2006, and during this crucial period of change, 

it is something that we have to have. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me ask, with regard to Kazakhstan, you 

have mentioned the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Program. Currently, negotiations are underway with the government on expanding our efforts there. Astana has been highly cooperative and made many significant decisions. At the time of my 

visit in that country, in January, there was dispute over a laboratory for dangerous pathogens. 

It was a legitimate dispute in which one section of the government felt that agriculture and health work should not be conducted 

in the same building. Some argued that the buildings should be 

simply demarcated. Others pointed out that in the case of a particular pathogen, parts of the building are designed to hold and annihilate livestock, quite apart from human beings. The United 

States disagreed and pointed out that the plan was working well 

in other countries. I don’t know how that has been resolved. 

But I would just say that there are a number of issues of this 

variety in terms of weapons of mass destruction, including leftovers 

from the former Soviet Union. And so, I just ask you to exercise 

due diligence on these issues as they come forward from our DTRA 

program in the Pentagon. 

Andy Webber has been a particular emissary, well acquainted 

with Kazakhstan and with you. But this is a critical moment and 

I would ask for your strong support in this area. 

The second question I have is that in January, a very large conference of six international oil companies was in gridlock with the 

Kazakh Government. Essentially, whatever the justification, the 

Kazaks felt that even though these six may have invested estimates of $50 billion onwards up to $100 billion in attempting to extract energy from one of the most significant areas in the Caspian 

Sea situation, they had not been successful thus far. Therefore, income to the Kazakh Government had not come about. 

So the Kazakhs wanted to become a stockholder or an equity 

holder in the investment. As a result, profit distributions would go 

to the government first before they went to the stockholders of 

these six international companies. Essentially, an agreement along 

those lines appears to have been reached in the last week or two. 

Can you give us any insight on that negotiation? Likewise, has 

there been any decision on where the oil exports will go? Our hope 

is that a great deal of that energy supply would move across the 

Caspian Sea, even join the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Can you 

give any insight as to how that is proceeding? 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. Thank you, Senator. I would be glad to 

do that. 

I think if I tried to answer every one of those questions, we 

might be here until late in the evening. So let me try to hit the 

top of each one, sir. 

The negotiations with the consortium. I think when you have a 

number, in this case six plus one, of 800-pound gorillas fighting for 

the same bed, the game is going to get pretty rough sometimes. 

That doesn’t mean that they can’t work out the problems. One of 

the problems in that particular negotiation was that the lead for 

352 

the consortium was not meeting its responsibilities. And so, 

Kazakhstan had legitimate concerns over that. 

I know a number of the companies that are—leaders of the companies that are involved in this, and they are working towards a 

satisfactory conclusion. Kazakhstan, like many other countries, is 

concerned about the future of its national wealth in the ground. 

Some people talk about resource nationalism sometimes. There has 

been a new law passed for subsoil resources in Kazakhstan. 

But one thing that is terribly important, I think, is the commitment that President Nazarbayev has given to the companies already active, including the U.S. companies, that that will not be 

applied retroactively. If confirmed, of course, as ambassador, it 

would be my responsibility, one of my highest responsibilities to 

protect the interests and property of the United States citizens and 

to advocate in any way appropriate for their business interests. 

You also asked—let me answer this very briefly—about getting 

the oil out because oil is—right now Kazakhstan is producing 1.48 

million barrels per day, and that is going to rise very quickly in 

the coming years. Almost all oil has to go out through Russia right 

now. They are not going to be able to get it out. 

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan have recently signed an intergovernment agreement, if I am not mistaken, and that will help in barging in the first instance oil across to the BTC, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan 

pipeline, possibly also through Supsa to Batumi. That work is underway. I would look forward to also being deeply engaged in that, 

if confirmed. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much. And I hope, as appropriate, you can report back to this committee from time to time 

how it goes. This is of critical importance in several areas, including our energy committee as well as our foreign relations effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

Senator Lugar, I want you to know that as you were being 

praised by Ambassador Hoagland, both Senator Coleman and I 

shared the incredibly heavy thought of how much better it is to be 

a living legend than the alternative. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH Thank you. 

Mr. Hoagland, I am really pleased that you understand the responsibility that Kazakhstan has in terms of being the minister in 

charge of the OSCE, and you are familiar with how important it 

is that we continue to support ODIHR and those tolerance and 

nondiscrimination offices on the core budget. 

And any information that you could get back to me on what the 

status is in replacing Christian Strohal, who is now head of 

ODIHR, I would appreciate it, because it is really important that 

Kazakhstan and everyone understand how important that person 

is to the future in terms of the responsibilities of ODIHR. 

If you have any recent information on that, I would like to have 

it because we are really trying to figure out who is the best person. 

To my knowledge, right now, our Government is not pushing anybody for that role. But I really think it is important that we do 

have a role in making sure that we get the right person there. 

353 

Ambassador HOAGLAND. Senator, I agree with you. The OSCE 

plays an important role throughout the entire region. It has played 

an important role throughout the entire region. Many of its most 

important functions are under attack. For the specific question you 

asked, I am sorry, I don’t have that precise information. But I 

would be glad to take the question, sir, and get the information to 

you. 

Senator VOINOVICH I would really appreciate that. 

And Mr. LeBaron. 

Ambassador LEBARON. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH On Qatar and the Gulf Cooperation Council, 

it is good news that Israel is starting to have a relationship with 

Qatar, and I suspect that you will be meeting, periodically, with 

your counterparts on the council. It seems to me that the better the 

relationship that can be developed between that council and Israel, 

the better off everyone is going to be. 

I think their involvement in pushing the two-State solution, their 

concern about a mutual enemy right now of Iran I think is really 

important that that be as developed as much as it possibly can. 

Ambassador LEBARON. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH Mr. Cunningham, what role are you going to 

play? Let me just be candid with you. 

We have got 7 months—maybe—left of this administration working on a ‘‘two-state’’ solution. I would like to know what has the 

Secretary of State has told you about what role, if any, you are 

going to play in the two-state solution or the immediate problem 

of trying to reconcile the differences of the border dispute with 

Gaza, or working things out somehow with the Hamas problem, 

which is fundamental to moving forward with even the contours of 

a two-state solution. 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. Senator, I spoke to the Secretary yesterday morning, as a matter of fact. And she made very clear to 

me that she believes several things. The parties on both sides of 

the dispute in Israel and the Palestinian Authority do want to 

make progress and do want to get ahead and do want to establish 

the maximum amount of agreement that they can over the next 7, 

8 months, however much time there is. 

She also said that they understand, as she believes, that time is 

not on their side, that there is a process and an energy and an urgency now to making progress, although, as I said in my statement, 

nobody underestimates the difficulties of dealing with these very 

complex and long-enduring issues. 

What she wants me to do, if I am confirmed, is she wants me 

to help her have the best understanding of the dynamics in the region from Israel’s point of view, of Israel’s concerns about its security, to have me build the strongest possible security and political 

relationship that we can have with Israel. Because at the end of 

the day, it is confidence in that relationship that helps Israeli leaders take the kinds of decisions or even examine the kinds of decisions that they are going to be looking at over the next couple of 

months. 

I think she would also want and expect me to be conveying as 

clearly I can and as I can help to do to all sectors of Israeli society 

what our views are about the situation in the Middle East and 

354 

what it is that we are trying to do to help the parties in the Middle 

East who want to have peace, a peaceful and a stable relationship. 

Senator VOINOVICH Well, I have to be candid, Mr. Chairman. I 

have some real problems with that. I just finished a book by Aaron 

Miller called ‘‘A Much Too Promised Land.’’ I don’t know if you 

have read it or not. If you look at where we have been successful 

in some of our initiatives there, it takes a unique set of circumstances. 

I just wonder, you are going to come in there without really any 

background. It takes a while to figure out who the players are and 

get at it. And it seems to me that if we are going to make the kind 

of progress we would like to make there, it is almost going to take 

a full-time effort on the part of the Secretary of State. We have got 

Mr. Welch involved and we have Abrams at NSC. We have Secretary Rice, and Mr. Chairman, you have got three generals over 

there. 

From an organizational point of view, it doesn’t look like it could 

be that successful. And I am really concerned that with this short 

amount of time, whether or not you will be able to fulfill the role 

that the Secretary wants you to play there. Would you like to comment on that? 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. Well, I never said it was going to be 

easy. I don’t think anybody expects that any aspect of this is going 

to be easy. But the individuals that you have mentioned are really 

focused on all aspects of the process from now through the next 

several months. And as I said earlier, there are four major different 

paths that we are trying to bring together. 

You commented on the organizational aspect of this. Elliott 

Abrams, David Welch have been working on these issues intensively for quite some time, as has the Secretary herself been, and 

Ambassador Negroponte, who I just saw today. They are focused 

and determined on bringing the maximum effort that we can muster to make as much progress as possible over the next couple 

months, both in the region and directly to the extent that we can 

be helpful in the bilateral negotiations. 

I understand your assessment that this is going to be quite difficult. But it is a time and a place where there is an opportunity, 

and I think we owe it to our friends and to ourself to try to make 

the most of it. 

Senator VOINOVICH Well, I would really like to get more information about the role you are going to play. Because from an organizational perspective, it takes a while to get the nuances of what is 

going on and meeting the people, and you are dealing with some 

tough individuals. How to handle them and what to do is going to 

be very, very important to our success there. Frankly, I would rather not know that you are the one that is going to be out in front, 

that somebody else is doing it and maybe you are a backup or have 

some other role to play. 

So I am very interested in finding out just exactly what that 

portfoliois ? What do they expect to do? I would also like to know 

who is on the team, how are they going to get this, who is in 

charge, and how they are going to work this out? 

But right now, it looks to me like we have got too many people 

over there doing too many things, and I am concerned about the 

355 

coordination of that effort, if we expect to get anything done in a 

very short time between now and the next administration. For 

those of you in the State Department here, I want you to know that 

I would like to have that information, and I am sure maybe the 

chairman would be also interested in the same thing. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I was going to say we are going to leave 

the record open for 3 days. We do want to try, depending on obviously the sentiment of the committee, Senator, to move the nominations, absent some fundamental opposition to them. But you certainly deserve an answer to that question, and we will leave the 

record open for 3 days. And I am confident that they will comply 

and get that to you. 

Senator VOINOVICH Thank you very much. And please don’t get 

me wrong here, you have got a great background. I am just worried 

about the time we have left and the challenge that is there. 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. I appreciate that, and I assure you, 

I am, too. And my colleagues are as well. And I hope we can give 

you an answer that will alleviate some of your concerns. 

Senator VOINOVICH Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Cunningham, just a last question, if I can? 

I think we have sort of reached a point where a lot of the questions—I mean, we could go on asking about the policies ad infinitum, and I would love to. But I think that in terms of the committee’s purpose here that that will not serve a lot. 

And I think if we get to some tough places, as is usual, since you 

haven’t been there yet and you are not yet confirmed and you are 

not in place, we are going to learn that you need to get there to 

find out so you could answer the question. So that is the circular 

nature of these proceedings. 

But if I can ask you, Mr. Cunningham, what is your view with 

respect to the chatter about Israel’s back channel efforts right now 

that are taking place with respect to Syria? And if you would comment on whether or not this administration—my hope would be the 

administration is not going to get in the way of those or object to 

them or somehow indicate displeasure with respect to them. 

And I wonder what your take is? If you can—if you have had 

some communication directly about that, or can you share with us 

your view of this? 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Senator. 

There are obviously signals going back and forth, as you all have 

seen in the press and in the regional press about messages being 

transmitted about interest in some kind of talk, reopening the 

Syria discussion. I think our view is we don’t think that is a particularly promising angle to pursue under present circumstances. 

But I don’t think that we have—let me rephrase that, if peace is 

possible, if progress on peace is possible, that would be—that would 

be something to be welcomed. 

But as a practical matter and given the amount of difficulty that 

Syria is causing on some very important issues throughout the region, I don’t think that we think that it is particularly promising 

right now. 

Senator KERRY. But the administration’s interest has been quite 

to the contrary, not to talk is an actual part of our policy. And if 

Israel is undertaking something that runs counter to that, my 

356 

question is are we going to register displeasure? Are we going to 

try to stand in the way of it, or are we going to give full opportunity for them to pursue what they think is in their interest? 

Ambassador CUNNINGHAM. I am not privy to the considerations 

at that level, either in Israel, obviously, or privy to what they may 

have told us at the highest level, and that would be a conversation 

to be held at very high level. 

I think that the prospect of opening a discussion with Syria 

would have another difficulty attached to it, which is that Israel 

now has its attention focused on, as the Senator said, on its process 

with the Palestinians in the region. Opening up another front for 

negotiation, as it were, might prove difficult, both for the current 

negotiations and for an establishment trying to deal with some 

very difficult problems already on the table. 

We have—you are quite right. We have taken the position that 

it is not very useful right now for us to be talking to Syria. They 

know the issues that they need to address that are of concern to 

us, particularly in Lebanon, their relationship with Iran, their relationship with Hezbollah, and other things that they know are of 

great concern to us. 

If the time comes to have a discussion, I think it is clear what 

the issues will be, but we don’t think that right now it is promising. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Beecroft, am I correct that this good-looking young family 

back here belongs to you or—— 

Mr. BEECROFT. I know it seems improbable. But, yes, they do, 

sir. 

Senator KERRY. No, on the contrary. Well, we want to thank 

them for being here. They have been attentive. 

And let me say to all of your families that we really do appreciate what they put up with in the course of all of this. There are 

long hours, a lot of absences in some cases, and sometimes some 

hardship. So we really respect that and appreciate it, and we thank 

all of you for coming today and being part of this process. 

So the record will stay open for these 3 days. I don’t anticipate 

a lot of questions, but whatever will be submitted we will get to 

you right away. And thank you, and we wish you well and look forward to personal updates maybe somewhere along the road. 

We stand adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF HON. JOSEPH EVAN LEBARON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. In the 2007 State Department Trafficking in Persons Report, Qatar is 

ranked as a ‘‘Tier 3’’ country, ‘‘not fully comply[ing] with the minimum standards 

for the elimination of trafficking and not making significant efforts to do so.’’ What 

has been the impact on efforts to eliminate trafficking of placing Qatar in the Tier 

3 category? Has this designation prompted the Government of Qatar to make any 

significant or notable efforts to comply with standards to eliminate human trafficking? If confirmed, what actions will you take to address the problem of human 

trafficking and to urge the Government of Qatar to make progress on this issue? 

357 

Answer. We remain very concerned about Qatar’s record with trafficking in persons issues. While the Government of Qatar has made some progress over the last 

year in referring some trafficking victims to its shelter and successfully implementing legislation prohibiting the use of under age camel jockeys, many issues remain. The Government of Qatar has drafted comprehensive antitrafficking legislation in the past year, but it has yet to be approved and enacted. Of special concern 

to us are foreign laborers, who are subject to Qatar’s rigid sponsorship laws, which 

effectively leave them at the mercy of their employers. The Government of Qatar 

has made some progress on a new law to change some of the more onerous sponsorship regulations, yet this also remains in the drafting stage. 

If confirmed, I will continue to make trafficking in persons a priority for the mission, and will actively engage the Government of Qatar at the highest levels to encourage more tangible progress in preventing labor exploitation and other forms of 

human trafficking. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. Identifying the most important actions is easy. They involved the Islamic 

Republic of Mauritania, when I was the ambassador there, 2003–2006. 

On August 3, 2005, a coup brought to power a group of military officers headed 

by Col. Ely Ould Muhammad Vall. As so many other coup leaders do, Col. Vall 

promised to hold elections for a new president at some undetermined time. 

I knew that it was very important to get the coup leaders to take immediate, concrete steps towards fulfilling that promise. It was one thing to talk about elections; 

it was quite another to take tangible steps toward them. 

Three days after the coup, therefore, I pressed Col. Vall to invite the United Nations to send technical advisors to help Mauritania plan for and execute free and 

fair elections, and to set an early, specific date for them. I kept up the pressure on 

him throughout August, and, about 3 weeks later, in late August, he finally agreed 

to issue the invitation. 

That invitation was critically important, for two reasons. First, the U.N. does not 

send such experts unless specifically invited. So effective planning for elections 

could not begin until the invitation was issued. 

Mauritania had never held free and fair elections for a president; presidential succession had always been by coup. It just had to have the U.N. there, as a first step 

toward such elections. Second, the invitation helped lock the coup leaders on a clear 

path leading toward free and fair elections. I knew that, once issuing the formal invitation, it would be hard for them to back away. 

In March 2007, Mauritania successfully held an internationally-observed free and 

fair election for President, its first since its independence over 45 years earlier. 

Throughout that period, these are the democracy promotion lessons I learned, in 

terms of coups: 

• Quick policy decisions and associated diplomatic action are vital. So often coup 

leaders will say they intend to return the country to democratic rule, or to establish democratic rule. The U.S. Government must test the coup leaders’ stated 

intention by pressing them to take immediate steps to achieve that intention. • Public diplomacy must be an integral part of the U.S. Government response. • Education and training must be packaged with financial assistance, with education and training taking precedence. Despite the best intentions, coup leaders 

will almost certainly lack the knowledge and experience necessary to plan, organize, and conduct complex democratic exercises. • The responsibility within the U.S. Government for determining appropriate responses and implementing them should be pushed as far forward, toward the 

U.S. Embassy and country team, as possible. The best knowledge of a country’s 

geopolitical terrain will reside in the field, with embassies and international organizations. • The ties of the international community to the country must be leveraged. Wellestablished international aid organizations may be ideally positioned to take the 

lead in assisting sensitive political and electoral processes. • Coordinated action by the international community is essential. 

In addition to all the actions I took during that first year after the coup to get 

Mauritania on the track to democratic elections, I also seized the opportunity to 

help set the conditions for a democratically elected government to take up the highly 

sensitive and long-festering issue of Mauritania’s legacy of slavery. That is another 

long story, but its essence is this: In 2006, I mounted a campaign in the AfroMauritanian community, including those exiled in northern Senegal, to give the 

fledgling democratic process in Mauritania a chance. This was a singular opportunity, I told them, to get a new, democratically elected Mauritanian Government 

358 

to take up the issues that had estranged Afro-Mauritanians from the Arab Moor 

community for many, many decades. In the end, significant parts of the AfroMauritanian community did get involved, and the new government has responded, 

taking several important steps to improve communal relations, including the return 

of Afro-Mauritanian exiles to Mauritania. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Qatar? What are 

the most important steps you expect to take—if confirmed—to promote human 

rights and democracy in Qatar? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. By regional standards, the status of women in Qatar has improved, in 

part due to the influence of active women in positions of status, such as Sheikha 

Moza Al-Misned, the wife of the Emir and head of the education-focused Qatar 

Foundation. Three separate municipal elections over the last several years—with 

full participation by Qatari women—show that democratization is also proceeding, 

although the mission has developed an active training and technical assistance program to spur further progress. 

The related issues of labor exploitation and trafficking in persons, discussed 

above, are probably the most pressing concerns we currently have regarding human 

rights in Qatar. If confirmed, I will continue the mission’s efforts to encourage 

progress on these fronts, specifically the passage and implementation of effective 

antitrafficking legislation. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Qatar in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. There is a significant constituency in Qatari society and in the government that hopes for further progress. Energetic recent press coverage of human 

rights issues indicates that Qatar is ready to consider this topic more seriously. Regarding trafficking in persons, it is my hope that Qatar’s Tier 3 ranking will not 

alienate our supporters in the government and private sector, but will instead serve 

as a spur to action, and I will exert every effort to encourage them to view it as 

such. 

Question. In your new position, what steps would you take to ensure that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of post/bureau activities? 

If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign Service officers who 

engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for 

superior service? 

Answer. The mission has an active program to advance human rights objectives. 

Recently, for example, the embassy held a successful press conference following the 

release of the annual human rights report that received significant coverage from 

local press. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing the mission’s strong focus on 

human rights. Specifically, I plan to use the country team forum to ensure that our 

human rights objectives are integrated into the activities of all relevant offices and 

agencies. The experience I have gained throughout my career, and especially as Ambassador to Mauritania during that country’s transition to democracy, has taught 

me that coordinating with our international partners and continuing our active engagement with nongovernmental actors—including exchange programs, training, 

and assistance—will be critical to successful human rights promotion. 

If confirmed, I will make this a priority for all mission staff, and will encourage 

all supervisors to include achievements in the field of human rights promotion in 

reviews of their employees’ performance, stressing the importance of these activities 

to advancing overarching United States objectives in Qatar and the region. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly, if confirmed, with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Qatar who are working to promote 

human rights? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look very much forward to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in both countries. The mission actively engages nongovernmental organizations working in the human rights field, and I will be happy 

to lead that effort. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. In September 2007, the United States and Jordan signed a memorandum of understanding on nuclear power stating that the ‘‘two countries will work 

359 

together to develop requirements for appropriate power reactors, fuel service arrangements, civilian training, nuclear safety, energy technology, and other related 

areas.’’ What is the current status of these efforts and what assistance has the 

United States provided to date? 

Answer. We believe Jordan is a reliable partner for peaceful nuclear energy cooperation. We are confident that Jordan’s interest in nuclear technology is solely for 

the purpose of peaceful, alternative energy production. Jordan currently imports 100 

percent of its energy needs, and its vulnerability to world oil prices has strained its 

economy recently. We would like to help this valuable ally with its energy security. 

As you note, the United States and Jordan signed a memorandum of understanding in September 2007, in which Jordan affirmed its commitment to nonproliferation and to rely on existing international markets for nuclear fuel services 

as an alternative to the pursuit of enrichment and reprocessing. We recently completed negotiations with Jordan on a Section 123 Agreement to allow United States 

companies to export reactors and fuel to Jordan in the context of the highest safety, 

security, and nonproliferation standards. The proposed agreement is currently 

under review in Washington and Amman. If the President approves it and authorizes its execution, the Section 123 Agreement with Jordan would be subject to a congressional review period of 90 days of continuous session before entering into force. 

The Department of Energy, through Argonne National Laboratory and Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, conducted a feasibility study for Jordan on the introduction of nuclear energy taking into account the IAEA milestones. The study 

analyzed Jordan’s energy and nuclear energy goals, reviewed its infrastructure development, including safeguards and nonproliferation conventions, human resources, 

and regulatory framework and provided suggestions for a path forward. The methodology developed for the Jordan study could prove useful in conducting feasibility 

studies in other countries seeking nuclear power. Jordan also attended a National 

Nuclear Security Administration run seminar ‘‘Aspects of Planning and Implementing Effective Infrastructure for a Nuclear Energy Program’’ for countries in 

North Africa. We are reviewing other infrastructure-related projects for possible implementation. 

Question. The Bush administration has made a concerted effort to encourage Arab 

neighbors of Iraq to support the Maliki government. How would you characterize 

the relationship between Jordan and the Maliki government? What has Jordan done 

to promote Sunni-Shia reconciliation in Iraq and to support the Maliki government? 

Answer. The United States appreciates Jordan’s efforts to help Iraq become a unified, free, and prosperous nation and Jordan’s cooperation with P.M. Maliki’s government. Jordan has helped lead Sunni outreach efforts in Western Iraq, and King 

Abdullah has made a number of public statements in support of Sunni-Shia reconciliation. Jordan has hosted over 54,000 Iraqi police for training, as well as a limited number of border, corrections, and counterterrorism personnel. Jordan has expressed deep concern for humanitarian issues, and it has provided significant humanitarian aid, set up a field hospital in Fallujah, and hosts an estimated 450,000– 

500,000 Iraqis who have been displaced from their homes. The Government of Jordan is an active participant in the Expanded Neighbors Process and hosts the 

Neighbors Working Group on Refugees. Jordan maintains a limited presence at its 

embassy in Baghdad but does not have a resident ambassador. We continue to urge 

the Jordanians to return their ambassador to Iraq and to work with them to achieve 

the greatest possible support for the people and Government of Iraq. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read the cable on Peace Corps-State Department Relations 

(04 State 258893). 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I agree to abide by the principles set forth in the cable. 

We have a robust Peace Corps presence in Jordan, currently with 55 volunteers in 

country, and it is important that they be able to carry out their mission effectively. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’ role and its need for separation from the 

360 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and I accept that the Peace Corps must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our Foreign Policy, 

and the Peace Corps’ role and its need for separation from the day-to-day activities 

of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I pledge to exercise my chief of mission authorities so 

as to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy and flexibility in its day-today operations as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and 

policies. 

RESPONSES OF HON. JOSEPH EVAN LEBARON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. Based on your past service as Deputy Director of the Office on Iran and 

Iraq in the State Department and your prospective position as United States Ambassador to Qatar, how would you describe Qatar’s relations with Iran? What concerns, if any, do you have about Qatar’s relationship with Iran? How does Qatar 

view Iran’s nuclear program? 

Answer. Qatar maintains an activist foreign policy, and has relationships with all 

countries in the region. Many Qataris see Iran as a regional power with whom they 

must engage to protect their own national interest. Qatar also shares the immense 

North Field natural gas deposits with Iran. 

Regional security, and the destabilizing role Iran is playing, is a regular topic of 

our consultations with Qatari officials. A key element of this is Iran’s nuclear program. Although Qatari officials have supported Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear 

program, Qatar has also voted in favor of United Nations sanctions against Iran, 

specifically Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 in 2006 and 2007. If I am 

confirmed, I will lead the embassy in continuing to engage the Qatari Government 

on our concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and other destabilizing actions in 

the region. Qatar is also sensitive to Iranian efforts to access the international 

banking system, and we will continue our frequent discussions with Qatari financial 

regulators on this topic. 

Question. You have most recently served as the Foreign Affairs Advisor to Special 

Operations Command. Based on this experience and your prospective service as ambassador to Qatar—a country with a significant United States military presence 

how would you characterize the working relationship between the United States 

military and the State Department. What are the major hurdles to improving interagency cooperation and how do we begin to overcome them? 

Answer. Thank you for these questions, which are important and complex in equal 

measure. To keep my answer as focused as possible, I would like to comment on 

the working relationship overseas in U.S. embassies, where personnel from State 

and Defense—and from other agencies and departments, as well—must work closely 

and cooperatively if they are to achieve the goals and objectives of the U.S. Government. 

The State-Defense working relationship in U.S. embassies is generally good, in my 

opinion. But it can and must be even better, especially after 9/11. I believe the best 

way to overcome the major hurdles to interagency cooperation is for chiefs of mission to synchronize systemically across the country team their embassy’s programs 

and activities. That is, led by the chief of mission, country teams should synchronize 

the objectives, programs, operations, and initiatives contained in the various planning documents that exist for each executive branch agency and department represented on the country team, military and civilian. 

Once those foundation documents are synchronized in an integrated set of programs and activities, the impact, power, and efficacy of U.S. foreign policy in the 

host country should improve dramatically. Metrics should be developed to determine 

if that is, indeed, occurring. Such synchronization is a continuing process, of course, 

with regular chief of mission-led country team assessment meetings required to review rigorously and to recalibrate as necessary. 

I believe the U.S. military would welcome such a chief of mission-led synchronization effort in U.S. embassies, since synchronization, at least at the tactical level, 

361 

is deeply embedded in its culture and training. While the interagency synchronization I envision is more strategic than tactical, I have every intention of introducing and operationalizing this process at Embassy Doha, if I am confirmed. 

Question. In February 2008, the United States Department of State reported that 

‘‘military relations between the United States and Qatar are extremely close, and 

Qatari support remains essential for United States operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.’’ Given the importance of United States bases in Qatar to ongoing operations 

in the wider Middle East, can you foresee any developments that could endanger 

the bilateral relationship and United States access to its bases in Qatar? 

Answer. The United States military presence in Qatar is extremely valuable to 

both nations, and reflects shared security priorities. While we continue to engage 

the Government of Qatar on certain policy aspects that are of concern to the United 

States, including human rights, democratization, and Qatar’s relations with Iran 

and Syria, we are currently unaware of any issues to endanger either our larger bilateral relationship or United States access to military facilities in Qatar. 

RESPONSES OF HON. RICHARD E. HOAGLAND TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable reference: 04 STATE 258893—Peace CorpsState Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes. I have carefully reviewed this cable. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes. I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in 04 

State 258893 regarding Peace Corps-State Department relations. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the dayto-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other government 

agencies’’? 

Answer. Yes. I understand the need to keep the Peace Corps substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct of our foreign policy and, if confirmed, will strongly 

support this policy. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. I pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise my 

chief of mission authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy 

and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies. 

RESPONSE OF HON. RICHARD E. HOAGLAND TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

Question. What is the status of the current Director of the Office of Democratic 

Institutions and Human Rights Christian Strohal and the process to select his replacement? 

Answer. Ambassador Christian Strohal is scheduled to depart his post in June 

2008. Finding highly qualified successor for this critical job is a high priority for the 

U.S. Government. We have been working with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Chairman in Office and with like-minded allies to reach consensus on the best candidate from among several outstanding contenders. We understand the Chairman in Office intends to bring the process to conclusion within 

several weeks. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. An April committee staff report on Iraqi refugees, entitled ‘‘Managing 

Chaos—The Iraqi Refugees of Jordan and Syria and Internally Displaced Persons 

362 

in Iraq,’’ recommended that ‘‘the regularization of the status of Iraqis in Jordan and 

Syria should be made a first-order priority for American diplomats.’’ Do you agree 

with this recommendation? What can be done, in your view, to encourage the Government of Jordan to take further steps toward regularizing the status of Iraqi refugees in Jordan? 

Answer. The United States takes very seriously the challenge of regularizing the 

status of Iraqi refugees in Jordan and elsewhere in the region. The United States 

Government has made it a priority to intensify diplomatic efforts with Jordan and 

other host-country governments, and if confirmed, I will continue to focus on this 

issue as a top priority. We have already seen our efforts begin to bear some fruit. 

Last year, for example, Jordan lifted restrictions preventing Iraqi children whose 

parents lacked residency permits from attending public school after our embassy in 

Amman lobbied heavily for Iraqis to be able to attend school. Jordan has also permitted Iraqis to access public health facilities on the same basis as Jordanian citizens. In February, King Abdullah made a firm commitment to U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres that Jordan would not arbitrarily expel or 

refoule Iraqi refugees. We understand that Jordan is abiding by this commitment. 

We will continue to work with Jordan to regularize the status of Iraqi refugees and 

to ensure that they are protected and have access to needed services until they can 

return voluntarily to Iraq. 

Question. The Millennium Challenge Corporation gave failing scores to Jordan in 

2008 on its political rights and civil liberties assessment indicators. Will you commit 

to making it a priority, if confirmed, to support the freedom of Jordanians to assemble, associate, express their opinions, and participate in public life? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will make it a priority to engage with the Government and people of Jordan in support of political rights and civil liberties. To that 

end, I believe it is of utmost importance to continue United States support to the 

efforts of Jordanian reformers to improve freedoms of assembly, association, speech, 

press, and movement, and to increase citizen participation, particularly among 

women, in civil society and the government. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. I have worked in the Middle East and in Washington to promote human 

rights and democracy. I count among my most meaningful experiences my responsibility for human rights at our embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 

At our embassy in Saudi Arabia, I engaged directly with the Saudi Government 

to press for increased human rights, reform, and democratization; drafted the 

human rights report on Saudi Arabia; coordinated with third-country embassies to 

build support for a joint approach to the Saudi Government on key points of our 

human rights policy; conducted meetings with third-country embassies with large 

expatriate populations in Saudi Arabia (e.g., India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and 

others) to develop a coordinated approach to the Saudi Government on the need to 

improve and respect the human rights and religious freedom of foreign guest workers; organized meetings between United States Government officials and third-country national leaders of underground churches regarding their experiences with the 

lack of religious freedom and the persecution of religious minorities. 

Although far from successful in resolving all human rights concerns in Saudi Arabia, this work was necessary and helpful to the cause of human rights. Specifically, 

it served to encourage other embassies to increase their attention to the practices 

of the Saudi Government and to the human rights of Saudi citizens and third-country nationals. It also helped us and others to constructively engage and influence 

the Saudi Government on specific human rights cases and issues. Finally, it allowed 

us to make the Saudi Government aware that we were monitoring particular issues, 

cases, and individuals and thereby discourage any government action to curtail or 

diminish the human rights and religious freedom pertinent to those particular 

issues, cases, and individuals. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Jordan? What are 

the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights 

and democracy in Jordan? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. As the Department stated in its 2007 Country Human Rights Report, the 

Government of Jordan respected human rights in some areas, but its overall record 

continued to reflect some problems. Jordan’s most pressing human rights issues fall 

into four major categories—political rights and freedoms, prisoner rights, labor 

rights, and the rights of women and minorities. The United States continues to 

363 

monitor religious freedoms in Jordan, although Jordan has historically been a model 

for religious tolerance in the Arab world. 

Through a broad array of efforts, the United States works in close collaboration 

with government officials and local civil society actors on a broad range of rights 

and freedoms. Our assistance aims to increase citizen participation in the political, 

economic, and social development of the country; increase the capacity of the parliament to promote transparency and accountability; strengthen independent media; 

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the judicial system; strengthen the rights 

of women; and increase religious freedom and tolerance. The United States pursues 

these goals through direct dialog with the government and targeted programmatic 

assistance efforts through USAID, the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), 

and the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. These programmatic efforts focus on the rule of law, protecting human rights, and political participation 

that engage both government institutions and Jordanian civil society. 

In addition, the United States conducts human rights and rule of law training for 

the military to help instill democratic principles, including civilian control of the 

military, and promote respect for human rights. An ongoing U.S.-funded counterterrorism fellowship program teaches the country’s military personnel how to combat 

terrorism while respecting the rule of law, human rights, and civil rights. Approximately 300 members of the military receive U.S.-funded training through these programs each year. We have also initiated an International Visitor Program for corrections officers to expose them to Western prison management practices. 

On a regular basis, we engage Jordan on measures to combat trafficking in persons and exploitative labor practices. The United States Government is funding a 

5-year program entitled, ‘‘Better Work Jordan,’’ through the International Labor Organization and International Finance Corporation. This program includes training 

for management and workers on rights and responsibilities of workers, with a particular focus on migrant workers, as well as technical assistance to improve the capacity of Jordanian labor inspectors to identify and resolve labor issues. USAID has 

also funded an international advisor to assist the Jordanian Ministry of Labor in 

bringing its labor standards up to international levels. We continue to stress the importance of criminally investigating and punishing acts of forced labor. 

U.S. assistance designed to advance and promote the role of women in society continues to achieve tangible success. A 3-year U.S.-supported program through an 

international NGO which started in January 2008 promotes advocacy against gender-based abuse and funds an annual antiviolence campaign which holds events 

throughout the country. 

Finally, working to promote religious freedom and tolerance, the United States 

sponsors exchange visits and, in numerous contacts with private American and Jordanian groups, encourages interfaith dialog and understanding. A U.S. grant supports exchange visits between Americans of diverse religious backgrounds and Jordanian Shari’a judges, scholars, and students. The embassy also regularly engages 

directly with government officials urging progress on applying internationally recognized standards of religious freedom and removal of restrictions on religious minorities. Examples of specific embassy actions include publicly supporting conferences 

to promote effective interfaith dialog, raising reported cases of religion-based harassment and intolerance, and advocating on behalf of expatriate religious workers and 

students who request legal residency. 

If confirmed, I intend to continue these important initiatives and programs as 

well as increase our focus on other areas of reform, such as prisoner rights. I am 

confident that through our concerted efforts and work with the Government and 

people of Jordan, we will be able to help the Government and people of Jordan to 

expand and deepen their rights and freedoms. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Jordan in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. Jordan has made significant and important strides to reform. The United 

States supports Jordan’s efforts and engages its Government and its people to encourage further reform and development. There are, however, some institutional 

practices and public sensitivities, as well as regional political conditions, that affect 

United States measures to address human rights issues in Jordan. For example, discriminatory attitudes toward women persist in certain professions and among parts 

of the populace; media freedoms continue to be hampered by self-censorship; the correctional system continues to draw its prison guards from the larger pool of Jordanian police, rather than fostering a professional cadre of correctional officers, 

which slows the process of changing management and individual attitudes; and the 

government faces challenges in working with Parliament to pass needed labor reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
364 

forms concerning the abuse of foreign workers and the enforcement of labor standards. As Jordan advances its reform agenda, it will face the challenge of ensuring 

appropriate and complete implementation of its reforms. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with the Jordanian Government and people to 

overcome institutional obstacles, address public sensitivities, and meet the challenges of implementing their reforms. I will also work to offer the United States 

support and assistance needed to help Jordan successfully carry out reform and development. 

Question. In your new position, what steps would you take to ensure that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of post/bureau activities? 

If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign Service officers who 

engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for 

superior service? 

Answer. Promotion of human rights will be a central component of our ongoing 

dialog with Jordanians on reform. If confirmed, I will instruct every office in my 

mission to encourage and support Jordan’s reform and development efforts. In addition, I will ensure that every embassy officer integrates support for our human 

rights agenda into her or his portfolio, and I will see that such work is professionally rewarded through the presentation of appropriate Department of State 

awards and the preparation of appropriate employee evaluation reports, which serve 

as the basis for promotion and advancement. I will also work to ensure that the promotion of human rights and democracy remains a central pillar of our USAID, DRL, 

MEPI, and other assistance programs. 

RESPONSES OF HON. JAMES B. CUNNINGHAM TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

BACKGROUND

You have had an impressive career as a Foreign Service officer spanning more 

than three decades. However, you have never been posted to the Middle East and 

appear to have relatively little background in Middle East affairs, including ArabIsraeli issues. In your written testimony to the committee, you stated that you 

‘‘learned a great deal about the dynamics and pain’’ of the Middle East during your 

time as Deputy Representative to the United Nations from 1999 to 2004. 

Question. Please explain in more detail your engagement on Israeli and ArabIsraeli issues at the United Nations. 

Answer. In almost 5 years as Deputy Representative, working together with the 

Representative, I handled, or supervised the handling of, issues related to the Middle East in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. In my first year in 

New York, I worked closely with Ambassador Holbrooke on a major, successful effort to find Israel a home for the first time in the groupings of countries that do 

much of the U.N.’s day-to-day business and, importantly, propose countries as candidates to head U.N. groups or committees. From September of 2000, with the beginning of the second intifada, until I departed New York in the summer of 2004, 

I dealt with a constant stream of draft resolutions and statements in both the Security Council and the General Assembly. Some of them produced positive elements 

such as recognition of the importance of the Road Map, or the affirmation by the 

Security Council of President Bush’s vision of two states living in peace, embodied 

in UNSCR 1397 in 2002. Much more frequently, however, we were confronted with 

ill-advised, unbalanced, or hostile attempts to use the U.N. bodies to prejudice 

events on the ground, to prejudge the outcome of political discussions, or to take 

actions detrimental to Israel—while ignoring or underplaying the terrorist attacks 

taking place against Israel itself. At the extreme, this was an almost full-time activity. Our success in defeating or turning aside unhelpful activity in the Security 

Council eventually led the Palestinians and others to take recourse in the General 

Assembly, where obtaining the votes necessary to pass tendentious measures was 

a more certain proposition. 

This meant defending United States policy in the Middle East, and Israel’s need 

for and indeed its right to security, in a complicated and sometimes hostile environment. It meant developing a close working relationship with the Israeli delegation, 

understanding the history and regional politics, and the legal and political histories 

of many of the issues we were dealing with—territories, terrorism, the rights and 

obligations of the parties, and the political processes at play and those we were trying to create. It also required an understanding of the dynamics and politics of the 

Arab world, and of the Palestinians themselves, since their interests are not monoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00372 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
365 

lithic. Syria was on the Security Council for 2 years during this period, creating an 

additional challenge, with an intense dynamic. I developed close working relationships with some of my Arab colleagues as well, and good professional relationships 

with others. I also worked with and developed expertise in the relationships and interests of other major players in the region—the U.N. itself, of course, the European 

Union, and the Quartet. 

Question. What portion of time would you estimate you spent engaged on Israeli 

and Arab-Israeli issues while at the United Nations? 

Answer. That is difficult to estimate. At times it was almost 100 percent of my 

time. For example, in times of high tension there were almost around-the-clock discussions and negotiations that could last for days on end. There would also be periods of relative inactivity, although Middle East issues, including Lebanon, were a 

regular fixture on the U.N. agenda. I would guess that overall I spent one-quarter 

or more of my time on Israel and Arab-Israeli issues, and more than that percentage 

of my time on Iraq, which was simultaneously a pressing issue, especially after September 11. 

Question. To what extent was this engagement focused on the so-called ‘‘final status’’ issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (defined in the 1993 Oslo accords as 

‘‘Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest’’)? 

Answer. In many respects it was all about ‘‘final status’’ issues, because the debates and resolutions revolved around terror and security, the use of force and violence, settlements, the separation fence, Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and its 

aftermath, the relationship of Israel to its neighbors, a two-state solution, and the 

rights and obligations of Israel and Palestinians under international law. Also at 

issue was the underlying question of whether the conditions existed, or could be created, to get underway a meaningful process leading to an end to violence and ultimately to a peace process, and the appropriate role of the international community—issues which remain relevant today in a different context. 

Question. In which other of your assignments have you been engaged on Israeli 

and Arab-Israeli issues? 

Answer. I have not been very directly engaged on Israeli and Arab-Israeli issues 

in other assignments, but I have dealt with other issues in the region, and have 

long experience applicable to the region. My first assignment to USUN, as deputy 

political counselor, came just after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. I was heavily engaged in the mission’s activities on Iraq, and the liberation of Kuwait and the aftermath, for the entire time I was in New York for that assignment. If I am confirmed, 

I believe my extensive background in security and political/military affairs, and 

knowledge of NATO, the European Union, and the U.N. will prove valuable, since 

security and international community support will be key elements of any peace 

process. 

Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the Annapolis process? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Annapolis process by ensuring that Embassy Tel Aviv’s resources are fully devoted to supporting the President’s and the 

Secretary’s personal diplomacy. I will also assist Generals Dayton, Jones, and Fraser in fulfilling their mandates. I will seek to build support among Israeli leaders 

and publics for the Annapolis process, and use my contacts with Israeli leaders to 

advance it. I will maintain the best and most constructive relationships I can with 

all segments of the Israeli political spectrum, ensure that United States policy and 

objectives are understood, and provide the President and the Secretary the best information we can on Israeli views and concerns and on the political dynamics at 

play. I will, of course, also present U.S. views clearly, and seek to build the closest 

possible relationship with this important friend and ally. I have considerable experience with difficult negotiations, and hope to contribute to finding solutions to the 

issues on the table. 

RACHEL CORRIE

On March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie, an American citizen, was killed by an Israel 

Defense Forces bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza, while protesting home demolitions. 

Question. Please provide a detailed account of steps taken, if any, by the executive 

branch and the Department of State, including the United States Embassy in Tel 

Aviv, to encourage the Government of Israel to undertake a thorough, credible, and 

transparent investigation into Ms. Corrie’s death. 

366 

Answer. The United States Government takes its responsibilities involving American citizens abroad very seriously and has repeatedly engaged the Government of 

Israel at the highest levels about this issue. Immediately following Ms. Corrie’s 

tragic death, President Bush telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to request 

a thorough and transparent investigation and was given personal assurances by the 

Prime Minister that there would be one. Additionally, then-Secretary Powell, Ambassador Kurtzer, Deputy Chief of Mission LeBaron, Assistant Secretary William 

Burns, and Deputy Assistant Secretary David Satterfield, among others, raised this 

issue with their counterparts and other appropriate authorities in the Israeli Government. 

More recently, during a visit to Israel, former Assistant Secretary for Consular 

Affairs Maura Harty specifically raised outstanding issues again with her counterpart at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Yigal Tzarfati. Assistant Secretary Harty also gave Mr. Tzarfati a letter that reiterated the U.S. Government’s 

request for a full and transparent investigation of the incident. 

The Government of Israel has not yet fully responded to Assistant Secretary 

Harty’s letter, and specifically her request for a full and transparent investigation. 

The United States Embassy in Tel Aviv will continue to follow up with the Israelis 

for a response to our inquiries. If confirmed, I will ensure that this follow-up takes 

place and press the Government of Israel for a response. 

Additionally, in late October, representatives from the Department of State met 

with the Corrie family and with Congressman Baird and his staff at his offices to 

discuss concerns that the Corrie family still has with respect to the death of Rachel 

Corrie. We are continuing to investigate charges of irregularities with the Israeli 

Government’s handling of the case and to respond to the family’s concerns to the 

maximum extent. 

Question. In your opinion, has a thorough, credible, and transparent investigation 

taken place? If not, what specific, concrete steps will you commit to take, if confirmed, to ensure that such an investigation does take place? 

Answer. The Department remains committed to providing the highest standards 

of citizen services to the Corrie family. If confirmed, I will continue to press the Government of Israel for a thorough and transparent investigation of the tragic death 

of Rachel Corrie. 

RESPONSES OF HON. JAMES B. CUNNINGHAM TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

Question. Well, I would like to get more information about the role you are going 

to play [in helping to achieve progress on the ground and in Israeli-Palestinian 

peace talks launched at Annapolis last November]. 

Answer. The Administration is firmly committed to a two-state solution to the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not only in the interest of Israelis and Palestinians, but also an American national interest. If confirmed, as Ambassador to Israel 

I will ensure that the embassy’s resources are fully devoted to supporting the President’s and Secretary Rice’s personal diplomacy, and utilize my own contacts with 

Israeli leaders and publics across the political spectrum to solidify support for the 

process launched last November in Annapolis, and to advance it. I will provide the 

President and the Secretary with the best information available to the embassy on 

Israeli views and concerns, and on the political dynamics involved. I will also support the process by presenting United States views clearly to the Israeli Government and maintaining the best possible dialog between us. 

Since Annapolis, we have been working to achieve progress on four parallel, complementary tracks. First we are supporting the parties’ bilateral negotiations, which 

began in earnest shortly after Annapolis with the creation of a negotiating structure 

and a vigorous schedule of bilateral talks on the full spectrum of issues. The parties 

have kept the substance of these talks private, which reflects the seriousness of 

their effort. The Secretary and Assistant Secretary Welch are deeply and personally 

engaged in supporting the parties’ efforts in this area. As the President’s representative to Israel, if confirmed, I would be an integral part of our engagement with 

senior Israeli officials on this most delicate issue, working with the Secretary and 

Assistant Secretary Welch to help keep the talks on track. 

Second, we are working to promote progress by the parties in fulfilling their commitments under the Roadmap. For the Palestinians, this means combating and dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism, undertaking institutional reforms, and 

ending incitement. For Israel, it means halting settlement expansion, removing unauthorized outposts, easing movement and access to improve Palestinian economic 

367 

and humanitarian conditions, facilitating security coordination, and reopening Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, consistent with previous agreements. The 

President and Secretary Rice have asked Lt Gen. William Fraser III to monitor developments in this area and to work with the parties to promote progress on Roadmap implementation. As ambassador, I would work closely with General Fraser to 

ensure the success of his mission, and I would utilize my regular contact with senior 

Israeli officials to effect visible progress on these important issues. Another element 

to this effort is security coordination between Israel and the Palestinians. I would 

engage directly with the Minister of Defense and his staff to help ensure coordination and support is as effective as possible in response to the efforts we are now 

seeing by the Palestinian Authority Security Forces. 

Third, we are working to support Palestinian economic development and institutional capacity building. Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his 

role as Quartet Representative, has taken a leadership role on this issue, identifying 

priority projects and working with the parties and international donors to facilitate 

implementation on the ground. As Ambassador to Israel I would work to ensure 

Israeli coordination and support for the important programs that these funds will 

support, as well as for the efforts of LTG Keith Dayton, the U.S. Security Coordinator, who is working to reform and professionalize the Palestinian security forces, 

including a program providing training and nonlethal equipment. 

Fourth, we are working to sustain and expand regional support for the parties’ 

efforts. Arab political and financial support will be crucial in order for both Israel 

and the Palestinians to make the difficult decisions necessary for peace. As Ambassador to Israel my role in this area would be less direct, but I would hope to use 

my experience in the dynamics of the region to contribute to our thinking about how 

to advance on this track. 

Question. So I am very interested in finding out just exactly what is that portfolio? What do they expect to do? And also I would like to know who is the team? 

Who is in charge? How are they going to work this out? 

Answer. I earlier described the four tracks we are working to advance—bilateral 

negotiations, Roadmap implementation, Palestinian capacity building, and building 

regional support. The administration has structured its effort to ensure focused attention is paid to each of these important sets of issues. Generals Dayton, Jones, 

and Fraser are each working on separate but related areas. Each is important, but 

distinct from the others. I have met two of the three, and both told me that there 

is no confusion among them, and that they are all in frequent contact. For Lt. General Dayton, whom I have not yet met, the focus is building the capacity and professionalism of the Palestinian Authority Security Forces and helping to foster internal 

reform and improved security coordination with Israel. For General Jones, the focus 

is on exploring the security aspects of a permanent status agreement, helping to define each party’s security needs and what regional arrangements and international 

support might be needed. For Lt. General Fraser, the focus is on monitoring and 

promoting progress by both parties on their commitments under the Roadmap. At 

the same time, the United States Ambassador to Israel and the United States Consul General in Jerusalem are providing logistical and policy support to these missions, keeping Washington informed of developments on the ground, and maintaining our bilateral contacts and dialog with Israel and the PA. 

All of this work on the four tracks, as well as the effort of our considerable diplomatic establishment in both the embassy and the Consulate General, as well as 

throughout the region, is conducted at the direction and under the oversight of the 

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, David Welch, and the Secretary of State. Their personal engagement, and that of the President, is really the 

engine that makes this process run, along with the good will and determination of 

the Israeli and Palestinian leadership who are committed to peace. The current 

United States structure is helping to achieve real progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and on the ground, ranging from the easing of restrictions on West Bank 

movement, to training and equipping the PA security forces. We are hopeful that 

our continued efforts will be successful in helping the Israelis and Palestinian realize our shared goal of a peace agreement before the end of 2008. 

RESPONSES OF HON. JAMES B. CUNNINGHAM TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. In the wake of the 2007 Annapolis Conference, many have expressed 

optimism that a major agreement could be reached between the Israelis and Palestinians by the end of the Bush administration. As Secretary Rice prepares to 

368 

make her fourth visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories since the Annapolis 

conference, much of this optimism appears to have faded. What is the status of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority and what must the 

United States do at this point to jumpstart the process and increase the likelihood 

of a successful outcome? Also, on a related note, without the constant presence of 

a U.S. special envoy responsible for all aspects of the negotiation, do you believe the 

United States can provide the oversight of the talks necessary to ensure success? 

Answer. As you know, the administration in firmly committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We view this as not only in the interest of 

Israelis and Palestinians, but also an American national interest. Since Annapolis 

we have been working to achieve progress on four parallel, complementary tracks. 

First and foremost, we are supporting the parties’ bilateral negotiations, which 

began in earnest shortly after Annapolis with the creation of a negotiating structure 

and a vigorous schedule of bilateral talks on the full spectrum of issues. The parties 

have kept the substance of these talks private, which reflects the seriousness of 

their effort. As part of this process, Secretary Rice has enlisted the services of General (ret.) Jim Jones, former Commandant of the Marine Corps and NATO Supreme 

Allied Commander, who is looking at the security aspects of permanent status. The 

Secretary and Assistant Secretary Welch are also deeply and personally engaged in 

supporting the parties’ negotiating efforts. The President’s commitment is also clear. 

We must recognize, however, that a peace agreement cannot be imposed from outside, and it is the parties themselves who must work through the difficult compromises necessary for peace. They are having serious discussions in an organized 

process. The United States will support them, will work to ensure the talks stay 

on track, and when appropriate we will offer ideas to help facilitate progress. 

Second, we are working to promote progress by the parties in fulfilling their commitments under the Roadmap. For the Palestinians, this means combating and dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism, undertaking institutional reforms, and 

ending incitement. For Israel, it means halting settlement expansion, removing unauthorized outposts, easing movement and access to improve Palestinian economic 

and humanitarian conditions, facilitating security coordination, and reopening Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem consistent with previous agreements. The 

President and Secretary Rice have asked LTG William Fraser III to monitor developments in this area and to work with the parties to promote progress on Roadmap 

implementation. Given the secret nature of the bilateral negotiations, progress on 

the ground is crucial to reflect the seriousness of the process as well as progress 

that is being achieved in the negotiations. 

Third, we are working to support Palestinian economic development and institutional capacity building. France hosted a donors’ conference in December which generated pledges of $7.7 billion dollars in budgetary and programmatic support for the 

PA. The Ad Hoc Liaison Committee will meet on May 2 to maintain close donor coordination. Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his role as Quartet Representative, has taken a leadership role on this issue, identifying priority 

projects and working with the parties and international donors to facilitate implementation on the ground. The United States is doing its part. In Paris we pledged 

$545 million in support for the PA, including $150 million in budgetary support 

which was delivered to the Fayyad government in mid-March. Additionally, LTG 

Keith Dayton, the United States Security Coordinator, is working to reform and professionalize the Palestinian security forces, including a program providing training 

and nonlethal equipment. There is a particularly urgent need for budgetary support 

for the Palestinians, and we are strongly encouraging Arab governments to do their 

part. 

Finally, we are working to sustain and expand regional support for the parties’ 

efforts. Arab political and financial support will be crucial in order for both Israel 

and the Palestinians to make the painful compromises necessary for peace. The 

Arab Peace Initiative was an important step. Now, as President Bush said in July, 

‘‘Arab nations should build on this initiative—by ending the fiction that Israel does 

not exist, stopping the incitement of hatred in their official media, and sending cabinet-level visitors to Israel.’’ 

We will promote progress on each of these four tracks, each of them vital to the 

goal of a peace agreement by the end of the year. Secretary Rice is traveling regularly to the region to advance the process. President Bush’s January trip to Israel 

and the West Bank, his first as President, and plans for another Presidential trip 

in May reflect his personal engagement and commitment to this issue. There are 

substantial obstacles that must be overcome to reach the goal of a permanent status 

agreement. And opponents of peace are working to undermine the leaders’ efforts 

as evidenced by the serious escalation of violence in Gaza and southern Israel in 

February and March, and the tragic terrorist attack in Jerusalem on March 6, and 

369 

more recently against Gaza crossing points. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that 

an agreement can be reached before the end of 2008. Prime Minister Olmert and 

President Abbas are partners truly committed to peace, and they enjoy our full support in their historic effort to realize the Palestinian people’s aspirations for a better 

life and statehood, and the Israeli people’s aspiration for peace and security. 

Question. It is reported that Israeli maintains more than 500 checkpoints and 

roadblocks in the Palestinian Territories, representing one of the major points of 

contention in the ongoing talks. What is the status of Israeli roadblocks in the Palestinian Territories and what specific steps is the administration taking to encourage the Israelis to reduce the number of checkpoints and improve the daily lives 

of average Palestinians in the West Bank? 

Answer. The United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported on May 1 that Israeli obstacles to movement in the West Bank had increased 

to over 600. These range from earthen mounds, some put in place in association 

with specific Israelis security operations, to major checkpoints on the roads between 

large Palestinian population centers. The Government of Israel views these roadblocks and checkpoints as a vital component of Israel’s efforts to prevent terrorists 

from infiltrating and carrying out attacks in Israeli cities. For the Palestinians, 

these obstacles to movement are both a daily nuisance and a major constraint to 

economic growth and development. 

Israel has committed to reducing obstacles to Palestinian movement in the West 

Bank, both under the Roadmap, and in the November 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access that Secretary Rice brokered. There is an urgent need for progress 

in this area to build confidence between the parties, sustain popular support for negotiations, as well as to facilitate progress on important economic and capacity 

building projects for the Palestinians. Easing restriction on Palestinian movement 

is inextricably linked to Palestinian security performance. If the Israelis can trust 

that the Palestinian Authority security forces (PASF) are taking the necessary steps 

to uphold law and order and combat terrorism, it will be much easier for Israel to 

ease West Bank movement and access restrictions. 

These are priority issues for our diplomatic missions in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 

and the special envoys the Secretary and President Bush have appointed to advance 

Israeli-Palestinian peace. LTG Keith Dayton is spearheading U.S. and international 

efforts to train, equip, and professionalize the PASF. At the same time Quartet Representative Tony Blair and General Jim Jones (ret.) are working to integrate economic and capacity building projects with PASF deployments. We are also working 

with Israel to help rationalize the easing of movement and access restrictions which 

are necessary for these projects to succeed. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. William Fraser III, 

who heads U.S. efforts to monitor and promote progress on Roadmap implementation, is reporting on progress on the ground and keeping the Secretary of State informed so she can support both parties’ efforts in this area. Secretary Rice met with 

Israeli Defense Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority PM Fayyad on March 30 

to discuss this issue, among others. That meeting resulted in agreement to remove 

more than 50 roadblocks and to improve security coordination. Israel followed 

through and removed more than 50 roadblocks, some of them significant. Much 

more remains to be done, and improved performance by the PASF and Israeli-Palestinian security coordination should help facilitate continued progress. Progress on 

the ground remains a vital component of overall progress toward peace, and as such 

will remain a high priority. 

Question. King Abdullah II of Jordan hosted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert 

yesterday in Amman. After this visit, a Jordanian royal palace statement urged 

Olmert to work on ‘‘improving the living conditions of Palestinians in the West Bank 

and the Gaza Strip.’’ Despite a significant infusion of foreign aid, the World Bank 

has recently warned that the Palestinian economy is not likely to grow this year, 

largely due to continued IDF restrictions on movement. Yet, a recent report by a 

group of retired Israeli generals and Palestinian officials identified 10 major West 

Bank checkpoints that could be removed—boosting the Palestinian economy—without jeopardizing Israeli security. Are you aware of this report, do you find the report 

credible, and what actions, if any, are the Israelis taking to implement its recommendations? 

Answer. Improving the living conditions of Palestinians is a top priority for the 

United States Government and a key focus in our efforts to achieve progress between Israel and the Palestinians. As the World Bank and IMF have pointed out 

in recent reports, obstacles to movement and access of people and goods in the West 

Bank remains a serious impediment to the type of economic revival that the U.S. 

Government and the international community would like to see and are working to 

370 

support. We are aware of the recent study published by ex-Israeli military generals 

and Palestinian officials regarding the 10 West Bank checkpoints. 

We continue to encourage and work with Israel and the PA to foster improved 

Palestinian security performance and Israeli-Palestinian security coordination, and 

to move forward with vital steps to ease restriction on Palestinian movement and 

access in the West Bank. Secretary Rice just returned from the region where she 

engaged with Israeli and Palestinian officials on the need to improve conditions in 

the West Bank, including through a reduction in the number of obstacles to movement in the West Bank that significantly undermine Palestinian economic development. We are also working to professionalize the Palestinian security forces so that 

they can take the necessary steps to uphold law and order and combat terrorism. 

These are issues that clearly are most effectively addressed in concrete terms rather 

than in the abstract. With that in mind, we are working closely with the parties 

on an integrated approach to security performance and coordination, economic development and capacity building projects, and movement and access issues. Jenin 

will be the first target of these collaborative efforts and we are hopeful that this 

new approach will yield tangible benefits and bring new life and hope to Jenin, setting an example that can be followed elsewhere in the Palestinian territories. 

RESPONSE OF HON. RICHARD E. HOAGLAND TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

Question. Any information that you could give me on just what the status is in 

replacing, I think it is Christian Strohal, who is now head of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, I would appreciate. Because it is really important that Kazakhstan and everyone understands how important that person is 

to the future in terms of the responsibilities of the Office of Democratic Institutions 

and Human Rights. So if you have got any recent information on that, I would like 

to have it back because we are really trying to figure out who is the best person. 

And to my knowledge, right now, our Government is not pushing anybody for that 

role. But I really think it is important that we do have a role in making sure that 

we get the right person there. 

Answer. The Chairman-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation 

in Europe announced on May 14 that all participating states had joined consensus 

in approving the nomination of Slovenian State Secretary Janez Lenarcic to be the 

next director of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, replacing 

Ambassador Christian Strohal, who is scheduled to depart his post in June 2008. 

The Department of State is pleased that this highly qualified candidate for this critical job obtained the support of all 56 participating states. Ambassador Lenarcic displayed the qualities that made him an outstanding candidate when he served as the 

representative in Vienna of the then-Chairman-in-Office during the Slovenian chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Department looks forward to working with Ambassador Lenarcic when he assumes his position on July 1, 2008. 

(371) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Bernicat, Marcia Stephens Bloom, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau 

Bodde, Peter W., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Malawi 

Booth, Donald E., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia 

McMahon Hawkins, Patricia, to be Ambassador to the Togolese Republic 

Milovanovic, Gillian Arlette, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Mali 

Myles, Marianne Matuzic, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Cape Verde 

Nolan, Stephen James, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Botswana 

Thomas-Greenfield, Linda, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Liberia 

Tritelbaum, Donald Gene, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Ghana 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Russell D. Feingold 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Feingold and Isakson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. This hearing will come to order. Good morning everybody. 

We have an impressive array of foreign policy experience and expertise before us this morning. I would like to begin by thanking 

our nine nominees for being here today, but more importantly, for 

your many years of service and for your willingness to work in 

some of the most demanding positions in the U.S. Government and 

in some of the more difficult postings around the world. 

I would also like to offer a warm welcome to your families and 

friends whose ongoing support will be necessary as you set off, once 

confirmed, to undertake your new position. And I encourage you, 

when you make your brief remarks, to please introduce any of your 

family members or friends who are with you today. 

372 

Last, but certainly not least, I want to acknowledge and welcome 

my colleague, Senator Johnny Isakson, who is joining us as the 

ranking member of this committee for the first time. Senator, I am 

looking forward to working with you on a range of countries and 

issues related to Africa, but it seems appropriate that our first 

committee hearing together is one in which we will engage with the 

men and women who have accepted the challenging responsibility 

of serving as the face and overseer of United States policy in 10 

sub-Saharan African countries. 

And I will give the Senator an opportunity to welcome the nominees and deliver some opening remarks in just a moment, but first, 

I hope you do not mind if I lay out what I see as the primary challenges facing the United States Government in Africa today very 

briefly. 

As ambassadors for the United States, you will undoubtedly have 

to juggle conflicting priorities. Security is a top concern, but the 

source and nature of the threat differ widely, as does the approach 

needed to effectively address it. For example, the rebellions and illegal trafficking in Mali’s lawless northern territory require a different response than the need for, for example, security sector reform in Liberia or the lack of maritime defense capacity in Cape 

Verde. You will also face different and evolving partners, with 

young foreign ministries and uneven military infrastructures. The 

challenges are many—and subject to rapid change, especially in 

countries that have upcoming elections. 

Additionally, you will be developing and implementing policies at 

the same time that the new United States combatant command for 

Africa is establishing its role on the continent. 

In addition to security concerns, you will have to address a range 

of other U.S. strategic interests, including the promotion of democratic principles, human rights, good governance, and sustainable 

development. U.S. credibility in these countries depends upon our 

consistent adherence to and advocacy of these fundamental values. 

Particularly in countries where the United States does not have a 

long history of engagement or much institutional knowledge, building solid relationships—not just with government officials but also 

with business, religious, civil society, and other community leaders—is critical to informing and implementing an effective U.S. policy. 

And you will also have to ensure that financial, material, and 

human resources are allocated to address strategic challenges and 

long-term objectives in your respective countries, and not just to 

current needs or emergency requirements. 

If you are confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you 

as you meet these responsibilities. I hope you look to the Senate 

as a resource and to this committee as a source of support and 

guidance during your tenure at your respective posts. I think you 

will find this committee to be about the most bipartisan and cooperative one—I will not say in the entire Senate, but certainly one 

of the most. That is the way it has always been. This has never 

been a source of partisan conflict, and I have been on this committee now for 16 years. 

Now, I look forward to your testimony and to a brief discussion 

about your qualifications and expectations going into these imporVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
373 

tant positions, but first I would like to invite my colleague, the 

ranking member, Senator Isakson, to offer some opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you, Senator Feingold. I am looking forward to the opportunity of serving with you. I have admired 

your commitment to the African continent and United States relations there and I hope to benefit and learn from your knowledge 

and serve as a contributing member as ranking member of this 

committee. 

I want to thank our nominees all for being here today. I have 

had the occasion to meet with all of them over the last week or so, 

and they all have very impressive and longstanding records of service to this country and places all over the globe, both challenging 

and exotic. And I am delighted that you are all here today and welcome your family members and loved ones. I think Senator Feingold and I both recognize we could not do what we do without the 

love and support of our families, and we know the same is true 

with you. And we appreciate very much the commitment that they 

make. 

I was telling some of the nominees yesterday in a meeting that 

I, personally, in the 21st century, do not think there is any question that Africa is the continent of the 21st century as far as the 

United States of America is concerned. I have visited there twice 

in the last couple of years, as recently as January, in some of the 

regional areas where some of these nominees will be serving. And 

it is an opportunity for the United States to develop a lasting 

friendship, economic opportunities, and shared arrangements with 

some wonderful people in some growing and emerging countries. 

I commend the President on his commitment to Africa in terms 

of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and I am looking forward to working with each and every one of the nominees, 

when they are confirmed, in any way I can to support their effort 

on the continent and their effort on behalf of the United States of 

America. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you so much, Senator Isakson. 

At this time, I would like to request that a statement by my colleague, Senator Hagel, in support of Mr. Bodde’s nomination for 

the position of U.S. Ambassador to Malawi be submitted for the 

record. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel appears at the end of 

this hearing in the ‘‘Additional Material Submitted for the Record’’ 

section.] 

Senator FEINGOLD. And now I will turn to Congressman Pomeroy 

for his introduction of Ambassador Milovanovic. Congressman, it is 

good to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here. 

Good to see my former colleague, Senator Isakson, once again. 

374 

I am here to speak in support of and introduce Ambassador 

Milovanovic, who is presently serving as our Ambassador to Macedonia. She has been designated as Ambassador-designate to the 

country of Mali, and I am here because I care deeply about both 

countries and have had a chance to observe the Ambassador in her 

performance as our representative in Macedonia. 

I am a member of the House Democracy Assistance Commission. 

This is an effort within the House, bipartisan, to try and mentor 

parliamentarians in emerging democracies. We are partnering with 

14 different countries, and in that connection, I have had the occasion to go to Macedonia twice during the period the Ambassador 

has served there. 

This has been a period, like everything in the Balkans, of substantial political complexity, and there have been many things for 

the ambassador to assist us and assist the country of Macedonia 

in steering their way through these difficult years, among other 

things, basically a complete fruition of the Accra Accords as they 

came through a period of near civil war to a period of governing 

stability, helping to guide Macedonia in their position relative to 

Kosovo, the world’s newest independent country. 

She has assisted them in becoming NATO-ready. They were not 

accepted into NATO, as you know, at the Bucharest meeting, but 

they have made great strides and have our full support as they 

continue their quest for NATO membership. 

She has expanded our Peace Corps operations in Macedonia. 

As a member of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, I 

have had a chance to observe her as she has interacted with the 

various political factions, the various ethnic factions, the parliament, the president, the prime minister. We have also had a 

chance to visit extensively about the complex state of affairs in 

Macedonia, and she has a complete grasp. She was so incredibly 

helpful to me and the other HDAC members as we tried to scamper 

up the learning curve ourselves in our interaction with the parliamentarians. 

She is heading into, with your approval, a very new and interesting assignment with the country of Mali. In my opinion, the 

country of Mali is led by one of the continent’s great leaders, President Toure. He has, I believe, served almost a George Washingtonlike role in leading, in 1991, a military coup that deposed a very 

corrupt government and got the country on track to democracy. But 

he did not stand as the first president. That was President Konare, 

who served his two terms, and then allowed the peaceful transition, according to their constitution and democratic election, to the 

new government. President ATT, as he is known, Toure, stood for 

election, was elected, recently reelected. It was my privilege to represent Speaker Pelosi at his inauguration last June. 

Mali is a country that, in a tough neighborhood, has run four 

successful democratic elections for President. They are the recipient 

of one of our most significant Millennium Challenge grants, a $429 

million grant, that literally could affect substantial lasting change 

in this country. I believe one of the ambassador’s largest responsibilities will be making certain that this comes along and comes 

along in a successful way. 

375 

I think that we have got an outstanding diplomat to partner with 

an outstanding President on the ground in Mali, and I could only 

think very good things will happen in a little country I care very 

deeply about. 

So I thank you and I am very happy—for what it is worth, a 

House guy endorsing without reservation the consideration of Ambassador Milovanovic for the Mali assignment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, 

U.S. CONGRESSMAN FROM NORTH DAKOTA

Chairman Feingold and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I 

am pleased to testify briefly this morning in support of your consideration of Ambassador Milovanovic, presently serving as Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, 

for a new position as Ambassador to the Republic of Mali. 

I have a deep interest in both Mali and Macedonia and have had the opportunity 

to observe the leadership of Ambassador Milovanovic as she has represented the 

United States in the Republic of Macedonia. 

I am a currently a member of the House Democracy Assistance Commission. This 

commission is a bipartisan undertaking in the House of Representatives, charged 

with establishing mentoring relationships with members of Parliament in new and 

emerging democracies. Presently, we have relations with 14 countries, including the 

Republic of Macedonia. Through this commission, I participated in exchanges with 

Macedonia in November 2006 and in March of this year. 

On each occasion I met with Ambassador Milovanovic and had the opportunity 

to witness her interactions with members of Parliament from across the spectrum 

of parties and ethnic groups. I also had the honor to witness her employ considerable diplomatic skills during a meeting with the present Prime Minister. 

As this committee knows well, Macedonia is a vibrant newly emerging democracy 

that faces many complex challenges. In extensive discussions with Ambassador 

Milovanovic, I was impressed with her thorough grasp of the issues facing the country and the positive leadership role that she has played as the official representative 

of the United States Government. 

I have been very interested in the Republic of Mali since a trip there in 2001 

where we evaluated the emerging commitment of basic education for all children— 

especially in improving the access to education for girls. In subsequent years, I have 

closely followed Mali’s successful transition to democracy. In 2007, Mali successfully 

concluded its fourth democratic election for President—a notable record in light of 

the long, corrupt, and repressive nature of the government of Moussa Traore, which 

was ended by military coup in 1991. 

President Konare, who succeeded Moussa Traore, and his successor, President 

Toure, are model leaders on the continent of Africa. They each have demonstrated 

extraordinary skills in trying to establish the tradition of democracy in one of the 

poorest countries in the world. What is all the more remarkable is the fact that they 

are achieving this in a very tough neighborhood where neighboring countries are 

facing diverse governance and security challenges. 

Mali’s exemplary efforts have been recognized by the United States in their receipt of a Millennium Challenge grant from the administration. This grant award 

in the amount of $461 million is one of the largest Millennium Challenge grants 

awarded to date. 

The Republic of Mali deserves one of our finest diplomats. Many would view Mali 

as strategically insignificant to the United States. I, however, hold a different view. 

I believe that Mali is vitally important to the United States. It is a role model for 

the rest of the continent, having demonstrated how a successful transition from a 

system of entrenched authoritarianism can be successfully undertaken. Mali’s success shows how free, open elections can produce positive changes for the people of 

a country, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges. 

The Republic of Mali deserves one of our finest diplomats, and when I learned 

that Ambassador Milovanovic had been selected for Mali, I was delighted. I believe 

that Ambassador Milovanovic’s nomination to represent the interests of the United 

States in Mali perfectly matches a tremendously talented United States diplomat 

with a country that is very deserving of her service. 

376 

I hope the committee will move quickly to confirm Ambassador Milovanovic as the 

next United States Ambassador to Mali. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Congressman. Of course, your 

words are most welcome and I congratulate the nominee on receiving such high words of praise from our colleague. Thank you so 

much, Congressman, for being here. 

Now we will go to the nominees, and we will begin with Ms. 

Bernicat, who would be the Ambassador to Senegal and GuineaBissau. 

STATEMENT OF MARCIA STEPHENS BLOOM BERNICAT, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL 

AND THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA-BISSAU 

Ms. BERNICAT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of 

the committee. I am honored to appear before you today. I wish to 

thank the President and the Secretary of State for the confidence 

that they have placed in me as their nominee for Ambassador to 

the Republic of Senegal and to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. 

In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I have a slightly longer 

written statement I would like to submit for the record with your 

permission. 

Mr. Chairman, my sons, Sunil Christopher and Sumit Nicolaus, 

with whom I have been enormously blessed to share the adventure 

of service overseas, are here today. They and several friends they 

brought with them have studied the function of advice and consent 

this year and wanted to see it for themselves. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Where are they? 

Ms. BERNICAT. They are right here. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Please stand up. Welcome. Glad to see you 

guys. [Applause.] 

Ms. BERNICAT. It has been my great fortune to represent the 

American people in seven countries located in five geographic regions, including three postings and an internship on the African 

continent, since joining the Foreign Service in 1981. 

The Senegalese people have a proud democratic tradition, including peaceful transitions of government, religious tolerance, a free 

press, and the rule of law, even as they struggle to overcome persistent economic and governance difficulties that challenges of development impose. If confirmed, one of my most important responsibilities will be to work with President Abdoulaye Wade and his 

government to ensure an environment that encourages the broadest participation in the political process by all elements of the population. 

The United States also supports transparency and accountability 

in government spending, critical market-based economic reforms, 

and continued progress towards the Millennium Challenge compact. 

Senegal maintains its active role internationally and is a strong 

partner of the United States in the war on terror. President Wade 

has provided vital personal leadership in promoting religious tolerance and mutual understanding. He will be the chairman of the 

Organization of the Islamic Conference for the next 3 years and 

377 

has been a leading proponent of the New Partnership for Africa’s 

Development. 

Having worked with earlier peacekeeping training programs in 

Malawi, I look forward, if confirmed, to supporting Senegal in its 

role as a leading contributor to peacekeeping operations around the 

world, including Darfur. 

As someone who has lost too many friends and colleagues in the 

last decade to HIV/AIDS and malaria, if confirmed, I will work to 

redouble our efforts to fight these diseases, as well as address other 

health issues in both countries. 

Guinea-Bissau continues to face formidable challenges in establishing political stability and economic prosperity. Its democratic 

institutions and rule of law remain weak, but the country has 

reached the important milestone of seating a government that conforms to its constitution. I will work, if confirmed, to promote the 

dual goals of a democratic, transparent political system and a complementary economic program to help reduce the levels of poverty 

that contribute to regional instability. 

If confirmed, I am eager to apply the lessons I learned in Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean to fight the growing contagion of 

illicit narcotics trafficking in Guinea-Bissau. I relish the prospect 

of developing a successful interagency strategy which would also 

engage international partners to combat this scourge and to provide the people of Guinea-Bissau with material and moral support 

in that fight. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continuing interest in Africa 

and the positive role the United States can play in its development. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, your committee, 

and other Members of Congress to advance America’s interests in 

Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. It would be a great privilege to travel 

the length and breadth of both countries to proudly represent the 

people of the United States. 

I would be happy to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bernicat follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA STEPHENS BLOOM BERNICAT, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA-BISSAU

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

today. I wish to thank the President and the Secretary of State for the trust and 

confidence that they have placed in me as their nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Senegal and to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my sons, Sunil Christopher and Sumit 

Nicolaus, with whom I have been enormously blessed to share the adventure and 

the challenge of service overseas. It has been my fortune, as well, to have represented the American people in seven countries in five geographic regions since 

joining the Foreign Service in 1981. If confirmed, it would be a great privilege to 

serve our country in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. Both countries are friends of the 

United States. 

The Senegalese people are well known for their proud democratic tradition, including peaceful transitions of government, religious tolerance, a free press, and an 

acknowledgement of the importance of the rule of law, even as they struggle to overcome persistent economic and governance difficulties posed by the challenges of development. Senegal continues to participate actively in international organizations 

and including the Organization of the Islamic Conference in which President 

Abdoulaye Wade will chair for the next 3 years. President Wade remains a dynamic 

African leader, as evidenced most recently by his key role in brokering an agreement between Chad and Sudan to work toward reducing tensions in their volatile 

region. He has also been a leading proponent of the New Partnership for Africa’s 

378 

Development (NEPAD). Senegal is a strong partner in the war on terror and President Wade has provided vital personal leadership in promoting religious tolerance 

and mutual understanding. 

Having had the privilege of working with our earlier peacekeeping training programs in sub-Saharan Africa, I look forward, if confirmed, to supporting Senegal in 

its role as a leading contributor to United Nations and other peacekeeping operations around the world, including in Darfur. 

Senegal conducted Presidential and legislative elections in 2007, but the parliamentary elections were boycotted by the opposition and local polling has been deferred until 2009. If confirmed, one of my most important responsibilities will be to 

work with President Wade and his government to ensure an environment that encourages the broadest participation in the political process by all elements of the 

population. In addition, it will be important to promote governance, transparency, 

and accountability in government spending. 

To achieve momentum in its development, Senegal will need to exert maximum 

effort to make the critical market-based reforms that underpin the solid economic 

foundation of any dynamic society. The United States will continue to work closely 

with Senegal on these reforms. After a series of false starts, Senegal is working to 

secure a Millennium Challenge Compact. 

The United States is intensely engaged with Senegal to reduce the incidence of 

malaria and to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Thankfully, the prevalence of HIV/ 

AIDS in Senegal is relatively low, but this pandemic knows no borders. As someone 

who has lost too many friends, colleagues, and counterparts in the last decade to 

these two preventable diseases, if confirmed, I will work to redouble our efforts in 

Senegal and Guinea-Bissau to fight HIV/AIDS and malaria, and address other 

health issues. 

Guinea-Bissau continues to face formidable challenges to establish political stability and economic prosperity. Although its democratic institutions and rule of law 

remain weak, the country has reached the important milestone of seating a government that conforms to the demands of its constitution. The upcoming parliamentary 

elections could be a harbinger of the direction that political development will take 

there. 

If confirmed, I am eager to apply the lessons learned from our country team efforts in Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean to fight the contagion of illicit narcotics trafficking that afflicts Guinea-Bissau at worrisome levels. I relish the prospect of developing a successful interagency strategy, which would also engage international partners, to combat this scourge and to provide the people of GuineaBissau with material and moral support in this effort. I will also work, if confirmed, 

to promote the dual goals of a democratic, transparent political system and a complementary economic program to help reduce the levels of poverty that contribute 

to regional instability. I am aware of how difficult these challenges will be. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continuing interest in Africa and the positive 

role the United States can play in its development. If confirmed, I look forward to 

working with you, your committee and other members of Congress to advance America’s interests in Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, and throughout the region. It would be an 

honor to travel the length and breadth of both countries to proudly represent the 

people of the United States of America. 

I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Ms. Bernicat. 

And now we will go to Ms. Milovanovic. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GILLIAN ARLETTE MILOVANOVIC, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MALI 

Ambassador MILOVANOVIC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, members of the committee, I am 

very honored also today to appear before you to discuss my nomination by President Bush to become our country’s next Ambassador 

to the Republic of Mali. I am deeply honored by the trust placed 

in me by President Bush and by Secretary Rice. If confirmed by the 

Senate, I will do my level best to be worthy of that confidence and 

to advance the goals of the United States in Mali and in the region. 

I know that my success will depend on a relationship of close cooperation and consultation with this committee, with its staff, and 

379 

with others in the Congress, and I look forward to establishing 

such a relationship. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like simply to acknowledge my family who are not able to be here today, but I 

would like to mention my husband, Zlat, and my two daughters, 

Alexandra and Anna. The Foreign Service has been more than just 

my career. It has really been and still is my life, but also theirs. 

And their patience, sacrifice, flexibility, good humor, curiosity, and 

unfailing support have made possible any successes that I have 

achieved as a professional and as a human being. 

With over 16 years of democratic experience, Mali is an example 

for West Africa and beyond. It is led, as Congressman Pomeroy 

mentioned, by an extraordinary president. Mali has a strong 

human rights record. It has hosted the Community of Democracies 

Ministerial in November of last year and it is a strong partner with 

the United States against terrorism and extremism. It has also deployed on several international peacekeeping operations. 

Unfortunately, Mali’s political progress has not been matched by 

improved social and economic indicators. In 2007, the U.N. ranked 

Mali 173 out of 177 countries in its Human Development Index. 

Literacy rates, health indicators, and a per capita GNP that are 

among the lowest in the world, together with food security issues, 

insecurity, and the presence of al-Qaeda-aligned terrorists in the 

country’s sparsely inhabited northern regions are all serious 

threats to democracy and regional stability and contributors to this 

poor showing on the Human Development Index. 

If I am confirmed, I will continue to deepen and expand our important relationship with Mali. President Bush’s recent trip to Africa and his meeting with President Toure in Washington highlighted U.S. support for key programs, among them the President’s 

Malaria Initiative and PEPFAR to deal with HIV/AIDS. Mali’s 

enormous $461 million Millennium Challenge Compact entered 

into force in September of last year. Our Peace Corps program in 

Mali is one of the largest in Africa. Mali is a key member of the 

Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership. Through TSCTP, we 

are helping Mali to be better able to control its borders and to 

counter the efforts of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The well 

received, ACOTA, African Contingency Operations Assistance program, along with the visit of AFRICOM’s General Ward at the end 

of February both underscore Mali’s status as a key partner in regional security. 

Mr. Chairman, this is my 30th as a Foreign Service officer. If 

confirmed, I would bring to my assignment in Mali prior experience 

as a Chief of Mission, 9 years of service in Africa, and 15 years of 

experience working with societies in political and economic transition. 

I have worked closely with the Defense Department, State National Guards, and other partners to reform and modernize defense 

establishments in Europe and in Africa and to strengthen their capacity to contribute to peacekeeping, regional security, and the 

global war on terror. 

If confirmed, I particularly look forward to the opportunity to 

continue my long relationship of collaboration with the Peace 

380 

Corps, an agency whose mission and whose volunteers truly represent the best that America has to offer. 

Mali faces significant challenges in seeking to improve the health 

of its citizens, advance education, and promote human rights. To 

help Mali achieve these goals, if confirmed, I would draw on my experience with USAID and Peace Corps education programs, and I 

would take a task force approach, which has been successful for me 

in the past, dealing with such issues as combating trafficking in 

persons and other abuse and to promote the rights of women and 

children. I believe my experience with CDC and with PEPFAR 

would also assist me in leading our mission effectively and advancing United States interests in Mali. 

Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, you will find in me a responsive partner, fully committed to working with you and with this 

committee to advance United States interests in the Republic of 

Mali, and you will find in me a Chief of Mission whose highest priority will be to ensure the security of embassy personnel, their families and other Americans in Mali. It would be, indeed, a great 

honor to be entrusted with carrying on the work of my distinguished colleagues who have preceded me as serving as Ambassador to the Republic of Mali. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I too look forward to 

taking your questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Milovanovic follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GILLIAN ARLETTE MILOVANOVIC, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MALI

Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss my nomination by President Bush to become our country’s 

Ambassador to the Republic of Mali. I am deeply honored by the trust placed in me 

by President Bush and by Secretary Rice. If confirmed by the Senate, I will do my 

very best to be worthy of that confidence, and to advance the goals of the United 

States in Mali and in the region. I know from experience that my success will depend on a relationship of close cooperation and consultation with this committee, 

its staff and others in the Congress. It is a relationship that I hope to begin with 

you today, building on the foundation of my previous years of service in Africa. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge my husband, 

Zlat, and my daughters, Alexandra and Anna, although they are unable to be here 

today. The Foreign Service has been more than just my career. It has been, and is, 

my life and that of my entire family. My family’s patience, sacrifice, flexibility, good 

humor, curiosity, and unfailing support have made possible any successes I have 

achieved as a professional and as a person. If I am confirmed, it will be my honor 

and privilege to represent the United States in Mali. We all look forward to returning to the continent where we have already spent 9 rewarding years as a family 

and where Anna was born. 

With over 16 years of democratic experience, Mali serves as an example for West 

Africa and beyond. Mali has a strong human rights record, hosted the Community 

of Democracies Ministerial in November 2007, is a strong partner against terrorism 

and extremism, an active participant in international organizations, and has deployed troops to several international peacekeeping operations. 

Mali’s political progress, however, has not been matched by improved social and 

economic indicators. In 2007, the U.N. gave Mali a ranking of 173 out of 177 countries in its Human Development Index, due in large part to literacy rates, health 

indicators, and a per capita GNP that are among the lowest in the world. These 

factors, along with food security concerns, insecurity, and the presence of al-Qaedaaligned terrorists in the country’s sparsely populated northern regions, constitute 

serious threats to democracy and regional stability. 

The United States has been a key partner in helping Mali to overcome these challenges, and, if I am confirmed, I will continue to deepen and expand this important 

relationship. President Bush’s recent trip to Africa, and his meeting with Malian 

President Toure ́ in Washington, have highlighted United States Government supVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00388 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
381 

port for important programs such as the President’s Malaria Initiative and PEPFAR 

for HIV/AIDS. Mali’s $461 million MCC Compact entered into force in September 

2007, and it is a high priority for President Toure ́. Our Peace Corps program in Mali 

is one of the largest in Africa. Mali is a key member of the Trans-Sahara CounterTerrorism Partnership (TSCTP). Through TSCTP, we are helping Mali augment its 

ability to control its borders and counter al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb efforts 

in the region, ensuring that northern Mali remains inhospitable to extremism. The 

United States Government has a well-received African Contingency Operations Assistance (ACOTA) program in Mali, and the visit of AFRICOM’s general ward at the 

end of February underscored that Mali is a key partner in regional security. 

Mr. Chairman, this year marks my 30th anniversary as a Foreign Service officer. 

If confirmed, I would bring to my assignment in Mali prior experience as a chief 

of mission, 9 years of service in Africa, and 15 years of experience working with societies in political and economic transition. 

It has been my privilege to work closely over the years with the Defense Department, State National Guards, and other partners to reform and modernize defense 

establishments in Europe and Africa and to strengthen their capacity to contribute 

to peacekeeping, regional security, and the global war on terror. 

During my career, I have been very proud to swear in new Peace Corps volunteers 

on a number of occasions. I am particularly delighted that, if confirmed, I will have 

the opportunity to continue my long collaboration with the Peace Corps, an agency 

whose mission and whose volunteers represent the best that America has to offer. 

Mali faces significant challenges in seeking to improve the health of its citizens, 

advance education, and promote human rights. If confirmed, to help Mali achieve 

these goals I would drawn on my experience with USAID and Peace Corps education programs, and I would foster a multiagency task force approach to combat 

trafficking in persons and other abuse, as well as to promote the rights of women 

and girls. When assigned to Botswana and South Africa I gained immense respect 

for the work of CDC and was privileged to be ‘‘present at the creation’’ of the 

PEPFAR program in South Africa. Should I be confirmed, I believe this experience 

too would help me to lead our mission effectively and to advance United States interests in Mali. 

Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, you will find in me a responsive partner, fully 

committed to working with you and with this committee to advance United States 

interests in the Republic of Mali, and a chief of mission whose highest priority will 

be to ensure the security of embassy personnel, their families, and other Americans 

in Mali. It would be a great honor to be entrusted with carrying on the work of the 

distinguished colleagues who have served as Ambassador to the Republic of Mali. 

With that Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for your attention 

and I look forward to responding to your questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you so much. 

And now we turn to Mr. Teitelbaum, who would be the Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD GENE TEITELBAUM, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, I have full remarks to be entered into the record. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Without objection. 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. I would like to deliver shorter remarks now, if 

I may. 

I am honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s 

nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana. I thank President Bush and Secretary Rice for their trust and confidence. 

Mr. Chairman, I like to start by introducing some people who 

have influenced my life. It is pretty big crowd, though. 

Senator FEINGOLD. That is all right. 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. First, my wife, Julianna Lindsey, and her parents, Jon and Annette Lindsey. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Please stand. 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. My parents, Bob and Fumie Teitelbaum; my 

older brother, Alex, and my sister, Romie, my seven nephews—— 

382 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TEITELBAUM [continuing]. Greg, Adam, Mark, David, Chad, 

Alex, and Robbie. And last but not least, the best friends anybody 

could ask for: Allen Crane, Scott Findley, John Carter, and Gary 

Boswick. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All welcome. I am sure seven nephews is an 

all-time record for this committee in spite of its 200 years as a committee. [Laughter.] 

Well done. You may proceed. 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. Although not a blood relative, speaking for the 

many of us here I think who have been with the Africa Bureau for 

a long time, I would like to also acknowledge the presence of Ambassador Ruth Davis who is very much family for all of us who 

have been with the bureau. 

Mr. Chairman, as a Foreign Service officer in South Africa, 

Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda, and at the National Security 

Council, I have seen the opportunity that embraces the continent, 

but I have also seen the suffering, conflict, and despair that stifle 

progress in too many African nations. 

The intricate nature of the continent is present in Ghana. A democracy since 1992, Ghana has held four free and fair national 

elections. Ghana has an apolitical military and a lively, free media. 

Ghana has demonstrated consistent economic growth and is poised 

to achieve its Millennium Development Goal of reducing poverty by 

50 percent. Ghana is a strong partner in peacekeeping and was a 

supportive ally on the United Nations Security Council, and the 

Ghanaian people are benefiting from improved schools, sanitation, 

and health services as a result of sound macroeconomic policy and 

debt relief. 

However, political and social upheaval marked the years following Ghana’s independence. Democratic institutions are young 

and political power is highly centralized. Economic gains remain 

fragile. Broadly shared prosperity has yet to be achieved. Political 

patronage and connections still taint commercial and economic opportunities. 

America’s centuries-old relationship with Ghana has similar contrasts. The dark era of the slave trade intertwined our histories. 

Our economic interaction was once largely that of debtor and creditor. Past international issues, such as Ghana’s relations with 

Libya, strained our relationship. 

But now Ghanaian students studying in America and Americans 

tracing their heritage in Ghana characterize our people-to-people 

contacts. America’s civil rights struggle and Ghana’s national independence movement inspired each other. Our militaries cooperate 

through many programs. We are trading partners under AGOA 

and President Bush had a successful visit to Ghana in February. 

If confirmed by the Senate, my priority will be to support transformation in Ghana and America’s relationship with Ghana. It is 

time to put the donor-recipient nomenclature away and continue 

our journey toward true partnership. It is time to stop talking 

about potential and start achieving measurable goals. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I will have the power of sound policy 

and programs to push transformation. There are opportunities for 

Ghana to transform and for the United States to assist. I see opVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00390 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
383 

portunity in the upcoming elections in December and in strengthening democratic institutions. I see opportunity in making wise decisions regarding offshore oil discoveries. I see opportunity in alleviating poverty, making economic growth durable, and spreading 

its benefits widely. I see opportunity in continuing the fight against 

malaria, for which the Congress has provided bipartisan support. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, Ghana and America’s relationship with Ghana do not lack for opportunities to transform. If confirmed by the Senate to be the next United States Ambassador to Ghana, my duty will be to turn those opportunities into 

outcomes. I will depend on the people at the embassy in Ghana, 

and I will seek out strong commitments from my counterparts in 

Ghana. Importantly too, I will count on continued communication 

and consultation with this committee and with Congress so that 

our efforts yield the greatest benefit for the American and Ghanaian peoples. 

Thank you for your attention. I am very pleased to be here and 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Teitelbaum follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD GENE TRITELBAUM, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA

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

today as President Bush’s nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana. I 

would like to thank President Bush and Secretary Rice for this opportunity and for 

their trust and confidence. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start today by introducing some people that have 

influenced my life. First, my wife, Julianna Lindsey, and her parents, Jon and Annette, my parents, Robert and Fumie Teitelbaum, my older brother, Alex, and my 

sister, Romie, and their families; and, last but not least, the best friends anybody 

could ask for: Allen Crane, Scott Findley, John Carter, and Gary Boswick. 

Mr. Chairman, I come to this point in my career with a deep respect for the countries of Africa and a firm belief that the United States of America must engage 

across the continent. As a Foreign Service officer, I was immersed in Africa on the 

ground in South Africa, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda, and from the vantage 

point of the National Security Council. Through these experiences I have seen the 

promise, opportunity, and hope that embrace the continent. But I have also seen 

the suffering, conflict, and despair that stifle progress in far too many African nations. I have seen stark, complicated contrasts—abundant natural resources, fledgling democracies, incredible personal courage, and historical global links standing 

toe-to-toe with challenges such as civil wars, HIV/AIDS, poverty, and corruption. 

The intricate nature of the African continent is present in Ghana. A democracy 

since 1992, Ghana has held four free and fair national elections—including a peaceful transition from one party to another in 2000. Ghana has an apolitical military 

and a lively, free media. Ghana has emerged as a regional leader and a strong partner in peacekeeping, on conflict resolution, and as a supportive ally during its tenure on the United Nations Security Council from 2005–2007. Ghana has started to 

implement its $547 million Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact. And the 

Ghanaian people are benefiting from improved schools, sanitation, health services, 

and other basic infrastructure as a result of sound macroeconomic policy and debt 

relief. 

However, political and social upheaval marked the years following Ghana’s independence in 1957. Democratic institutions are still young and political power is 

highly centralized. Economic gains remain fragile. Poverty has decreased markedly 

but broadly shared prosperity is yet to be achieved. Political patronage and connections still taint commercial and economic opportunities. Additionally, the current 

government lacks capacity to fight escalating drug trafficking. 

America’s centuries-old relationship with Ghana has similar contrasts. The dark 

era of the slave trade intertwined our histories. Our economic interaction was once 

largely that of debtor and creditor. Past international issues, such as Ghana’s relations with Libya, strained our relationship. 

384 

But now, Ghanaian students studying in America and Americans proudly tracing 

their heritage in Ghana characterize our people to people contacts. Our coinciding 

fights for freedom—America’s civil rights struggle and Ghana’s national independence movement during the middle of last century—inspired each other. The first 

United States Peace Corps overseas mission was established in Ghana in 1961. Our 

militaries cooperate through many programs, including the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program, Africa Command’s Africa Partnership 

Station, and the International Military Education and Training program. Ghana is 

one of Africa’s premier peacekeeping partners. We are trading partners under the 

African Growth and Opportunity Act. And President Bush had a successful visit to 

Ghana in February. 

Ghanaians and Americans share a love of democracy, human rights, educational 

opportunity, free enterprise, peace, and stability. These shared values implore the 

United States to be active in Ghana. I believe that every corner of the globe is significant in the fight for freedom, peace, and prosperity. Successes and failures in 

Ghana can affect its neighbors, the region, the continent, and, indeed, the world. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I will use the resources of the United States Government wisely, efficiently, and effectively to bring the utmost benefit to the peoples 

of Ghana and of America. My priority will be to support transformation in Ghana 

and of America’s relationship with Ghana. It is time to put the donor-recipient nomenclature away and continue our journey towards true partnership. It is time to 

stop talking about potential and start achieving measurable goals. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I will have the power of sound policy, programs such 

as those of the Millennium Challenge Corporation and USAID, and the talent and 

skills of embassy personnel to push transformation. There are opportunities for 

Ghana to transform and for the United States to assist. I see opportunity in the upcoming elections in December. I see opportunity in making wise decisions regarding 

offshore oil discoveries. I see opportunity in alleviating poverty, making economic 

growth durable, and spreading its benefits widely. I see opportunity in continuing 

the fight against malaria, for which the Congress has provided bipartisan support. 

I see opportunity in immobilizing drug trafficking. I see opportunity in strengthening democratic institutions. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Ghana and America’s relationship 

with Ghana do not lack for opportunities to transform. If confirmed by the Senate 

to be the next United States Ambassador to Ghana, my duty will be to turn those 

opportunities into outcomes—to move from a picture of stark contrasts to freedom, 

prosperity, and peace. I will depend on the people at the embassy in Accra and I 

will seek out strong commitments from my counterparts in Ghana. Importantly too, 

I will count on continued communication and consultation with this committee and 

Congress so that our aim stays true and our efforts yield the greatest benefit for 

the American and Ghanaian peoples. Thank you for your attention. I am very 

pleased to be here and I am happy to answer any questions you have. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you so much, Mr. Teitelbaum. 

Now we will go to Ms. Linda Thomas-Greenfield to be Ambassador to the Republic of Liberia. I believe you are the one with Wisconsin ties? 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. I am. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And I believe you have that in common with 

the President of Liberia. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. And I have that in common with you, 

sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And me, of course. That is the most obvious 

one. [Laughter.] 

But I have talked at length with the President of Liberia about 

how cold it was in Wisconsin. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. And it was. I came there from Louisiana. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Why do you not go ahead? 

385 

STATEMENT OF LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, NOMINEE TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, I am truly, truly honored and delighted to be here 

today as President Bush’s nominee to be the next United States 

Ambassador to Republic of Liberia. I would like to thank the President and Secretary Rice for the confidence and trust that they have 

shown by nominating me for this key position. As you know, Liberia is one of the United States closest friends on the continent of 

Africa. 

Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I would like to also recognize 

my family. My husband, Lafayette Greenfield, is retired from the 

Foreign Service and is responsible for enticing me nearly 30 years 

ago to pursue this career. And my two children, Lindsay and 

Deuce, both of whom grew up in the service and, with their dad, 

supported me throughout my 26-year Foreign Service career. 

I would also like to recognize my long-time friends, Sarah 

Sommers, Delores Justice, and Lisa Connor. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Welcome, all of you. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, I 

have spent the better part of my career working on Africa and African issues. For the past 21⁄2 years, I have served in the Bureau of 

African Affairs, first as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for West 

Africa and then in my current position as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. 

Not long ago, Liberia was mired in civil war and spreading conflict throughout the region. Now it is well along the road to recovery. I was honored to observe the first round of Liberia’s national 

elections in 2005 that led to the election of President Ellen Johnson 

Sirleaf. With these democratic elections, Liberians chose peace over 

war, a future over stagnation, and a return to the community of 

nations. Now the government of President Sirleaf is making major 

strides, reforming its institutions, attracting investment, and setting Liberia on the path to stability and economic growth. 

But Liberia is not out of the woods yet. The peace is fragile. Its 

economy remains weak and high unmet expectations risk compromising Liberia’s future. 

Liberia will face many challenges over the next several years. It 

must grow economically, creating jobs and reviving its economy. It 

must develop its civil society, an independent media, to reverse the 

social and cultural damage done by decades of conflict. In 2011, Liberia will face another major test of its democracy as it will hold 

presidential and legislative elections. 

If confirmed as Ambassador, I would work diligently to continue 

the strong engagement of the United States to keep Liberia moving 

in the right direction. United States engagement will remain critical to Liberia’s success. Thanks to the generous support of Congress, our assistance to Liberia spans the entire range of programs 

and areas averaging over $180 million per year. In a country with 

only 3.5 million people, that support can have an enormous impact. 

If confirmed, I would work with our excellent embassy team, 

USAID, DOD, and other agency staff to ensure that our assistance 

achieves maximum impact and is coordinated with the efforts of 

other donors and with the Government of Liberia. 

386 

If confirmed, I would also use my position to confront those who 

threaten Liberia’s recovery. I would not hesitate to publicly attack 

corruption, human rights abuses, and old ways of doing business 

in Liberia that contributed to its breakdown and to its civil conflict. 

Liberia’s proud and strong people deserve a government that will 

serve the public interest and that will protect the people, not prey 

on them. 

Governance reforms are an important means of attracting foreign 

investment, and if confirmed, I would work to advance United 

States business interests for the benefit of the American economy, 

as well as the Liberian economy. 

Finally, sirs, I am especially pleased to be here today to come full 

circle back to Liberia. In the late 1970s, I studied in Liberia as a 

graduate student from the University of Wisconsin. Liberia opened 

my eyes to the wider world. It inspired my passion for Africa. If 

confirmed, I hope to have the chance to contribute to Liberia’s development and to advance our important bilateral relationship. I 

will also look forward to working with this committee to advance 

United States policy in Africa. 

Thank you for this time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thomas-Greenfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR

TO THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored and delighted to be here today as President Bush’s nominee to be the next United States 

Ambassador to the Republic of Liberia. I would like to thank the President and Secretary Rice for the confidence and trust they have shown by nominating me for this 

position. Liberia is one of the United States closest friends on the continent of Africa, and I am grateful to be nominated to serve there as the United States Ambassador. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like the take the opportunity to introduce my husband, 

Lafayette Greenfield, a retired Foreign Service officer, who enticed me nearly 30 

years ago to pursue this career. I also recognize my two children, Lindsay and 

Deuce, both of whom grew up in the service and who with their dad have supported 

me throughout my 26 years in the United States Foreign Service. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have spent the better part of my 

career working in Africa and on African issues. For the past 21⁄2 years, I have 

served in the Bureau of African Affairs, first as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

West Africa and now in my current position as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. Nearly half of my Foreign Service career focused on refugee and humanitarian issues, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Population, 

Refugees, and Migration where I had oversight for refugee, humanitarian, and migration programs in Africa, Europe, and Latin America. 

Not long ago, Liberia was mired in civil war and spreading conflict throughout 

the region; now it is well along the road to recovery. I was honored to be an observer 

for the first round of Liberia’s national elections in 2005 that eventually led to the 

inauguration of Africa’s first woman President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. With those 

democratic elections, Liberians chose peace over war; a future over stagnation; and 

a return to the community of nations. Now we are 5 years past Liberia’s civil war, 

and the government of President Sirleaf is making major strides, reforming its institutions, attracting investment, and setting Liberia on the right path to stability and 

economic growth. 

But Liberia, as they say, is ‘‘not out of the woods’’ yet. Its peace is fragile, its economy remains weak, and high unmet expectations risk compromising Liberia’s future. If confirmed as ambassador, I would work diligently to continue the strong engagement of the United States to keep Liberia moving in the right direction, and 

I would ensure that our attention and commitment to Liberia does not waver or diminish during this crucial post-conflict period. 

Liberia will face many challenges over the next several years. It must grow economically, creating jobs and reviving the agricultural sector. It must develop its civil 

387 

society, independent media, and community organizations to reverse the social and 

cultural damage done by years of conflict. The government must fix its broken justice system, train and develop its civil service, and build its security services to keep 

the peace. In 2011, Liberia will face another major test when it holds Presidential 

and legislative elections. Liberia must continue on the path of democracy. 

Throughout this period, United States engagement will remain critical to Liberia’s 

success. Thanks to the generous support of the Congress, our assistance to Liberia 

spans the entire range of program areas and averages some $180 million per year. 

Liberia has the second largest USAID program in Africa, after Sudan. In a country 

with only 31⁄2 million people, that support has an enormous impact on the health 

and education of Liberia’s people and the improvement and reform of its Government. 

If confirmed as ambassador, I would work with our excellent embassy, USAID, 

DOD, and other agency staff to ensure that our assistance achieves maximum impact, and is coordinated with the efforts of other donors and of the Government of 

Liberia. I am pleased to report that Peace Corps, an important face of America, has 

already begun reestablishing itself in Liberia and volunteers will be arriving soon. 

If confirmed, I would also use my position to confront those who threaten Liberia’s 

recovery. I would not hesitate to publicly attack corruption, human rights abuses, 

and the ‘‘old ways of doing business’’ in Liberia that contributed so much to its 

breakdown and civil conflict. Liberia’s proud and strong people deserve a government that will serve the public interest, not private agendas, and that will protect 

the people, not prey on them. President Sirleaf has made that commitment and, if 

confirmed, I, as the President’s representative to Liberia, will stand with her. 

Governance reforms are also important as a means of attracting foreign investment. I believe Liberia’s growth and recovery will depend on inflows of private capital, particularly from American businesses seeking opportunities in mining, agriculture, services, and other sectors. If confirmed as ambassador, I would work to advance United States business interests for the benefit of both the American economy 

and the Liberian economy. 

Finally, on a personal note, I am especially pleased to be here today, to come full 

circle back to Liberia. In the late 1970s, I spent a year and a half in Liberia as a 

graduate student from the University of Wisconsin, where I studied political science. 

Liberia opened my eyes to the wider world and inspired my passion for Africa and 

my decision to make the Foreign Service a career. Now, some 30 years later, if confirmed, I hope to have the chance to contribute to Liberia’s development and to advance our important bilateral relationship. Thank you again, Chairman Feingold, 

for today’s hearing. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much. 

And now we turn to Ms. Patricia McMahon Hawkins to be Ambassador to the Togolese Republic. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MCMAHON HAWKINS, NOMINEE TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE TOGOLESE REPUBLIC 

Ms. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson. I am 

honored to appear before you today as the nominee to be Ambassador to the Republic of Togo. I thank both President Bush and 

Secretary Rice for this opportunity and for their trust and confidence in my ability to serve our country in this position. 

I would like to mention my husband, also a Foreign Service officer, Richard Hawkins, who is currently serving as the team leader 

of the provincial reconstruction team in Al Muaydi, Iraq, embedded 

with the 3rd Combat Brigade team of the 3rd Division of the 

United States Army. 

If I am confirmed as the Ambassador to Togo, I will draw on 25 

years of Foreign Service experience to advance United States policy 

objectives in Togo. Our overall vision of our relationship with Togo 

is focused on democracy and respect for human rights, prosperity 

and security, and health. 

Togo is a small country on the coast of West Africa, and it has 

been poorly governed since the 1960s. In the 1990s, in response to 

388 

a repressive government’s violation of democratic principles and 

human rights abuses, Togo’s multinational and bilateral partners, 

including the United States, terminated assistance programs. In 

the ensuing years, the economy has stagnated and the physical infrastructure has deteriorated. 

Despite a flawed and violent electoral process in 2005, the new 

President was able to initiate a dialog with his major opponents 

that culminated in the Global Political Agreement in August 2006. 

The centerpiece of the agreement was the organization of legislative elections which took place in October of 2007 and were declared free and fair by numerous local and international observers. 

If confirmed, I will continue the work of my predecessor to encourage progress on improving election legislation and processes so 

that future elections, including the presidential elections in 2010, 

will be fair and transparent, on the development of stronger political parties, and on encouraging better collaboration among the 

parties. I intend to share American diplomatic values with the Togolese by focusing on principles of tolerance and equal access to 

media. I will seek to accelerate the improvement in civil-military 

relations and press for a further reduction of the military’s involvement in the government and in civil society. I will look for opportunities to cooperate with Togo’s military and security forces to combat drug trafficking and transnational crime, including the trafficking of persons, and to promote Togolese participation in regional efforts to strengthen maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea. 

President Bush recently designated Togo eligible to receive benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act. If confirmed, 

I will work to promote Togo’s full participation and enjoyment of 

these benefits for the prosperity of the Togolese people. I will assist 

the Government of Togo in its efforts to fight corruption and to promote the rule of law, using our limited democracy and human 

rights fund allocation and regional USAID programs. 

As in so many countries in the world today, HIV/AIDS, malaria, 

and other risks to health and well-being menace Togo’s stability 

and prosperity. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that our assistance in combating disease is utilized to maximum effectiveness. 

The Peace Corps will continue to play an important role in combating HIV/AIDS with approximately one-quarter of the volunteers 

working full-time in the field of community health and all 100 volunteers engaged in some way. We will continue to collaborate with 

other donor countries and international organizations to increase 

the capacity of Togolese officials to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and we will use strong media outreach to promote 

health education and awareness. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, Togo, as small and as poor as 

it is, holds promise for the future despite the many challenges that 

remain. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the leaders 

and people of Togo and this committee to sustain the current forward momentum toward political and economic reform so that the 

Togolese people might enjoy fully the fruits of freedom. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity, and I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:] 

389 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MCMAHON HAWKINS, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE TOGOLESE REPUBLIC

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

today as the nominee to be Ambassador to the Republic of Togo. I thank both President Bush and Secretary Rice for this opportunity and for their trust and confidence 

in my ability to serve our country in this position. 

If confirmed, I will draw on 25 years of Foreign Service experience, 12 of which 

have been spent either in Africa or focusing on African issues, to advance United 

States policy objectives in Togo. Our overall vision for the direction of our relationship with Togo is focused on democracy and respect for human rights, prosperity 

and security, and health. In pursuing our goals, we face a dual challenge. We must 

maximize our impact in the three priority areas with the program resources at our 

disposal, while ensuring that Washington is poised to increase United States Government engagement if and when Togo completes the emergence from its long political and human rights crisis. 

Togo, a small country on the coast of West Africa, has been poorly governed since 

the 1960s. In the 1990s, in response to a repressive government’s violation of democratic principles and human rights abuses, Togo’s multinational and bilateral partners, including the United States, terminated assistance programs. In the ensuing 

years, the economy has stagnated and the physical infrastructure has deteriorated. 

Despite a flawed and violent electoral process in 2005, the new president, Faure 

Gnassingbe, son of long-time autocratic ruler Gnassingbe Eyadema, was able to initiate a dialog with his major opponents that culminated in the Global Political 

Agreement in August 2006. The centerpiece of the agreement was the organization 

of legislative elections, which took place in October, 2007, and were declared free 

and fair by numerous local and international observers. 

If confirmed, I will continue the work of my predecessor to encourage further 

progress on improving election legislation and processes so that future elections, including presidential elections in 2010, will be fair and transparent; on the development of stronger political parties; and on encouraging better collaboration among 

the parties. I intend to share American democratic values with the Togolese by focusing on principles of tolerance and equal access to media. I will seek to accelerate 

the improvement in civil-military relations, and press for a further reduction of the 

military’s involvement in the government and civil society. I will look for opportunities to cooperate with Togo’s military and security forces to combat drug trafficking 

and transnational crime, including the trafficking of persons, and to promote Togolese participation in regional efforts to strengthen maritime security in the Gulf of 

Guinea. 

President Bush recently designated Togo eligible to receive benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). I will work to promote Togo’s full participation and enjoyment of those benefits for the prosperity of the Togolese people. 

The mission will encourage the Government of Togo to privatize its hotel, communications, banking, cotton, and mineral parastatal organizations. Over the long 

term, I will assist the Government of Togo in its efforts to fight corruption and to 

promote the rule of law, using our limited Democracy and Human Rights Fund allocation and regional USAID programs. 

As in so many countries in the world today, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other risks 

to health and well-being menace Togo’s stability and prosperity. If confirmed, I will 

seek to ensure that our assistance in combating disease is utilized to maximum effectiveness. The Peace Corps will continue to play an important role in combating 

HIV/AIDS, with approximately one quarter of the volunteers working full time in 

the field of community health and all 114 volunteers engaged in some way. The mission will cooperate closely with the Peace Corps to leverage the effects of the volunteers’ grass roots health work. We will continue to collaborate with other donor 

countries and international organizations to increase the capacity of Togolese officials to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and we will use strong 

media outreach to promote health education and awareness. 

Mr. Chairman, Togo, as small and as poor as it is, holds promise for the future, 

despite the challenges of democratic and economic reform that remain. If confirmed, 

I look forward to working with the leaders and people of Togo to sustain the current 

forward momentum toward political and economic reform, so that the Togolese people might enjoy fully the fruits of freedom. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would 

be pleased to respond to any questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you and thanks to the whole first 

panel. 

390 

We will now begin questions for the first panel, 7-minute rounds. 

I will start with questions for Ms. Bernicat. 

Can you please talk a little bit about the key challenges in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau? How will your engagement with each of 

these countries differ, including allocation of time and resources between the two countries? 

Ms. BERNICAT. Thank you for that question, Senator. I told a 

member of your staff earlier that dividing my time between two 

countries will be considerably less of a challenge than dividing it 

between the seven countries I had when I was in Barbados. But 

you are right to point out there are very different challenges. 

If I could talk about what I think is by far the most dangerous 

and troubling of trends. We have seen the increase of illicit drug 

trafficking in Africa absolutely explode from 2003 until now, and 

witnessing the trafficking that goes through Guinea-Bissau, it is 

not difficult to understand when you look at the geography of the 

country, the coastline dotted with violence and an unguarded coastline, its proximity to Europe, the poverty that exists there. GuineaBissau is one of the poorest countries in the world, the corruption 

that comes with that kind of poverty, the history of instability, 

which has eroded the rule of law and a whole series of institutions 

there, and last but not least, the very strength of the Euro, which 

is pulling a lot of the cocaine trafficking east and north to the European markets. 

Observers estimate that approximately 10 times the GNP of 

Guinea-Bissau in drugs traffic through that country every month. 

That is over $340 million in product. The most recent seizure was 

2.4 tons of pure cocaine by the French navy from a Liberian ship 

off the coast of Guinea-Bissau, to give you an idea of how diversified that trade is. 

If confirmed, I would like to use the lessons learned in the eastern Caribbean where ironically our successes in fighting the trafficking that was moving up the eastern coast of the Caribbean, 

when it was pushed off of the west coast by the success of our Plan 

Colombia, has now found its way across the Atlantic and is moving 

through Guinea-Bissau and other points in West Africa. But to use 

a combination of a full country team effort—every office of the 

country team has something to contribute in this regard, as well 

as our international partners, both in terms of intel sharing and 

asset presence in the region to push the traffickers out of what is 

currently an easy realm in which to operate. 

Senator FEINGOLD. In terms of time, I am going to move to another question for you. I had the opportunity to visit Senegal a few 

years ago and meet with President Wade when he was, I think, relatively newly elected. And, of course, you mentioned Senegal’s 

proud democratic tradition, but there have been some worrying 

signs of backsliding in recent years. President Wade has always 

demonstrated a rather unilateral leadership style that seems increasingly repressive of the opposition while seeking to consolidate 

his own and his party’s power. 

What is your assessment of the current state of Senegal’s democracy, and how will you strive to ensure that fundamental democratic principles and processes are respected in the 2009 local elections and beyond? 

391 

Ms. BERNICAT. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe that the state of Senegalese democracy is very strong. 

The history of Senegal and the fact that it is one of the few African 

states that has never had anything but a peaceful transition of 

power—it does have a constitution which favors a very strong executive to begin with, and President Wade is, indeed, a very strong 

president. The fact that the opposition boycotted the legislative 

elections last year increased—in fact, gave him a virtual majority 

in that house. 

That said, we are vigilant of what we see as efforts to increase 

even more the power of the executive and note in particular arrests 

of journalists last fall, response to shutting down a television station covering violent food riots more recently, but also note that 

there is a very strong civil society in Senegal which pushes back. 

And the President has shown that he respects that and understands those limits. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. Time is short, so I appreciate 

your answers. 

I want to turn to Ms. Milovanovic regarding Mali. I have had two 

wonderful visits to Mali. I met with both President Konare and 

President Toure who Congressman Pomeroy mentioned and am 

very impressed with that country’s potential. But the challenges 

are, of course, enormous as you have indicated. 

What do you see as the top threats to national and regional security emanating from Mali, and what role can the United States 

play to help and contain and combat these threats? 

Ambassador MILOVANOVIC. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the question. 

Fundamentally I think that Mali’s own success is the greatest 

way of combating—keeping it on that success is the greatest way 

of combatting any threats that exist. I think that there is great 

clarity about the fact that there are difficulties in the north, which 

is sparsely populated, and where there is a combination of unrest 

amongst elements of the Tuareg and there is also the problem of 

this al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. 

But fundamentally, the tools to be used I believe in keeping Mali 

as a positive force are exactly the tools that have been used so far, 

keeping the democracy strong, continuing with the decentralization 

process, providing Mali’s government with the necessary instruments and the resources to be able to demonstrate to its public and 

to its citizens that the government is doing the things or is trying 

to do the things that the citizens need, whether it is health, whether it is education, whether it is improvements in the economy more 

generally. And that is the way to get most fundamentally at some 

of the challenges. 

Of course, the existence of this uncontrolled or relatively uncontrolled area in the north is in and of itself a threat, and it cannot 

only be resolved, of course, by the issues of continuing democratization and improvements in economy and improvements in delivery 

of services. There is also the Algiers Accords which very much need 

to be implemented and the use of all of the resources that we can 

bring to bear through TSCTP which include both the appeals to the 

public regarding where their interest lies and continuing their 

392 

moderation and not being seduced by the siren songs of the wrong 

guys and any military support that is appropriate. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Senator Isakson, I am going to just finish 

with this Ambassador, then turn to you, and we will do a second 

round so I can get to everybody. 

Ambassador, what impact has the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative, TSCTI, had in Mali and the region? 

Ambassador MILOVANOVIC. Thank you. 

I believe that it has had a positive effect. It is a good opportunity 

for both the Defense Department, USAID, and the State Department to be working together, coordinating their efforts because 

these challenges that are faced are of a variety of natures, and just 

as a country team needs to work together with every agency contributing to finding solutions, TSCTP is a manifestation of that 

interagency process. I think the combination of the training and 

the support and the strengthening of law enforcement, the military 

so that there is a slightly better ability to control the border is excellent, but together with that, to have all of the efforts, whether 

they are through military funds or through USAID or State funds 

to get to the public to do humanitarian and small developmental 

activities that show the public that their interest is in a good democratic government in their country. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And what experience do you have in coordinating with U.S. and foreign intelligence and defense agencies? 

Ambassador MILOVANOVIC. I have in the past been a political 

military officer in Brussels, and of course, as three-time DCM and 

also now as Ambassador, an enormous part of what I am responsible for is exactly this. And I have taken very much a task force 

approach every place that I have gone, having law enforcement 

working groups and intelligence working groups at my embassies, 

which are opportunities not only to exchange general information, 

but to actually work together within the limits that there may be 

on certain agencies, to facilitate each other’s work, and to get results irrespective of who is the agency that is getting the results 

because ultimately the results are for the United States and for the 

goal, not for a particular agency. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Senator, I apologize. We are just getting through an awful lot of 

nominees today. So it is slow going. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Teitelbaum, in your remarks you referred to offshore gas and 

oil opportunities in the Gulf of Guinea. I have recently returned 

from Equatorial Guinea where they had one of the largest natural 

gas finds in the world, which has transformed the economy of that 

country. 

Are you aware of any exploration by the United States or by the 

United States in cooperation with the Ghana Government in the 

Gulf of Guinea at this time? 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. Thank you for that question, Senator Isakson. 

In fact, one of the companies that is a primary player in the oil 

consortium in Ghana is an American company called Cosmos. And 

I think that this find is a very important issue for the Government 

of Ghana and it presents a real challenge to ensure that the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00400 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
393 

sources they have discovered, which do appear right now to be 

there in commercially exploitable quantities are used to broadly 

benefit the people of Ghana. If confirmed, I think that ensuring 

that this is the case would be one of my top priorities, and I think 

it is very helpful that one of the companies involved is, in fact, an 

American company. 

Senator ISAKSON. For the four of you that are on the coast there, 

the one observation I would make is that in my recent visit there, 

I observed very aggressive Chinese investment in Africa. 

It was a United States company that partnered with Equatorial 

Guinea to find the natural gas that they are now liquefying and 

shipping to the United States. But as those opportunities are 

found, I think it is very important for our Ambassadors to be a conduit for American investment and American companies to be partners with these countries as they develop this magnificent resource. I mean, Equatorial Guinea went from being the poorest 

country in the world to the fastest growing economy in the world 

in 20 years, and the same type of thing could happen again with 

energy discoveries like that. 

Ms. Hawkins also made a reference to the Gulf of Guinea with 

regard to security. My understanding is there is still a fair amount 

of piracy and not very much security on the coastline. Are you 

aware of any cooperation between the coastal countries to improve 

the security? 

Ms. HAWKINS. Yes, Senator Isakson. Thank you for the question. 

Yes, there has been cooperation with American naval forces and 

with the Togolese, to which I can speak in particular, but I believe 

certainly with the countries my colleagues are nominated for. Togo 

is still emerging from a rather dark period, and its armed forces 

and military security forces leave—are somewhat to be desired in 

their ability to cope with piracy, with drug trafficking, with the 

trafficking in persons. But we have worked with them through the 

IMET program and through other regional development programs 

to improve their ability to cope with these problems. Obviously, it 

is something that will have to be worked on considerably in the future. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, it is a big issue, and also with the presence of al-Qaeda or the opportunity for organizations like al-Qaeda 

to take advantage of ignorance and poverty and with little security 

on the coastline, to me it is a very important issue all along the 

African coast. 

Ms. Thomas-Greenfield, you made a very passionate statement. 

I tried to write it down real quickly. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. I hope you have a copy of the statement. 

Senator ISAKSON. I do have a copy, but I was listening rather 

than reading. So I wrote down you were going to aggressively—you 

were willing to unabashedly and aggressively and publicly attack 

corruption. Did I get that right? 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. You did, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I want to commend you on that. Again, 

with the ignorance and poverty issue and the conversation about 

drugs that has taken place in some of the other testimony, the AmVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00401 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
394 

bassadors can bring a world of help in that part of the world to try 

and minimize and eliminate the corruption. 

And I go back to my trip to Equatorial Guinea. When they made 

the find of natural gas, of course, the $64,000 question was whose 

pocket is all this money going into. And remarkably, I think because Ambassador Johnson, who is now on the ground there in 

Guinea and his unabashed outspokenness against corruption, they 

have just finished building a state-of-the-art hospital that is as 

good as any hospital I have ever seen and a lot of other infrastructure for the citizens of the area. I am sure there is some spending 

money going into some pockets somewhere, but I was delighted to 

see that amount. So I hope as these finds take place, as the resources are developed, you will all be outspoken on that. 

I would be happy to hear any comment from you regarding corruption. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you for that question, sir. 

Corruption is really a cancer and it can destroy any country’s 

progress. Liberia, the country that I hope to get confirmed for, is 

a country that cannot afford corruption. It is a country that is coming out of 14 years of civil war in which its infrastructure was totally devastated, people’s lives were destroyed, and a whole generation of young people went without education. 

The United States taxpayers are putting a lot of money into Liberia. We are the largest donor. I see it as my responsibility, if confirmed as Ambassador, to ensure that our taxpayers’ dollars go to 

where we hope and plan for those dollars to go, but also, I think 

it is very important for the funding and support that we are giving 

to the Liberian people, that that money goes to the Liberian people 

and not into the pockets of those people who would steal from the 

coffers of the government. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, there is an economic term called the 

‘‘Dutch disease,’’ and that is when a country has a singular source 

of wealth and it never develops itself internally. That is what has 

happened in the Middle Eastern countries, and the same opportunity for that to happen exists on the coast of Africa. So everything we can do to get that money invested in improving the lives 

of the people I think will help us avoid another part of the world 

with the type of problems we have in the Middle East. 

One last real quick question. Ms. Bernicat, with regard to the 

drug issue, which you underlined in your speech and which you addressed again, did I understand you to say that our success in Colombia—that some of the expansion of the drugs there, on the West 

African coast, are actually some of the same people that were in 

Colombia? Was that correct? 

Ms. BERNICAT. That is correct, sir. As we put pressure on traffickers who moved drugs up the west coast of the United States, 

they shifted to trafficking through the eastern Caribbean. And as 

we put pressure successfully with the interagency and our foreign 

partners on those trafficking routes, the traffickers simply shifted 

to West Africa. 

Senator ISAKSON. This will be my last question. Is it at the point 

where it would be a target for a program similar to what we did 

with the country of Colombia? 

395 

Ms. BERNICAT. I do not believe so, sir, but again, the Europeans 

have been taking a lead, given the fact that they are for the moment the recipients of the vast majority of this product. Our goal, 

I believe, and if confirmed, I would pursue, would be to apply the 

lessons that we have learned from Plan Colombia and from our 

work in the Caribbean to help thwart the trafficking that is now 

going through the west coast to help the Europeans. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Senator, we will start the second round. 

Mr. Teitelbaum, what are you greatest concerns regarding the 

upcoming presidential and legislative elections? And if confirmed 

as Ambassador, what steps will you take to help Ghana’s government, democratic institutions, political parties, and civil society 

prepare for the December 2008 polls? 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. 

If confirmed, the upcoming elections due in December would be 

not only one of my top priorities, but it would certainly be the most 

immediate priority. 

I think, first and foremost, on the very bright side, since 1992 

Ghana has already had four elections which were widely viewed as 

free and fair and were generally peaceful. And I think the primary 

expectation and the hope of all players is that this next election 

will be more of the same. In fact, in one of their previous elections, 

the Ghanaians also had a transfer of power between parties. So 

they have some very good precedents, and they are beginning to establish a democratic history. 

That said, it is still a very young democracy. Institutions still 

need to grow and to strengthen and to build. 

These elections are expected to be very, very close. I think that 

since the United States, of course, has no interest in any individual 

candidate, of course, our interest is in ensuring that the elections 

are free and fair, that the playing field is level, that the elections 

themselves reflect the will of the Ghanaian people, and that, most 

importantly, they be well run and transparent so that whatever the 

results of those elections, they have credibility and engender trust 

in the people of Ghana. And I think that the United States Government has a very substantial role to play in ensuring that part of 

the elections, both on the governmental side and also there are 

roles for nongovernmental organizations. 

The Carter Center had a preelection role to play and was in 

Ghana in February. The United States Government is funding with 

approximately $600,000, I believe, or $625,000 medium-term and 

election day observers from among Ghanaian organizations. And 

the United States has a program of approximately $300,000 to encourage greater participation in the elections by persons with disabilities. 

So I think we have a very strong role to play and, if confirmed, 

I would seek to strengthen these roles and also ensure that the embassy itself sends out observers on the day to ensure that this is 

a free, fair, and transparent election. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Ghana is rich in natural resources and also seems to actually 

have a chance at being the first African country to avoid the socalled ‘‘resource curse,’’ which Senator Isakson, of course, was getVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00403 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
396 

ting at a little bit, of corruption leading to poverty. The government 

exported $1.3 billion in gold in 2006. An oil discovery just last December has put reserves at over 3 billion barrels. 

Do you think Ghana should become a compliant country under 

the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative? And outside of 

EITI, what steps would you take to assist Ghana in moving toward 

greater transparent management of its natural resources? 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. Thank you. 

I think that Ghana has had quite a good success in recent years 

in growing its economy, but they remain very dependent on a few 

resources, gold, cocoa, and perhaps in the not too distant future 

they will begin to diversify that with oil. 

Ghana is a member of the Extractive Industries Transparency 

Initiative. I think they have made it very clear that it is their intent to ensure that these resources are used wisely to benefit their 

people. And I believe that the United States has an important role 

to play in encouraging and supporting the Ghanaian Government 

in this role. 

One area that I would mention as providing this is the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s compact with the Ghanaians. Of 

course, part of qualifying for the compact is ensuring a certain 

transparency and accountability in government operations, and the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation’s compact is aimed at building 

Ghanaian infrastructure and supporting their agricultural industry, which would help further diversify their economy and help 

them get away from the one or two crops and the one or two areas 

that they are focused on now. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I understand you mentioned that they were 

a member of EITI, but the goal here is compliant as well. 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. They are not fully compliant yet. 

Senator FEINGOLD. That is important, I think. 

Mr. TEITELBAUM. Yes, sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Ms. Thomas-Greenfield, as you know, Liberia 

represents one of the relatively few truly enthusiastic supporters of 

the new United States combatant command, AFRICOM, on the 

continent. What role do you think AFRICOM can play in Liberia 

and the region? 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you for that question. 

I have worked very closely with DOD over the past year and a 

half in the formation and creation of AFRICOM. I think AFRICOM 

can play an extremely important role, particularly in Liberia, in 

terms of helping with security sector reform, with training, with 

helping build the confidence of Liberians in their future. We are 

hoping that at some point, once AFRICOM is fully operational, that 

they will work closely with the newly formed Liberian army to 

mentor them, to train them, and to help them become a professional army that contributes to the country and one that does not 

take away from the people of the country. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, Liberia is becoming increasingly stable, 

as you have talked about, in the wake of its bloody civil war. Its 

neighbors, particularly Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire, are decidedly less 

so. 

397 

What skills and experiences do you have that could assist you to 

deal with humanitarian needs and conflict-related situations 

should the circumstances in Guinea or Cote d’Ivoire worsen? 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you again for that question, sir. 

In addition to considering myself an Africanist, I consider myself, 

with over 12 years of experience working on humanitarian and refugee issues, to be a humanitarian, as well. I formerly worked in 

the Bureau for Population Refugees and Migration. I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary there working on humanitarian issues 

around Africa, but particularly working on the issues related to Liberian refugees, the situation in Cote d’Ivoire, the situation in 

Guinea. 

I think I have the experience and the background to work with 

our ambassadors in the surrounding countries, if I am confirmed, 

to come up with a strategy to deal with the issues in the neighborhood. I would particularly like to work with ambassadors in the 

Mano River region to come up with a regional solution for Liberia 

because Liberia’s stability really depends on the situation in Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire and Sierra Leone remaining stable. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Ms. Hawkins, I see that you have extensive experience working 

in public diplomacy for the United States both at home and abroad. 

How will that assist you in managing the United States mission in 

Togo and the role you see of United States diplomacy as an element of foreign policy more generally? 

Ms. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, I am a public diplomacy officer and have been for the 25 

years I have been in the Foreign Service. I firmly believe that public diplomacy probably is the strongest arrow in our quiver, if you 

will. It is the best way to reach people. We have the tools. We have 

the talent that is needed to form people-to-people relationships 

which will survive beyond any minor policy disputes. It is a tool 

that we have to use if we are going to persuade people that we 

have their best interests at heart. 

As far as working in Togo goes, it may be the only tool that I 

will have because we are at a point in our relationship with Togo 

that is just starting to develop, and I intend to focus very strongly 

on public outreach, on media outreach. I would like to start a 

speakers bureau at the embassy to get all of my younger officers 

and family members out. I would like to see everyone in the embassy travel extensively so that they can reach populations that we 

might not have reached before. 

We are going to have to provide assistance to education, assistance to women and child health, assistance across the board, and 

perhaps the best way of doing that is by education and media outreach. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Ms. Hawkins. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Milovanovic, Mali is the largest, geographically, of these five 

countries. It is also one of the poorest and the most sparsely populated. I worry, again as I mentioned earlier, about al-Qaeda, and 

I know this is a heavily Islamic country to boot, I believe, if my 

information is correct. 

398 

How much in the counterterrorism effort with United States is 

the Mali Government cooperative in that, or are we developing 

good relationships with regard to that? 

Ambassador MILOVANOVIC. Thank you, Senator Isakson, for the 

question. 

I am pleased to say that one of the real positives, not that it is 

the only one by a long shot, but one of the real positives is the excellence of the relationship with the Government of Mali, with the 

President, with the leadership there. So we are really working in 

what my colleague earlier spoke of, a partnership and a genuine 

partnership. And this is extremely important as you have indicated 

because, obviously, if there is only one part of the group pulling to 

get the results, you do not succeed as well as if everyone is pulling 

in the same direction. 

In Mali, there is clearly a commitment on the part of the government and the President himself, be it on democracy, be it on sustainable development, be it on improvements to health and education for the benefit of the citizens, but also a commitment to do 

all of these things and more because they are also, in addition to 

being good for his own country and his own citizens, clearly important with respect to the struggle to ensure that this relatively 

ungoverned—not ungoverned but sparsely populated with unclear 

borders north—is not a danger and not a threat but increasingly 

and sustainably feels absolutely part of this immense country of 

Mali. 

Senator ISAKSON. Ms. Thomas-Greenfield, you mentioned you 

worked with DOD in the development of AFRICOM. Did any of the 

others of you have interface with DOD on that? 

As an observation, having just come back from Djibouti in January—and AFRICOM is not clearly understood by a lot of people. 

However, I want to commend you because when I visited Admiral 

Hart and the other officers there, I was so impressed with the technical assistance, such as well drilling, bridge building, all the 

things that the military was doing in cooperation with countries in 

Africa to improve the plight. A lot of people have looked at 

AFRICOM as a ‘‘military operation,’’ but it has got a tremendous 

humanitarian aspect to it. 

I took some input from somewhere. So I will give you the credit 

if you were the one working with DOD for doing that. They really 

have a clear mission, and I think as AFRICOM fully develops and 

ultimately locates on the continent, it is going to be good for the 

United States and our relationship with a lot of those countries. 

Any comment on that you would like to make? 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Yes, sir, and thank you very much for 

that question. 

We worked diligently to ensure that AFRICOM had a mission 

that was understood and that was supportive of the State Department and the other civilian agencies who are working in Africa. 

There has been a lot of questions raised about AFRICOM militarizing United States foreign policy and United States diplomacy, 

and we have worked with the command and with others in DOD 

to make sure that in our communications strategy we developed 

the language that was understood by Africans and by others that 

AFRICOM was not there to take over diplomacy but would be 

399 

working with our embassies under the direction and authority of 

our ambassadors to carry out the foreign policy goals that have 

been established by the State Department. 

Senator ISAKSON. It almost reminded me of the PRT’s in Iraq 

where you have the State Department and the military working 

hand in hand with the people to reconstruct and develop. So congratulations on the work that you did. 

My only other comment, Mr. Chairman, is for Mr. Teitelbaum. 

Being a Georgian in the home of Coca-Cola, I know Coca-Cola is 

a tremendous investor in Ghana, and I hope you will encourage everyone to drink Coca-Cola. [Laughter.] 

Senator FEINGOLD. Nicely done, Senator. 

I thank the panel very much and wish you well, and we ask the 

next panel to come forward, please. 

All right. Let us get the committee to order here and begin with 

the testimony of the second panel. I am going to have to ask the 

panelists to keep it brief so that everybody has a chance to talk 

and so that we can have some questions. 

Mr. Bodde, do you want to begin please for us, Ambassador to 

the Republic of Malawi? 

STATEMENT OF PETER W. BODDE, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MALAWI 

Mr. BODDE. Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, it is an honor and 

privilege to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to 

serve as the next United States Ambassador to Malawi. I am grateful for the trust placed in me by the President and Secretary Rice. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and my 

colleagues in the United States Government to further the interests of the United States in Malawi and in the region. 

I also want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation 

for the special efforts the committee has made to schedule these 

nomination hearings. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my wife, Tanya, who is 

also a member of the Foreign Service; our daughter, Sara, who is 

a third grade teacher in Montgomery County; and our son, Christopher, who flew in from London. And I am especially proud and 

happy that my father, Ambassador William Bodde, is here today. 

About 30 years ago today, I sat where he is sitting today during 

his first confirmation hearing, when he appeared before the late 

Senator Paul Tsongas, prior to becoming Ambassador to Fiji. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Where are you folks out there? Can we see 

you? Welcome all. Great. 

Mr. BODDE. Thank you. 

Among the lessons I have learned during my career is that the 

success of every United States mission abroad depends on a strong 

interagency effort and a cohesive country team. It also requires 

clear goals, strict accountability, adequate funding, and trained 

personnel. These same critical concepts apply to our bilateral engagement projects and the delivery of significant levels of U.S. assistance at a critical juncture in Malawi’s development. You have 

my full assurance that should I be confirmed, I will provide the 

necessary leadership to ensure that these concepts are an essential 

element of all mission programs. While the generosity of the AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00407 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
400 

ican people is great, all of us involved in the stewardship of this 

generosity must be accountable for measuring success and failure. 

In my current position in Islamabad, as well in my previous position as consul general in Frankfurt, I have had the opportunity to 

regularly brief dozens of your colleagues, both in the House and 

Senate. Such regular interaction, whether at post or in Washington, is critical to our continued success. Frank exchanges of accurate information that build trust are essential for the Congress 

to make difficult resource and policy choices. 

Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world. It faces the 

daunting challenges of chronic malaria, widespread HIV/AIDS, 

poor infrastructure, and a lack of mineral wealth. Yet, the 

Malawian Government has made a meaningful commitment to 

raising living standards and improving the lives of its people. The 

United States is an important and growing partner in this process. 

We are working with Malawi to promote political and economic development, decrease the country’s dependence on humanitarian assistance, and increase its ability to make positive contributions to 

regional security and the broader global community. 

If confirmed, I will make protecting and deepening Malawi’s 

democratic systems one of my highest priorities. Malawi’s political 

parties are currently locked in a bitter struggle that has placed serious strains on the country’s political institutions. All eyes are now 

shifting to national elections scheduled for mid-2009 that will be a 

critical test for Malawi’s democratic processes. If confirmed, my recent experience in Pakistan, as well as my previous experience in 

Nepal and Bulgaria, in helping young or challenged democracies 

conduct fair and credible elections will serve me well. 

I also want to note how much I look forward to serving again at 

a post with a large and well-established Peace Corps program. I 

have seen firsthand the significant impact a single Peace Corps volunteer can make. I want to assure you that should I be confirmed, 

I will provide considerable support to this inspiring American outreach program. 

In closing, I want to note that anyone who represents the United 

States has a unique responsibility. More often than not, we are the 

only nation that has the will, the values, and the resources to solve 

problems, help others, and be a positive force for change in our 

challenged world. Being nominated to serve as an ambassador representing our Nation is in itself an incredible honor. With your consent, I look forward to assuming this responsibility while serving 

as the next United States Ambassador to Malawi. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address you. I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bodde follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER W. BODDE, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MALAWI

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and a privilege to 

appear before you today as the President’s nominee to serve as the next United 

States Ambassador to Malawi. I am grateful for the trust placed in me by the President and Secretary Rice. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee 

and my colleagues in the United States Government to further the interests of the 

United States in Malawi and in the region. I also want to take this opportunity to 

401 

express my appreciation for the special efforts the committee has made to schedule 

these nomination hearings. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my wife, Tanya, who is also a member 

of the Foreign Service, our daughter, Sara, who is a third grade teacher in Montgomery County, MD, and our son, Christopher, who traveled from London to be here 

today. I am happy and proud that my father, Ambassador William Bodde, is here 

today. About 30 years ago, I sat where he is sitting today during his first confirmation hearing when he appeared before the late Senator Paul Tsongas prior to becoming Ambassador to Fiji. I consider myself lucky to have grown up in a Foreign Service family. 

Among the lessons I have learned during my career is that the success of every 

United States mission abroad depends on a strong interagency effort and a cohesive 

country team. It also requires clear goals, strict accountability, adequate funding, 

and trained personnel. These same critical concepts apply to our bilateral engagement and the delivery of significant levels of United States assistance at a critical 

juncture in Malawi’s development. You have my full assurances that, should I be 

confirmed, I will provide the necessary leadership to ensure that these concepts are 

an essential element of all mission programs. While the generosity of the American 

people is great, all of us involved in the stewardship of this generosity must be accountable for measuring success and failure. 

In my current position in Islamabad, as well as in my previous position as consul 

general in Frankfurt, I have had the opportunity to regularly brief dozens of your 

colleagues both in the House and Senate. Such regular interaction, whether at post 

or in Washington, is critical to our continued success. Frank exchanges of accurate 

information that build trust are essential for the Congress to make difficult resource 

and policy choices. Should I be confirmed, I will make every effort to interact on 

a regular basis with the members of the committee and other members of the Congress and congressional staff. 

Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world; it faces the daunting challenges of chronic malaria, wide-spread HIV/AIDS, poor infrastructure, and a lack of 

mineral wealth. Yet, the Malawian Government has made a meaningful commitment to raising living standards and improving the lives of its people, and the 

United States is an important and growing partner in this process. The primary objective of the United States mission in Malawi, of course, is to promote and protect 

the interests of the United States and United States citizens who are either in Malawi or doing business with Malawi. In addition to that fundamental responsibility, 

we are working with Malawi to promote political and economic development, decrease the country’s dependence on humanitarian assistance and increase its ability 

to make positive contributions to regional security and the broader global community. 

If confirmed, I will make protecting and deepening Malawi’s democratic systems 

one of my highest priorities. Malawi’s political parties are currently locked in a bitter struggle that has placed serious strains on the country’s political institutions. 

All eyes are now shifting to national elections scheduled for mid-2009 that will be 

a critical test for Malawi’s democratic institutions. If confirmed, my recent experience in Pakistan, as well as my previous experience in Nepal and Bulgaria, in helping young or challenged democracies conduct fair and credible elections will serve 

me well. Success, however, will require United States and international donor support to reinforce Malawi’s developing democratic system. 

On the economic front, Malawi’s near-term prospects look bright, largely because 

of good rains and the positive impact of the government’s fertilizer and seed subsidy 

programs. From a longer-term perspective, however, Malawi remains highly dependent on rain-fed agriculture in an area prone to periodic droughts. In order to achieve 

sustainable improvements in living standards, Malawi must increase investment in 

irrigation and agricultural diversification, raise productivity and education standards, and reduce high transport and public utility costs. The Millennium Challenge 

Corporation’s selection of Malawi as a compact eligible country in late 2007 has created significant new opportunities, not only for funding strategic public investments 

but also for new public-private partnerships to promote sustainable growth. 

Disease, including HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and chronic malnutrition 

poses a tremendous obstacle to Malawi’s continued growth. The Malawian Government has been a willing partner in addressing the challenges of improving access 

to health care, but government and public sector capacity remain weak. The United 

States, through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the 

Global Fund, has played a critical role in increasing access to treatment and increasing public awareness about the disease. If confirmed, I will be proud to shepherd the continued growth of these critical programs. 

402 

As Malawi continues to develop domestically, it is increasingly able to play a constructive role in advancing important issues throughout the region. One example of 

such a contribution is Malawi’s planned deployment of a peacekeeping battalion to 

Darfur. The United States is working with the United Nations to support Malawi’s 

efforts and prepare Malawian troops for deployment in 2009. If confirmed, I will 

work diligently to keep these plans on track. 

I also want to note how much I look forward to serving again at a post with a 

large and well-established Peace Corps program. I have seen firsthand the significant impact a single Peace Corps volunteer can make. I want to assure you that, 

should I be confirmed, I will provide considerable support to this inspiring American 

outreach program. 

In closing, I want to note that anyone who represents the United States has a 

unique responsibility. More often than not, we are the only Nation that has the will, 

the values, and the resources to solve problems, help others, and to be a positive 

force for change in our challenged world. Being nominated to serve as an ambassador representing our Nation is in itself an incredible honor. With the consent of 

the Senate, I look forward to assuming this responsibility while serving as the next 

United States Ambassador to Malawi. Thank you for this opportunity to address 

you. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Bodde. Thank you so much. 

And now we turn to Donald E. Booth, to be Ambassador to the 

Republic of Zambia. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD E. BOOTH, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA 

Ambassador BOOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson. 

I am deeply honored to appear before you today, and I greatly appreciate the trust and confidence that the President and Secretary 

of State have placed in me to be their nominee as United States 

Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia. 

I am also grateful for the unwavering support of my wife, Anita, 

who is a retired Foreign Service officer, who is currently in Liberia 

where I have had the honor of serving as Ambassador for the past 

3 years. I would also like to introduce my daughter, Alison, and my 

son, Peter, who are in the back. My youngest son, David, is currently attending Lawrence University in Wisconsin, so he is not 

able to be here today. 

I have spent the better part of my 32 years in the Foreign Service trying to resolve conflicts and promoting development and understanding of the United States in many different parts of Africa. 

During my 2 years as the Deputy Director of the State Department’s Office of Southern African Affairs, I worked to keep Zambia 

from being drawn into the then ever-widening conflict in the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo. I was also the coordinator of our efforts to engage the member states of the Southern 

African Development Community on security cooperation, regional 

water resource management, and in arresting Zimbabwe’s slide toward arbitrary rule, among others. 

Zambia has been fortunate to escape the wars and civil conflicts 

in Southern Africa since its independence in 1964. However, despite its vast mineral wealth, Zambia remains a poor country 

where 87 percent of the population lives on less than $2 a day. The 

reasons for this low quality of life for most people in Zambia are 

similar to those I have been working to address during my time as 

Ambassador to Liberia—corruption, gender-based violence, unequal 

access to opportunity, and lack of quality education and health 

care. 

403 

If confirmed, I would do my best to ensure that the assistance 

funds appropriated and authorized by Congress are effectively utilized to help the Government of Zambia address the underlying 

causes of poverty there. Poverty that can lead to despair and create 

opportunities for those who would seek to harm the American people. My experiences in Africa have left me convinced that we can 

only make a difference by working in partnership with those Africans who have the desire to tackle their problems themselves. 

Zambia also suffers from the curse of HIV/AIDS and malaria, 

and that is why Zambia was one of the first countries to benefit 

from the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief, as well 

as from the President’s Malaria Initiative. Over 75 percent of 

United States assistance to Zambia is directed to addressing HIV/ 

AIDS and malaria. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to ensure 

that our emergency interventions receive the Zambian support 

needed to make them sustainable and thus truly capable of controlling the scourge of those diseases that have so restrained development in that part of the world and can still threaten the region’s 

stability. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe our relationship with Zambia should not 

be defined by what we do to help Zambia, but rather by how much 

we can accomplish together to expand the horizons of freedom, 

peace, and economic opportunity. Zambia has been in the forefront 

of true multiparty democratic governance in southern Africa, and 

I believe we need to encourage Zambia to work through the Southern African Development Community, SADC, to advance democracy and accountable government in southern Africa and beyond. 

I am pleased to note that as the chair of SADC, Zambia recently 

convoked an extraordinary summit to address the deteriorating situation in neighboring Zimbabwe. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for inviting me to appear before you 

today, and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Booth follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD E. BOOTH, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I am deeply honored 

to appear before you today. I greatly appreciate the trust and confidence the President and Secretary of State have placed in me as their nominee to be the United 

States Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia. I am also grateful for the support 

throughout my Foreign Service career of my wife, Anita, who is in Liberia where 

I have had the honor to serve as ambassador for the past 3 years, as well as of my 

daughter, Alison, and sons, Peter and David. Alison and Peter are here with me 

today. David is currently attending Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin. 

I have spent the better part of my 32 years in the Foreign Service trying to resolve conflicts and promoting development and understanding of the United States 

in many parts of Africa. During my 2 years as Deputy Director of the State Department’s Office of Southern African Affairs, I worked to keep Zambia from being 

drawn into the then-widening conflict in neighboring Democratic Republic of the 

Congo. I was also the coordinator of our efforts to engage the member states of the 

Southern African Development Community as a group on security cooperation, regional water resource management and in arresting Zimbabwe’s slide toward arbitrary rule. As Ambassador to Liberia, I have seen the impact regional peer pressure 

can have in ending conflict and restoring democratically elected government. 

Despite the wars and civil conflicts in southern Africa, Zambia has been fortunate 

to escape conflict since its independence in 1964. However, despite its vast mineral 

wealth, Zambia remains a poor country where 87 percent of the population lives on 

less than $2 per day. The reasons for this low quality of life for most people in ZamVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00411 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
404 

bia are not dissimilar to those I have been working to address during my time as 

Ambassador to Liberia—corruption, unequal access to opportunity and lack of quality education and health care. If confirmed, I would do my best to ensure that the 

assistance funds appropriated and authorized by the Congress are effectively utilized to help the Government of Zambia address the underlying causes of poverty 

in Zambia, poverty that can lead to despair and create opportunities for those who 

would seek to harm the American people, their friends and allies. I would also work 

with the Government of Zambia to meet the criteria for compact status under the 

Millennium Challenge Account. My numerous experiences in Africa have left me 

convinced that we cannot impose solutions to Africa’s problems. We can only make 

a difference by working in partnership with Africans who have the desire and will 

to tackle their problems themselves. 

Zambia also suffers from the twin afflictions of HIV/AIDS and malaria. That is 

why Zambia was one of the first countries to benefit from the President’s Emergency 

Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), as well as from the President’s Malaria Initiative 

(PMI). Over 75 percent of United States assistance to Zambia is directed at addressing HIV/AIDS and malaria. If confirmed, I will make it a priority not only to help 

Zambia combat those diseases, but also explore ways we can ensure our ‘‘emergency’’ interventions receive the Zambian support needed to make them sustainable 

and thus truly capable of controlling these two diseases that have so restrained development and could still threaten the region’s stability. Another impediment to 

Zambia’s development is the unequal status of women and the prevalence of genderbased violence. If confirmed, I would ensure these problems are addressed through 

the Women’s Justice and Empowerment Initiative, as well as through programs that 

combat trafficking in persons. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe our relationship with Zambia should not be defined by 

what we do to help Zambia, but rather by how much we can accomplish together 

to expand the horizons of freedom, peace, and economic opportunity. Zambia has 

been in the forefront of true multiparty democratic governance in southern Africa 

and I believe we need to encourage Zambia to work through the Southern African 

Development Community (SADC) to advance democracy and accountable government in southern Africa and beyond. I am pleased to note that as chair of SADC, 

Zambia recently convoked an extraordinary summit to address the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. The United States Ambassador to Zambia is also accredited to 

the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). While COMESA 

is a broad group of nations in various states of development, if confirmed, I will try 

to help COMESA identify ways it can advance meaningful regional economic cooperation that will better integrate its member states into the global economy. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I would be 

happy to answer your questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Booth. 

Now we go to Mr. Stephen James Nolan, to be Ambassador to 

the Republic of Botswana. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JAMES NOLAN, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Senator Isakson, I am honored to appear before you today as President 

Bush’s nominee to serve as the next United States Ambassador to 

the Republic of Botswana and Special Representative to the Southern African Development Community. I am grateful for the trust 

placed in me by the President and Secretary Rice. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working with this committee to further the interests of the United States in Botswana and the region. 

With me today is my wife, Judy. She has been a real source of 

support and wise counsel since we were married 30 years ago in 

Senegal, our first Foreign Service post. 

Since then, two-thirds of my career has been spent with the African Bureau, during which I have been responsible for handling a 

variety of management and policy issues. During the last 4 years, 

I have been the Executive Director of the African Bureau where 

Ambassador Ruth Davis, who has been a wonderful boss and great 

405 

leader, has really been behind me in every sense of the word, right 

until this moment. [Laughter.] 

Should I be confirmed, this experience will greatly inform my 

work in Botswana. 

My affinity for Africa is not accidental. My father was a Foreign 

Service officer until his death in Yemen in 1973. It was his example, with encouragement from my mother, that inspired my career 

choice, but it was our family’s years in Kenya and Sierra Leone 

that sparked a lifelong interest in Africa. I am sure my father is 

looking down on these proceedings with a smile on his face. 

The highest priorities for any ambassador are to protect American lives and to ensure a safe environment for all personnel in the 

mission. My sensitivity to this is based on experience. I was in the 

embassy in Nairobi when it was bombed by al-Qaeda in August 

1998. For me the events and aftermath of that day underscored the 

importance of leadership and preparedness. If confirmed, I will not 

lose sight of this critical responsibility. 

Botswana is a leader in the region, with a long record of political 

stability and sound institutions. Yet, for all its storied success, Botswana still faces critical challenges that will affect the sustainability of its remarkable development. Although democracy and 

good governance are firmly established, civil society organizations 

are not yet fully mature. Working with the government, civil society, and the media, I will strive to foster robust and dynamic democratic institutions. 

Diamonds account for a third of Botswana’s GDP, and the government has used this resource wisely to spur development. But 30 

percent of Botswana’s citizens still live in poverty and the gap between rich and poor is growing. With diamonds expected to run out 

in the not distant future, there is an urgent need for greater economic diversification with less reliance on the public sector. To this 

end, the United States is helping Botswana become more competitive in the global marketplace and to take full advantage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. If confirmed, I will work to foster economic growth and seek to expand United States commercial 

engagement with Botswana. 

The devastating coepidemics of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis touch 

everyone in Botswana. Through the President’s Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief, the U.S. has provided over $300 million to support 

prevention and treatment efforts and to help the Government of 

Botswana achieve its goal of an AIDS-free generation by 2016. If 

confirmed, I will be proud to champion the continued development 

of this vital program. 

Additional important objectives would be supporting Botswana’s 

role as a regional partner on peace and security issues through the 

International Military Education and Training Program, maximizing the impact of the International Law Enforcement Academy 

in Gaborone, and working to help protect Botswana’s environment 

and unique natural heritage. 

If confirmed, I would build on Ambassador Canavan’s efforts to 

identify areas for closer collaboration with the Southern African 

Development Community. We already enjoy useful cooperation on 

trade expansion and environmental protection, and more recently 

SADC has shown leadership in coordinating a regional response to 

406 

the electoral crisis in Zimbabwe. It is important that we continue 

to engage with SADC, encouraging its expanding role as an advocate for constructive economic policies and deepening democratic 

institutions. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, should I be confirmed, I promise 

to work hard to maintain and expand our excellent relationship 

with Botswana for the betterment of both the American and Botswana people. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address you. I look forward to 

answering your questions.[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan 

follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JAMES NOLAN, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA

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

today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as the next United States Ambassador 

to the Republic of Botswana. I am grateful for the trust placed in me by the President and Secretary Rice. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee 

to further the interests of the United States in Botswana and in the region as the 

Secretary of State’s Representative to the Southern African Development Community. 

With me today is my wife, Judy, who has been a source of strength, support, and 

wise counsel since we were married 30 years ago in Dakar, Senegal, our first Foreign Service post. While I have also served in Europe and the Near East, two thirds 

of my career has been at our posts in Africa or in the Bureau of African Affairs in 

Washington. On the continent, I have had the pleasure to serve as Consul General 

in Cape Town, two tours in Nairobi, and tours in Harare and Dakar. This affinity 

for Africa is not accidental. My father, Bernard Nolan, was a Foreign Service officer 

until his death in Yemen in 1973. His example, with encouragement from my mother, inspired my career choice, but it was my family’s years in Kenya and Sierra 

Leone that sparked my life-long interest in Africa. I am sure he is looking down 

on these proceedings with a smile on his face. 

During my career with the Foreign Service, I have been responsible for handling 

a variety of management and policy issues, most recently, as Executive Director of 

the Bureau of African Affairs. The rapid growth of health, development, and security assistance programs at many embassies in recent years has stretched human 

and financial resources, but I am proud of how our bureau’s dedicated American and 

locally engaged personnel have risen to the challenge. This is an issue I plan to remain focused on as we need to ensure that we have adequate staffing to match the 

increase in program funds for proper management and accountability. Africa stands 

at a critical juncture, and Botswana is destined to play a key leadership role in the 

realization of Africa’s future, particularly in southern Africa. If confirmed, I will 

work with dedication to promote stronger United States-Africa relations and to 

deepen our excellent bilateral relationship with Botswana. 

The highest priority for any ambassador serving overseas is to protect American 

lives—whether private citizens or those working in the mission. My extreme sensitivity about this is based on my experience; when al-Qaeda bombed our embassy in 

Nairobi in 1998, I was serving there as the administrative counselor. This catastrophe and its aftermath underscored the importance of leadership and experience. 

Should I be confirmed, I will use both in carrying out this critical responsibility. 

Botswana’s stability and legitimacy derive from the strength of its leadership and 

institutions, adherence to democratic norms, and prudent management of revenues 

from its diamond industry. Yet Botswana, for all its storied success, still faces many 

critical challenges that will affect the sustainability of its remarkable development. 

Although democracy and good governance are firmly established in Botswana, the 

ruling party has won every national election since independence in 1966 and civil 

society organizations are not yet fully mature. The success of diamonds and the related broad-based and deeply rooted growth of the public sector have limited the 

emergence of a robust and entrepreneurial private sector. Diamond dependency (diamonds account for 33 percent of GDP) highlights the need to diversify the economy. 

The gap between rich and the poor is wide and growing. An estimated 30 percent 

to 40 percent of Batswana live in poverty, largely in sparsely populated rural areas. 

Furthermore, coepidemics of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis have devastated families 

407 

and affect every member of Batswana society. If I am confirmed, helping Botswana 

address these challenges will be central to my tenure. 

Our strong relationship with Botswana provides many opportunities for positive 

engagement. Today, I would like to focus on several areas where the United States 

can contribute to the continuing success of Botswana and an even brighter future. 

First, with the inauguration of a new President in Botswana and a general election 

approaching in 2009, the United States has a unique opportunity to help Botswana 

move forward with improved democratic practices and respect for human rights. 

Working with the government, civil society, and the media, I will endeavor to foster 

more robust and dynamic democratic institutions to ensure more Batswana feel like 

they have a stake in their own polity and economic future. 

Economic development and expansion of trade will also be key priorities. Botswana has already made great gains in just over four decades, financed largely and 

prudently by Botswana’s ‘‘diamonds for development’’ program and guided by sound 

fiscal and monetary policies. Despite these gains, uneven development, skewed income distribution, and highly visible and palpable poverty are clear signs that more 

must be done. The realization has increasingly set in that ‘‘diamonds are actually 

not forever,’’ and there is an urgent need for greater diversification in Botswana’s 

economy. The United States is currently helping Botswana to become more competitive in the global marketplace and to make maximum use of the African Growth 

and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Our Government is also working with Botswana to 

help develop its energy resources, agricultural exports, and public-private sector policy dialog. If confirmed, I will make fostering increased and diversified economic 

growth a priority, while seeking to expand United States commercial engagement 

with Botswana. 

I will continue our close collaboration with the Botswana Government in the fight 

against the coepidemics of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. As with many of its neighbors, Botswana has been devastated by HIV/AIDS. The national HIV/AIDS prevalence rate is estimated to be 24.1 percent, with a much higher rate in certain age 

categories. Botswana also has one of the world’s worst tuberculosis (TB) epidemics 

and about 80 percent of TB patients also have HIV. Through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the United States has provided roughly $300 

million in funding to support prevention and treatment efforts and to help the Government of Botswana achieve its goal of an AIDS-free generation by 2016. If confirmed, I would be proud to shepherd the continued development of this critical program. 

Supporting Botswana’s role as a regional partner on peace and security issues 

through the International Military Education and Training Program, maximizing 

the impact of the International Law Enforcement Academy in Gaborone, and working to help protect Botswana’s environment and unique natural heritage would also 

be important objectives, should I be confirmed. 

Finally, as the Secretary of State’s Representative to the Southern African Development Community, known as SADC, if confirmed, I would continue Ambassador 

Canavan’s efforts to identify areas for closer collaboration with this important regional organization, where we have already enjoyed useful cooperation in the areas 

of regional trade expansion and management of Southern African ecosystems. More 

recently, SADC has shown leadership in coordinating a regional response to the 

electoral crisis in Zimbabwe. It is important that we continue to engage fully with 

SADC, supporting its expanding voice as an advocate for constructive economic policies and deepening democratic institutions throughout southern Africa. 

Mr. Chairman, committee members, should I be confirmed, I will work hard to 

maintain and expand our excellent relationship with Botswana for the betterment 

of both the American and Batswana people. Thank you for this opportunity to address you. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. 

And finally, Ms. Marianne Matuzic Myles, to be the Ambassador 

to the Republic of Cape Verde. 

STATEMENT OF MARIANNE MATUZIC MYLES, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF CAPE VERDE 

Ms. MYLES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Senator Isakson, it 

is truly a great honor for me to be before you here today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to the 

Republic of Cape Verde. Like my fellow nominees before me, I am 

408 

grateful to the President and to Secretary Rice for the confidence 

and trust that they have shown by nominating me for this position. 

It is a tremendous pleasure for me to take a moment to introduce 

the many family members, friends, and colleagues who are with me 

here today. I am joined by my husband Stan, a retired Foreign 

Service officer, and my partner for almost 20 years now; our daughter Lee-Ellen, who is a seventh-grader at Roberto Clemente Middle 

School’s Magnet Center; my sister, Nancy Edwards; her daughter 

Kate; good friend and neighbor, Jim Gierula; Lee-Ellen’s classmate 

from Roberto Clemente, Frieda Lindroth. And from my current office, I would like to introduce Deputy Assistant Secretary Linda 

Taglialatela and colleagues, Bruce Cole, Margaret Dean, Bill Pope, 

Dick Christianson, Rachel Friedland, and Tijen Aybar. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I will ask the whole audience to rise. [Laughter.] 

Welcome all. Thank you very much for coming. Go ahead. 

Ms. MYLES. Mr. Chairman, I joined the Foreign Service at the 

young age of 22 because of a very strong commitment to public 

service. I look forward to the opportunity, if confirmed, to utilize 

the skills I have acquired during my 30-plus year Foreign Service 

career to advance our interests in Cape Verde. My multiple assignments in Brazil, which is a country that shares many common interests with Cape Verde, fluent Portuguese, the work I oversaw on 

remittances, and the disaster relief I provided while Consul General in Naples, my work to protect American citizens in Bogota, as 

well as my interagency training at the National War College, and 

background as an economist have given me a wide range of useful 

tools. If confirmed, I will put those tools to best use. 

Mr. Chairman, the Republic of Cape Verde is an African success 

story. It is one of Africa’s oldest and strongest democracies with an 

unbroken tradition of civilian rule since independence in 1975. It 

is politically stable. Corruption is low. Transparency is high. And 

perhaps most important, Cape Verde’s human rights record is excellent. 

In the brief time I have this morning, I would like to mention 

a few important aspects of the United States-Cape Verde bilateral 

relationship. That relationship is strong, in part because it is a 

longstanding one, beginning with the opening in 1818 of our first 

consulate in sub-Saharan Africa. Extraordinarily close family ties 

also strengthen the relationship as a large number of Cape 

Verdeans are resident in New England, particularly in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

The first factor of our strong relationship is that we share a common commitment to democracy. The United States has supported 

Cape Verde’s continuing efforts to strengthen its democracy, and 

the commitment by Cape Verdeans and their political parties to 

democratic dispute resolution is extraordinary. Closely contested 

elections in 2001 and 2006 were resolved according to the constitution without political violence or heated rhetoric. 

The second factor is a shared commitment to security. Cape 

Verde’s location strategically positions it in major north-south sea 

routes. The Government of Cape Verde has provided strong support 

on security cooperation. Cape Verde’s hosting of NATO’s first live 

military exercise in Africa in June of 2006 was an historic event. 

409 

As you mentioned in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, there 

is much more to do with regard to maritime security. Cape Verde’s 

solid support of United States ship visits and counternarcotics activities are indications of their policy to be an active, constructive 

partner, as well as a regional role model. 

A third factor is economics. Cape Verde’s AGOA eligibility, its 

new WTO membership, and its recent partnership status with the 

European Union offer Cape Verde the chance to become a transatlantic bridge for tourism, trade, and investment. Its economy is 

also benefiting from its selection in 2005 as one of the first Millennium Challenge Account countries. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States remains a strategic partner 

with Cape Verde focused on three main goals: accelerating economic expansion, consolidating a stable democracy, and strengthening the rule of law. If confirmed, I will be eager to pursue these 

efforts, as well as develop other strategic partnerships. But as a 

first priority, I would carry out the chief of mission’s responsibility 

to ensure the safety and welfare of all Americans and U.S. Government employees. I understand and embrace the obligation to ensure the fair treatment and high morale of mission staff and family 

members. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and your 

colleagues and to welcoming you to Cape Verde. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Myles follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIANNE MATUZIC MYLES, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF CAPE VERDE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to the Republic of Cape Verde. I am grateful to the President and Secretary Rice for the confidence and trust they have shown by nominating me for this position. 

It is my pleasure to take a moment to introduce the family members, friends, and 

colleagues who are with me here today. I am joined by my husband, Stan, a retired 

Foreign Service officer, our daughter, Lee-Ellen, a seventh grader at Roberto 

Clemente Middle School, my sister, Nancy Edwards, and her daughter, Kate, good 

friend and neighbor, Jim Gierula, and Lee-Ellen’s classmate, Frieda Lindroth. From 

my current office, I would like to introduce Deputy Assistant Secretary Linda 

Taglialatela, and colleagues Bruce Cole, Margaret Dean, Bill Pope, and Tijen Aybar. 

I joined the Foreign Service at the young age of 22 because of a strong commitment to public service. I look forward to the opportunity, if confirmed, to utilize the 

skills I have acquired during my 30-plus year Foreign Service career to advance our 

interests in Cape Verde. My multiple assignments in Brazil, a country that shares 

many common interests with Cape Verde, my fluent Portuguese, the work I oversaw 

on remittances and the disaster relief I provided while Consul General in Naples, 

my work to protect American citizens in Bogota, as well as my interagency training 

at the National War College and background as an economist, have given me a wide 

range of useful tools. If confirmed, I will put them to best use. 

Mr. Chairman, the Republic of Cape Verde is an African success story. It is one 

of Africa’s oldest and strongest democracies with an unbroken tradition of civilian 

rule since independence in 1975. It is politically stable. Corruption is low and transparency is high. Perhaps most important, Cape Verde’s human rights record is excellent. 

In the brief time I have this morning, I’d like to mention a few important aspects 

of the United States-Cape Verde bilateral relationship. That relationship is strong, 

in part because it is a long-standing one, beginning with the opening in 1818 of our 

first consulate in sub-Saharan Africa. Extraordinarily close family ties also 

strengthen the relationship, as a large number of Cape Verdeans are resident in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

410 

The first factor in our strong relationship is that we share a common commitment 

to democracy. The United States has supported Cape Verde’s continuing efforts to 

strengthen its democracy. The commitment by Cape Verdeans and their political 

parties to democratic dispute resolution is extraordinary. Closely contested elections 

in 2001 and 2006 were resolved according to the constitution, without political violence and heated rhetoric. 

The second factor is a shared commitment to security. Cape Verde’s location 300 

miles from the west coast of Africa strategically positions it in major north-south 

sea routes. The Government of Cape Verde has provided strong support on security 

cooperation. Cape Verde’s hosting of NATO’s first live military exercise in Africa in 

June 2006 was an historic event. And Cape Verde’s solid support of United States 

ship visits and counternarcotics activities are further indications of their policy to 

be an active, constructive participant in a strategic partnership, as well as a regional role model. 

A third factor is economics. Cape Verde’s AGOA eligibility, its new WTO membership, and its recent partnership status with the European Union offer Cape Verde 

the chance to become a trans-Atlantic bridge for tourism, trade, and investment. Its 

economy is also benefiting from its selection in 2005 as one of the first Millennium 

Challenge Account countries. Cape Verde’s recent graduation to lower middle income status means that it has to make further progress to meet higher policy performance standards; but Cape Verde has already made many improvements and has 

achieved very high levels of performance—even when compared to its new peers in 

this higher income group—in the areas of accountability, civil liberties, control of 

corruption, government effectiveness, and rule of law. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States remains a strategic partner with Cape Verde, 

focused on 3 main goals—accelerating economic expansion, consolidating a stable 

democracy, and strengthening the rule of law. If confirmed, I will be eager to pursue 

these efforts, as well as develop other strategic partnerships. But as a first priority, 

I would carry out the chief of mission’s responsibility to ensure the safety and welfare of all Americans and U.S. Government employees. I understand and embrace 

the obligation to ensure the fair treatment and high morale of mission staff and 

family members. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator FEINGOLD. That was the first place I ever set foot in Africa, but it was for refueling. [Laughter.] 

So I hope to have a better visit. 

Ms. MYLES. Maybe you can stay longer next time. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thanks to the whole panel, and I will start 

with a round of questions. 

Mr. Bodde, Malawi has one of the higher HIV prevalence rates 

in the world, but has not been a focus country for PEPFAR or a 

leading recipient of United States assistance. If confirmed as ambassador, how would you see your role and efforts to combat HIV/ 

AIDS? What could or should the United States and other international partners do in this effort? 

Mr. BODDE. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

While it has not been a focus-country recipient of PEPFAR, it 

has been a tremendous recipient of U.S. Government funding in 

our battle against AIDS. The role I see as chief of mission is to coordinate the entire U.S. Government approach to this, to be an advocate for this, to make sure that all the available sources of funding are adequately used and appropriately used. I think there are 

tremendous opportunities here. When you see the proportion of aid 

that is spent on health, it is almost over half. Close to 60 percent 

of all assistance going to Malawi is already spent on health. And 

I think there is tremendous room for expansion there. 

But I think we also have to look beyond the health issue itself 

and look at the economy and what can be done there because what 

has happened in the impact of AIDS on the economy in Malawi is 

desperate. It has caused desperate problems, and I think it is afVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00418 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
411 

fecting Malawi’s potential for economic growth. So I would also be 

looking to expand our programs in those areas. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Prison conditions and restrictions on freedom 

of expression remain serious concerns in Malawi. How will you address these issues? 

Mr. BODDE. Senator, I think there is only one way to deal with 

those issues and that is head on. I have lived in countries and 

worked in countries where this is sadly an issue. One has to confront the government. One has to be consistent in this. We also 

have to look a little broader, and one has to provide training. One 

has to encourage things like the training of investigative journalists. We have to encourage NGO’s. One of my concerns, with the 

election coming up so quickly next May in Malawi, is how quickly 

can we get programs like this started and on the ground. 

Another concern I have, quite frankly, is at this point in time, 

there is only about half a million dollars set aside for these programs. I have worked very closely with NDI, IRI, IFIS, NGO’s like 

this over the years. They do tremendous work, and they are also 

very helpful specifically in how to address the lack of freedom of 

speech and expression. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Booth, how do you intend balance a desire for diplomatic relations with the Zambian Government with continued pressure for 

what is obviously central governance reforms? 

Ambassador BOOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the situation in Zambia is one where we have had now 

two elections where you have had democratic change. President 

Kaunda who was the first President, the liberation hero, of the 

country did, under pressure, agree to step down back in 1991, and 

there was a change of government to the MMD, President Chiluba. 

He stayed in office 2 terms. His attempt to continue in office for 

a third term was beaten back, and it appears that President 

Mwanawasa now will, indeed, step down at the end of his second 

term in 2011. 

So I think we have a good engagement with Zambia on the democracy front. I think what we want to do is try to engage Zambia 

more in a regional context where there are some players that have 

not embraced that commitment to democracy. 

Senator FEINGOLD. According to a recent investigation by Human 

Rights Watch, domestic violence and a lack of access to health care, 

legal services, and basic economic rights, make Zambian women extremely vulnerable to HIV infection and general mistreatment. 

How is the United States supporting the removal of barriers to 

women’s access to health care and legal services, and the protection 

of women against violence? 

Ambassador BOOTH. Thank you very much for that question. 

One of the programs we are about to initiate in Zambia is the 

Women’s Justice and Empowerment Initiative, and it has a budget 

over 3 years of about $11 million. It is just being launched now. 

There are three components to it. One is to try to improve how the 

police deal with gender-based violence crimes. Second is to work 

the Zambians in drafting legislation that would provide better protections to women, and the third is in providing assistance through 

USAID and CARE to the victims of gender-based violence. 

412 

Access to education for girls is a problem not only in Zambia. It 

is a problem that has to be dealt with in terms of trying to make 

sure that there are adequate facilities at schools, separate lavatory 

facilities, for example. And also there is a problem of parents who 

feel that educating their girls is not as high a priority as educating 

their sons and, therefore, unless there is some incentive, they will 

tend to take them out of school first. This is a problem we have 

seen in Liberia as well. So things like school feeding programs have 

been helpful. We do not have one of those in Zambia now, but certainly when I go out there, this is something that I will be looking 

at, how to make sure that there is not only access to the schools, 

but that, indeed, girls in particular stay in school. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Nolan, can you discuss Botswana’s role with regard to 

human rights and political crisis in the neighboring country of 

Zimbabwe? And to this end, how is the United States embassy 

working with the Government in Botswana? What impact, if any, 

has the Zimbabwe situation actually had on Botswana? 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is remarkable that President Khama—in office for just 

a matter of days— was one of the first SADC leaders to invite Morgan Tsvangirai to come and speak with him about the crisis in 

Zimbabwe. I think this is an indication of President’s Khama’s intention to take a more proactive approach. He was supportive of 

the SADC initiative to call the heads of state to Lusaka to discuss 

this issue. It is promising that SADC is beginning to engage on 

these issues of human rights and to look at ways to solve problems 

in their own region. 

Botswana is a front-line state, so to speak, by virtue of its long 

border with Zimbabwe. While only 150 or so Zimbabweans are formally registered as refugees in Botswana, there are 250,000 

Zimbabweans who have moved across the border and are living in 

Botswana. They are putting strains on the delivery of services in 

Botswana. Zimbabwe has become a millstone for the entire region, 

and SADC is a potential vehicle for addressing the issue. Botswana 

is a country that will play an important role in helping to achieve, 

I think, a more productive resolution to the crisis and hopefully 

soon. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And as to human rights within Botswana 

itself, some human rights groups remain concerned about periodic 

reports of secret executions taking place in Botswana. What is the 

U.S. Government doing to investigate these reports? 

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I would have to take that question. 

I have no specific knowledge of that. I am not aware of those reports, but I will certainly look into that and give you a response. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you for that. 

And just one question for Ms. Myles, and then I will turn to Senator Isakson. 

Although nearly 70 percent of the population in Cape Verde lives 

in rural areas, I understand that up to 90 percent of Cape Verde’s 

food must be imported. How has the current food crisis affected 

Cape Verde, and how are the current government foreign donors, 

including the United States, responding? 

Ms. MYLES. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. 

413 

It is true that the vast majority of Cape Verde’s food is imported. 

In fact, some sources put that estimate up to 98 percent of food. 

At the moment, they are doing well with regard to feeding the 

population. I think that there is some worrisome aspect to the future in the sense that Cape Verde’s climate is not conducive to agriculture. It is very arid, and although there are advances being 

made to diversify crops, including under the Millennium Challenge 

Account, there is a project underway of drip irrigation to produce 

crops that have not been produced in Cape Verde before. It is true 

that they are vulnerable to climatic changes and to drought in particular. I think you know that in the 1940s–1950s, the drought that 

took place at that time drove many people out of Cape Verde to the 

United States and other places. 

So it is a situation that bears watching. It is a situation that 

could become critical. At the moment, it appears that they are able 

to produce sufficient food for their population. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Booth, you made a reference to gender-based violence in your 

statement. In my trips to Ethiopia, Egypt, some of the other countries in North Africa, where NGO’s were taking United States foreign aid and investing it in basic education for Africans, post 9/11 

we started making sure that women were not being discriminated 

against. There were some countries that were predominantly Muslim where they would not let women go to school. So gender-based 

discrimination in terms of both violence and education seems to be 

prevalent at least in some countries in Africa. 

Have you worked with the NGO’s in this area to ensure that as 

U.S. aid is being invested, it is invested while ensuring that there 

is no discrimination against women? 

Ambassador BOOTH. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

In Liberia, this question of sexual exploitation and abuse has 

been a prime topic, both for the U.N. peacekeeping mission there 

and also for the NGO’s that are providing assistance initially to internally displaced persons and returning refugees. And this is 

something that just simply requires constant attention to make 

sure that the staffs that are coming in are continually trained in 

how not to utilize their position of power, when you have very poor 

and vulnerable people that you are assisting, not to use your position of power to take advantage of women in particular. 

In Zambia, the Muslim population is only about 5 percent, and 

so the attendance of girls in school is very high. There is about a 

96 percent attendance rate at the elementary level, and that cuts 

across both sexes. However, we do find that the girls tend to drop 

out of school earlier, and so the illiteracy rate for girls is higher 

than for boys by about 10 percent. 

But certainly the drive of all of our education programs, including the ones that I have had the pleasure to work with in Liberia, 

have focused very much on trying to encourage girls to stay in 

school, and I have certainly used my public speaking events in Liberia to push that and I encourage people to stay in school. 

Senator ISAKSON. On that same topic, Ms. Myles, what is the 

general human rights situation in Cape Verde now? 

414 

Ms. MYLES. Thank you for that question, Senator. I am happy to 

be able to talk briefly about that question because it is also part 

of Cape Verde’s success story. 

Cape Verde stands out as a model for promoting human rights 

in Africa and particularly in western Africa. And the Government 

of Cape Verde is committed to the promotion of human rights. The 

annual human rights reports consistently show that the Government of Cape Verde respects the human rights of its people and 

that it is indeed a model. 

That being said, Senator, there is always room for improvement 

in any situation. One of the areas that is not as positive as it could 

be is lengthy pretrial detentions, and there is some evidence of police abuses during detentions. And those are areas that, if confirmed, I would work hard to help improve. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much. I was reading a brief bio 

on you. Is this your first duty station as an Ambassador? I know 

you have had a myriad of responsibilities, including recruitment in 

the Department, but is this your first duty station as an ambassador? 

Ms. MYLES. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, congratulations to you. 

Ms. MYLES. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. Mr. Nolan, I know CDC has had a tremendous 

presence in Botswana, and Botswana is one of the 15 targeted 

countries and one of the largest recipients of PEPFAR money. Are 

the results on reducing AIDS infection turning the corner? Are we 

making good progress in Botswana? 

Mr. NOLAN. Senator Isakson, thank you for that question. 

I think that there is no greater challenge to the future of Botswana than HIV/AIDS. There is a good story to tell here. It is one 

of the countries that is making a difference in the fight against 

HIV/AIDS. One of the most serious infection rates in the world, but 

it has stabilized in large part because of the government’s aggressive action. They have a very coherent, organized national plan. 

We are closely partnered with the Government of Botswana. Our 

support of their programs is critical to their success. We have contributed over $300 million in the last 5 years, but more heartening 

than that is that the Botswanans themselves contribute $150 million a year for HIV/AIDS programs. These programs are beginning 

to have an impact and the penetration of the message is near universal. People who need access to antiretroviral drugs have them 

free of charge. There has been a remarkable drop in mother-tochild transmission from a rate of about 40 percent down to 4 percent. I think that is a signal of where this is going to go. It is a 

long struggle ahead, but the Government of Botswana’s own goal 

of an AIDS-free generation by 2016 is not only a worthy goal but 

it is an achievable one. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bodde, I appreciate your comments about the Peace Corps. 

My predecessor, one Senate session removed, was Paul Coverdell 

who was the director of the Peace Corps and did a lot of expansion 

of the Peace Corps in Africa. 

In terms of the Republic of Malawi, how many Peace Corps 

operatives do we have there? 

415 

Mr. BODDE. Sir, I understand we have 120 volunteers right now. 

It is one of our larger programs. It is a long-established program 

with great success. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I appreciate your supporting them. I 

know President Kennedy started that program, and they have been 

the great ambassadors for our country for now almost a half a century. 

Ms. Davis, would you stand up? After all the bragging everybody 

has been doing about you, I thought we ought to recognize you. 

[Applause.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I want to thank all the nominees on both 

panels for their participation, their statements, and their answers 

to questions. And I especially want to thank Senator Isakson for 

his very extensive involvement here today. 

This concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHUCK HAGEL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today’s nomination hearing of the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee. One of the nominees, Peter Bodde, is the President’s 

choice to be the Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Malawi. Peter 

has had a long, distinguished career in the Foreign Service, and I am proud to support his nomination to this position. 

As Ambassador of the Republic of Malawi, Peter will be America’s diplomatic face 

to an important African partner. Today, the Republic of Malawi, much like the 

whole of Africa, faces a number of daunting challenges and exciting opportunities. 

Heavily dependent on strong agricultural exports, Malawi must confront dangerous 

vulnerabilities from the rising cost of fuel and the ongoing threat of drought. Population growth, the global food crisis, and continued instability and violence will continue to be a difficult burden for the entire region to bear. 

Despite these challenges, Malawi is in an encouraging position to prosper and 

grow. The country’s transition to a multiparty democratic institution has been an 

impressive testament to its leaders and its people. The Republic of Malawi maintains strong diplomatic ties with western nations as well as all African countries 

and has played an important role in past humanitarian assistance for refugees from 

Mozambique, Rwanda, and Congo. 

As the President’s representative, the United States Ambassador is responsible 

for the development of an increasingly strong United States-Malawi relationship. 

Since 2005, Malawi has worked with the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation to 

reduce corruption and increase transparent, responsible, and effective government. 

Its success in this area led Malawi to be named as an eligible MCC Compact country in December 2007. In addition, the United States maintains a U.S. Agency for 

International Development mission and a strong contingent of Peace Corps volunteers there. As ambassador, Mr. Bodde will need to work closely with international 

organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World 

Food Program, as well as international NGO’s and other countries in the region to 

leverage the world’s assets in support of economic progress and regional stability. 

Since joining the Foreign Service in 1981, Peter has served his country with the 

professionalism that defines the best of our country’s proud diplomatic history. He 

brings an impressive record of public service in foreign posts throughout the world— 

most recently as Charge d’Affaires and deputy chief of mission at the United States 

Embassy in Pakistan. He has done much to help manage a complex and difficult 

United States-Pakistan relationship over the last several years. Mr. Bodde has also 

served in India, Nepal, Guyana, Germany, Bulgaria, and Denmark, as well as 

Washington, DC. 

Mr. Bodde has dedicated nearly three decades to the Foreign Service, and he is 

well qualified to take on this important new responsibility. I enthusiastically support his nomination. 

416 

I want to acknowledge and thank Peter’s family—his wife, Tanya, and his two 

children, Christopher and Sara—for their own service to our country. Each of us 

knows how fundamental the support of family is to such a demanding occupation 

such as this. 

The committee looks forward to hearing the testimony of Charges d’Affaires 

Bodde, as well as that of the other nominees here today. I believe that each of these 

nominees are qualified and deserve positive consideration by the committee. I wish 

all the nominees here today continued success and want to thank them all for their 

important service at this critical time in our country’s history. 

Thank you. 

RESPONSES OF MARCIA STEPHENS BLOOM BERNICAT TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights and democracy in these countries? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. Senegal’s traditionally vibrant democracy has been characterized by some 

worrying developments in recent years. The executive has gained a disproportionate 

amount of power over parliament and the judicial branch, while the police appear 

to have clamped down on press and media actors. Four journalists were arrested 

in less than 2 months in the fall of 2007, and most recently the government forced 

one private television station to stop broadcasting a live feed of protesters and security forces clashing after the government ordered the break up of a demonstration 

against the rising cost of living. 

The health of Senegal’s democracy writ large is the most significant human rights 

issue facing the country and will remain my central priority, if confirmed as Ambassador. As chief of mission, I will ensure that the United States Government continues to pay close attention to freedom of expression, the powers of parliament and 

the judiciary, and the rights of civil society organizations and Senegalese individuals. I will maintain a frank dialog with government, business leaders, political 

party, and civil society counterparts in order to press the importance of human 

rights and democracy to Senegal’s international standing. 

Guinea-Bissau’s human rights situation is adversely affected by the country’s 

struggles with poverty, political instability, and most recently drug trafficking. Prison conditions are poor, impunity and corruption are problems, and violence and discrimination against women continue—as does the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). If confirmed, I will support the Government of Guinea-Bissau in its efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, the rule of law, and service delivery. 

Security sector reform will also be a top priority. The size and expenses associated 

with Guinea-Bissau’s military pose a threat to the country’s stability and resources. 

If confirmed, I will work with Guinea-Bissau, the U.N., and other donor nations on 

security sector reform. In addition, I will press the Government to improve the overall conditions in Guinea-Bissau. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau, which have very different histories and records on these issues, in advancing human rights and democracy in 

general? 

Answer. In spite of their different histories and records on these issues, Senegal 

and Guinea-Bissau both, though to a different degree, lack in resources, training, 

and institutional capacity for addressing human rights concerns. These shortcomings constitute the primary obstacles to effectively addressing human rights concerns. The United States and other donor countries have programs in both countries 

to assist in overcoming these impediments. 

In Senegal, a number of nongovernmental organizations, both national and international, monitor human rights issues. Our embassy works with many of these 

groups, and, if confirmed, I will continue this cooperation. I will also work closely 

with contacts within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the government at large 

to underscore United States concern over the deterioration of press freedom and 

checks and balances within the different branches of the Senegalese Government. 

In Guinea-Bissau, achieving political stability and national reconciliation after 

years of conflict are prerequisites for improving the human rights situation. I will 

work closely with contacts across the Government of Guinea-Bissau to assist institutions in developing their ability to resolve internal conflict and in improving operVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
417 

ational capacity. I also believe that education plays a key role in improving human 

rights conditions, and, if confirmed, will work on effective public diplomacy strategies for both Senegal and Guinea-Bissau to inform and generate debate about 

human rights conditions. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. Promoting democracy and human rights in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau 

is a top priority for the country team in Dakar. Until recently, Senegal has been 

viewed as a model for democracy and human rights within the region. Its unique 

brand of moderate Islam and longstanding traditions of democracy have created a 

solid architecture for tolerance and freedom. The embassy works to support this 

model. Our assistance to Senegal—including USAID programs, the Ambassador’s 

Self-Help Program, Democracy and Human Rights funds, Public Affairs programs, 

and DOD humanitarian assistance, all reinforce our human rights goals. 

While the human rights situation in Guinea-Bissau brings its unique set of capacity and resource challenges, Embassy Dakar is working with that country on improving conditions. If confirmed, I will ensure that human rights issues continue to 

be at the forefront of Embassy Dakar’s programs and daily work. Also, I am a 

strong believer in the awards system, and, if confirmed, will recommend outstanding 

employees at Embassy Dakar for awards, including those who handle human rights 

issues concerning Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. I am proud to acknowledge that throughout the course of my career, and 

in my life, I have endeavored to encourage democratic principles and promote improved human rights. In addition to reporting on human rights conditions and supporting a multiplicity of programs in all of my postings, there are several efforts of 

which I am particularly proud: 

• In Mali, as manager of the Ambassador’s Self Help Program, I made a priority 

those projects that improved the health, education, and the economic situation 

of women and children, recognizing that they are too often the majority of victims of abuse and denied even rights guaranteed to them by their own governments. 

• In India, I supported the ambassador’s initiative to provide Indian officials responsible for human rights with copies of the Christopher Commission Report 

as a framework for how to provide accountability in the wake of human rights 

abuse cases. The tactic completely disarmed these officials, who expected to be 

lectured on their failure to protect human rights, opening an unprecedented and 

candid dialog on this key issue. 

• I helped develop strong and productive relations between a professional army— 

Malawi’s strongest institution—and a fast growing civil society in that country 

6 years after it made the transition from a 30-year dictatorship to a multiparty 

democracy. 

• For the last year and a half as the office director in the South Asia Bureau responsible for guiding our day to day relations with India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, 

I have worked relentlessly, especially with Human Rights Watch and the European Union, to get the Sri Lankan Government to improve its human rights 

practices, particularly to stop abusing its citizens and to release child soldiers. 

When the government remained largely nonresponsive to United States and 

international concerns, I worked in concert with Congress and my Department 

of Defense counterparts to restrict all military assistance to Sri Lanka except 

for limited funds to support the maritime interdiction of arms and other supplies to the Tamil Tigers. This has underlined the United States message to the 

Sri Lankans that, as a democracy, they have a responsibility to maintain the 

highest human rights standards, including in battle. 

Question. Narcotrafficking is becoming an issue of increasing concern in West Africa. If confirmed as ambassador, how would you seek to address it? How do you 

see this issue intersecting with or affecting efforts to further develop democracy and 

reduce corruption? 

Answer. Narcotics Trafficking is a growing issue that threatens to derail West African countries’ efforts to develop democratic institutions and establish the rule-ofVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
418 

law. If left unchecked, the infusion of trafficking rings into West African societies 

will undermine countries’ security and exacerbate corruption at all levels. 

• Guinea-Bissau’s geography is especially conducive to illicit trafficking, though 

media reports and intelligence indicate that traffickers have also gained a foothold in Guinea, Ghana, and other countries throughout the region. Colombian 

cartels are using Guinea-Bissau’s ungoverned coastline and numerous small airfields as transshipment points for smuggling cocaine into Europe. Press and 

other sources have consistently highlighted military and other high-level government involvement in the drug trade. 

If confirmed, I will first increase United States official presence in Guinea-Bissau 

by encouraging frequent travel, especially by United States Embassy staff and by 

those members of the interagency whose primary goal is to fight transnational 

crime. We will closely monitor and assess this issue and, together with the United 

States interagency and our European counterparts, develop an aggressive plan to 

deny traffickers access to the region modeled on the programs we executed when 

I served in Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean. I will also place narcotics trafficking high on the agenda as I engage with Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, and regional 

organizations and partners. If confirmed, I will also ensure that the embassy’s public diplomacy efforts support this plan, promote awareness of the trafficking problem, and encourage support in the fight against it. 

RESPONSES OF LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in Liberia? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights 

and democracy in Liberia? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. The most pressing human rights issues in Liberia are lengthy pretrial 

detentions, a weak judiciary, official corruption and impunity, gender-based violence, racial and ethnic discrimination, and incidents of child labor. There are also 

some reports of discrimination based on religious belief or practice. In confronting 

these problems, I would, if confirmed, help Liberia overcome the legacy of 14 years 

of civil war, rebuild its civil society organizations and government institutions, and 

achieve social and political reconciliation. 

If confirmed as Ambassador to Liberia, I would make the promotion of human 

rights a central part of my work, particularly vis-a-vis the reform of Liberia’s justice 

system. Today, Liberian police are relatively ineffective, vigilantism and mob justice 

are common, pretrial detention can stretch into years, and a culture of impunity 

pervades Liberian society. If confirmed, I would seek to strengthen existing U.S. 

programs that are establishing legal aid clinics; combating gender-based violence 

with victim abuse centers; training alternative dispute mediators; conducting public 

legal education; renovating courtroom facilities; conducting prosecutor and public 

defender training; and implementing criminal case management and case tracking 

systems. The key task is to help Liberia build the capacity of its police, prosecutors, 

defense attorneys, judges, court administrators, and others in the judicial system so 

that public confidence improves, the rights of detainees and prisoners are respected, 

and impunity is replaced by the rule of law. 

As Liberia’s leading partner in the reconstruction effort, the United States is also 

well-positioned to confront official corruption. As I said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, if confirmed as ambassador I would not hesitate to publicly attack 

corruption, human rights abuses, and the ‘‘old ways of doing business’’ in Liberia 

that contributed so much to its breakdown and civil conflict. 

If confirmed, I would also seek to build bridges between Liberia’s racial, ethnic, 

and religious groups to promote reconciliation and prevent discrimination. Through 

public diplomacy campaigns and by supporting Liberian efforts such as the Truth 

and Reconciliation Commission, I would lend my support to Liberia’s reconciliation 

process. I would also continue our embassy’s tradition of hosting interfaith events, 

supporting faith-based civil society organizations, and meeting regularly with prominent members of various religious communities. 

Labor conditions in Liberia demand close attention, particularly with respect to 

child labor. Ongoing U.S. Government programs have made strong headway in preventing child labor and returning children to school; if confirmed, I would support 

these programs. I would also support the Liberian Government’s efforts to dramatically expand public education for all children. Liberia’s recovery will likely span generations rather than years, and we must invest in Liberia’s future by investing in 

education. 

419 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Liberia in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The most daunting obstacle to addressing human rights issues in Liberia 

is the sheer magnitude of Liberia’s destruction during the civil war. Liberia’s institutions were literally destroyed in the fighting and during years of mismanagement, 

misrule, and corruption under former President Charles Taylor. Even now, nearly 

5 years after the signing of the Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Liberia’s 

economy, Government, civil society, and social institutions are struggling to rebuild. 

At the same time, Liberia enjoys an opportunity to break with the past and build 

institutions that will uphold human rights and promote democratic values. For example, in 2005, the United States took the lead in completely demobilizing the 

14,000-strong Armed Forces of Liberia, replacing it with a new, well-trained 2,000 

member force that has been vetted and trained in human rights to protect Liberia’s 

people rather than prey on them. The United Nations has taken the lead in reforming Liberia’s police force, and the United States is now engaged in building a police 

emergency response unit that will receive extensive human rights vetting and training. In addition, U.S. programs will emphasize the importance of oversight of the 

police force to ensure accountability. In the same way, Liberia’s efforts to rebuild 

its government ministries, in partnership with the United States and other donors, 

represents a break with the past and a focus on best practices. 

If confirmed as ambassador, I would help Liberia seize this opportunity to build 

a new Liberia that will be an example of hope for other conflict-affected societies. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. I firmly believe in the value of leading by example, and if confirmed, I 

would demonstrate through my own actions the value of promoting human rights. 

I would not only expect embassy officers in every section to promote human rights 

in their day-to-day work, but I would also show them how to do it through my own 

actions. I would make it clear that outstanding Foreign Service officers whose responsibilities include human rights and democracy will be recommended for promotions and performance awards. 

Liberia, with more historical ties to America than any other African country, is 

fertile ground for human rights promotion through direct personal engagement. As 

security and road conditions improve, I would encourage embassy officers to travel 

throughout Liberia and make connections with Liberians on the social, political, economic, and human rights issues that confront their communities. I would encourage 

officers to engage in public speaking with youth groups, religious leaders, NGO representatives, and civil society to promote tolerance and respect for human rights. 

I would also seek to do the same myself. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. I have devoted the vast majority of my career as a Foreign Service officer 

to working on refugee and humanitarian issues and the promotion of human rights 

and democracy. From 1993–1996, I served as the refugee coordinator in Nairobi, 

Kenya, covering the Great Lakes and the Horn. I had the misfortune of being in 

Kigali for 5 days during the genocide. This experience has had a major impact on 

how I approach my work since the genocide was the result of the failure of efforts 

to promote human rights and democracy. Immediately following that period, I devoted the weeks following the genocide to assisting Rwandans fleeing the genocide, 

including the embassy’s locally engaged staff to escape and benefit from resettlement to the United States or elsewhere. 

As the refugee counselor in Pakistan, I worked to assist Iranian Christians and 

Bahais resettle in the United States and assisted Afghan women and other victims 

of the vicious Taliban rule in Afghanistan from 1993–1999. 

As the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department’s Africa Bureau, I 

was part of the effort in 2006 to bring Charles Taylor to justice for crimes against 

humanity and human rights violations. This sent an important message to the Liberian people who were victims of his actions that he would be held accountable. 

I strongly believe that the most important impact of efforts I made during my career saved lives and gave hope to people who had no hope. If confirmed, I hope to 

420 

bring that experience to bear in my efforts to promote human rights and democracy 

in Liberia. 

Question. What are the foremost challenges facing Liberia as it seeks to move beyond a post-conflict state to a more stable democracy? 

Answer. The key challenges facing Liberia today are lack of infrastructure, high 

levels of unemployment, lack of judicial capacity, and pervasive corruption. The 

United States development and diplomatic strategy in Liberia is designed to confront these problems. 

Recent studies show that some 40 percent of post-conflict countries revert to civil 

war within 10 years. A key factor reducing the risk of conflict is rapid, broad-based 

economic growth, which in turn depends on (1) adequate security, (2) governance 

and rule of law (including anticorruption measures and contract enforcement), (3) 

investments in infrastructure and key economic sectors, and (4) investments in people to improve the quality of the work force. 

U.S. programs are making major investments in all these areas. We are improving Liberian security forces so they can take over as U.N. peacekeepers draw down 

and eventually depart. We are engaging the justice sector to provide effective police 

and justice services and to adjudicate commercial and land disputes. We are working with the Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program (GEMAP) 

to help the Liberian Government fight corruption and maximize its resources for 

economic development. We are investing heavily in infrastructure, focusing on roads 

and electricity, and we are improving key sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and 

mining. Finally, we are improving education and health care services so that Liberians are healthy, educated, and ready to work. 

Question. In 2005, I posed the following question to the then-nominee for ambassador to Liberia: There is a history of deep-rooted corruption in Liberia, and there 

are serious allegations of corruption among members of the transitional government. 

How does the international community, including the United States, plan to address 

the problem of corruption? What plans do the United States and other countries 

have to ensure that corrupt government officials are held accountable for their actions? Liberia has made progress in many ways in the last 3 years. How would you 

assess its progress in fighting corruption? What areas need to be prioritized in the 

coming years? 

Answer. The fight against corruption has taken major steps forward under the 

donor-funded Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program 

(GEMAP). GEMAP was initiated partly because of the allegations of corruption 

under the National Transitional Government of Liberia, and to address the need for 

outside expertise in the financial management of Liberian Government structures. 

Progress under GEMAP has been strong and should, along with progress in fighting 

corruption through the judicial system, result in significant improvements in 

anticorruption efforts. In addition, GEMAP has helped the Liberian Government 

raise and retain more revenues, which in turn helps improve corruption-fighting capacity. 

GEMAP has brought the Liberian Government and key donors together to place 

financial controllers and other experts in key positions in Liberian ministries and 

state-owned enterprises. These experts have cosignature authority, which gives 

them effective oversight of financial transactions. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, these experts have a mandate to pass on their knowledge and expertise 

to their Liberian counterparts so that anticorruption efforts will outlast the GEMAP 

program. 

Another area of improvement is the Liberian Government’s efforts to indict and 

prosecute former officials for corruption under the transitional government. Several 

prosecutions are moving forward, and the United States and other donors are helping the Liberian judicial system build its capacity to handle these and other cases. 

Through GEMAP and prosecutions, the Liberian Government has shown its willingness to roll back the culture of impunity that dominated Liberia for decades. 

President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has, on several occasions, made a public stand 

against corruption. The Liberian legislature is currently investigating claims of corruption in its ranks, and the outcome of that investigation will be an important indicator of anticorruption efforts. 

In the coming years, the reform process will include several key priority areas. 

GEMAP will continue for at least another year (it will expire upon Liberia’s reaching the ‘‘completion point’’ under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt relief 

program), while justice sector efforts will continue well beyond then. Civil service 

reform efforts, already underway with United States and other donor support, will 

be an important way to attract honest and capable Liberians into government servVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00428 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
421 

ice. Economic reforms will help broaden the base of economic opportunity for Liberians, and will provide a path to wealth and influence outside the realm of government rent-seeking. 

RESPONSES OF HON. DONALD E. BOOTH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R, BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in Zambia? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights 

and democracy in Zambia? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. Trafficking in persons and gender-based violence remain serious problems in Zambia. Excessive use of force and unlawful killings by security personnel, 

overcrowded prisons, lengthy pretrial detentions, child labor, and government corruption are other areas in which Zambia could improve. 

If confirmed, I will work with the Zambian Government and civil society to help 

address these human rights issues and support democratic institutions in Zambia. 

I would utilize our Women’s Justice and Empowerment Initiative (WJEI) to counter 

gender-based violence (GBV) by helping the government strengthen its GBV laws, 

improve their enforcement, and provide care and support to victims of GBV. To 

counter trafficking in persons, I would, if confirmed, work to strengthen laws 

against trafficking and to see that they are better enforced. Additionally, I would 

continue our efforts to improve the Zambian police by sending police officers to the 

International Law Enforcement Academy in Gaborone, Botswana for training. I 

would also speak out on these and other human rights concerns in speeches and 

interviews so that there would be no doubt about United States interest in, and support for, human rights in Zambia. 

Government corruption perpetuates impunity for human rights offenders and undermines confidence in democratic institutions. If confirmed, I would utilize resources from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to tackle the corruption 

that most affects the average Zambian and attempt to restore confidence in democratic governance. I would also utilize Treasury Department advisers to help the 

Zambian Government establish tighter fiscal systems so it can better control and 

account for government revenues, as well as work with other international partners 

in supporting the government’s efforts to hold past and present officials of government accountable for corrupt practices. This will build on the success of the government’s efforts, to date, to convince office holders that they will be held accountable 

for acts of corruption. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Zambia in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. A relatively weak judiciary presents obstacles to combating gender-based 

violence, trafficking in persons, police abuse and systemic corruption. Persons who 

perpetrate these abuses must be successfully prosecuted and punished in order to 

convince others not to engage in those behaviors. These human rights issues are exacerbated by widespread poverty, unemployment, lack of quality education, and the 

widespread incidence of HIV/AIDS and malaria, as those issues have priority claim 

on the Zambian Government’s attention. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will make it the responsibility of all United States and 

locally hired staff of Embassy Lusaka to respect and promote respect for human 

rights. Whether it is the consular officer who hears of human rights abuses, the economic officer who reports on mining and other economic activity, or the public affairs officer who identifies human rights activists to participate in exchange programs, all members of Embassy Lusaka would have a role to play in promoting respect for human rights. 

If confirmed, I will provide leadership on human rights issues by highlighting 

them in my speeches and interviews and by ensuring officers are encouraged to incorporate human rights activities into their work. I would recommend that those officers of Embassy Lusaka whose responsibilities specifically include human rights 

be recognized and rewarded for outstanding contributions toward advancing our 

human rights objectives in Zambia. 

422 

Question. In response to a question before your confirmation as Ambassador to Liberia, you described how you have worked to advance human rights quite personally 

and eloquently. How has your post in Liberia, which is seeking to solidify itself as 

a democracy after years of terrible conflict and mismanagement, influenced your 

perspective on this issue? 

Answer. My experience in Liberia has reinforced my belief that American diplomats can play decisive roles in promoting democracy and improving respect for 

human rights. 

Following the 2005 presidential elections in Liberia, I played a leading role in convincing the loser of the runoff election to accept the results. The losing candidate 

had secured a plurality in the first round election, in which 22 candidates ran for 

the presidency, and he assumed he would win the runoff election held a month 

later. When he lost, he claimed ballots had been added by the opposition. However, 

he lacked evidence of widespread fraud and his allegations to that effect were not 

credible given the widespread monitoring of polling stations by multiple international observer groups as well as of representatives of both parties. Thousands 

of his youthful supporters took to the streets to support his claim of victory. I went 

to see him and spent 2 hours, one on one, explaining why his claims of vote rigging 

and of his victory were not credible and how his persistence in those claims could 

send the country back into renewed civil conflict. He decided he would present his 

case to the courts and ask his supporters to cease demonstrations. After several 

more conversations, he agreed to withdraw his legal challenge so the inauguration 

of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as President could proceed without lingering legal questions 

about the election results that could have facilitated a return to violence in Liberia. 

As Ambassador to Liberia, I supported the utilization of United States assistance 

to renovate some of Liberia’s decrepit prison facilities so that women and minors 

could be separated from adult male prisoners. I also instituted a justice sector support program that trained Liberia’s first public defenders. The new public defenders 

secured the release of numerous indigent prisoners who had been held in prison for 

months pending trial for minor or first offenses. 

If confirmed as Ambassador to Zambia, I will continue to use the influence inherent in that position to strengthen democracy and respect for human rights. I would 

ensure that U.S. assistance is used to address issues such as gender-based violence, 

trafficking in persons, and corruption. 

Question. Women and girls are economically, biologically, and socially more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, and young women in southern Africa are far more likely than 

their male counterparts to be HIV positive. Violence against women is also all too 

common in much of the region. If confirmed as ambassador, how would you seek 

to address these issues? 

Answer. Women suffer disproportionately from HIV/AIDS, partly because of their 

lower social and economic status. If confirmed, I would work to elevate the status 

of women in Zambian society by promoting girls’ education through scholarships and 

other interventions that encourage parents to keep their daughters in school. I 

would speak out frequently against gender-based violence and enforce a zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment within the embassy. I would ensure PEPFAR activities in Zambia seek to reduce the risky sexual behavior that results in large 

numbers of women becoming HIV-infected. Most importantly, I would ensure effective implementation of the Women’s Justice and Empowerment Initiative (WJEI). 

The goals of WJEI are to strengthen laws against gender-based violence and expand 

enforcement of such laws. Gender-based violence will not decline until those who 

perpetrate it are consistently punished. Another goal of WJEI is to provide effective 

support to victims of gender-based violence. To achieve this, I would look at emulating programs that have proven successful in other countries of southern Africa. 

RESPONSES OF HON. GILLIAN ARLETTE MILOVANOVIC TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in Mali? 

What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights and 

democracy in Mali? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. Mali generally respects the human rights of its citizens, although there 

are problems. Prison conditions remain poor, the judicial system’s large case backlog 

results in long periods of pretrial detention, and discrimination against women persists, with social and cultural factors continuing to limit economic and educational 

opportunities for most women. Trafficking in persons continues to be a problem, although increased government attention has contributed to more successful efforts to 

423 

arrest traffickers and protect trafficking victims. Slavery is illegal in Mali but hereditary servitude relationships between and within certain ethnicities continue to 

impact groups such as the Bellah, or black Tamacheks, in rural areas. 

If confirmed, I will support the continuation of our Shared Governance Program. 

This program supports Mali’s decentralization and local governance efforts by providing training to local (commune) officials, including mayors, communal councils, 

civil society organizations, media outlets and local Non-Governmental Organizations 

(NGO) in budget planning, financial management, establishing communal development plans and transparency in managing local resources. Community radio stations play a critical role in the program by broadcasting local debates on development priorities, budget preparation, tax collection and other local government 

issues. The program also assists women to participate to a greater extent in local 

government, and provides technical assistance to help women’s organizations undertake revenue-generating projects. Finally, the program helps Malians advocate for 

greater independence in the management of local tax revenues and decision making. 

With this program, I hope to help the Malian Government and society strengthen 

their understanding of democracy and their democratic institutions. 

If confirmed, I will also make a priority the improvement of the social and health 

issues that prevent women from full participation in the economic life of the country. Specifically, I hope to maintain programs that encourage girls and young 

women to attend (and stay in) school, including a scholarship program supported 

by my predecessor through the President’s Africa Education Initiative, that offers 

educational support to 7,570 girls in 117 schools, principally in northern Mali. As 

for trafficking in persons, if confirmed, I will encourage the Malian Government to 

consolidate and fully implement the bilateral agreements it has signed with neighboring states to prevent the trafficking of women and children, and I will further 

encourage it to establish a law that outlaws all forms of trafficking. I will work with 

the Malian Government and local NGOs to improve their capacity to protect and 

reintegrate victims of trafficking and, to the extent possible, training of officials 

from the Malian judicial branch, to improve prosecution and enforcement efforts. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Mali in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The Malian Government is committed to improving its already respectable human rights record. There are, however, several obstacles that prevent Mali 

from addressing specific human rights concerns. Ingrained societal attitudes toward 

the treatment of women and minority groups, for instance, have made it difficult 

for Malian political leaders to pass legislation that would provide improved rights 

for women and children, eliminate the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), 

or increase protections for marginalized groups. While there is evidence that many 

of these societal attitudes are shifting, changing deeply rooted viewpoints poses a 

long-term challenge. I heartily support the educational efforts I outlined in response 

to your first question, as well as our public outreach because I believe that education and good communication are fundamental tools in changing societal attitudes. 

Mali’s level of development poses another serious challenge to the advancement 

of human rights and democracy. In 2007, Mali ranked 173 out of 177 countries on 

the U.N.’s Human Development Index. This ranking was due, in large part, to 

Mali’s poor health and education indicators which are among the lowest in the 

world. Individuals and NGOs working to improve Mali’s human rights’ practices 

often cite education levels, even amongst officials within the Malian judiciary and 

security forces, as one of the main obstacles to progress. Mali is the beneficiary of 

several Presidential Initiatives in both health and education, and I will help ensure 

that programs such as the President’s Malaria Initiative and the African Education 

Initiative are effectively implemented. 

Severe resource constraints constitute a third major obstacle. While the Malian 

Government is clearly committed to improving human rights, Mali remains one of 

the poorest countries in the world. As a result, many good-faith and sincere attempts by Malian officials to improve human rights and democratic practices lack 

basic funding. To address Mali’s resource constraints, I will work with the Malian 

Government and NGOs to encourage economic growth, particularly in the areas of 

agriculture and commodities. This is in line with the Malian Government’s recent 

initiative to invest in its agriculture with the goal of becoming a net exporter of 

grains. Our goals for Mali are increased incomes and poverty reduction. Our strategy is transforming agriculture and value-added commodities, expanding and 

strengthening markets, and facilitating access to finance. Our program works to develop and reinforce the private sector by targeting opportunities in the production, 

processing, and trade of selected commodities in key geographic areas. We are enVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00431 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
424 

couraging Malian Government policy changes, for example, in regional and international trade that can in turn improve the country’s incomes. Our program includes the introduction, dissemination, and replication of improved technologies 

such as seed varieties, fish stock, and management practices in all aspects of agriculture—fisheries/aquaculture, millet/sorghum, and livestock. If confirmed, I will 

make sure that the mission carefully implements these economic programs which 

expand economic prospects beyond subsistence level productivity. Economic growth 

will help supply Mali with the resources it needs for stability and further democratization. 

Finally, Mali is a huge country, with a long and porous border, much of it across 

the trackless expanse of the Sahara Desert. Tuareg unrest in the north is detrimental to progress because it requires the government’s attention and resources 

that could be used instead on human rights efforts. The unrest destabilizes a region 

that is readily used for arms and drug trafficking. If confirmed, I will coordinate 

my efforts with those of the other United States Ambassadors to neighboring TransSaharan Counterterrorism Partnership countries to help stabilize Mali and the region. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. It has been my practice throughout my professional career with the Department of State to place a priority on the promotion of human rights in my country of assignment, and, if confirmed, I will ensure that human rights and democratization remain priorities for Embassy Bamako. I believe that all members of the 

mission—political and economic officers, consular officers, our public affairs staff, 

our USAID mission, and Millennium Challenge Account staff—have a responsibility 

to promote greater respect for human rights in Mali and the consolidation of the 

country’s democratic institutions. If I am confirmed, I will make clear to all who 

work these critically important issues at Embassy Bamako that they enjoy the full 

support of the chief of mission, and I will recognize their achievements through the 

evaluation process, the mission awards program, and through active involvement in 

their search for an onward assignment. 

Question. In response to a question before your confirmation as Ambassador to 

Macedonia, you described how you have worked to advance human rights in previous posts, particularly in South Africa. How has your posting to Macedonia, your 

first as chief of mission, influenced your perspective on this issue? 

Answer. My posting to Macedonia has served to further strengthen my belief in 

the importance of human rights, particularly with regard to guarantees and respect 

for minority rights, and the need to support the development of multiethnic societies. These cornerstones of democracy are critical in South Africa, in Macedonia, 

and in Mali. In Macedonia, a prime goal has been to work with the Government 

of Macedonia, municipalities, political parties, and other societal actors to ensure 

continued implementation of the provisions of the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement. State Department, USAID, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, 

Treasury and other United States Government agencies each contributed to helping 

Macedonia reinforce its multiethnic democracy. We have worked to achieve more equitable representation of nonmajority populations in the public service, and the defense establishment. We have successfully assisted Macedonia’s efforts to decentralize power and responsibility to the municipal level in order to bring government 

closer to the people, thereby providing more efficient services while allowing greater 

opportunity for citizens of all ethnicities to have an impact on municipal life and 

policies. 

Also in Macedonia, I worked to promote human rights of the Roma. Along with 

the Government of Macedonia, the United States Government assisted a number of 

Roma to file for and receive citizenship, has provided scholarships that allow talented secondary and university students, many of them young women, to attend 

school and obtain degrees. With strong United States support, the Macedonian parliament passed legislation 2 years ago on the equitable preparation of electoral lists 

that resulted in a significant increase in the number of female members of parliament, making Macedonia a leader in this regard. A Trafficking in Persons (TIP) 

Tier Two country in danger of falling to Tier Two Watch List when I arrived, Macedonia is on the brink of Tier One status today. Indeed, women’s rights, as well as 

the fight against trafficking in persons, domestic violence, and child abuse have 

been central to my work throughout my career. My time in Macedonia did not 

425 

change my perspective on human rights issues, because I have always felt their importance. But it provided an opportunity to focus on human rights issues and to participate, firsthand, in their development in a new and emerging democracy. 

RESPONSES OF PATRICIA MCMAHON HAWKINS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in Togo? 

What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights and 

democracy in the country? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. Among the most pressing human rights issues in Togo is the uneven respect for basic human rights, including freedom of press, association, and speech. 

Unfortunately, Togo has experienced a long history of human rights abuses. Such 

abuses included abridgement of citizens’ rights to change their government; severe 

restrictions on freedom of speech, movement, assembly, association, collective bargaining, and the press; unlawful beating and killing of civilians; unlawful imprisonment of journalists, political opponents, and critics of the government; torture; arbitrary arrest and detention; unfair and delayed trials; and harsh prison conditions. 

President Faure Gnassingbe’s declarations of his intention to institute political, 

electoral, and economic reform offer some hope that he will lead Togo on the path 

to democracy. The peaceful, free, and fair parliamentary elections in November 2007 

sent a positive signal about President Gnassingbe’s commitment but continued vigilance is required. If confirmed, I will press the Government of Togo to implement 

further political, economic, and electoral reforms. 

Trafficking in persons, in particular of children, is another important human 

rights concern. Although the laws of Togo provide for free primary education, in 

practice there are financial and cultural constraints that prevent this from becoming 

a universal reality. The Code of the Child, passed in July 2007, contains harsh penalties for trafficking in children and strengthened the child trafficking provisions of 

Togo’s 2005 Child Trafficking Law. The code should help address this problem, although the government must strengthen efforts to enforce, and raise public awareness about, this legislation. If confirmed, I would urge Government of Togo officials 

to actively prosecute human traffickers and to cooperate with neighboring governments to control its borders to prevent the trafficking of children through its territory. 

Many of Togo’s human rights challenges stem from a general disregard for the 

rule of law, and a lack of trust in the judiciary, security forces, and military. Bringing about lasting change will be difficult and will require the willingness and commitment of all parties—NGOs, civil society in dialog with the Government of Togo 

and the political opposition—as well as resources and time. If confirmed, I will make 

continued use of public diplomacy resources to encourage dialog, including digital 

video conferences, International Visitors Leadership, Humphrey Fellowships, Fulbright Scholar programs, and the use of experts and speakers from the United 

States to convene seminars in the areas of rule of law, access to media and freedom 

of the press, and strengthening the role of the judiciary. 

If confirmed, I also intend to make effective use of Democracy and Human Rights 

fund monies in support of activities that address the main problems noted above. 

By taking these steps, I would hope to improve the political climate and thereby 

help influence Togo’s evolution toward democracy. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Togo in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. If confirmed, the biggest obstacles I will face are those created by the 

interests and attitudes of persons still in positions of power and influence who have 

long benefited from practices that disregard human rights and democratic norms. 

Thirty-eight years of rule by one person inculcated behaviors and practices intended 

to reinforce the position of one small group of people. It will take time to overcome 

that legacy. 

Specific obstacles include a culture of distrust of the government; an unsophisticated and inexperienced opposition that has unrealistic expectations; and the country’s below par human rights performance. These obstacles can only be overcome by 

broadening the ethnic makeup of the military, allowing a more vibrant free press, 

and engaging with the opposition while being careful not to threaten long-time ruling party loyalists with a zero-sum outcome. Ethnic unevenness, particularly in the 

armed forces, and long-held biases are also problems. The judiciary, the security 

forces, and the military are badly in need of reform. 

426 

The challenges will include convincing political actors to keep their focus on a better future and not on past wrongs; convincing the opposition and the government, 

each deeply distrustful of the other, to engage in a genuine dialog; convincing the 

military that its real role is defending the country from external threat rather than 

maintaining the status quo related to one group’s political control. The task of combating human trafficking, especially in children, will be complicated by the economic 

cost of providing real educational opportunities for all the children at risk, and by 

the force of the tradition or habit of putting children to work at an early age. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. The promotion of democratic systems and practices is a primary goal of 

the United States and therefore of Embassy Lome. If confirmed as chief of mission, 

I will continue my predecessor’s efforts on this goal and provide highly visible leadership on this issue. The mission will actively look for opportunities to use our Democracy and Human Rights funds and our Ambassador’s Self-help Funds for 

projects that advance the cause of human rights in Togo. All sections of the embassy, consular, political, economic, public diplomacy, and management have roles 

to play in this important endeavor. I will use the embassy awards program to recognize the valuable contributions in the field of human rights for all members of the 

embassy team. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. In all my Foreign Service posts the promotion of democracy and human 

rights has been one of my primary objectives. As a public diplomacy officer, I have 

been able to use all of the program tools—the International Visitors Leadership Program, the Fulbright Scholar and Humphrey Fellows programs, U.S. Speakers, libraries (now called Information Resource Centers), Educational and Cultural exchanges of all sorts—to advance these essential U.S. values. 

In 1984, in Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, I guided the National 

Bar Association in its efforts to print copies of the Electoral Code in Lingala, the 

most commonly used language, thus making previously inaccessible information 

available to an enormous number of voters. The financial grant covered the translation, printing, and distribution costs. 

In Burkina Faso, as the public affairs officer, I was able to use the programming 

resources available to support several women’s groups as they worked to improve 

access to health care and political rights and in their fight against domestic violence. 

In Colombia, I worked with a local Civitas group to promote civic education in 

primary and secondary schools, organizing workshops and training programs that 

brought United States speakers to schools in Colombia. I also funded the translation 

into Spanish and the publication of educational materials provided by the Center 

for Civic Education in Los Angles. These materials were the first of their kind to 

be used in Colombian schools and are still in use in many Latin American countries. 

In fact, when I arrived in the Dominican Republic, 5 years later, I found the same 

materials in use in the local civic education programs. I subsequently facilitated an 

intra-post purchase of hundreds of copies of the books and shipped them to my counterpart in Havana for distribution there. I received an award from the Government 

of Colombia in recognition of my efforts to further civic education and voter participation in that country. 

In Coˆte D’Ivoire I continued my focus on human rights, again working with women’s groups in their fight against domestic violence, trafficking in children, and uneven access to legal recourse. I helped to equip and fund the first-ever Legal Aid 

clinic, staffed by female lawyers and legislators, who worked to help women regain 

custody of their children or an equitable settlement in a divorce. I instituted a program to bring books on democracy, human rights, rule of law, an independent judiciary, and free markets, in French, to all 17 regional information centers throughout 

the country—many of which had no material of this kind available. I followed up 

with speaker programs on the same subjects at as many of the centers as possible, 

using local talent from the mission if we could not find an American expert willing 

to travel to such far-flung and sometimes dangerous locations. Following the first 

coup d’etat, during a time of great political and social unrest, I concentrated on programs concerning the media, and the training and protection of journalists. 

427 

In the Dominican Republic, greatly concerned with the increasing number of dangerous and illicit voyages across the Mona Passage to Puerto Rico, I created the 

first-ever public service campaign to expose the dangers and to focus public and governmental attention on the problem. Long an issue of concern to United States authorities and the United States Coast Guard and a bone of contention with the Dominican Government, these trips were blatant examples of trafficking in persons 

and exploitation of both men and women into indentured servitude and prostitution. 

Furthermore, the boats that transported people were increasingly used to smuggle 

narcotics. I worked with the narcotics affairs section of the embassy to produce a 

campaign that covered all fronts—TV and radio spots, large billboards, press articles, interviews with survivors of shipwrecks, pictures of heroic Coast Guardsmen 

rescuing Dominicans at sea—the full story of what was actually happening to get 

across the message that this was a Dominican human rights issue, not a United 

States immigration control problem. The campaign was an enormous success. Not 

only did the number of illegal trips diminish, but we succeeded in sensitizing the 

Dominican public and Government to the harm it was doing to the fabric of their 

society. The Dominican Navy started cooperating with our Coast Guard in interdiction and prevention, the GODR prosecuted, for the first time, the organizers of such 

trips for trafficking in people, and the Dominican media continued the campaign 

without our funding—as a public service. The campaign itself won several international awards for creativity and impact, and the President of the Dominican Republic publicly thanked the United States mission for its help to the Dominican nation. 

RESPONSES OF MARIANNE MATUZIC MYLES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in Cape 

Verde? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human 

rights and democracy in Cape Verde? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. The Government of Cape Verde is committed to the promotion of human 

rights and, as a whole, has a remarkably good human rights record. However, there 

are occasional reports of police abuse of detainees, prison conditions are poor, the 

judicial system is overburdened, and lengthy pretrial detentions and excessive trial 

delays are common. Domestic and other violence and discrimination against women 

are serious problems, as are mistreatment of children and child labor practices. 

If confirmed, I would stress accelerated progress on human rights as a major 

point in our dialog with Cape Verde. I would urge Cape Verdean officials to use 

their country’s continued eligibility for trade benefits under the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act as a vehicle to further improve Cape Verde’s human rights record. 

I would also encourage nongovernmental organizations to work to increase Cape 

Verdeans’ capacity in safeguarding human rights. Furthermore, I would use the reports on human rights and trafficking in persons to sensitize officials to human 

rights abuses in Cape Verde, and to stimulate improvement in the respect for those 

rights. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Cape Verde in advancing human rights and democracy in 

general? 

Answer. The latest annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices notes that 

the government generally respects the human rights of its citizens. There are appropriate constitutional and legal prohibitions against domestic violence, sex discrimination, and child labor. The government, civil society, and the media actively encourage reporting of abuses in these areas. However, longstanding social values and 

cultural traditions inhibit victims from doing so. Also, while there are mechanisms 

to deal with spousal abuse, for instance, these mechanisms neither ensure punishment of those responsible nor prevent future violence. Effecting change is, therefore, 

a considerable challenge. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

428 

Answer. It is the responsibility of all United States and locally employed officers 

and staff at Embassy Praia to promote human rights. This pertains to the consular 

officer who hears of human rights abuses while conducting visa interviews and prison visits, to the public affairs officer who identifies human rights activists who 

should participate in our international programs, to the economic officer who learns 

of child labor violations. 

As chief of mission, if confirmed, I will provide leadership on this issue and will 

recommend commendations for the outstanding contributions of staff members at 

my mission who are responsible for advancing our human rights objectives in Cape 

Verde. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. During my 30-plus year Foreign Service career, I have worked to protect 

human rights and advance democracy in many places and in multiple ways. In Bogota, Colombia, I made regular visits to Americans in prison, ensuring that they understood their rights, received adequate nourishment and medical attention, and 

were not physically abused. While there, I made it a point to meet other prisoners 

and learn about their treatment. I believe those expressions of interest alone served 

as a deterrent to potential abuse. In southern Brazil, I ensured the consular officers 

under my supervision established a regular schedule of such visits, and I met frequently with a wide range of law enforcement, media, and judicial and legislative 

branch officials to encourage improvement in Brazil’s human rights record. I also 

oversaw our International Visitor Program selection process in which we carefully 

chose participants for rule of law, civil society, and democracy and journalism programs. 

In Italy, I worked closely with law enforcement and military officials to address 

human rights and rule of law issues associated with the activities of the Camorra 

and Mafia. In Uruguay, I established strong relationships with the military to uncover, to the maximum extent possible, information about human rights abuses during the past period of military dictatorship—especially in the area of disappeared 

persons. Those cooperative efforts helped strengthen democracy and human rights 

in Uruguay by bringing under scrutiny the tragedy of past abuses and creating the 

opportunity for victims’ families to have the benefit of closure on the past. 

These activities and others were important for a number of reasons, not least 

among them the goal of ensuring that foreign publics knew that the United States 

stood squarely on the side of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. 

Similarly, foreign governments and officials knew that our close monitoring of these 

issues ensured that lapses or the abused would not go unnoticed and would affect 

our bilateral relations. 

RESPONSES OF DONALD GENE TEITELBAUM TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in 

Ghana? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human 

rights and democracy in Ghana? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. The Government of Ghana generally respects human rights. Continuing 

problems in Ghana include vigilante justice, the use of excessive force by police, 

harsh prison conditions, police corruption, impunity, violence against women and 

children, human trafficking, and child labor. Recently, the Government of Ghana 

has made significant steps to improve protection of human rights, including passing 

legislation on domestic violence and criminalizing the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). 

If I am confirmed, I will continue the broad programmatic outreach the embassy 

conducts under the Democracy and Human Rights Fund, and program funds from 

INL—Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs—to address 

existing human rights problems. As a result of past INL work with Ghana Police, 

human rights training has been incorporated in basic skills police training courses 

offered to new police recruits in Ghana’s police academy. My public diplomacy section will also bring human rights issues to the forefront with speakers, NGO functions, journalist training sessions, and other activities. We will thus inform the public, work to address abuses, and engage closely with the local NGO community and 

the government. 

429 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Ghana in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The main obstacle that I foresee in addressing the human rights challenges in Ghana is lack of resources. The Ghanaian Government has the political 

will to effect change, and it has expertise in many areas. However, its capacity to 

engage on a broad front of human right issues is limited by budget shortfalls and 

staff capacity. Ministry officials with responsibility for assisting trafficking victims 

lack proper reception facilities, and have only limited funds for reintegration programs. The Justice Ministry lacks sufficient trained prosecutors for trafficking 

cases. Prison authorities have long acknowledged the harsh conditions in their prisons, conditions the result of dilapidated prison infrastructure and limited financial 

resources. The police have limited training facilities and training budgets to instruct 

officers in proper procedures. While Ghana’s democracy is vibrant and respect for 

the rule of law is widespread, Ghana’s institutions are still rather new and relatively fragile. Other obstacles to addressing human rights are corruption and some 

traditional practices which, in a modern context, would constitute abuse. If confirmed, I would work to engage Ghanaian society at all levels, throughout the country. I would remind Ghanaians of their challenges, but I would also remind them 

of our shared values of human rights and democracy, and consistently offer America’s partnership and assistance. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana, I would seek to 

ensure that the activities of the United States Embassy consistently reflect the objectives of United States foreign policy and the core values of America. Support for 

human rights has been a cornerstone of our policy and values from the assertion 

of the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our Declaration of Independence to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s enunciation of the ‘‘Four Freedoms’’ in 1941 to our current National Security Strategy which states that ‘‘People 

everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship 

as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy 

the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies 

is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the 

ages.’’ 

If confirmed, I would seek to ensure that my own actions and statements make 

clear the importance of human rights promotion inside and outside the embassy. 

When embassy employees see the ambassador raising human rights issues frequently and assertively, they know that it is a mission priority. Actions usually 

speak louder than words. If confirmed, I would want to be sure that the embassy’s 

internal policies and actions set a positive example. In particular, I would want the 

embassy’s treatment of its American and Ghanaian employees to reflect the value 

that Americans attach to diversity, equal opportunity, and the respect and dignity 

due to all people. 

If confirmed, I would encourage and recognize superior performance in human 

rights activities. Department-wide and embassy awards programs provide a tool for 

that purpose. I believe that being open about the Department’s recognition, via promotion and assignments, of my own efforts on human rights will help encourage 

members of my staff to work for similar recognition. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. During my 23 years in the Foreign Service, many of my most professionally significant and personally rewarding moments have been linked to the promotion of human rights and democracy. 

In Somalia, from 1992 to 1994, I worked with the United States Liaison Office 

and was attached on several occasions to the United States Marine Corps and the 

United States Army as a political advisor. In that capacity, I helped create a secure 

environment for the distribution of food and humanitarian supplies. I also worked 

to encourage Somali efforts toward reestablishment of government. The distribution 

of food and humanitarian supplies directly saved thousands of lives from starvation. 

Sadly, the cost of the failure of Somali leaders to take advantage of the opportuniVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00437 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
430 

ties provided by international intervention from 1992 to 1994 is starkly evident even 

today. 

Working on Sudan issues from Nairobi from 1997 to 2000 and at the National Security Council from 2003 to 2005, much of my focus was on human rights and democratization. I believe that my work on North-South issues contributed to reaching 

the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement. I worked with USAID and 

Southern Sudanese officials to reopen the Rumbek Senior Secondary School, at the 

time the only secondary school in South Sudan. I do not know what the future will 

hold for South Sudan. In the long term, however, creating educational opportunities 

for Southern Sudanese children will allow them to participate in their own governance, whatever shape it may take. 

Since 2000, much of my time has been dedicated to the issue of HIV/AIDS. In 

Uganda from 2000 to 2003, I worked with USAID and CDC on HIV/AIDS programming which provided models of success that have been emulated globally. During 

that period, the United States Embassy in Kampala became what I understand to 

be the first in the world to establish a formal policy of providing ARV treatment 

for locally employed staff. Beyond the direct benefit for our staff, we used this program as a model for local employers. We showed them our cost-benefit analysis, 

demonstrating to them that providing ARVs was a sound financial decision as well 

as a morally correct decision. At the National Security Council I worked on the early 

phases of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). With bipartisan support from Congress, this program is well on its way to achieving its goals 

of supporting treatment for 2 million HIV-infected people, prevention of 7 million 

new HIV infections, and care for 10 million people infected and affected by HIV/ 

AIDS, including orphans and vulnerable children. In South Africa I have worked on 

the implementation of the world’s largest PEPFAR program. We are currently on 

track to meet our target of achieving 25 percent of global goals. 

Question. Ghana has a relatively strong record on human rights. Do you think it 

can serve as a model for other countries in the region that have struggled on this 

front? 

Answer. Ghana does have a strong record on human rights and I believe that it 

does serve as a model for other countries in the region. However, we must always 

remain vigilant to ensure that this and any future Ghanaian administration continues to respect and protect human rights of its citizens. If confirmed, I would advocate continued respect for human rights in Ghana and urge the Ghanaian Government to encourage and to assist countries in the region which face human rights 

challenges to emulate their many successes. 

RESPONSES OF PETER W. BODDE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in Malawi? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights 

and democracy in the country? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. While the Government of Malawi generally respects human rights, serious violations still occur in some areas. As indicated in the 2007 Country Report 

on Human Rights, unlawful killing by security forces, police use of excessive force 

including torture, occasional mob violence, and harsh and life-threatening prison 

conditions are problems in Malawi. Arbitrary arrest and detention, including politically motivated arrests have occurred in the past and threaten to undermine the 

legitimacy of the political system. Government restrictions on freedoms of speech, 

press, and assembly, and societal violence against women, child abuse, trafficking 

in persons, restricted worker rights, and forced child labor were also problems. 

Over the past 8 months, an ongoing dispute between the ruling party and the opposition has become an increasing concern, as well. This dispute centers around the 

right of members of parliament to switch political parties during their terms. As a 

result of this dispute, there have been long periods during which Parliament has 

not met and Parliament has not been able to conduct any routine business. This 

matter has been put to the courts and there are ongoing negotiations between the 

ruling party and the opposition to resolve this dispute, which remains a significant 

obstacle to the smooth functioning of the democratic system in Malawi. If I am confirmed, and this matter remains unresolved, I will strongly encourage all parties to 

resolve the dispute as quickly as possible. 

431 

Furthermore, I will also work with the Government of Malawi and civil society 

to help address the broad range of human rights issues and support democracy in 

Malawi: 

• Through diplomatic outreach, ensure embassy officers, as well as myself, continue to raise human rights issues with appropriate Malawian Government officials and nongovernmental organizations. 

• Through public diplomacy programs, promote discussion among American and 

Malawian academics, civil society representatives, and opinion leaders on issues 

such as corruption, good governance, and women’s rights. 

• With Human Rights and Democracy Fund grants, partner with nongovernmental organizations and civil society to raise awareness and support human 

rights and democracy activities. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Malawi in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The inability of the Parliament to address any routine business is one 

of the biggest obstacles to addressing human rights in Malawi at this time. In light 

of the ongoing dispute between the ruling party and the opposition and upcoming 

presidential and parliamentary elections in 2009, it is critical that the international 

community make every effort to support Malawi’s democratic institutions and processes. If confirmed, I will continue Ambassador Eastham’s efforts to encourage a 

resolution of the dispute over the right of members of parliament to switch political 

parties during their terms. I will also continue Embassy Lilongwe’s efforts, through 

diplomatic and public interventions and financial assistance, to support preparations for the upcoming elections and key players in the electoral process including 

the media, nongovernmental organizations and international and domestic observers 

who will help ensure the legitimacy of the electoral result. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. The promotion of democracy and human rights has been, and will continue to be, a priority of the United States Embassy in Malawi, if I am confirmed 

as ambassador. I attach great importance to human rights issues, and if confirmed, 

I will ensure that all mission staff, no matter their agency affiliation, continue to 

collaborate with Malawian leaders and civil society organizations to promote democracy and human rights to the greatest extent possible. I will also ensure that employees working on human rights issues under my direction are professionally acknowledged, nominated for awards, and otherwise appropriately rewarded for superior performance. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. I believe it is the personal responsibility of all U.S. diplomats to work 

to promote human rights, on both a systemic and individual level. While it can be 

difficult to know the direct impact of our efforts, even simple inquiries when made 

on behalf of the U.S. Government, can lead to improved treatment of detained individuals, stronger democratic processes, and increased independence for the media. 

I have made promoting democracy and respect for human rights cornerstones of my 

career and will continue to advance these objectives in Malawi if I am confirmed. 

Supporting free and fair elections is an important element of the democratic process. I have extensive experience as an elections observer from my time in Bulgaria 

in 1988 to my work on elections in Nepal in 1994–1995. Recently, I led the embassy’s efforts during the 2008 elections in Pakistan. Our presence and active engagement in all these elections helped ensure a more dynamic process and greatly increased the likelihood of transparent and credible results. 

I also have worked to promote the rights of refugees. While serving in Nepal, I 

became aware that the then newly-elected Nepalese Government, in an effort to enhance its relationship with China, had changed its longstanding policy of allowing 

Tibetan refugees to transit Nepal while en route to eventual settlement in India. 

Thanks in part to my interventions, the government reversed its policy and returned to its longstanding practice of allowing Tibetans to transit Nepal. While in 

432 

Nepal, I also worked with refugees and victims of torture from Bhutan, helping ensure they received appropriate medical care and protection. 

As Deputy Chief of Mission in Pakistan, I have worked on the full range of human 

rights issues. For example, during a declared state of emergency, I personally advocated on behalf of political detainees so that they could have access to critical medicines and meet with family members and others during their confinement. I also 

advocated for their timely release. In addition, I have been a consistent and vocal 

advocate for press freedom, intervening on behalf of individual journalists and interceding with the Government of Pakistan regarding the issue of press freedom more 

broadly. 

Question. Malawi has one of the higher HIV prevalence rates in the world but has 

not been a focus country for PEPFAR or leading recipient of United States assistance. If confirmed as ambassador, how would you see your role in efforts to combat 

HIV/AIDS? 

Answer. While not a ‘‘focus country,’’ Malawi has received significant United 

States Government support through PEPFAR and through the Global Fund to Fight 

AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. From fiscal year 2004 to 2008, PEPFAR will have 

provided more than $89 million to support comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, 

treatment, and care programs in Malawi. These funds are used to leverage Global 

Fund activities. Since 2002, the Global Fund committed a maximum of $407 million 

for HIV/AIDS programs in Malawi. The United States Government is the largest 

contributor to the Global Fund, having provided approximately 30 percent of all resources to date, so that the United States share of Global Fund grants to Malawi 

is approximately $122 million. 

While the United States has made a significant contribution to combating HIV/ 

AIDS in Malawi, much remains to be done, particularly with regard to slowing the 

spread of new HIV infections and improving the distribution of drugs for treatment 

across the country. If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to maximizing the impact 

of U.S. Government and other programs and work hard to fight this terrible disease. 

RESPONSES OF STEPHEN JAMES NOLAN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in Botswana? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human 

rights and democracy in Botswana? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. While the Government of Botswana generally respects human rights, 

there are still areas of concern, including lengthy delays in the judicial process; 

overcrowded prison conditions; some restrictions on press freedom; violence against 

women; societal discrimination against homosexuals, persons with HIV/AIDS, and 

the ethnic minority San; and government restrictions on the right to strike. Some 

international and local nongovernmental organizations have also raised concerns 

about how the death penalty is administered in Botswana. The government has publicly recognized and sought improvements in several of these areas. 

If confirmed, I will work with the Government of Botswana and civil society to 

help address major human rights issues and support democracy in Botswana. I will 

raise human rights issues with government officials and use all means of diplomatic 

outreach to ensure that these issues remain at the forefront of our diplomatic dialog. 

I will also use the media and public diplomacy programs to promote discussion 

among American and Botswana academics, civil society representatives, and opinion 

leaders on human rights issues including respect for marginalized communities, 

such as the San, if confirmed. Finally, I will encourage the mission to use Human 

Rights and Democracy Fund grants to support nongovernmental organizations and 

civil society in Botswana so as to raise awareness of and support for human rights 

and promote more active democratic debate. 

Through these efforts, I hope to accomplish two goals. The first is the continued 

solidification and advancement of Botswana’s democratic systems and processes as 

they relate to human rights. The second will be the promotion and encouragement 

of Botswana as a regional and continental leader in this critical area. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Botswana in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

433 

Answer. As Botswana transitions to middle-income status, it becomes increasingly 

incumbent on domestic organizations to advocate for respect for human rights and 

robust democratic debate. Helping local organizations and the government understand how to engage on such issues without relying on high levels of donor support 

will be one of my key objectives, if I am confirmed. Following the precedent set by 

Ambassador Canavan and our current team in Gaborone, I will seek to use modest 

grants, public diplomacy, and diplomatic outreach to increase the capacity of local 

organizations so that they are less reliant on international support and able to advocate effectively through the media and the domestic political systems on issues 

which they deem important to Botswana’s continued development as a democratic 

country that fully recognizes the rights of all its citizens. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. The promotion of democracy and human rights remains a high priority 

U.S. goal to which I attach great importance. If confirmed, I will ensure that all 

mission staff—State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID), Department of Defense (DOD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other U.S. agencies active at post—continue to collaborate with Botswana leaders and civil society organizations to promote democracy and human 

rights to the greatest extent possible. I will also ensure that employees working on 

human rights issues under my direction are professionally acknowledged, nominated 

for awards, and otherwise appropriately rewarded for superior performance. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. I have always strongly believed that human rights begin at home, and 

that our embassies should be seen as leaders and role models in terms of employment benefits and labor practices for locally engaged staff (LES). As Executive Director of the Bureau of African Affairs, I have made the fair and equitable treatment of LES at our 50 posts a top priority. Despite tight operational budgets, we 

have approved salary increases each year, improved health coverage, and enhanced 

retirement plans for LES employees. Another priority area has been to support 

training programs that empower our LES personnel, helping them reach their full 

potential and enhance their operational effectiveness. I have also helped ensure that 

the Bureau of African Affairs has strong programs in place at our posts to prevent 

all forms of discrimination. 

During my assignment as Consul General in Cape Town, South Africa, I oversaw 

an active and effective public affairs program focused on advancing the United 

States Government’s public diplomacy goals across the spectrum of human rights 

issues. We sponsored events on awareness and prevention of violence against 

women, child abuse, HIV/AIDS stigma, and international crime, with an emphasis 

on trafficking in people. In the battle for public opinion, we used innovative as well 

as tried-and-true means to explain United States policies to South African audiences. We sent members of the historically disadvantaged black community to the 

United States on International Visitor grants, arranged for speakers, and linked 

local audiences with top U.S. experts via digital video conferencing (DVC) and satellite TV programs, helping to shape opinion by exposing people to points of view 

they would not have heard otherwise. We also aligned our Self-Help Program funds 

to support these objectives, with particular focus on projects supporting economic 

empowerment of women and the historically disadvantaged black community. 

In terms of promoting democracy, our program to reach out to Cape Town’s Muslim community was recognized as one of the most active and successful of its kind 

in Africa. The program included a multipart DVC series on ‘‘Islam in America,’’ featuring prominent American Muslims and exposing South African Muslim journalists 

and opinion leaders to facets of United States life that were little known to them. 

The participants came away impressed with the breadth of Muslim life in the 

United States, and one participant noted that immigrant American Muslims seemed 

to have found ‘‘far greater’’ freedom of religion than in their countries of origin. We 

also provided training for key support staff of the South African parliament, exposing them to the American system of government and our legislative process. 

Question. What accounts for Botswana’s reputation as one of Africa’s most democratic and stable countries? Are there any potential threats to this stability or to 

civil rights and liberties in the country? Can Botswana’s democracy serve as a model 

434 

for countries in the region that have struggled to create or maintain democratic traditions or is it a product of circumstances that are not likely to be replicated elsewhere? 

Answer. Botswana’s tradition of consensus building, starting at the village level, 

has been an important element of the country’s stability and success. Participatory 

pluralism permeates Botswana’s politics, and the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) 

has ably ruled since independence in 1966. It is notable, however, that many local 

observers say that the longer one party continues to govern the greater the risk of 

governmental ossification, so often seen in other countries with long-term single 

party rule. As Botswana prepares for general elections in October 2009, continued 

support for the media and civil society will be vital to help ensure more Botswana 

feel like they have a genuine stake in their own polity and economic future, so as 

to enhance democratic systems and security, both domestically and regionally. 

The uncertain situation in Zimbabwe posses a challenge to stability throughout 

southern Africa, and particularly to neighboring states such as Botswana. The Government of Botswana, through the Southern African Development Community 

(SADC), has encouraged actively a resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis in a manner 

that fully reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people. If I am confirmed, I will consider it my responsibility, both as Ambassador to Botswana and as Secretary Rice’s 

Representative to SADC, to advocate aggressively for a full resolution of this crisis. 

The Mugabe regime and its security forces must stop the violence and intimidation 

against the Movement for Democratic Change and its supporters and recognize that 

the people of Zimbabwe voted for change and their will must be respected. 

Finally, on the question of Botswana’s role as a model for other countries in Africa, yes, I do believe Botswana can serve as a model and that other nations have 

lessons to learn from Botswana’s impressive success. One of the most critical lessons 

one can draw from Botswana is the tremendous positive impact of having low levels 

of corruption. Botswana has been able to make maximum use of its diamond wealth 

in large part because corruption has not sabotaged its mining industry or warped 

its government. Thanks to the government’s vigilant stand against corruption, Botswana has successfully provided critical health and education services to its populace and is in a strong position to attract foreign investment to help diversify and 

sustain the country’s economic growth. Respect for human rights and dynamic political debate are also keys to Botswana’s political stability and strength. While all democracies are a work in progress, Botswana has accomplished much and is rightly 

recognized as a model by many of its neighbors. 

RESPONSE OF STEPHEN JAMES NOLAN TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. Some human rights groups remain concerned about periodic reports of 

secret executions taking place in Botswana. What is the United States doing to investigate these reports? 

Answer. The Government of Botswana generally respects human rights and the 

legal system allows for a full trial and appeals process. Defendants in capital cases 

who cannot afford legal representation are provided legal counsel by the state. Some 

international and local nongovernmental organizations, however, have raised concerns about how the death penalty is administered in Botswana. 

In a June 2007 report entitled ‘‘The Death Penalty in Botswana: Hasty and Secretive Hangings,’’ the International Federation for Human Rights and 

DITSHWANELO-The Botswana Center for Human Rights (BCHR) questioned several elements of capital punishment administration including the quality of public 

council provided to defendants in death penalty cases and the lack of notice to families, attorneys, and advocacy groups when some sentences were carried out. The 

United States noted the concerns of BCHR in the 2003 Country Report on Human 

Rights Practices saying, ‘‘During the year, the Botswana Center for Human Rights 

(BCHR) protested the executions of four convicted murderers, whose families and 

attorneys had not received prior notice of the executions, and criticized the secrecy 

surrounding executions.’’ 

I take the concerns raised in the June 2007 BCHR report very seriously. Our embassy in Gaborone reports that while elements of the administration of capital punishment in Botswana could be improved, there is no clear evidence of a denial of 

due process or judicial review in the cases which have been brought to our attention. 

Should I be confirmed, I will continue United States efforts to work with the Government of Botswana, local and international nongovernmental organizations, and 

the media to promote respect for human rights and civil liberties in Botswana and 

throughout the region. 

435 

RESPONSE OF MARCIA STEPHENS BERNICAT TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. Senegal has been widely praised by Western and African civil society 

organizations alike for making strides toward good governance, rule of law, and adherence to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other human 

rights instruments. This trend makes the recent spate of arrests of and violence 

against gay men in Senegal all the more surprising and worrisome. If confirmed as 

United States Ambassador to Senegal, would you address these sorts of issues as 

human rights concerns? Do you believe the United States should play a role—perhaps by using HIV and Democracy and Governance funding—in decreasing the stigma against Senegal’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community and promoting a broader understanding of human rights? How? 

Answer. The arrest of two gay men as a result of the publishing of photos of their 

marriage in a local magazine and the ensuing street demonstrations against homosexuals underscore widespread concerns about the state of human rights in Senegal. 

If confirmed, I would address these incidents as human rights issues in concert with 

local human rights NGOs such as Raddho (African Rally for Human Rights), the 

local chapter of Amnesty International, the National Human Rights Organization 

(ONDH), and the International Federation for Human Rights (FDIH). 

I believe our role should consist of the continued use of embassy-sponsored programs and other educational tools to underline the universality of human rights, as 

defined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and other key international covenants. In addition, there should be a U.S. role in decreasing this stigma through 

support for the activities of indigenous institutions and groups. All of the previously 

mentioned local NGOs played a role in the release of the two men who were arrested, and all of these groups have the potential to have an impact on Senegal’s 

tolerance for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. 

Senegal’s traditionally tolerant society is changing as its traditional mores confront western ones and is at a crossroads in accepting homosexuality in its society. 

Islamic traditionalists see homosexuality as contrary to the precepts of their religion. However, Senegal is a moderate country with a constitution that guarantees 

individual freedom. There are extremists who would like to see homosexuality treated as a criminal offense subject to severe sentencing and are trying to encourage 

Islamic leaders to lead the charge. Senegal’s influential Sufi brotherhoods have so 

far elected not to press for criminalization of homosexuality. The manner in which 

the United States approaches the subject, and in which we engage and cooperate 

with local religious institutions, will require sustained effort as well as sensitivity 

to evolving local culture. 

RESPONSE OF DONALD GENE TEITELBAUM TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. The State Department’s most recent human rights reports note that in 

Ghana, ‘‘the law criminalizes homosexuality, and lesbians and gays faced widespread discrimination, as well as police harassment and extortion attempts.’’ Such 

governmental abuse and discrimination have been described in reports by the U.S. 

Government and numerous United States and international human rights organizations for years, and yet the legal and societal issues remain unaddressed. Would 

you, if confirmed as United States Ambassador, be willing to meet with Ghanaian 

Government officials as well as some of the leaders of the LGBT human rights community in Ghana to discuss these serious findings? 

Answer. If confirmed as United States Ambassador, I would meet with Ghanaian 

Government officials as well as some of the leaders of the LGBT human rights community in Ghana to discuss the findings in reports by the United States Government and by numerous United States and international human rights organizations. 

I believe it is important for U.S. Embassies to seek and maintain a broad range of 

contacts. I also believe that the words and actions of U.S. Embassies must reflect 

the core values of America, particularly the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit 

of happiness. 

RESPONSES OF MARCIA STEPHENS BLOOM BERNICAT TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

436 

Answer. Yes, I have read 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations as well as 07 State 78240, dated June, 6, 2007—Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in 04 

STATE 258893 and 07 STATE 78240—Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I fully understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ 

and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies.’’ Peace Corps’ presence in a host country must be initiated by the host government, and Peace Corps programs are contingent upon support for and articulated 

need of both the host government and local communities in which volunteers serve. 

A close working relationship between Peace Corps and the host government is essential to Peace Corps’ ability to function, and this necessity renders its relationship 

with the mission fundamentally different from those of other U.S. Government 

agencies. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. Per Secretary Rice’s requests in 3.B of the cable, I pledge to exercise my 

chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does not 

conflict with U.S. objectives and policies.’’ Autonomy and flexibility are essential to 

the Peace Corps’ ability to work effectively at the grassroots level, and the U.S. mission under my leadership, if confirmed, will not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the Peace Corps. 

RESPONSES OF PETER W. BODDE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. I have read 04 STATE 258893, as well as STATE 78240 dated June 6, 

2007, which both concern relations between Peace Corps and the U.S. Department 

of State. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in 04 

STATE 258893 and 07 STATE 78240. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. Yes, I fully understand that Peace Corps activities must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy. I very 

much value the important role Peace Corps’ volunteers play in helping people 

around the world better understand and appreciate the United States. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

437 

Answer. If confirmed, I pledge to exercise my chief of mission authorities to provide Peace Corps with as much autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations 

as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies. 

RESPONSES OF GILLIAN ARLETTE MILOVANOVIC TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations as well as 07 State 78240, dated June, 6, 2007—Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. I fully understand and agree to abide by the principles in this cable that 

guide the Department’s dealings with the Peace Corps. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I fully understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ 

and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies.’’ 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. Yes. I pledge to do so. 

RESPONSES OF HON. DONALD E. BOOTH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. I have read 04 STATE 258893, as well as 07 STATE 78240 dated June 

6, 2007, which both concern relations between Peace Corps and the U.S. Department of State. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in 04 

STATE 258893 and 07 STATE 78240. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I understand and accept that the Peace Corps can only achieve the purposes for which it was founded if it remains substantially independent from the dayto-day conduct of our foreign policy. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. If confirmed, I pledge to exercise my chief of mission authorities to provide Peace Corps with as much autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations 

as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies. 

438 

RESPONSES OF DONALD GENE TEITELBAUM TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. I have read 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations 

as well as 07 State 78240, dated June 6, 2007—Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this cable. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and 

that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies.’’ 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. If confirmed, I pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to 

exercise my chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as 

much autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as 

this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies.’’ 

RESPONSES OF MARIANNE MATUZIC MYLES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read that cable on Peace Corps-State relations as well as the 

later one, 07 STATE 78240, dated June 6, 2007. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and agree to abide by the principles in this cable, 

which guide the Department’s dealings with the Peace Corps. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. Yes. I understand and accept this. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

our chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. Yes, I pledge to do so. 

RESPONSES OF PATRICIA MCMAHON HAWKINS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. I have read 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations 

as well as 07 State 78240, dated June 6, 2007—Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

439 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this cable. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and 

that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies.’’ 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. If confirmed, I pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to 

exercise my chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as 

much autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as 

this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies.’’ 

RESPONSES OF STEPHEN JAMES NOLAN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. I have read 04 STATE 258893, as well as STATE 78240 dated June 6, 

2007, which both concern relations between Peace Corps and the U.S. Department 

of State. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in 04 

STATE 258893 and 07 STATE 78240. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. Yes, I fully understand that Peace Corps activities must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy. I also 

understand that the mission of Peace Corps is not comparable to those of other government agencies. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. If confirmed, I pledge to exercise my chief of mission authorities to provide Peace Corps with as much autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations 

as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies. 

(441) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Ayalde, Liliana, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay 

Boswell, Eric J., to be Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic 

Security 

DiCarlo, Rosemary Anne, to be Alternate U.S. Representative to 

the Sessions of the General Assembly and the Alternate U.S. 

Representative for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations 

Jones, John Melvin, to be Ambassador to the Cooperative Republic 

of Guyana 

The committee met at 9:36 a.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen Senate 

Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson, presiding. 

Present: Senators Nelson and Corker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Good morning. This hearing on the Committee 

on Foreign Relations is going to consider the nomination of four individuals for key leadership positions in the administration. 

The chairman and Senator Corker are going to forego making 

opening statements. 

Senator NELSON. And the same with each of you. Instead of you 

sitting there and reading us a statement, your written statements 

will be entered in the record. What we will do is go straight on to 

the questions. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Jones, Ms. DiCarlo, Mr. Boswell, and Ms. Ayalde are located at the end of this hearing transcript.] 

Senator NELSON. Senator Corker? 

Senator CORKER. They might want to introduce their families. 

Senator NELSON. Yes, by all means. 

I understand you all have your families here. So if you will, Mr. 

Jones, if you would introduce your family. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today is my wife 

Aaronia; our daughter Christie Jones-Aden; our son- in-law, Keenan Aden; and a close family friend, Dr. Adam Muhijea who is at 

the American Defense College, a representative from Honduras. 

Senator NELSON. Welcome. 

442 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I understand from the son-inlaw that he is a great father-in-law. So that alone ought to be a 

good endorsement. 

Senator NELSON. That is pretty good. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. 

Senator NELSON. A pretty good recommendation. 

Mrs. DiCarlo? 

Ms. DICARLO. Thank you. My family is unable to attend today. 

My husband, Tom Graham, is in Moscow on business, and my 87- 

year-old mother is unable to travel, but they are with me in spirit. 

Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. That is great. 

Mr. Boswell? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to introduce my wife, Nancy Boswell, who is behind me in the crowd. 

Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Good. Welcome, Ms. Boswell. 

Ms. Ayalde? 

STATEMENT OF LILIANA AYALDE, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF PARAGUAY 

Ms. AYALDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to acknowledge the presence of my parents, Jaime and Mercedes Ayalde; my 

sister Gloria; and my nieces, Karina, Alexa, and Bianca. My immediate family is back in Colombia finishing school actually. So they 

were not able to be here. 

Senator NELSON. I see. What does your family in Colombia think 

about you going to Paraguay? 

Ms. AYALDE. They are excited. 

Senator NELSON. Well, we are glad to have you all. 

Just since we have been talking, why do I not start with you, 

Mrs. Ayalde? 

The recent presidential election in Paraguay—it is always a constant struggle for some democratic reforms in that part of the 

world and the democratic political development. What do you think 

is going to be the most significant challenge that is facing the 

president-elect, Lugo? 

Ms. AYALDE. Well, first of all, it is a historic moment for Paraguay after 61 years of rule by the Colorado Party. This is a unique 

opportunity, I think, for Paraguayans, as well as for us in our bilateral relation. 

He has indicated that he has prioritized poverty reduction and 

eradication of corruption as his two primary objectives of his administration. Those are huge challenges. The fact that he has been 

elected based on a coalition from the opposition also will make it 

a challenge in terms of the management. 

Senator NELSON. You know, they joke down in Paraguay quite 

humorously with a spark in their eye that it is part of their genetic 

makeup—some of the corruption that goes on. So you are going to 

have a challenge. Of course, that is not just indicative of Paraguay, 

but many other places across the globe. 

What do you think about the new president facing that kind of 

endemic corruption that has gone on in that part of the world? 

443 

Ms. AYALDE. Well, it is a challenge, but the fact that he has 

prioritized it as one of his administration’s main objectives is important. There is some progress that has been made based on some 

of the initiatives that in fact we have supported. The Millennium 

Challenge Threshold Program, for instance, has focused precisely 

on corruption issues, and in their report card, there has been some 

definite progress. Now, the problem is huge, but the pattern is 

positive, and I think that that is what we need to look for is the 

continued progress along that front. 

Senator NELSON. What do you think is going to be the new president’s relationship with Hugo Chavez? 

Ms. AYALDE. At this point, his public statements have been that 

he would like to maintain good working relations with all his 

neighbors. He has indicated that he—well, he has accepted invitations to the countries which have invited him. He has indicated to 

us, I understand, that he would like to come to the United States. 

He has sent a delegation of five designated ministers up to the 

United States for a visit. In fact, they are here right now, I understand. So at this point, it is a speculation. I would prefer not to get 

into that, but the statements that he has publicly made indicate 

that he would like to be friends with everyone. 

Senator NELSON. Give me some of your thoughts about the triborder area and the potential for terrorist activity in the region. 

Ms. AYALDE. It is public knowledge that the tri-border area is a 

region that lacks law enforcement, a tremendous amount of informality, problems with trafficking of drugs and so forth. Nevertheless, I think that it is an area that the Paraguayan Government 

so far has tried to focus with some specific programs, some of 

which the U.S. Government has supported, and we need to focus 

on that area to try to address some of the issues of the informality 

and the high level of corruption, of course. So it is a priority, and 

if confirmed, I certainly will make that a priority of my management team. 

Senator NELSON. Have you ever been to Tres Esquinas? 

Ms. AYALDE. In Colombia? 

Senator NELSON. No, Tres Esquinas in the tri-border area in 

Paraguay. 

Ms. AYALDE. No, have not, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Well, it is quite a place. It will be quite interesting for you as you look into that, as well as counternarcotics. 

How would you describe our counternarcotics effort with Paraguay? 

Ms. AYALDE. As I understand it, we have had very solid, strong 

collaboration on both the counternarcotics and counterterrorism 

fronts. It is a good collaboration, and there is no reason to believe 

at this point that that will not continue under the new administration. But we have to see. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Corker? 

Senator CORKER. Well, I want to welcome all of you and thank 

you for your public service. I know we are in some cases at the end 

of an administration and some important tasks are being taken on. 

But thank you all for your commitment and for what you are willing to do for our country. 

444 

I guess I would like to ask our two ambassadorial nominees here 

that you, obviously, have been trying to gain an understanding of 

what you are going to be dealing with going to each of the countries that you are going to. I know that, Ms. Ayalde, I met you in 

Colombia recently, and I know you have learned a great deal there 

about counterterrorism. Uribe has been just outstanding in that regard. 

But I wonder if each of you could just outline, knowing what you 

know today, and I know once you get to where you are going, you 

will know even more. But what is it you think you want to address 

on the front end going to each of the two countries you are going 

in? What is sort of your primary objective, if you will, your primary 

agenda as you move into these two countries? Mr. Jones? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MELVIN JONES, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE COOPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA 

Mr. JONES. Senator, my primary objective, of course, is to try to 

work with the Government of Guyana to protect American interest 

there, also promote democracy and human rights. We understand 

that there are some small problems, but if confirmed, I will work 

closely with the Government of Guyana to address these issues. We 

have some instances where problems have developed, particularly 

with the growth of things like HIV/AIDS, trafficking, for example, 

narco activities. These are things that I intend to work, again, 

closely with the Government of Guyana, to address. That I think 

will be my main aim. 

Strengthening the democratic infrastructure, working towards 

helping them get elections, local elections. The last election was in 

1994. They had municipal elections in 2006 that were relatively 

safe. And so I am going to try to work with them, extend a hand 

of friendship and cooperation, and hopefully be able to help them 

strengthen those institutions that they need help on right now. 

Senator CORKER. Have you spent much time looking at our 

PEPFAR efforts there, and do you have any thoughts at present as 

to how we might enhance our activities there? Or do you have any 

assessment of how that is going at present? 

Mr. JONES. Our reports are that the PEPFAR program is a very 

successful program, sir. It is a major effort on the part of our Government, and the Government of Guyana has cooperated fully with 

us. As you know, it is a program that has had over $100 million 

since 2004 addressing this whole issue of HIV/AIDS. All of our 

agencies, the Peace Corps, USAID, Center for Disease Control, Department of Defense, are all working on small projects and efforts 

towards making this a successful program. Again, our reports are 

that the Government of Guyana has accepted this. It is a major effort on their part, and it is a major effort on our part and represents a large amount of the good will that we want to show the 

Guyanese people. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. AYALDE. Yes, Mr. Senator. I, if confirmed, intend to focus on 

governance issues, as well as poverty reduction. I think those two 

areas will do a lot to addressing some of the problems in Paraguay 

as related to terrorism and narcotics trafficking. If you do not have 

445 

a strong presence of the state, an ability of the state to deliver its 

services in a transparent way, then you can invite illegal business 

of all sorts. 

So our bilateral agenda should continue to focus on intellectual 

property rights protection, trafficking in persons, money laundering, and strengthening the different institutions of the state 

that will avoid becoming at high risk of increasing the corruption 

and the informality in the country, as well as addressing some of 

the roots of poverty which, if you look around the region and there 

is an increase of social discontent, that puts more pressure on the 

state and that can drive a country into social turmoil which will 

complicate things. So I think those two pillars of work would be 

what I would prioritize, if confirmed. 

Senator CORKER. Both of you are going to challenging countries, 

and again, we are very fortunate to have people of your qualifications going there. And I thank you again for being willing to do so. 

Mr. Boswell, we all have been to Iraq a number of times and Afghanistan, and I know one of your duties is going to be to look at 

the security contractors we are dealing with. You know, you land 

in Baghdad and Blackwater basically is the escort service, if you 

will. It takes you throughout the country. 

I wonder if you have any editorial comments you want to make 

about some of the recent events there and just generally anything 

you think we ought to be doing differently as it relates to our security contractors in general, not necessarily that particular company 

itself. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC J. BOSWELL, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DIPLOMATIC SECURITY 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you for the question, Senator. I was in 

Baghdad myself examining this exact issue last fall as part of the 

Secretary’s panel examining protective security operations in Iraq 

in the wake of the tragedy at Nisoor Square. So we looked at the 

issue you are talking about in depth, the appropriateness of using 

contractors, how the contractors were managed, what the oversight 

was of the contractors, and we made a number of recommendations 

for improvement and particularly in the area of oversight and 

training. I am happy to say that the Department has taken those 

recommendations seriously, that it is complying with all of them. 

Our recommendations are a matter of public record, and we would 

be happy to provide them to you, sir. 

Senator CORKER. Basically we have operations in 25 U.S. cities 

that you also oversee, and I was wondering if you might expand a 

little bit on what those particular efforts are about and the magnitude of those. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the 

State Department has two primary missions. One is the protection 

of life, property, and information overseas. And the second is it is 

a very active participant in the global war on terrorism. And the 

activities of the field offices to which you refer are largely in the 

second category. They are offices that examine and review cases of 

passport fraud, visa fraud, all of which are very important elements in securing our borders and overall in identifying terrorists 

in the global war on terror. That is what they do. 

446 

Of course, those offices are also a source of manpower to assist 

in overseas surge requirements occasionally, and in particular, 

every year they provide a large number of agents to New York during the UN General Assembly to assist in protection of dignitaries. 

Senator CORKER. And what is the order of magnitude right now 

of visa fraud? If you were going to say to us how much of an issue 

that is today in our country, give us a little bit of an editorial opinion there, if you would. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I could not tell you exactly the numbers, Senator, 

but I can tell you that it is increasing and it is of increasing concern. That is why the Department dedicates as much effort as it 

does to that. 

Senator CORKER. I know this is not in your area. I know you deal 

with the area of fraud itself as it relates to visas, but as we just 

look at general immigration issues in our country, the fact that at 

many of the motor crossings we check to see if someone has a visa, 

but we do not record that, and we have, I guess, a huge issue of 

not ever knowing when people overstay. We have no mechanism in 

place to be able to do that. And I know that is not in your particular area, but I wonder if you have any comments in regards to 

that. 

Mr. BOSWELL. It is not in my area, Senator, so I will be careful 

in what I say. But I know that that is a problem, particularly the 

issue of recording when somebody leaves, and I know that there 

are significant efforts undertaken by ICE in that regard. But I really do not have anything further to add to that. 

Senator CORKER. In the defense authorization bill, it is my understanding—I am just going to read some language—that there is 

some language that says, ‘‘Private security contractors are not authorized to reform inherently government functions in an area of 

combat operations.’’ If this particular clause were to survive, if you 

will, in this legislation, what impact would that have on carrying 

out the private security operations that you would be charged with 

carrying out? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Senator, I am aware of that language, and I am 

rather troubled by it, I must tell you. The language, as I understand it, would prohibit contractors from performing an inherently 

governmental function such as use of deadly force in high-risk, 

high-threat, volatile areas. That may have the effect of preventing 

the use of contractors for protective security as we use them now 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope that is not the intention. The effect 

would be rather severe on our—that is, the State Department’s— 

operations, embassy operations in both countries and would have 

a rather severe effect on the goals and objectives—the ability of the 

United States to achieve its goals and objectives. 

So I hope that some language or way can be found to address the 

concerns of the Congress but, at the same time, not to inhibit the 

use of contractors in protecting our personnel in both war zones. 

Senator CORKER. And my guess is that the addition of that language possibly was a signal of someone who feels that maybe we 

are over-utilizing, if you will, contractors in this area. I wonder if 

you can give any editorial comments about that, meaning that our 

reliance today on private contractors, obviously, in Iraq and in 

other areas, is very, very large at this moment. Are we in proper 

447 

balance there? Have we had an over-reliance? Should some of these 

jobs be really done by Federal employees directly? Any comments 

there. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. The panel in which participated certainly 

looked at exactly that issue in Iraq last fall. I remember talking to 

Ambassador Crocker in his office and asking him what he thought, 

and I think I can speak a little bit out of school. He said, I would 

like to have 700 diplomatic security agents performing this function, but I recognize that that is a practical, close to impossibility. 

I feel the same way and that was the conclusion of our panel. 

There are something on the order of 1,500 security contractors 

operating in Iraq. There are about 1,500 diplomatic security employees in the world performing a global function. It is simply not 

possible to ramp up sufficiently to provide the kind of protection 

that we need for our people exclusively with diplomatic security 

personnel. 

Having said that, I am extremely concerned that there be proper 

oversight of the contractor personnel in Iraq and elsewhere, and 

the panel made a number of recommendations to improve the oversight. One of those recommendations was that diplomatic security 

special agents be given operational control of every motorcade 

movement and every mission in Iraq, and it is my understanding 

that the staff of the regional security office has been doubled in response to that recommendation and that every motorcade now has 

a trained Government employee, diplomatic security officer, in command of that motorcade. 

Senator CORKER. Well, thank you for those responses, and I am 

sure that because of the sensitivity of that issue, there will be a 

lot of folks talking with you about that as it moves along. But 

thanks for your responses. 

And, Senator Nelson, since I am on a roll, I am just going to finish up here with Ms. DiCarlo, if I could. 

Senator NELSON. Sure. Take your time. 

Senator CORKER. Ms. DiCarlo, Senator Nelson and I sit at numbers of hearings here talking about the issues of Darfur and 

Zimbabwe and the things that are occurring there. Obviously, you 

are going to have a key role. A lot of times our staffs, as you know, 

here direct us and guide us in major ways. I know that you are 

going to be very much involved in that as it relates to the Security 

Council when this nomination process is over. 

It is pretty frustrating to hear reports about the collective efforts 

that are taking place in Darfur. It gives you not a lot of faith sometimes in the UN’s ability and the ability of collectively countries together to deal with that kind of issue. I just wonder if you have 

any thoughts going into this position as to how we might strengthen our efforts in Darfur, actually create concrete results there instead of this continual discussion of what ought to happen but is 

not happening. 

448 

STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY ANNE DiCARLO, NOMINEE TO BE 

THE ALTERNATE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SESSIONS 

OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND 

THE ALTERNATE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FOR SPECIAL POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN THE UNITED NATIONS, WITH THE RANK 

OF AMBASSADOR 

Ms. DICARLO. Thank you, Senator. 

We are also very disappointed that we have not been able to mobilize the kind of troops and support needed for Darfur, but we are 

working very hard at it. And I can assure you that, if confirmed, 

this will be a top priority on my agenda. 

Ambassador Williamson, the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan, was 

in New York yesterday. Ambassador Williamson, along with his 

Canadian counterpart, has organized a group called the Friends of 

UNAMID. The objective of this group is to obtain the kinds of commitments that we will need to have full deployment of that peacekeeping operation by early 2009. 

We have been hampered in a number of ways, and the UN certainly has been as well. First of all, the Government of Sudan has 

put a number of obstructions, refusing to accept troops from certain 

countries. They preferred a truly African force. They have also not 

granted visas on time, not granted access to land or water needed. 

That is one aspect. 

We also would like to see greater flexibility and creativity on the 

part of the United Nations. We are now working with a number of 

countries who have offered to participate. Their infantrymen would 

increase the force by another 5,000, but they do need training, they 

need equipment. We are still seeking the kinds of equipment support and are in fairly detailed discussions with a few countries on 

that. It is a very high priority and something that we will devote 

our attention to. 

Regarding the political process, we would hope that the Secretary-General would continue to use his good offices to talk to the 

parties, to the Government of Sudan. His Special Envoy for Darfur, 

Mr. Eliasson, and of course, Ambassador Williamson will continue 

his efforts. 

Senator CORKER. In Zimbabwe where we have a situation more 

leaders, in essence, have been defeated, and now we are having another election for some odd reason. And he has basically vowed 

that there will not be a transition to someone who does not look 

at the government there the same way that he does, which obviously the opposition, who is the person running against him, does 

not. 

What should the United Nations—what is our role in a situation 

like that, and what should and could be done? 

Ms. DICARLO. Thank you. We have been trying for several weeks 

now to get Zimbabwe on the Security Council agenda. Secretary 

Rice will be in New York tomorrow. 

Senator CORKER. By the way, when you saying ‘‘trying,’’ explain 

to us what difficulties there are in getting something like that that 

is pretty important on an agenda. 

Ms. DICARLO. First of all, to get an issue on the Security Council 

agenda, one needs to have the consensus of Security Council members. There are a few countries on the council who believe that 

449 

Zimbabwe is an internal problem and not a threat to international 

peace and security. We, obviously, disagree. A number of us disagree. We have been working to get to bring this to a vote. We 

need nine votes to get it on the agenda. We think we are very close. 

Secretary Rice will be in New York tomorrow. We are the President of the Security Council this month. She will be co-hosting a 

session with the foreign minister of Burkina Faso—he is also on 

the council—on Zimbabwe. Invitees will be member states, members of the Security Council. They will raise this issue, raise the 

visibility of this issue. 

The United Nations has sent an envoy to speak to President 

Mugabe to talk about elections, election support, the need for fair 

and free elections. The UN will be using a trust fund and the 

United States is contributing to it for election monitors. The monitors will come from the African Union and the Southern African 

Development Community. The Government of Zimbabwe has not 

allowed official monitors coming from Europe or the United States. 

But we agree this is an issue that needs to be resolved. First of 

all, fair and free elections but much more. We read this morning 

that President Mugabe is now allowing NGO’s working in 

Zimbabwe to deliver aid, needed food and supplies, to citizens, but 

we have a serious problem and one that does need international attention. 

Senator CORKER. My understanding is most of that aid is going 

to people who support him and not to those who do not. I wonder 

if you have any comments in that regard. 

Ms. DICARLO. Well, we do know that there were some shipments 

that were confiscated and went to supporters, but still, there are 

NGO’s working there who are getting assistance to the right people. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Nelson, thanks for indulging me. I will 

turn it back over to your great leadership here as chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you, Senator. I will just pick up 

where you left off. 

What do you think in your position at the UN you can do to try 

to get the peacekeepers into the Sudan? 

Ms. DICARLO. I think, first of all, we will need to get the kind 

of force that is appropriate for Sudan, and that is what we are 

working on now. We will then need to have very serious discussions with the Government of Sudan and keeping the pressure on 

the need for those peacekeepers to be there. We have seen attacks 

on humanitarian convoys, situations that make it all the more difficult to deliver the kinds of needed assistance to the people. Without those peacekeepers on the ground, we are not going to be able 

to help those who are in camps, those who are displaced, and the 

population. 

Senator NELSON. Well, how do we, the United States, in the 

forum of the United Nations, to which you would be going, bring 

about the world pressure on the Sudanese Government to allow the 

peacekeepers to come and stay? 

Ms. DICARLO. We have tried with sanctions. Our sanctions, as 

you know, United Nations sanctions, are modest, but our bilateral 

sanctions are very major. And we are always looking for ways to 

increase the pressure on Sudan bilaterally. We need, however, to 

450 

look at more ways that we can work through the UN—we agree 

with you—but also with the Europeans in pressuring the government. 

We have seen some movement on the part of China in recent 

weeks. The Chinese have now named an envoy to Sudan. The Chinese are on the ground with a contingent of about 300 engineers 

building the necessary infrastructure so that we can actually deploy the troops. We need to encourage China and others that have 

more influence on Sudan to do more. 

Senator NELSON. Speaking of China, what can we do to get the 

UN to put pressure on China to stop the arms sales to Sudan? 

Ms. DICARLO. Well, we have raised this a number of times. We 

have certainly raised it bilaterally. We have raised it within the 

UN context. The difficulty, obviously, China as a veto-bearing 

member of the Security Council—we have great difficulty in having 

any kind of formal UN action. 

Senator NELSON. Well, do we need to press for an embargo? Do 

we need to put sanctions? Do we need to encourage the UN to put 

sanctions on China to stop the flow of arms? What would you suggest? 

Ms. DICARLO. I would say that the most effective means we have 

is working with our colleagues in Europe and with like-minded 

countries in putting the pressure on China. It is extremely for us 

to achieve something in the council, again where they are a permanent member. 

Senator NELSON. Do you think this is a particular time that 

China might be sensitive because of the world attention to them 

because of the Olympics? 

Ms. DICARLO. Indeed. 

Senator NELSON. Then what is the kind of world pressure that 

we can put on that you said working through Europe? 

Ms. DICARLO. I think the kinds of things that we have been 

doing and intensifying them, which is high level discussions with 

them, various points that are made, obviously everything that we 

are working on with China in a range of areas. We have to make 

very, very clear that while they may be a good partner in some 

areas, we need to have them as a good partner in particular in 

Sudan. 

Senator NELSON. What about the rotating presidency of the UN 

Security Council. The U.S. now holds that. What do you think we 

can do there to utilize that position? 

Ms. DICARLO. We have made two issues the highlight of our 

council presidency. One is Africa. As I said, we are trying very hard 

to get Zimbabwe on the agenda. Sudan is another case. We have 

had a number of meetings. Ambassador Williamson was there yesterday. And we will continue to work the Sudan issue throughout 

the month. 

The other issue that we had as a priority is a thematic issue and 

that is women, peace, and security because violence against women 

in conflict is high and needs much more attention from the international community. 

Obviously, when we discuss Sudan, we make very clear our concerns about arms flowing into Sudan. We make very clear our concerns about the government’s obstructionism and deployment. 

451 

Senator NELSON. Do you intend on having any direct conversations privately with the delegation of China? 

Ms. DICARLO. If confirmed, I certainly do. I know that Ambassador Khalilzad does now routinely. 

Senator NELSON. How about with the Government of the Sudan? 

Ms. DICARLO. We have continued discussions with the Government of the Sudan. I, if confirmed, would continue those discussions, and as I said, Ambassador Williamson has been very active 

in this area. 

Senator NELSON. What do you think we ought to do to get tougher sanctions on Iran? 

Ms. DICARLO. Thank you, sir. 

Iran is an issue that, obviously, will be a priority in the Security 

Council in the coming months. We have now three sanctions regimes on Iran, three resolutions calling for sanctions. We need to, 

first, make sure that these resolutions are implemented. There are 

a number of countries that have already reported on implementation. There are countries that have asked us for help, asked the 

UN for help in implementing these provisions. Smaller countries in 

particular have great difficulty in doing so, and we need to ensure 

that either the United Nations or some of the countries like us and 

the Europeans are able to help them do so. 

We also need to work bilaterally on our own—we do work on our 

sanctions, but with the Europeans who are moving in the right direction in increased sanctions on Iran. 

When the Security Council adopted the last resolution, 1803, the 

council made clear that if Iran did not comply with the demands 

of council resolutions and IAEA recommendations, that the council 

would consider further action. 

Senator NELSON. Do you have the go-ahead from the administration to discuss these matters privately with the Iranian delegation 

at the United Nations? 

Ms. DICARLO. My job is to work within the Security Council. I 

am not going to be dealing directly on this issue. 

Senator NELSON. Does Ambassador Khalilzad have that authority? 

Ms. DICARLO. I would have to get back to you on that. I do not 

know. 

Senator NELSON. Well, I sure hope the answer to that is yes. We 

have a missing FBI agent in Iran, and I have talked directly to the 

Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations about trying to find this 

guy for a widow—let us hope it is not a widow—a wife and seven 

children that are left behind in my State. I would certainly hope 

that we have the ability to have conversations with the delegates 

to the United Nations from other countries like that. But you do 

not know the answer to that? 

Ms. DICARLO. You asked whether he was working with them on 

sanctions issues and other issues. I do not know. Again, I would 

have to get back to you on it. 

I can tell you that, indeed, when we work in a multilateral 

forum, we work with countries, even countries we do not have relations with, on issues that are before the United Nations. 

Senator NELSON. Tell us about the UN peacekeeping effort in 

Haiti. 

452 

Ms. DICARLO. Thank you, Senator. 

A very important mission and a mission that we believe has had 

some success. We were very pleased to see what MINUSTAH has 

been able to do in the area of elections. The mission is working 

with the police, helping to develop a police force, making progress 

there. The mission will also be working on border and maritime security, which we think is an important issue, obviously helping the 

Haitian police. The Haitian police will be setting up a coast guard, 

but indeed, the support of the international community is needed 

there. Patrolling is needed there also by the UN. 

Haiti is a work in progress. There is a lot more to be done, but 

we can say that the UN mission there has certainly made some 

strides in recent years. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Jones, Guyana has been increasingly a 

transshipment point for narcotics that are coming to the U.S. and 

Europe. Why do you not tell us about the U.S. efforts to combat 

that trend? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We had the reports that Guyana 

is, in fact, a transshipment point for drugs, as well as illegal immigrants. We have worked closely and will continue to work closely 

with the Government of Guyana. There are several programs in 

place right now with training of police and so forth that will continue hopefully if we have that opportunity. And we hope to be able 

to strengthen both the police infrastructure to weed out corrupt elements and to see that the Guyanese take seriously this whole idea 

that they need to be securing internally. 

As you know, there is a huge interior that is not controlled. 

There are borders with Venezuela, Brazil, and Suriname. And it is 

very difficult with the size of their current force to get control over 

this area. We hope to be able to work with them to strengthen both 

their police training and that area that requires a lot more policing 

and control. 

Senator NELSON. Tell us about those programs working with the 

police. 

Mr. JONES. These are basic training programs. One of them we 

are looking forward to implementing is the reestablishment of a 

Drug Enforcement Administration office in Guyana. This is something that President Jagdeo has asked for and that the leaders of 

DEA here in Washington have agreed on. I will try to implement 

that once I get on the ground, if confirmed. 

The other is to have our military group bring in trainers. We had 

approaches from SOUTHCOM and we are looking at trying to implement civil affairs training for those policemen and for the Guyana defense forces hopefully, again, in an effort to strengthen that 

area of what they actually need to have done. 

There is another side and that is to take a look at this whole concept of preventing the use of fraudulent documents, and a lot of the 

transshipment is done by using these documents. We hope to be 

able to use our Millennium Challenge Account to strengthen business registration and so forth to have a better way of controlling 

and accounting for business receipts and so forth. And that includes travel documents. 

Senator NELSON. Now, with the rise in crime, when you are helping out their law enforcement about drugs, certainly help them 

453 

with the vigilante death squads that they have had. Do you want 

to comment about that? 

Mr. JONES. There has been a rise in crime, sir, and we have had 

the reports about these death squads. As you know, there is one 

case in particular that is in the courts in the State of New York. 

This is a problem. It is going to be something that we will need 

to address, and hopefully through the use of the cooperative efforts 

with the police training, the drug enforcement, and military cooperation, we will be able to address it a little bit more properly. 

Senator NELSON. By the way, Mrs. Ayalde, I had said Tres 

Esquinas, which you correctly identified in Colombia. I meant to 

say Cuidad del Este. That is the one that is like the Wild West 

there. Anything you want to buy you can probably find it there. 

And it may not necessarily be authentic. They have got quite a 

knock-off trade there, and the other things that you are going to 

be looking at are in such an environment. To what degree have we 

got to worry about terrorist activity arising from that environment? 

Ms. AYALDE. At this point, we have no known operational presence of Al Qaeda or other of these terrorist groups. Nevertheless, 

it is an issue because of the lack of, like I mentioned earlier, law 

enforcement, corruption, and all these other factors that lend themselves to attracting these kinds of activities. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Boswell, this committee has had a hearing 

examining American women, contractor personnel, that have been 

raped in Iraq and Afghanistan and the lack of help for the rape victim and the lack of follow-up by the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice. Now, do you 

want to bring us up to date on what is happening there? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I am aware of some of 

those cases. I am also aware that the area of jurisdiction and authority is a little bit unclear. 

For the record, I am strongly in favor of legislation that would 

hold contractors to account for criminal violations committed in 

war zones. 

Senator NELSON. Let me just stop you right there. That legislation is now law. It is on the books. And the question is, are those 

three Departments enforcing the law, providing assistance to the 

rape victims, as well as referring the evidence and preserving the 

evidence, and then referring it to the appropriate law enforcement 

agencies—in the case of the Department of Justice, it is usually the 

U.S. Attorney—in the prosecution of those crimes? The law is 

there. So take it from there. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir, I am aware that the law is there. I was 

referring perhaps to the Department of State and embassy contractors. The law governing them is a little more unclear. So I want 

to clarify that. But certainly it is clear in the area of the Department of Defense. 

The State Department does everything it can to investigate and 

assist Americans in trouble overseas. It is a particularly difficult 

thing to do in war zones, as you can imagine, Senator. When the 

Department becomes aware of a problem, as it did in one of the 

cases that you referred to, it was in fact the Department that investigated the case that found the individual, that liberated, freed 

454 

the individual, and after investigation, turned over the results of 

its investigation to the Department of Justice. 

Senator NELSON. Now, which one are you speaking of? 

Mr. BOSWELL. You mean of a specific case? 

Senator NELSON. Yes. 

Mr. BOSWELL. A specific case involving a woman in Iraq. 

Senator NELSON. Do you have a name? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I do not have the name in front of me, sir. I think 

that case is still under review by the Department of Justice, so I 

would want to be awfully careful about anything I say here. 

Senator NELSON. Was it one of the two women who testified to 

this committee? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I do not know who testified to the committee, sir, 

but I would guess it is. 

Senator NELSON. All right. There is another high profile rape 

case, a lady named Mrs. Jones who did not testify. But you do not 

know that that is the one? Jamie Lee Jones? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I think that is the case that I was talking about, 

sir. 

Senator NELSON. Okay. She did not testify here. But that has 

been in the newspaper quite a bit. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. And what did you say about that case? 

Mr. BOSWELL. In that case, it is my understanding that it was 

the Department of State that first became aware of the case that 

investigated the problem, that located the individual who was in 

trouble, and followed up in investigating the incident and turning 

over what it found to the Justice Department. 

Senator NELSON. That is interesting. She was a Defense Department contractor personnel. She was gang raped by other contractor 

personnel. She was stuffed in a storage locker and held hostage 

there until a fellow contractor personnel had pity on her and lent 

her a cell phone, on which she could make a phone call back to the 

U.S. And that is eventually how she got out of that storage locker. 

I mean, it was just an incredible case. 

But that was not one of the ones that testified here. Of course, 

it would raise the hair on the back of your neck to hear the dramatic testimony that came before this subcommittee by two others. 

So what would you say is the status of the Department of State 

in investigating these types of crimes? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Senator, I think I can assure you that the Department of State investigates very aggressively the crimes that are 

committed in its area of jurisdiction. 

Senator NELSON. What about the relationship between the Department of State and the military and the Justice Department 

and their various investigative arms? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I think the Department would assist both of those 

other arms in any way that it can. 

Senator NELSON. Do you think it has? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I really could not tell you, sir. 

Senator NELSON. I can tell you it is has not. And you are up for 

Assistant Secretary of State of Diplomatic Security. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. 

455 

Senator NELSON. You would be shocked to see some of this testimony. Now, most of it has been the problem with the Department 

of Defense because most of the contractor personnel are DOD contractor personnel, but there is the nexus through contractor personnel for the Department of State and that is what you are seeking to be the Assistant Secretary of, diplomatic security. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Which would include contractor personnel as 

well? 

Mr. BOSWELL. The State Department does have oversight over 

contractor personnel that provide a variety of services, including 

protective services, to our people overseas. 

Senator NELSON. Providing security for them? 

Mr. BOSWELL. One of the areas in which we provide contractor 

personnel is that, a very important area, as Senator Corker referred to during his questioning. 

Senator NELSON. Well, let me give you a hypothetical on one of 

these particular cases that we have and tell me how you would respond as the head of diplomatic security. 

A woman is raped and she reports this to her superiors and they 

do not do anything about it. And when she finally gets to see a 

military doctor that confirms the rape, then there is some question 

about the evidence from the rape kit having disappeared. What 

would you do to make sure that that evidence is not lost in your 

position as the head of diplomatic security? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Senator, diplomatic security agents are trained 

law enforcement officials. Part of their training, I am quite sure, 

is how to preserve a chain of evidence in a criminal case, and I 

would expect if a diplomatic security agent was involved in such an 

investigation, that he or she would carry out their responsibilities 

in accordance with their training. 

Senator NELSON. Did you serve in this position before? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. When? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I served as Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security from 1996 to 1998, the same position for which I am being 

considered now. 

Senator NELSON. 2 years. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. What was your training then with regard to the 

preservation of criminal evidence? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I myself am not a law enforcement officer, nor is 

the Assistant Secretary. But the people who work for the Assistant 

Secretary are all badge-trained law enforcement officers, and the 

training was exactly as I described, training in, among other 

things, preserving evidence in a criminal case. 

Senator NELSON. One of the big problems that we discovered in 

this hearing about the rapes was that there was just not coordination between the various agencies. Since you, obviously, have some 

experience having been in this position before, what do you think 

that you could do to improve the communication and coordination 

so that these criminal sexual assaults, number one, get reported 

and evidence is preserved and that they are reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities? 

456 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, sir, I would say that in a case which came 

to the attention of the Department of State and which possibly 

could involve a jurisdiction of another agency, such as you described, it would certainly be a very important part of the Department’s investigation of the case to ensure that other agencies with 

jurisdiction are communicated with, liaised with, and that proper 

attention be paid to exactly the sort of issues such as preservation 

of evidence that you were just describing. 

Senator NELSON. Will you do what you just said? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I certainly will, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Now, there was a Blackwater shooting incident, 

and the Under Secretary of State Kennedy assured us that the diplomatic security agents would be accompanying all the convoys secured by Blackwater and other private security contractor companies. Is that occurring? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. That was one of the recommendations 

that was made by the panel in which I participated, and as I mentioned in earlier testimony, the Department of State responded 

very positively to those recommendations. Additional personnel, 

both on a temporary basis and now on a permanent basis, were assigned to the regional security officer’s office in Baghdad. The size 

of the office was, I believe, more than doubled, and there is a diplomatic security special agent in charge, in operational control of 

every movement involving protected people in Iraq, not just in the 

Baghdad area, but throughout. 

Senator NELSON. In your position, will you oversee the coordination between the uniformed military and those security contractors? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, sir. The same panel in which I participated 

made a number of recommendations designed to increase the coordination between the military and State Department convoys. As 

you can imagine, there is all sorts of room for confusion when you 

have civilian convoys protecting embassy personnel that are operating in what the military considers its own battle space. There are 

areas where things can go wrong, and we made a number of recommendations to ensure that nothing did go wrong, including 

much better coordination between the tactical operation centers of 

the respective commands, providing radios to the vehicles that had 

access to military channels, and things of that nature. I think all 

of the recommendations that the panel made in that regard have 

been carried out. 

Senator NELSON. The Department of State just conveyed to 

Blackwater an additional 1-year extension on their contract without other bids being solicited. Can you tell me about why there was 

a decision that there would not be competition? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The contract in question is 

what is called a task order under the overall worldwide personal 

protective security contract, which is the blanket contract. That 

worldwide contract was competed when it went into effect, I think 

it was 2 years ago, as were the individual task orders, including 

the one you mention, for protective security in Baghdad. The overall contract or the task orders, I should say, have renewal clauses, 

options to renew. I think there are four of them following the iniVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00464 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
457 

tial award. Those renewals are commonly and routinely exercised 

after a period of review. 

In this particular case, the performance of the contractor was reviewed very closely in connection also with the various steps that 

have been taken to improve the oversight of the contract and the 

alternatives should the contract not be renewed. And the decision 

was made at the time to exercise the renewal option. 

I have got to specify, Senator, that that contract could be terminated at any time for the convenience of the Government or otherwise. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Corker? 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think our ambassadorial nominees are thanking God at this 

moment they are not dealing with private contractors. 

So, anyway, thank you all again for being here. 

Mr. Jones, I am curious. In a country like you are going to that 

basically is a place where narcotics are being transported because 

of the tremendous demand here in our country—let us face it. I 

mean, that is why the issue exists. When you get a country like 

that and we are working with them to counter narcotics, what is 

in it for them to be focused on this issue? 

Mr. JONES. Senator, I think there is a great deal of 

interconnectivity, as we say. There is a large American population 

living in Guyana. There is also a very large expatriate Guyanese 

population living here in the States. I think everyone realizes that 

this is a question of security, and I think the Government of Guyana and certainly the president and those persons in government 

realize that this is a question that involves the entire hemisphere. 

And so I think they will work closely with us, and I intend to extend our efforts to work closely with them to see if we can get a 

handle on this. But it is interconnected. We believe certainly that 

just simply because it passes through Guyana and then makes its 

way northward, that it is not going to stay there, that at some 

point in time, it is going to have an adverse impact on the local 

government. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Ms. DiCarlo, there has been some discussion about some missions into Somalia, I guess. Could you give us a status of that and 

why that would be something at this point in time that might be 

necessary? 

Ms. DICARLO. Thank you, Senator. The Security Council adopted 

a resolution a few months ago asking the Secretary-General to look 

into the possibility of a UN peacekeeping operation in Somalia and 

to do contingency planning for it. Various assessments are in the 

process of taking place now. 

The situation in Somali is a dire one. We have an African Union 

force—it is very small—trying to help protect the transitional government, a government that is quite pro-Western and internationally recognized. The AU force, however, will need support. We have 

seen traditionally in Africa where the African Union goes in at a 

time when peacekeepers cannot, but then UN peacekeeping forces 

come in afterwards as the situation stabilizes somewhat. 

We would like the Secretary-General to continue this planning. 

We think we do have an opportunity now with a transitional govVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00465 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
458 

ernment in place to help stabilize the country. We have a very dire 

humanitarian situation in Somalia. We know that this would not 

be an easy operation, and obviously, a lot of planning, a lot of 

thought would have to take place, and should there be such a mission, it would have to be very targeted and have a very specific 

mandate. We do know, however, that Somalia, without additional 

international support, is going to have a very tough road ahead. 

Senator CORKER. You know and you have a great sense of the 

culture, if you will, within the United Nations. We have perceptions based upon our visits and interactions, but you are there and 

know it. What is it about the UNDP program and the lack of transparency that the United Nations continues to want to have there 

by not allowing member states access to audits? That is something 

that is difficult for me to understand, and I would like for you to 

enlighten us a little bit, if you would. 

Ms. DICARLO. Thank you, sir. I will try. 

First of all, the UN is very large. It has the Secretariat in New 

York, a number of funds and programs that are under the Secretariat, plus many affiliated agencies. It is quite a vast system. One 

of the things that we have asked for is system-wide coherence in 

a range of areas, certainly in the area of ethics, in the area of 

transparency, accountability. 

We have seen within the Secretariat a number of measures that 

have been adopted in the last few years. We are very pleased to 

see that the office that deals with oversight has been strengthened. 

We want to see it strengthened even further and be more independent, have an independent budget. 

What we have not seen is a transfer yet to the various funds and 

programs, and, again, affiliated agencies would not be my responsibility, but certainly the Bureau of International Organizations at 

the State Department is working with them. We want to see the 

kinds of measures that have been put in place in the Secretariat 

also put in place now in the funds and programs. UNDP is one of 

them, as is UNICEF. 

It is a work in progress. We still need a lot more work in the Secretariat as well, particularly in the area of oversight of procurement, better procurement practices. There is an ethics office now, 

financial disclosure forms for senior members. But we do need to 

see this system- wide. 

Senator CORKER. You mentioned or something was brought up 

about MINUSTAH in Haiti. And General Santos Cruz is most impressive. He is somebody that just causes you to feel tremendous 

faith, if you will, in what he is doing, and certainly I think, from 

what I can tell, he is doing an outstanding job there. 

What are the characteristics of that effort that you would take 

to other places mentality-wise to say these are the things that we 

ought to be doing other places as it relates to peacekeeping? 

Ms. DICARLO. I think one of the successes of MINUSTAH is that 

there are a number of countries in the region, the Latin American 

region, in the force. We have strong regional support, very strong 

both in terms of troops, police. So we have a real regional input 

and that is something that has helped the force considerably. 

Also, I remember I was working on the staff of the National Security Council when MINUSTAH was established and when the 

459 

marines first went into Haiti and then a UN force followed. And 

it was a very bumpy start, but one thing that happened, I would 

say, within a year into the operation was that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General realized that if he was not 

going to be coordinating the assistance of donors, the activities of 

all the many donors to Haiti, that we would not be making 

progress. And the UN has done a good job in Haiti of assuming 

that role. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Boswell, I wonder if you would just give me 

a couple of sentences, if you will, on what transformational diplomacy is and, if you would, its effect on diplomatic security, and 

then step down one level and give me its effect, if you will, on the 

stovepiping that generally occurs as it relates to working with 

other organizations of Government to counter threats that you, in 

fact, have to deal with. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you for the question, Senator. I have been 

out of State Department for a number of years, so I am going to 

be a little careful about what I say about transformational diplomacy. 

But transformational diplomacy, as the Secretary proposed it, as 

I understand it, was to shift the effort from certain geographic 

areas where the State Department was heavily represented such as 

in western Europe to areas of increasing concern. It was also an 

effort, as I understand it, to more broadly represent the United 

States overseas in those areas of concern. That means, for example, 

diplomatic posts of different types than the standard embassy/consulate construct that we are all familiar with. 

That poses issues and problems for protecting U.S. personnel in 

those kinds of situations, and if I am confirmed, it is going to be 

a very high priority of mine to look into that issue. We do not want 

diplomats, obviously, clustered only inside fortress embassies. They 

cannot do their work properly that way. So we need to find ways 

to protect them as they are out in the field. A very large percentage 

of Foreign Service officers have served in Iraq and Afghanistan already, sometimes more than once, and it is likely that service in 

those kinds of zones will continue. 

I expect that the State Department will be asked to operate in 

zones of conflict in the future where there is no major U.S. military 

presence, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan now, and we will have to 

find ways to protect our people in those circumstances. And that 

will be a very big challenge, but it is a very high priority of the 

Department to operate that way and I think it is the right priority. 

And the Bureau of Diplomatic Security has got to find a way to discharge its responsibilities in the face of those obligations. 

Senator CORKER. And as to the stovepiping that exists between 

the State Department and other Departments of Government dealing with threats? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I think the Senate had before it for confirmation— 

the ICUS had before it for confirmation a couple of weeks ago the 

new Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Mr. Mike 

Leiter, who is a colleague of mine at the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence where I work right now. And eliminating the 

stovepipes you are talking about is precisely what the National 

460 

Counterterrorism Center does. I think it is a very, very good-news 

story for the U.S. since 9/11. 

The State Department and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security is 

part of that. The bureau has representatives in the National 

Counterterrorism Center is part of the meetings, three meetings a 

day, video teleconferences a day, that take place on updating of 

threat information globally. So I think the stovepipes, while deeply, 

deeply ingrained in the culture, particularly of the intelligence community in the United States, is—I think the Office of the Director 

of National Intelligence and, in particular, the National Counterterrorism Center is doing a lot to eliminate those stovepipes and 

ensure the proper sharing of information for the safety of our citizens. 

Senator CORKER. Ms. Ayalde, any thoughts about your hopefully 

new, very soon future home and their relations with us as it relates 

to a free trade agreement? Have there been discussions, thoughts? 

Mr. BOSWELL. I am afraid, Senator, I am not aware of discussions between—oh, I am sorry. 

Senator CORKER. That is all right. That is a good answer, by the 

way, coming from you. Thank you. [Laughter.] 

Senator CORKER. I apologize. 

Ms. AYALDE. Thank you, Senator. 

I understand that that is a topic of bilateral discussion in the 

broader sense and certainly is an opportunity that we will need to 

look at as we move forward with this new administration of President Lugo. 

Senator CORKER. So there have been no discussions at all from 

their side. 

Ms. AYALDE. At this point? 

Senator CORKER. Yes. 

Ms. AYALDE. Well, certainly not with the new administration. 

They take office on the 15th of August. 

Senator CORKER. Well, but even his predecessor, no discussions. 

Ms. AYALDE. They are very interested, as I understand it, in increased market access. There are some issues with some of the existing preferences programs, and they are currently under discussion in a very robust way. But beyond that, I would not venture 

to say at this point. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I think we have four very highly 

qualified nominees, and I have no further questions. I hope that 

when you finish, that they and their families have a wonderful 

brunch together and celebrate the survival of an hour and 15 minutes. [Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. It will not be brunch. It will be lunch. 

Thank you all for your public service. Thank you for offering 

yourself for public service. 

And the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

461 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LILIANA AYALDE AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE TO PARAGUAY

Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee. 

I am honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the next 

U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay. I want to thank President Bush and 

Secretary Rice for their confidence and trust in sending my name to the Senate for 

your consideration. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working closely 

with this Committee and with your colleagues in the Congress to advance our interests in Paraguay and in the region. 

For most of my 27 years as a career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the 

United States Agency for International Development (USAID), I served in Latin 

America. I hope that you will find that my professional experience in the region has 

prepared me well for this important assignment as the Chief of Mission in Paraguay. Most recently, I served as USAID Mission Director in Colombia, where I managed one of USAID’s largest programs in the world and the largest in the Western 

Hemisphere. We worked with vulnerable groups, victims, and those displaced by the 

violence while developing viable and licit economic opportunities for those who had 

been forced to engage in illegal coca production, trafficking, and at risk of joining 

illegal armed and criminal groups. We strengthened governance and helped build 

the capacity to expand state presence in territories with weak institutionality or no 

state presence. We supported judicial reform and promoted the respect for human 

rights. Before Colombia, I served in Bolivia during a period of much political and 

social turmoil. I also served in Nicaragua, re-engaging bilateral relations after a 

USAID absence of 12 years. This, plus my experience in Guatemala and Bangladesh, prepared me well for defending U.S. interests in challenging environments. 

I have worked closely with government counterparts, civil society, private sector, 

and the U.S. interagency community in developing synergies and coming to agreement on common grounds as we promote the fight against poverty, drugs, and corruption. 

If confirmed I will arrive in Paraguay at a historic moment. My experience in development and diplomacy will serve the United States well as we engage Presidentelect Lugo, supporting his efforts to promote a more just and prosperous democracy. 

I would certainly draw on my experience administering our foreign assistance programs to ensure that Embassy resources are wisely used, and that security remains 

a top priority. If confirmed, I will also do everything in my power to ensure the safety of Embassy staff, and of the thousands of Americans who reside in Paraguay and 

those who visit each year. 

The United States has long had close and friendly ties to Paraguay. During the 

last two years of the Millennium Challenge Corporation Threshold Program, we 

have seen the Paraguayans implement many important reforms to improve transparency, eradicate corruption, and improve business climate and economic freedom. 

We look forward to continuing this process with a second Threshold Program with 

the incoming Lugo administration. President-elect Lugo has made fighting corruption a key part of his platform and our assistance is designed to support his efforts 

toward that end. 

Paraguay has been a good partner on security and counter-narcotics issues. Select 

Paraguayan law enforcement units are effectively cooperating with us and their 

neighbors to stem the flow of illicit drugs, arms, pirated goods, and persons through 

Paraguay’s territory. 

Our accomplishments thus far are a prelude to what remains to be done - and 

I look forward, if confirmed, to the challenges ahead, to working with a Paraguayan 

Government committed to building a more stable and prosperous Paraguay. Promoting U.S. exports will be one of my priorities and I am optimistic that there is 

much the U.S. private sector can contribute to the development of Paraguayan agricultural potential. And, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, if confirmed, I 

look forward to working with you and with your colleagues in Congress as we pursue our interests in Paraguay. I would be pleased to welcome many of you to the 

U.S. Embassy in Asuncion. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

462 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC J. BOSWELL, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF STATE FOR DIPLOMATIC SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before 

you today as the President’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Director of the Office of Foreign Missions. 

I want to thank the President and Secretary Rice for the confidence they have 

placed in me, and for this opportunity to be of further service to the Department 

of State and to our nation. I believe I am well qualified for this position. 

I served for 27 years as a career Foreign Service Officer in a variety of assignments both in Washington, D.C., and overseas, culminating in my service as Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security from 1996 to 1998, the same position for 

which you are considering me today. I left the State Department a decade ago, but 

I did not leave the security world. While working at the United Nations in 2004, 

I was responsible for developing and implementing the security structure that was 

put in place for the United Nations system in the aftermath of the tragic bombing 

of the UN offices in Baghdad in August 2003. And in my current position in the 

Office of the Director for National Intelligence, I have been serving as the top security policy official for the intelligence community. 

But my heart has always been with the State Department and the Foreign Service. I believe a career in the Foreign Service, whether as a Foreign Service Officer, 

or a Diplomatic Security Special Agent, or any of the other Foreign Service and Civil 

Service career paths in the Department of State, is an unparalleled opportunity to 

serve our nation alongside patriotic, dedicated, highly motivated colleagues. That is 

why I chose to accept this nomination and hope to be confirmed. 

Mr. Chairman, our State Department personnel serve in some of the most dangerous locations on earth. The mission of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security is to 

keep them safe, and to provide a secure environment for the conduct of our nation’s 

foreign policy. 

But security for our diplomats is only one of many challenges facing the Bureau. 

Diplomatic Security is a global organization with expertise in international investigations, threat analysis, cyber security, dignitary protection, security technology, 

counterterrorism, and so much more. It is the security and law enforcement arm of 

the U.S. Department of State, committed to protecting our nation’s people, property, 

and information. Diplomatic Security is one of the largest bureaus in the Department with a workforce of more than 2,500 professionals, consisting of special agents, 

engineers, technicians, diplomatic couriers, and Civil Service specialists. These specialists oversee another 32,000 contract guards and security specialists around the 

globe. 

Diplomatic Security has a broad range of responsibilities including the protection 

of domestic State Department facilities as well as U.S. embassies and missions overseas. It also plays a key role in combating visa and passport fraud, and has a robust 

investigations program that is critical to homeland security for the nation. It trains 

foreign police and security officers to combat terrorism through its Antiterrorism Assistance program. It also protects foreign dignitaries who visit the United States. 

While it is the responsibility of the U.S. Secret Service to protect visiting heads of 

state, Diplomatic Security protects the hundreds of foreign ministers and delegations that visit the United States every year. Many of these visitors are from the 

most politically volatile countries in the world, requiring special protective measures. 

The Office of Foreign Missions is another important element of the Bureau. Its 

primary role is to defend national security by coordinating the activities of U.S. missions abroad and of foreign missions and international organizations in the United 

States. It develops and implements policies to improve the treatment of U.S. overseas personnel through the application of reciprocal treatment for foreign missions 

in the U.S. It also protects the interests of the United States and its citizens from 

foreign diplomats’ abuses of privileges and immunities. 

The security challenges facing the Foreign Service today are enormous. Drawing 

on the expertise I have acquired throughout my professional life, including my most 

recent experience at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I believe I 

can provide the leadership necessary to guide the Bureau at this critical time in our 

nation’s history. 

463 

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is a critical part of America’s security apparatus. I was proud to be the Assistant Secretary a decade ago, and would be honored 

to have the opportunity to serve in that office once again. If confirmed, I will assume 

my duties with great enthusiasm and commitment. I pledge to work cooperatively 

with the Congress, with others in the Executive Branch, and to serve the American 

people. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY DICARLO NOMINEE FOR ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR SPECIAL POLITICAL AFFAIRS

TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

I am honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to be Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs to the United Nations. I am grateful 

to President Bush for my nomination and to Secretary Rice for her confidence. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing during a very busy time. 

If confirmed, I look forward to advancing America’s interests at the United Nations at a time of great flux in the international system, with unprecedented threats 

to peace and security that go beyond the traditional security challenges, and at a 

time of historic opportunities for the United States. As a career member of the Foreign Service, I have dealt with many of the issues that come before the United Nations. I served as Director of the Washington office of the U.S. Mission to the United 

Nations in 2001, as the international community grappled with the horrors of the 

attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11. The United Nations Security 

Council responded immediately to these attacks with the unanimous adoption of 

Resolution 1373, which criminalized terrorist acts by non-state actors, and obliged 

governments to take the necessary legal measures to prevent such acts. As Director 

for United Nations Affairs on the National Security Council staff, I contributed to 

the development of Resolution 1540, which criminalized proliferation of weapons of 

mass destruction, and worked on a plan for reform of the United Nations that was 

deliberated at the 2005 World Summit. 

If confirmed, I will help represent the United States at the United Nations Security Council. Many challenges face the Council, but none are more serious than preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Iran has ignored calls by the 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Security Council to suspend 

fully and verifiably all proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, including enrichment-related activities. In response, the Security Council has adopted three binding 

resolutions placing Iran under sanctions unless it ceased uranium enrichment activities and cooperated with the IAEA. The last, Resolution 1803, made clear that 

the Council would consider adoption of further appropriate measures should Iran 

fail to comply. 

The United Nations has served an important role in combating terrorism, and the 

Administration is committed to strengthening the organization’s ability to address 

this threat. Our mission to the United Nations is working to strengthen the effectiveness of the 1267 Committee, which imposes targeted sanctions on the Taliban, 

Usama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and to intensify the efforts of the Counter Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate to develop the capacity of Members 

States to prevent terrorist acts. 

Mr. Chairman, the Administration believes United Nations peacekeeping to be in 

our national interest. Through UN peacekeeping operations, the United States is 

able to leverage military and financial resources to resolve crises throughout the 

world. It deserves and receives our political and financial support as well as our 

close attention and oversight. Should I be confirmed, peacekeeping would be one of 

my major responsibilities. I would work with partners on the Council to achieve 

more effective peacekeeping operations that are appropriate for the circumstances 

in a given country and achievable within available resources. Given the growth of 

our contributions to peacekeeping, which have almost doubled in the last two years, 

I would work with others in the Administration to look seriously at possibilities for 

achieving savings in these operations. 

The humanitarian crisis in Darfur remains of utmost concern and the Administration will continue to press for rapid deployment of the United Nations-African Union 

hybrid peacekeeping operation in Darfur. When fully deployed, this peacekeeping 

mission will be the largest of existing missions and will contribute to the protection 

of civilians in that troubled region. Finding an appropriate means to address the 

long-running political and humanitarian crisis in Somalia is another high priority. 

464 

A serious concern for the United States is sexual exploitation and abuse in UN 

peacekeeping missions. If confirmed, I will continue our efforts to ensure that the 

United Nations carefully monitors the behavior of UN peacekeepers and enforces its 

policy of zero tolerance regarding sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. 

There are many issues where the Security Council has played a vital role. The 

Council helped to stabilize the situation in Lebanon by calling for the withdrawal 

of all foreign forces from Lebanon and expanding the mandate of the existing United 

Nations peacekeeping mission to assist the Government of Lebanon in extending its 

control throughout Lebanese territory. We must, however, continue to press for full 

implementation of Council resolutions calling for all countries to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon, and to demand 

that Syria and Iran refrain from destabilizing the country. 

If confirmed, I will seek opportunities to raise matters of great concern to the 

United States before the Security Council. The Security Council should continue to 

monitor the political situation and humanitarian crisis in Burma and actively support the Secretary General’s efforts to engage the regime in a dialogue with the opposition. The Council should also press for peaceful, fair and free elections in 

Zimbabwe. 

Mr. Chairman, working through the United Nations, the United States can bring 

the full weight of the international community to our foreign policy objectives. To 

be truly effective, the United Nations must be able to address the new threats to 

peace and security and to implement reforms aimed at strengthening this important 

body. American leadership is essential. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

this Committee to advance our interests at the United Nations and to assist the 

international community in meeting these new challenges. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN MELVIN JONES, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO

THE COOPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today as the nominee to serve as the next United States Ambassador to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. I sincerely appreciate the trust and 

confidence placed in me by President Bush and Secretary of State Rice in putting 

my nomination forward. If confirmed by the Senate, I pledge to work closely with 

this Committee and with your Congressional colleagues both to advance our nation’s 

interests and to protect our citizens in Guyana and the region. 

Before I proceed further, and with the indulgence of the Chair, I would like to 

introduce two members of my family. With me today are my wife, Aaronia Jones 

and our daughter Christie Jones-Aden. 

Mr. Chairman, for more than 27 years I have served as a career Foreign Service 

Officer, including at hardship posts in several regions of the world; these experiences have prepared me well to lead the U.S. mission in Georgetown. Guyana is a 

country striving to strengthen its fragile democracy in the face of daunting problems 

including an HIV/AIDS epidemic, poverty, racial tensions, drug trafficking, arms 

and human smuggling, ever rising rates of violent crime, and corruption that 

plagues many of its law enforcement agencies. To make matters worse, Guyana suffers from a ‘‘brain drain,’’ as many of its educated citizens emigrate. I welcome this 

challenge to use my experience, my creativity, and my leadership abilities to represent U.S. interests in the context of these very serious issues. Guyana’s problems 

affect U.S. security because of our interconnectedness with countries throughout the 

Caribbean region and because Guyana is part of the family of democracies in the 

Hemisphere. The United States has a special link with Guyana through the many 

Guyanese who have immigrated to our nation, many of whom are dual nationals 

and maintain strong ties to family remaining in Guyana. We are Guyana’s largest 

trading partner, and we share a commitment to fighting the scourge of HIV/AIDs. 

The President’s PEPFAR program and the more than $100 million Congress has appropriated since 2004 continues to make a profound impact in a country where 

USAID estimates that 2.5% of the adult population is infected with HIV/AIDS. 

Through the partnership that involves USAID, CDC, Peace Corps, DOD and other 

donors, PEPFAR has provided AIDS testing for more than 29,000 people, and over 

2,000 individuals receive life-saving anti-retroviral drug therapy. 

Guyana is becoming an ally in regional security and in the fight against narcotrafficking. In 2007, the government’s drug seizures were up, but Guyana needs assistance to professionalize law enforcement personnel and to weed out corrupt elements. If confirmed, I hope to work toward re-establishment of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency office at the Embassy, something that President Jagdeo has requested 

and which DEA’s leadership also supports. The two-year $6.7 million Millennium 

465 

Challenge Threshold program for Guyana began implementation in fiscal 2008. 

Under USAID direction, the Threshold program seeks to help the Government improve its fiscal management, including implementation of a new VAT, and to improve the business climate by modernizing the business registration process. 

If confirmed, I will work to see that this effort proves successful. As another priority, if confirmed, I will encourage the government to hold local elections, which 

were last held in 1994 and are long overdue. Local elections, the political dialogue 

and the empowerment that follows will strengthen democracy and serve the country 

well. If confirmed, I will also be accredited to the Caribbean Community 

(CARICOM), which brings together 15 Caribbean states and a number of regional 

observers. I would look forward to working with CARICOM members to advance 

mutual interests in trade, investment, development, security and social policy. 

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the opportunities and tests that await the next 

United States Ambassador to Guyana. I would welcome the opportunity to address 

them, and if confirmed, I will work diligently to strengthen bilateral cooperation and 

to advance U.S. interests in Guyana and the broader CARICOM region. 

RESPONSES OF ERIC BOSWELL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. Why do you want this position? What do you hope to achieve? 

Answer. I am a retired career Foreign Service officer with over 30 years of service 

in the U.S. Government. I am honored to have been nominated for the position of 

Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security and for the opportunity once again to 

be of service to our Nation alongside the patriotic, dedicated, highly motivated professionals of the Department of State. 

Question. What will be your top three priorities? 

Answer. My priorities are: 

• To ensure the safety and security of our diplomats, with particular attention to 

the safety and security of those serving in war zones and other high-threat 

areas. • To participate actively in the global war on terror by combating passport and 

visa fraud. • To do my utmost to obtain the resources necessary for the Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security to operate at maximum effectiveness. 

Question. What do you regard as the major strengths and weaknesses of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security? What measures are you considering to address the 

weaknesses? 

Answer. Based on my previous tenure as Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security and my familiarity with the organization, I believe that DS’s greatest strength 

lies in the quality of personnel the organization has recruited through the years and 

their level of training. These agents, engineers, couriers, and other Foreign Service 

specialists, along with the cadre of Civil Service employees that make up DS, are 

a dedicated, flexible, and dynamic force willing to serve in dangerous and insecure 

locations around the globe to create an environment where American diplomatic initiatives can be pursued. 

The organization’s weakness essentially is that there are many countries with increasing security problems and a finite workforce that is already somewhat 

stretched. The issue of extremism and the resulting attacks on our diplomatic facilities and other symbols of America overseas, along with growing instability in many 

nations and rising levels of crime and violence, portend a need for additional security resources and programs if the United States is to maintain its crucial diplomatic presence overseas. 

My plans to address this do include doing my utmost to ensure that Diplomatic 

Security has the resources necessary to fulfill its mission. However, I will also ensure that there is close attention paid to determining priorities within DS, so that 

the most crucial requirements are fully met, with less important requirements perhaps postponed and moved to a lower priority. Additionally, I fully support the idea 

that Foreign Service officers and their families must be provided with hard skills 

based security training—‘‘Foreign Service Security Tradecraft’’ in essence, so they 

too can become an important part of the overall security solution when asked to 

take assignments to increasingly dangerous and unstable posts. 

Finally, I believe that the Foreign Service must find ways to operate in dangerous 

environments, without relying on the U.S. military having ‘‘boots on the ground.’’ 

This will require DS to have the ability to use contracted security services, but we 

466 

must have more transparent accountability and better contract oversight, and I intend to make that a priority as well. 

Question. You served on the Secretarys Panel on Personal Protective Services in 

Iraq. That panel recommended the hiring of 100 additional DS agents to offset the 

impact of increased DS staffing requirements in Iraq. What is the status of the hiring and training of these agents? 

Answer. The 100 positions were included in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental and 

fiscal year 2009 bridge budget request that is currently with Congress for approval. 

In the interim, DS reprogrammed existing positions to create positions in Iraq. 

Those positions are now being staffed with current DS Special Agents. Upon approval of the budget request, DS will recruit and train the 100 additional personnel 

received from the supplemental funding. 

Question. How many DS agents were assigned to Iraq under chief of mission authority as of September 30, 2007? How many such agents were there on March 30, 

2008? 

Answer. As of September 30, 2007, there were 36 Special Agent positions assigned 

for Iraq. Subsequent to September 2007, an additional 45 positions were authorized. 

As of March 30, 2008, 57 Special Agents were actually on the ground. Upon the 

completion of the required training by September of 2008, the full complement of 

81 Special Agents are scheduled to be at Post. 

Question. The Panel also recommended that a DS agent accompany every movement of Personal Protective Services in Iraq. On what date was that recommendation implemented? Please provide a copy of any relevant memorandum, cable, or directive implementing this recommendation. Has it been adhered to? 

Answer. By early October 2007, the 12 TDY Special Agents (SAs) deployed to Iraq 

began accompanying the Private Security Contractors (PSCs) on protective motorcade movements. Simultaneously, 45 new FTE positions were established, assignments were made, and the required training courses commenced. All 45 positions 

are scheduled to be filled by September 2008. 

The assignment of a DS Special Agent to accompany the movement of Personal 

Protective Services in Iraq was a recommendation of the ‘‘Report of the Secretary 

of State’s Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq.’’ This recommendation was 

accepted by the Secretary, the United States Embassy in Baghdad, and the Bureau 

of Diplomatic Security. The recommendation has been fully implemented in Baghdad and on a prioritized basis in the Provinces as more agents arrive in country. 

Question. How many direct hire positions are authorized for the Bureau domestically? Of these, how many positions are vacant (use the most recent date in the last 

four months for which such information is available, but indicate the date used)? 

Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is authorized domestically 715 General Schedule positions and 1,056 Foreign Service positions. The Foreign Service positions not only include special agents, but also security engineering officers, security technicians, and diplomatic couriers. Of the authorized domestic number, there 

are 132 General Schedule positions vacant and 237 Foreign Service positions vacant. This information is current as of April 30, 2008, and was supplied by the 

Human Resources Monthly Resource Statistic Report. 

The total number of DS Special Agents assigned domestically is approximately 

800. Of that, approximately 550 agents are assigned to DS Field Offices, 150 agents 

are assigned to full-time protection assignments, and the remainder assigned to 

Headquarters and liaison assignments. 

Question. How many direct hire positions are authorized for the Bureau overseas? 

Of these, how many positions are vacant (use the most recent date in the last four 

months for which such information is available, but indicate the date used)? 

Answer. DS has authorized 698 Special Agent positions overseas. As of June 20, 

2008, DS records indicate that 58 of the 698 overseas Special Agent positions are 

currently vacant, due to summer transfer gaps and a shortfall in the Special Agent 

manpower pool. 

RESPONSES OF ERIC BOSWELL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. How many DS agents are in Iraq and Afghanistan and where are they 

located? How many contractors are performing protective duties in those countries 

that would otherwise be handled by full-time DS employees? Please provide a list 

467 

of the number of contractors, by location, function, and company in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Answer. There are 81 DS Special Agent (SA) positions authorized for Iraq: 58 located in Baghdad, 8 in Erbil, 6 in Al Hillah, 5 in Tallil, and 4 in Basrah. The Regional Security Officer (RSO) retains the authority to reassign his personnel resources between any of the five locations as operational requirements dictate. Currently there are 52 permanently assigned SAs and 16 temporarily assigned SAs in 

Iraq. DS anticipates that all 81 authorized positions in Iraq will be filled by September 2008. 

The Afghanistan staffing pattern currently consists of 16 DS SA positions, 4 of 

which were just recently created in April 2008. Ten of the 12 full-time DS SA positions in Afghanistan are filled with permanently assigned Special Agents, and two 

temporarily assigned SAs augment the permanent staff. The complement of SAs in 

Afghanistan will increase to 15 by the end of September 2008 with the 16th position 

being staffed by the end of the year. All DS positions in Afghanistan are located 

in Kabul. 

As for the number of contractors performing personal protective services in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, as the table below indicates, 837 contractors are performing protective security duties that otherwise would be handled by DS Agents. 

WPPS II IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN STAFFING 

Task Order Location Contractor 

Protective 

security 

specialist 

(PSS) 

Support Static guard Total 

004 ................... Kabul ........................... Blackwater ................... 78 21 20 119 

006 ................... Baghdad ...................... Blackwater ................... 474 80 0 554 

007 ................... Basrah/Tallil ................ Triple Canopy ............... 80 33 166 *(45) 279 *(158) 

008 ................... Al Hillah ....................... Blackwater ................... 77 17 162 256 

009 ................... Kirkuk/Erbil .................. DynCorp ....................... 78 23 52 153 

010 ................... Iraq Aviation ................ Blackwater ................... 50 108 0 158 

Iraq and Afghanistan Authorized Staffing ............................................ 837 282 400 1,519 

Actual Staffing to Reflect TO–7 Basrah Transition .............................. 837 282 279* 1,398 

TO–7 Basrah guard force authorized 166, but currently staffed 45 due to transition to Basrah Air Station. 

TO–8 is returning to full staffing, reflected above. 

TO–10 continues to transition to full staffing. 

Question. In your testimony you noted that the number of DS agents in Baghdad 

dramatically increased following a report in which you were one of the primary 

drafters. Please provide before/after DS staffing numbers that would illustrate this. 

Answer. Prior to September 2007, there were 36 Special Agent positions authorized for Iraq. Subsequent to September 2007, an additional 45 positions were authorized. 

The current staffing for the 45 new positions is as follows: 20 positions have been 

filled with DS Special Agents on permanent assignment; 16 positions are filled with 

TDY DS Special Agents, and 25 DS Special Agents are completing High Threat 

Training scheduled to arrive at Post on or before September of 2008. 

Question. Please list the location of the domestic offices of Diplomatic Security and 

the number of DS employees in each and the primary function of each office. 

Answer. To safeguard the nations borders and ensure the integrity of the U.S. 

passport and visa programs, DS Special Agents assigned to the below field offices 

investigate criminal attempts to fraudulently obtain U.S. passports and visas, and 

detect and dismantle identity document vendors operating in the United States. 

In 2007, DS’s domestic field offices opened 4,725 criminal investigations for passport and visa fraud, arrested 1,550 individuals, and seized nearly $3 million in assets. DS Special Agents are assigned to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces, 

ICE’s Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces, and the U.S. Marshals Fugitive 

Task Forces. DS field office agents also conduct protective security operations, ensuring the safety of the Secretary of State worldwide, annually performing 290 protective operations for foreign dignitaries visiting the United States, and congressional delegations during overseas travel. 

Boston Field Office–26; Chicago Field Office–41; St. Louis Resident Office–2; 

Houston Field Office–34; Dallas Resident Office–5; Los Angeles Field Office–52; 

Honolulu Resident Office–3; Phoenix Resident Office–3; San Diego Resident Office– 

7; Miami Field Office–49; Atlanta Resident Office–8; New Orleans Resident Office– 

4; San Juan Resident Office–3; New York Field Office–126; Philadelphia Resident 

468 

Office–7; San Francisco Field Office–39; Denver Resident Office–7; Seattle Resident 

Office–5; Washington Field Office–121; Greensboro Resident Office–7. 

Question. The Department has made recommendations with respect to improving 

the oversight and performance of PSD movements in Iraq. Are they being fully implemented (please be specific to each recommendation from the Kennedy report)? 

How many more DS agents are in Iraq now? How has this affected operations in 

other parts of the world? 

Answer. Please see the attached chart for the status of each recommendation from 

the Kennedy Report. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S REPORT ON 

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES IN IRAQ (REVISED 06/19/08) 

Recommendation Status 

1. The State Department should urgently engage with the 

Department of Justice and the Office of Management and 

Budget, and then with the Congress, to establish a clear 

legal basis for holding contractors accountable under U.S. 

law.

—An interagency working group drafted legislation to clarify 

and expand the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act 

(MEJA) to hold private security contractors overseas accountable for offenses 

—The Department of Justice is taking the lead on further 

discussions of this issue with Senate staff. 

—The Department of State’s Legal Advisor’s Office is involved as needed. 

—The Department of State’s Legal Advisor’s Office will stay 

engaged in this process until legislation is passed. 

2. The Department of State should work with the Department 

of Defense to determine how to commence discussions 

with the Government of Iraq on a new regulatory framework for PPS contractors.

—U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF– 

I), and the Iraqi Ministry of Interior continue to negotiate 

a Status of Forces Agreement and a Strategic Framework 

Agreement. 

—This recommendation is complete. (06/06/08) 

3. The requirement to expand security oversight requires an 

overall increase in the Diplomatic Security Service’s authorized staffing level. The Department of State should 

approach the Office of Management and Budget and request in the final appropriations action for fiscal year 

2008 an increase of 100 positions and the requisite salary and operating costs in order to provide the needed 

staffing in Iraq without stripping other missions of their 

security resources.

—The Department is reviewing options to augment personnel to fulfill this requirement. 

4. When the FBI investigation into the September 16, 2007, 

incident is completed, the Embassy should submit its 

recommendation as to whether the continued services of 

the contractor involved is consistent with the accomplishment of the overall United States mission in Iraq.

—The Embassy and the Department are awaiting the results of the FBI’s investigation. 

5. The Regional Security Office should be provided with additional Department of State Special Agents so that an 

Assistant Regional Security Officer can accompany PPS 

movements. The State Department should ensure that 

each A/RSO should complete an Iraq-specific orientation 

program.

—Forty-five new full time employee (FTE) DS Special Agents 

positions were created for Iraq. Currently, 11 of these 

new positions are staffed at Post. Thirty-four DS Agents 

are completing High Threat Training and all positions will 

be filled by Sept. 2008. 

—Additionally, the RSO staff is currently augmented by 16 

temporary duty (TDY) DS personnel. 

—All DS Special Agents complete Iraq-specific training at 

the DS Training Center and Foreign Service Institute prior 

to deployment. 

6. The Worldwide Personal Protective Service contract should 

be amended to require the contractor to provide a limited 

number of Arabic language staff for use as needed.

—The WPPS contract was modified to require eight Protective Security Specialist/Translators, as requested by the 

RSO, to serve throughout Iraq. 

—This recommendation is complete. (04/02/08) 

469 

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S REPORT ON 

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES IN IRAQ (REVISED 06/19/08)—Continued 

Recommendation Status 

7. Additional training modules should be added under the 

Worldwide Protective Services contract to enhance the 

cultural awareness of assigned personnel, acquaint them 

with diplomatic structures and procedures, and familiarize them with Multi-National Force-I tactics, techniques, and procedures.

—The WPPS contract was modified to require that all WPPS 

personnel complete the Iraq Cultural Awareness training 

program developed by the DS Training Center and the online ‘‘Working in an Embassy’’ course offered by the Foreign Service Institute. 

—This recommendation is complete. (06/05/08) 

8. To tighten the ground rules for the use of deadly force, 

and to ensure greater parallelism with USCENTCOM rules 

on the use of force by contracted security in Iraq, the 

U.S. Mission Firearms Policy should be revised to specify, 

without limiting the inherent right to take action necessary for self-defense, if an authorized employee must 

fire his/her weapon, he/she must fire only aimed shots; 

fire with due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders; 

and make every effort to avoid civilian causalities.

—The Departments of State and Defense agreed upon common principles for the Rules for the Use of Force. 

—The updated Mission Firearms Policy incorporating these 

revised Rules for the Use of Force was signed into effect 

by the DCM on February 2, 2008. 

—This recommendation is complete. (02/26/08) 

9. The Regional Security Office (RSO) should be provided 

video and audio recording equipment for each security 

vehicle, audio recording equipment in the Tactical Operations Center to record all radio transmissions; and computer enhancements to record all Blue Force Tracking 

Data.

—To date, video recording systems have been installed into 

133 mission vehicles throughout Iraq, and installation 

continues. 

—The radio recording system in the RSO’s Tactical Operations Center is operational, and all Embassy radio 

transmissions are recorded. 

—Post implemented long-term recording of all BFT data. 

BFT data is stored on external hard drives, expanding retention capabilities. 

10. The Regional Security Office should place a readable 

number (like a license plate) on the right rear door of 

each vehicle utilized, to enable anyone wishing to question its mode of operation to identify the unit of the Regional Security Office, which can then review the matter 

and take appropriate action.

—For operational security reasons this action is being reviewed. The issue will be discussed with the Iraqi Ministry of Interior during licensing and registration discussions. 

11. The Regional Security Office should establish a ‘‘Go 

Team’’ that would proceed as soon as possible to the 

scene of any weapons discharge to gather information 

and material and provide an analysis of what happened 

and why, and prepare a report. The Team would work 

with representatives of the appropriate Government of 

Iraq offices and the U.S. military unit responsible for the 

location.

—The RSO established a dedicated Force Investigation Unit 

(FIU) and reached an agreement with MNF–I for military 

security support for investigators. 

—DS awarded a contract to provide 8 investigators, 2 

translators, and 1 Senior Police Advisor/Liaison contractor 

personnel to support the FIU. 

—The vendor (USIS) is currently recruiting personnel, making arrangements for training, and submitting personnel 

for required security clearances. The FIU support contractors are expected to deploy to Iraq in July 2008. 

—This recommendation is complete. 

470 

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S REPORT ON 

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES IN IRAQ (REVISED 06/19/08)—Continued 

Recommendation Status 

12. An Embassy Joint Incident Review Board should be established to review all incidents involving the use of 

deadly force which are known or asserted to have caused 

injury or death or other serious consequences. The Board 

should be chaired by the Deputy Chief of Mission and 

other members should be the Regional Security Officer, 

another civilian embassy officer with a law enforcement 

background from an agency other than State or Justice, 

and a military officer designated by MNF–I. The Board 

would hear from the Assistant Regional Security Officer 

(A/RSO) who was in the motorcade, review the statements 

provided by the security personnel involved, as well as 

any protectee(s), plus the Go Team report, and then make 

a recommendation to the Ambassador on whether or not 

the use of force appears justified. If it does not feel that 

it was justified, the Department should be informed to 

notify the Department of Justice.

—The Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) approved an Action 

Memo establishing the framework and process for convening an Embassy Joint Incident Review Board. The 

Board has not yet had cause to meet. 

—This recommendation is complete. (06/06/08) 

13. The Regional Security Office and MNF–I should establish 

a permanent working group to develop commonly agreed 

operational procedures; establish a robust liaison element; exchange information; ensure optimal situational 

awareness; and ensure that any issues are discussed and 

quickly resolved.

—A permanent working group was established in November 

2007. 

—In December 2007, the Deputy Secretaries of State and 

Defense signed a Memorandum of Agreement to define 

the authority and responsibility for the accountability and 

operations of private security contractors in Iraq. 

—This recommendation is complete. (11/16/07) 

14. In addition to the above, three specific items should be 

on the agenda for the first meeting..

—Ensuring that the planning, coordinating and routing information which currently flows from the Regional Security Office’s Tactical Operations Center (TOC) to Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF–1) liaison elements located in the 

TOC and posted to the U.S. Military’s Command Post of 

the Future (CPOF) system, is available electronically to all 

operating elements under MNF–I;.

—Providing TOC Spot Reporting electronically to any subordinate military element that wishes to receive it directly;.

—Coordinating the provision of frequencies for the military 

radios and the RSO has ordered to enhance coordination..

—Electronic tracking issues were addressed to everyone’s 

satisfaction by Command Post of the Future, Blue Force 

Tracker, and TAPESTRY. (11/16/07) 

—The RSO and MNC–I exchanged liaison officers in their 

respective Tactical Operations Centers. 

—This recommendation is complete. (05/08/08) 

—RSO Spot Report language entered into MNF–I Combined 

Information Data Network Exchange (CIDNE) database by 

the MNF–I liaison officer. This recommendation is complete. (11/16/07) 

—The RSO received 142 PRC–152 radios, which have been 

loaded and configured with DOD-compatible channels. 

This recommendation is complete. (04/10/08) 

15. Coordination with MNF–I elements could be further enhanced if the pending order for Harris Corporation Model 

PRC–110 radios were received. The Department of State 

should intervene, including with DOD as necessary, to obtain these units.

—Post received 142 PRC–152 radios. 

—All radios have been loaded and configured with DODcompatible channels and were distributed to RSO protective security teams. 

—This recommendation is complete. (04/10/08) 

16. When the ‘‘Go Team’’ is not involved in investigating incidents, it should be employed in pattern analysis. The 

Diplomatic Security service in Washington should provide 

the RSO with a relational database to be used to review 

incidents and determine potential patterns. Such a database would include the following.

—Pattern analysis software was identified, tested, modified, 

and Beta tested. 

—DS/SI/IS received and evaluated final version of revised 

software. 

—Final version of pattern analysis software should be installed at Post during June 2008. 

—This recommendation is complete. 1. Date and Time of incident.

2. Destination and GPS coordinates.

3. GPS coordinates of incident.

4. Mission identifier.

5. Vehicle identification numbers.

6. Incident type.

7. Names of all security personnel involved and their assignments in the motorcade.

8. Such other details as would be useful.

471 

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S REPORT ON 

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES IN IRAQ (REVISED 06/19/08)—Continued 

Recommendation Status 

Data on each event would be input promptly after it occurs. 

Weekly reports should be generated to look for potential 

patterns that would call for systemic or individual 

changes.

17. The Embassy should use the venue afforded by the 

Iraqi-U.S. Joint Commission to establish a working group 

to determine ways to move the licensing process forward 

in an open and transparent way.

—The DCM, Embassy Legal Advisor, RSO, and MNF–I are 

involved in discussions with Iraqi officials concerning private security company licensing and registration processes. 

—This recommendation is complete. (05/08/08) 

18. The Regional Security Officer should establish direct 

channels to senior Iraqi police and security officials in 

Baghdad and in any other city where Provincial Reconstruction Teams are located. This should be a major step 

towards providing information on incidents in a timely 

way so that they can be appropriately investigated.

—The RSO had multiple meetings with senior Iraqi officials 

at the National Police, Ministry of Interior, and Ministry of 

Defense and developed working agreements on coordination, liaison, and mutually supportive engagement..

—RSO personnel serving at Regional Embassy Offices 

(REOs) and Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) have 

also established relations with local Iraqi police and security officials..

—This recommendation is complete. (11/16/07).

19. In order to be more responsive to Iraqi customs, the Embassy must actively seek out the families of those innocent Iraqi civilians killed or seriously injured, or those 

whose property has been damaged by Personal Protective 

Services personnel. The Regional Security Office ‘‘Go 

Team’’, assisted by the U.S. military unit responsible for 

the area in which an incident has occurred, should work 

with counterparts designated by the Government of Iraq 

to promptly offer appropriate condolences and compensation.

—As part of the investigative process, the RSO coordinates 

with MNF–I and the Government of Iraq to facilitate victim access to the Embassy Claims Program. 

—This recommendation is complete. (11/16/07) 

The high number of Special Agent positions required in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

now 97 total, plus those agents in predeployment training impacts our domestic operation. The 1-year tours, training requirement, and transfers impact our ability to 

keep qualified agents and continuity in our programs from which the positions were 

drawn—passport, visa, and identity fraud; internal investigations; protective intelligence investigations; special programs; mobile security training; and field offices. 

In addition, TDY support to Iraq has drained our Office of Mobile Security Deployments by up to 40 percent of the staff (30 of 72) being deployed to Iraq at the same 

time. This impacts our ability to meet critical mission-support requirements in other 

areas of the world, such as Afghanistan, Beirut, Sudan, etc. We have increased the 

number and sizes of our instruction classes to accommodate the special hard-skills 

training that is required in the high threat environment of Iraq. This has placed 

additional demands on our training staff and we have begun to set up an interim 

training facility to meet these requirements. With no training float, a Special Agent 

who is in training leaves an operational position vacant. 

Question. From your perspective, can you comment as to whether DOD (nonmilitary) motorcades are operating under the same requirements; specifically are 

they putting the equivalent of a Federal agent (or a uniformed officer) in each motorcade? Have (nonmilitary) DOD motorcades installed cameras in its vehicles? Etc? 

Answer. The Secretary of State’s Panel on Personal Protective Service in Iraq did 

not focus on Department of Defense (DOD) operations nor did the recommendations. 

Specific questions regarding DOD operations and equipment are appropriately answered by the Department of Defense. However, I do not believe that DOD motorVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00479 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
472 

cades have a Federal agent or uniformed officer in each motorcade, nor do I have 

confirmation they have installed cameras or recording equipment in all DOD vehicles. 

Question. Iraqis say civilian motorcades and civilian contract security are one of 

their biggest grievances. Please provide a breakdown of all PSD contractors in Iraq 

including: (a) How many operate under the auspices of the Department of State, 

DoD, USAID, other agencies? (b) About how many work for other governments? (c) 

Others? (d) Are those who protect NGO, aid workers and others reconstruction contractors covered by any sort of U.S. law or regulation? How many would that be? 

(e) What percentage of movements in Iraq are State Department motorcades compared to OSD motorcades? 

Answer. The Department of State only maintains data on Department of State 

contractors and, regrettably, cannot answer many of these specific questions. The 

Department of State provides protective security for USAID direct-hire employees 

and other employees under chief of mission authority but not for other government, 

NGOs, or other reconstruction efforts. The first table attached below provides staffing information. The second table provides WPPS movement data for 2007 and 

2008. 

WPPS II IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN STAFFING 

Task Order Location Contractor 

Protective 

security 

specialist 

(PSS) 

Support Static guard Total 

004 ................... Kabul ........................... Blackwater ................... 78 21 20 119 

006 ................... Baghdad ...................... Blackwater ................... 474 80 0 554 

007 ................... Basrah/Tallil ................ Triple Canopy ............... 80 33 166 *(45) 279 *(158) 

008 ................... Al Hillah ....................... Blackwater ................... 77 17 162 256 

009 ................... Kirkuk/Erbil .................. DynCorp ....................... 78 23 52 153 

010 ................... Iraq Aviation ................ Blackwater ................... 50 108 0 158 

Iraq and Afghanistan Authorized Staffing ............................................ 837 282 400 1,519 

Actual Staffing to Reflect TO–7 Basrah Transition .............................. 837 282 279* 1,398 

473 

JAN 2008—CURRENT MONTH WPPS MOVEMENT DATA 

Task order Location Contractor 

Total 

ground 

missions 

Average per 

month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

6 .................. Baghdad ................................ Blackwater ............................ 4,257 851 964 814 632 686 1,1617 .................. Basrah/Tallil .......................... Triple Canopy ........................ 1,034 207 181 197 259 156 241 8 .................. Al Hillah ................................ Blackwater ............................ 140 28 17 17 28 25 53 9 .................. Kirkuk/Erbil ............................ DynCorp ................................. 646 129 119 129 128 149 121 2008 Total Iraq Missions (all WPPS contractors) ................................................ 6,077 2007–2008 Total Iraq Missions (all WPPS contractors) ...................................... 18,664 

2007 WPPS MOVEMENT DATA 

Task order Location Contractor 

Total 

ground 

missions 

Average per 

month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

6 .................. Baghdad ................................ Blackwater ............................ 9,574 798 708 1,102 943 726 721 784 804 1,104 579 558 881 664 7 .................. Basrah/Tallil .......................... Triple Canopy ........................ 930 78 3 7 12 3 7 9 87 100 111 202 166 223 8 .................. Al Hillah ................................ Blackwater ............................ 364 30 31 32 36 38 43 39 29 26 23 26 26 15 9 .................. Kirkuk/Erbil ............................ DynCorp ................................. 1,719 143 132 118 104 97 173 168 164 203 150 114 143 153 2007 Total Iraq Missions (all WPPS contractors) ................................................ 12,587 2007–2008 Total Iraq Missions (all WPPS contractors) ...................................... 18,664 

The above numbers include missions with protectees, as well as support and administrative missions. 

474 

Question. How are non-WPPS PSD’s contracted and licensed by the GOI? Are 

WPPS contractor so licensed? Are the Iraqis capable of overseeing and enforcing this 

process? Are we helping them build that capacity? 

Answer. First part of question: The Department of State does not contract for 

other PSD services outside of WPPS. 

Second part of question: The Iraqi licensing process involves the Ministries of Interior and Trade, and security company licenses must be renewed every 6 months. 

WPPS contractors Triple Canopy and DynCorp are currently licensed by the central 

Government in Baghdad. Blackwater’s application for a license is currently pending. 

The Government of Kurdistan has recently imposed a licensing requirement on security companies, separate from the Iraqi Government requirement. DynCorp, 

which provides services in Kurdistan, is applying for its Kurdistan license. 

[NEA must provide the answers to the rest of this question.] 

Question. Do you feel we have adequate feedback on the performance of PSD 

movements—in Iraq and elsewhere? Have you considered having a ‘‘report card’’ 

filed by the principal passenger after each movement to provide feedback on how 

procedures and interactions with locals were handled? Would this be a useful tool? 

Answer. The office of the Regional Security Officer (RSO) feels that they do receive adequate feedback, both positive and negative, from the embassy community 

on the performance of the PSD teams. On May 11, 2008, the RSO office distributed 

an updated security notice, regarding the Personal Security Detail (PSD) policy for 

chief of mission personnel. In the notice it states ‘‘The Regional Security Office is 

committed to working collegially and professionally with Mission personnel in accomplishing their objectives. Should you have any questions regarding this policy, 

or wish to provide feedback regarding our services . . .’’ The notice then lists the 

Deputy RSO for the High Threat Protection program as the point of contact. 

With the addition of a Special Agent in the protective motorcades, the RSO also 

receives daily summaries detailing trip movements that note any areas of concern. 

This may be viewed as a ‘‘report card.’’ The RSO office is also in the process of surveying the embassy community regarding their views on PSD operations. The survey asks respondents to comment on such questions as, ‘‘Do RSO personnel act professionally on the venue site? Do RSO personnel treat Iraqi citizens with respect? 

Do RSO personnel treat passengers with respect?’’ The RSO office will use this important feedback mechanism to monitor performance and make management decisions regarding PSD operations. 

Question. Discuss the procedures used to ensure that weapons that are shipped/ 

carried into Iraq for use by PSD’s and other nonmilitary forces do not fall into the 

wrong hands? In doing so, please provide the ‘‘blanket’’ diplomatic note agreed between the United States Government and Government of Iraq (signed by the GOI 

on 14 August 2004), which addresses end-use, retransfer, and security assurances, 

now accepted in lieu of normal license conditions as would be reflected in standard 

DSP–83s, for direct commercial arms sales to the Government of Iraq. Does this 

‘‘blanket’’ diplomatic note also apply to any sales done under the Foreign Military 

Sales (FMS) program? 

Answer. Every Department of State Protective Security Detail weapon in Iraq is 

U.S. Government-procured and shipped via secure means. All weapons used by 

WPPS contractors are government furnished equipment. The WPPS contract requires quarterly inventories of all government furnished equipment, including weapons. The WPPS Program Office validates these inventories during periodic visits to 

the field. In addition, the Regional Security Office is required to do an annual sight 

inventory of all Diplomatic Security weapons, which includes every weapon used by 

WPPS contractors. Diplomatic Security’s Defensive Equipment and Armored Vehicle 

Division (DEAV) Branch validates the RSO inventory against a master inventory of 

all DS weapons. 

The agreement regarding grants under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 

amended, or successor legislation, and such items as the Government of the United 

States of America may otherwise furnish, or authorize under the furnishing of, from 

time to time, under other authority, to the Government of Iraq, effected by an exchange of notes at Baghdad, July 24 and August 14, 2004, does not apply to defense 

articles or defense services provided pursuant to the Foreign Military Sales Program. Such defense articles and defense services are subject to the requirements of 

the relevant Letters of Offer and Acceptance. It is my understanding that a copy 

of the diplomatic note has been provided to your staff. 

(475) 

NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Beyrle, John R., to be Ambassador to the Russian Federation 

Chaudhry, Asif, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova 

Culbertson, James, nominated to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of 

The Netherlands 

Girard-diCarlo , David F., to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Austria 

Kaidanow, Tina S., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kosovo 

Reeker, Phillip Thomas, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia 

Silverberg, Kristen, to be the U.S. Representative to the European 

Union 

Yovanovitch, Maria L., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Cardin 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Lugar, Menendez, and DeMint. 

Also present: Senators Levin, Specter, Burr, Elizabeth Dole, Cornyn, and Robert Dole. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. The Committee on Foreign Relations will come 

to order. I want to thank Chairman Biden for giving me the opportunity to chair today’s hearing. 

This is a very important hearing. We are considering eight nominees for very important positions representing our country in Europe. I want to thank all of the nominees for their public service 

and thank their families for the sacrifices that they have made and 

particularly the nominees’ willingness to come forward to serve our 

country. 

Europe is very important to the United States. Historically, it’s 

important to this country. We have had a strong tie between the 

United States and Europe. I have had the opportunity to personally 

visit Normandy where valiant American soldiers, together with our 

allies, mounted an invasion that would change the course of European history. One hundred eighty-three Marylanders are among 

476 

those interred in the nearby cemetery, the final resting place for 

thousands of Americans. 

I would like to point out that since 1975 and the Helsinki Accords that were entered into that year, institutionalized regional 

organization where the United States played a critical role in developing strategies with our European allies dealing with security, 

economics, and human rights. So this has been a relationship that 

has grown over the years. Some of our top priorities have been to 

deal with combating corruption, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of children, as well as fighting anti-Semitism and forms of 

intolerance and promoting fundamental freedoms in democratic 

governance. 

Today’s hearing, we will have an opportunity to hear from eight 

individuals in two panels. The first panel will be Mr. James 

Culbertson, nominated to be the Ambassador to the Kingdom of 

The Netherlands, Mr. David F. Girard-diCarlo to be Ambassador to 

the Republic of Austria, Ms. Kristen Silverberg to be the U.S. Representative to the European Union with the rank and status of Ambassador. 

In the second panel, we’ll hear from Mr. John R. Beyrle to be 

Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Mr. Asif Chaudhry to be 

Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova, Ms. Tina S. Kaidanow to 

be Ambassador to the Republic of Kosovo, Mr. Phillip Thomas 

Reeker to be Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, and Ms. 

Maria L. Yovanovitch to be Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. 

We are very honored to have many of our colleagues here today. 

I’m going to ask Senator Dole to lead off. Senator Dole, of course, 

a very distinguished Member of the United States Senate, a long 

history of leadership in this country, but one role that really I want 

to just bring out was his leadership on the Helsinki Commission 

when he was in the United States Senate, and I think really elevated the Commission to a very important part here in the United 

States and Europe. 

Senator Dole, it’s always a pleasure to have you back before our 

committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT DOLE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator ROBERT DOLE. There’s another Dole’s name up here, a 

real Senator, but I need to go first so I can go home and get dinner 

ready. [Laughter.] 

I have the great privilege today to introduce a woman to this 

panel who’s highly qualified to be Ambassador of Armenia. Maria 

Yovanovitch is someone I’ve known and someone I’ve worked with 

and someone I know that will do an outstanding job. She’s been the 

Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and I’ve been there and I’ve seen how 

she’s worked with American Manas Base and which is very important when it comes to Afghanistan and I met with the President 

of Kyrgyzstan and he told me what a great job she’d been doing 

and how she had worked out some of the problems that they had 

with America and so this is a country of particular interest to me, 

Armenia, and somebody may wonder why. So I’ll tell you in about 

one minute. 

477 

My history with Armenia goes back more than 60 years. As I recovered from World War II wounds—I was wounded late in the war 

and all the good doctors were leaving the Army hospitals—and so 

I was running around the country looking for a miracle to put me 

back to where I was before and I met a doctor in Chicago, then 

Wesley Hospital. An Armenian American named Dr. Kalikian who 

has written books on orthopedic surgery and his son, Arman, is 

now a great orthopedic surgeon in Chicago. 

But to make a long story short, I spent a great deal of time with 

him. He became almost a second father and operated on me at 

least a half a dozen times and wouldn’t let me pay him one cent 

because he had lost a brother in World War II and so I’ve had contact with—oh, uh-oh. I better get back to my original 

text.[Laughter.] 

But I think his treatment, just to show his gratitude to this great 

country of ours and it’s been, as I said, a blessing for me and I’ve 

been a strong supporter of the Armenian community and the people of Armenia. I’ve been there a few times. I planted a tree in 

honor of Dr. Kalikian and I’ve seen, you know, the country’s got 

some very serious problems. They need an ambassador. They’ve 

been without one for almost 2 years. 

If it weren’t for Kirk Kerkorian, I’m not certain what would be 

happening in that country and he’s a very modest man, but I can 

tell you if you add up what he’s been doing as far as housing and 

streets and highways and hotels, libraries and schools and businesses, I’ve got to believe it adds up to hundreds and hundreds of 

millions of dollars that this one Armenian American has spent trying to help his fellow Armenians and I think he’s been there but 

once. 

But in any event, the country’s per capita GDP is less than $2,000 and it’s politically weak and they need help and they’re listed now as only partly free and so they can’t get enough money from 

remittances from Armenians who live in America. 

So the point is, is they need an ambassador and it just happens 

that we have an outstanding person who I think will do an outstanding job. As I said, I got to know Marie in her work in 

Kyrgyzstan and I met with the President of Kyrgyzstan. We’ve 

talked about her stewardship there. She’s made a very serious contribution to our national interests in securing our airport’s base 

and establishing a constructive relationship with the government 

after what they call the Tulip Revolution in 2005. 

So she knows all about the Stans countries which is another one 

of her best friends is former Ambassador Beth Jones of Kazakhstan 

and they worked closely together when Beth was in the State Department. 

So for all those reasons, Marie reminds me a little of the children 

of Dr. Kalikian. She is the daughter of immigrants who escaped the 

horrors of the homelands and gained a second chance in the United 

States and like them, she worked hard. Nobody gave her anything. 

She worked for everything that’s happened to her. She attended 

Princeton, one of our Nation’s greatest universities, and she’s sort 

of a tribute or a symbol of America, ‘‘the land of opportunity,’’ and 

she’s career Foreign Service, and I recommend her to this committee and I say God Bless America and God Bless Armenia. 

478 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator ROBERT DOLE. I’ll have dinner ready by 6:30. [Laughter.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT DOLE

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, it’s my privilege to introduce Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch to this committee. Marie was previously confirmed to serve as our Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and has now been nominated to 

serve in Armenia. 

As many of you are aware, my history with Armenia goes back more than 60 

years. As I recovered from grave wounds in World War II, Dr. Hampar Kelikian, 

an Armenian immigrant surgeon, helped to restore my health and operated on me 

repeatedly—for free, in selfless gratitude for the opportunity and success he enjoyed 

in his new homeland. 

Since then, I’ve been a friend and supporter of the Armenian-American community, the people of Armenia, and the country itself—including its independence and 

political and free-market development. 

It is vital that Armenia and it’s American benefactors concentrate on this development. Armenia’s post-independence brain-drain represents a serious crisis. The 

country’s per capita GDP is less than $2,000. It’s political class is insular and weak. 

Seventeen years after independence, Freedom House ranks it as only a ‘‘partly 

free’’ country—and it is one that needs more than remittances from ArmenianAmericans to make it in today’s global economy. 

Armenia has needed an American ambassador for the past couple of years. Today, 

it especially needs Ambassador Yovanovitch. I had the privilege of getting to know 

Marie and her work during her tenure in Kyrgyzstan. I met there last year with 

President Bakiyev, who spoke highly of the Ambassador and her work. 

In her time in Kyrgyzstan, Marie made a serious contribution to our national interests in securing our air force base and establishing a constructive relationship 

with the government after the 2005 ‘‘Tulip Revolution.’’ 

Marie’s expertise in the ‘‘Stans’’ and the former Soviet Union is particularly 

strong, as is her appreciation of Armenia and it’s diaspora. 

Marie reminds me of the children of Dr. Kelikian. Like them, she is the daughter 

of immigrants who escaped the horrors of their homelands and gained a second 

chance in the United States. 

Like them, she worked hard. She attended Princeton, one of out Nation’s finest 

universities. Marie is a tribute to our ‘‘land of opportunity’’ and to our Foreign Service. I wholeheartedly recommend her to you. 

Thank you. God Bless America, and God Bless Armenia. 

Senator CARDIN. We will now recognize the Senator Dole that 

has a vote. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH DOLE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator ELIZABETH DOLE. Well, Chairman Cardin, Ranking 

Member Lugar, certainly it’s a great privilege to introduce Mr. 

James Culbertson of North Carolina who’s been nominated by the 

President to serve as our 64th Ambassador to the Kingdom of The 

Netherlands. 

It’s also important at this time to express gratitude to the late 

Ambassador Roland Arnald who previously held the post until just 

10 days before his death last March. He served our country with 

great distinction and the post of ambassador has since remained 

vacant. 

Today, I’m honored to come before the committee to express my 

strong support for Jim Culbertson’s nomination. My husband, Bob 

Dole, and I have known Jim and his supportive, very supportive 

and talented wife, Germaine, for many years and I submit to you 

today that Jim is amply qualified to join the ranks of our diplomatic corps. 

479 

Indeed, the United States is blessed to have leaders like Jim 

willing to serve in our embassies overseas, and I’m confident he 

will serve at The Hague with great distinction as our ambassador. 

Jim is an American patriot and military veteran. He graduated 

from The Citadel with honors, meaning the top 8 percent of his 

class, and afterward served our country as an intelligence officer in 

the United States Army. 

He currently serves as Commissioner on the American Battle 

Monuments Commission, guarding America’s overseas cemeteries 

and memorials which honor the service, achievements, and sacrifice 

of the United States Armed Forces at 24 sites around the world. 

Jim is also a successful innovator, entrepreneur, and business 

leader. He founded and then served 26 years as president of Financial Computing, Incorporated, which provides financial application 

software and hardware to automobile dealers and community 

banks. 

As a business leader, he has also served as a member of the 

North Carolina Economic Development Board which oversees 

North Carolina’s economic development research and planning and 

makes policy recommendations. 

As a member of the board, Jim works side-by-side with State 

Government officials, elected officials, nonprofits, economic development organizations, and private industry in developing a comprehensive economic development plan and then advocating and 

holding entities accountable for the implementation of the plan. 

Jim also served as a member of the North Carolina Banking 

Commission, responsible for regulating almost all of the financial 

institutions operating in the State, banks, trust companies, brokers, and other consumer finance companies. As a business owner, 

himself, Jim also served on the National Federation of Independent 

Business National Board, promoting the priorities and growth of 

small and independent businesses in the marketplace and around 

the country. 

In keeping with his civic responsibilities, Jim has served on the 

board of the American Council for Young Political Leaders, as well 

as the Board of the Fund for American Studies, and let me just add 

here that I can recall when Bob Dole and I were dating and he 

was—— 

Senator ROBERT DOLE. He was in high school at the time. 

Senator ELIZABETH DOLE. Yeah. I went off on a trip with the 

American Council for Young Political Leaders. There were 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats, 22 of us, and Bob said, ‘‘What? Where 

are you going?’’ I said, ‘‘I’m off to Japan for three weeks,’’ and I 

want you to know, since he happens to be sitting beside me today, 

that when I got back, he met me with an engagement ring and a 

dozen roses. So that trip was very productive, Jim. I think he 

missed me. 

But both of these organizations, focusing on the youth of our 

country, promote international exchange and dialog. Through his 

work in this effort, students from across the country, like myself 

in those days, and around the world have the benefit of knowing 

the value of freedom and democracy. Future foreign leaders now 

know future American leaders and those relationships are fostered 

through the years. 

480 

This is the type of endeavor that uses the full force of U.S. diplomacy and the type of effort the 9/11 Commission recommended to 

us. Jim Culbertson had the foresight to already be personally involved in this type of activity. He’s exhibited strong leadership in 

the past and I have every confidence that he will continue to show 

that strong leadership and good judgment as our Ambassador to 

the Netherlands. 

If confirmed, Jim will be responsible for promoting and protecting United States interests in the Netherlands, a country with 

which the United States has long shared a beneficial relationship. 

The partnership between the United States and the Netherlands 

dates back to the American Revolution and it’s one of our country’s 

oldest continuous relationships. 

The United States and the Netherlands share common ideals, a 

common dedication to individual freedom and human rights. Our 

two countries also have strong economic ties where Jim’s economic 

background will serve us well. 

The Netherlands is the third largest direct foreign investor in the 

United States and the United States is the third largest direct foreign investor in The Netherlands. Dutch, like us, believe in a market-led economy and in Jim, we will have an ambassador who embodies a market-driven economy. 

From our economic, commercial, and trade relationship to our 

partnerships in foreign aid and global security, Jim Culbertson will 

continue strong United States-Dutch relations. With his vast experience and numerous talents, Jim Culbertson is the right person to 

be our chief representative to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, possessing the critical diplomatic and leadership skills needed to succeed in this important position. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, you have a wonderful nominee before you today, and I thank you for the privilege of expressing my 

views. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Burr, you’re here also on the same 

nominee? 

Senator BURR. I am, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Why don’t you proceed at this point. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Senator Lugar, I thank 

you, and Senator Menendez. 

I looked down the list of nominees and I’d like to speak for all 

of them. I’m not sure all of them would have me do it but I feel 

like I know most of them and this is an unbelievable group. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m honored to be here to make an introduction 

for Jim Culbertson. In the fashion that she always displays, Senator Dole has mentioned everything that I could possibly talk 

about, but let me pick a few things that I think are important for 

the members here to know. 

One, he has a beautiful wife and Germaine’s here, and she’s 

joined by her daughter, their son-in-law, and two grandsons, and 

I say that so Jim won’t forget to introduce them as he makes his 

remarks. 

481 

The United States and the Netherlands have shared strong relationships since the earliest days of our Nation. This relationship 

grew into a deep friendship following the Second World War when 

Allied Forces, including two American Airborne Divisions, helped 

liberate the people of the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. 

Following World War II, most American servicemen returned to 

their homes and their families but many did not. In the Village of 

Margratten in the Netherlands, there is today an American cemetery that’s the final resting place for over 8,000 American soldiers. 

As the commissioner of the Battle of the American Battle Monuments Commission and as a veteran himself, Jim knows this place 

well, and I’m confident that he is the right man to continue and 

enhance the already strong relationship between our two countries. 

If confirmed, I have no doubt he will be the best person that has 

served this country there. A successful businessman, a wonderful 

husband, a father, Jim has in fact been serving the United States 

for many years and we in North Carolina are proud to call him our 

own. 

Following graduation at The Citadel, he was in the Army and the 

intelligence arena. As an accomplished small business owner, Jim 

initiated his foresight to start his own business in the early 1970s 

in my hometown of Winston-Salem. Today, Financial Computing, 

Inc., the business he founded and ran for almost 30 years, continues to be one of the most successful financial computing companies in the Southeast. 

Jim has also been a leader in his community, my community, 

and throughout North Carolina, serving on the Banking Commission and on the North Carolina Board of Economic Development 

where he contributed his talents and his time to enhance life for 

his fellow North Carolinians. 

He’s been active on the national level. A 20-year member of the 

Board of Trustees of the Fund for American Studies, as mentioned, 

and has taken a leading role for over two decades in educating the 

next generation of young Americans on the values of freedom and 

democracy, the ideals he champions and embodies, and will continue to promote as United States Ambassador to The Netherlands. 

The United States relations, Mr. Chairman, in Europe are more 

important today than they’ve ever been since the fall of the Berlin 

Wall. Once again, we see a familiar Russia seeking to exert its influence throughout Eastern Europe and the Baltics. The Netherlands has been a committed friend in the war on terror and in combating the scourge of the international narcotics trade. 

This crucial time is why we need a man like Jim Culbertson with 

his deep understanding of business and foreign relations to cement 

the United States-Dutch relationship and reassert the United 

States support for a free and democratic Europe. 

Mr. Chairman, let me say out of all the qualities, out of all the 

experience that Jim brings to this nomination, let me say he’s a 

good man. He’s the type of person we would be proud to look at 

and refer to as our ambassador. 

I thank the chair. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank our Senators for the introduction. 

Senator Levin. 

482 

Senator LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, could I just put my statement, the 

full statement in the record? 

enator CARDIN. Oh, absolutely. Without objection, your full statement will be made part of the record. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator LEVIN. Before Senator Dole leaves, the old Senator Dole, 

the ancient Senator Dole, no, the ancient one, I’m going to send 

this to you, this introduction of our new Ambassador to Russia because of the reference that it makes to a World War II hero whose 

story is one of the most extraordinary stories I’ve ever heard. I 

know you have to leave, but I want to send this to you. 

John Beyrle, who’s the nominee’s father, had an experience 

which is truly unique and this is kind of an emotional sentimental 

moment when kind of history’s coming full circle for reasons you’ll 

understand when you get my introduction, but I do want to, just 

before you leave, alert you to it and I’ll send it out to you. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Lugar, Senator Menendez, it’s a 

pleasure here to be with you to lend my support to John Beyrle’s 

nomination to be our Ambassador to Russia. It’s an outstanding 

nomination, first and foremost, because of his distinguished career 

in the diplomatic service of this country, but it’s also a wonderful 

nomination because of his family’s history. 

I think that destiny had a hand in John Beyrle’s appointment to 

be United States Ambassador to Russia. I’m going to take just a 

few minutes longer than I do customarily for reasons which you 

will shortly understand and, I think, appreciate. 

Usually I talk about the nominee first when introducing a nominee, but today I’m going to begin with the story of his dad, Joe 

Beyrle, truly one of the great members of the greatest generation 

and one of my personal heroes. 

Joe Beyrle was born in Muskegon, MI, and in 1944, John’s dad, 

Joe Beyrle, now no longer alive, was called Jumping Joe Beyrle because he was an expert paratrooper who was selected for clandestine drops in Occupied France to supply the French Resistance 

with gold. 

He was captured on D-Day by the Germans. He was put into a 

prison camp, was repeatedly tortured, made a number of escapes, 

was recaptured, was tortured again. Finally, he showed such a dogged determination that he finally did escape in an effort to rejoin 

his unit. 

However, he didn’t rejoin his unit, he wasn’t able to get to it and 

instead hooked up with the Russian Army, and this was a very 

courageous decision, as you can imagine. He decided to join the 

Russian Army Tank Unit. It was commanded by a woman, by the 

way, and Joe actually helped the Russians to liberate the very 

same prisoner of war camp from which he had escaped. 

He was then wounded. He was sent to a Polish convent for treatment. He made a remarkable journey then to the American Embassy in Moscow and that’s where the wheel comes full circle, 

where American officials had kept him under house arrest for a 

week because they thought he was a spy. The reason for that was 

that his dog tags had been somehow or other lost during this entire 

483 

process and ended up on a dead soldier. His family was notified in 

1944 that he had died and they held a memorial service in his 

church back in Muskegon. 

But it took about a week for the Americans in Moscow to finally 

determine that not only wasn’t he a spy, he was a hero, and that 

he was who he said he was. He returned to a hero’s welcome in 

Muskegon, MI, in May of 1945, and a little over a year later married his wife, JoAnne, and the service was officiated by the same 

priest in the same church where the funeral mass had been held 

for him in 1944. He is the only soldier that we know of that fought 

both with the American and Russian Armies against Nazi Germany and he was honored by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin on the 

50th Anniversary of D-Day. 

Now his devotion to his country and his commitment to service 

live on in his son, John. John was born and raised in Muskegon. 

He graduated with honors from Grand Valley State University in 

Allendale, MI, received a Master’s degree as a distinguished graduate from the National War College. His distinguished career in 

the Foreign Service has spanned more than two decades. 

During that time, he’s held numerous policy positions in overseas 

assignments with an emphasis on United States relations with 

Russia and Central and Eastern Europe. Prior to his current appointment as the United States Ambassador to Bulgaria, John 

served as the deputy chief of mission at the United States Embassy 

in Moscow. 

In an editorial in his hometown paper, Muskegon Chronicle said 

that ‘‘Beyrle’s choice honors family and Nation and that the President has chosen well and our Nation will be well served by another 

Beyrle in Russia.’’ We certainly will. 

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, John Beyrle will do 

an outstanding job as our Ambassador to Russia. He will direct the 

work at the U.S. Embassy where a wounded and determined young 

paratrooper named Joe Beyrle sought refuge 68 years ago. We’re 

proud to support his nomination, Senator Stabenow and I both, obviously. Hess ready to continue that distinguished career of service 

to our country, and I only could wish that his mom and dad were 

still with us to experience this day. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:] 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Levin, thank you for sharing that 

story with the committee. We need to record the best that we can 

of what was done during World War II, and I think your introduction here honored World War II in our record. So we thank you for 

that. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Specter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lugar, and Senator Menendez. 

I congratulate the President on the nomination of David GirarddiCarlo to be Ambassador to Austria and I congratulate Mr. GiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00491 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
484 

rard-diCarlo for accepting this assignment at this stage of the administration. 

I’m honored to appear here with a man I’ve known really intimately for more than 30 years. We are fellow Philadelphia lawyers, 

but more broadly than that, we have both participated very, very 

extensively in the life of the city on community matters, on cultural 

matters, on civic matters, on governmental matters, on political 

matters, and very frequently I seek his counseling. Occasionally he 

seeks mine. So the President has an outstanding individual here. 

I will submit his resume which is too long to go into detail here, 

considering the number of witnesses which the committee has to 

hear, but just a couple of items. 

He took the helm of a law firm in Philadelphia, Blank, Rome, 

some 25 years ago, and it was a moderate size firm and it now has 

1,200 professionals and is extraordinarily active and has many offices—eight in the United States—stretches all the way to Hong 

Kong, and he has been the driving force. 

In a move of his customary insights and sagacity, he recently decided to step down on an interval of a couple of years to give an 

opportunity for grooming and was heralded with his tide of managerial experience. He’s been very active in so many corporations 

that I won’t list them, but he took on the job of board chairman 

of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce and served 

there with great distinction. He was on the disciplinary board of 

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and his managerial experience, I think, suits him very well for being in Vienna which has 

so many different missions—mission to the United Nations and the 

mission on Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

At a time when the United States is in urgent need of its best 

and brightest, we have one here today. So I’m delighted to give him 

my unqualified recommendation which isn’t based on hearsay, it’s 

based on firsthand experience. 

Thank you. Senator CARDIN. Senator Specter, thank you for your 

testimony. 

Senator Cornyn. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Lugar, 

Senator Menendez. 

It’s a pleasure to be here before you today to introduce to you an 

outstanding public servant and fellow Texan, Kristen Silverberg. 

I was just telling Kristen, she’s come a long way from Alpine, TX, 

where she was born, and you’ll see what I mean in just a minute. 

Ms. Silverberg’s been nominated by President Bush to serve in 

the capacity of U.S. Representative to the European Union, a role 

I have no doubt she will fill with the same sort of commitment and 

dedication to excellence that she has demonstrated through her career up to this point. 

Ms. Silverberg currently served as the Assistant Secretary of 

State for International Organization Affairs, a position she’s held 

since 2005. She’s led her Bureau of the State Department in the 

advancement of U.S. foreign policy, strategic goals, and U.S. interests through multilateral diplomacy while ensuring that interVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00492 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
485 

national organizations through which we work remain viable and 

effective. 

She’s consistently demonstrated the experience, political acumen, 

and leadership ability required to represent the United States to 

the European Union. 

Before her appointment as Assistant Secretary, she served as 

Deputy Assistant to the President and Advisor to the Chief of Staff 

in the White House, a position in which she assisted in the coordination and development of White House policy. 

She’s also served in the capacity of Deputy Assistant to President 

Bush for Domestic Policy, Special Assistant to the President in the 

White House Office of the Chief of Staff, and Senior Advisor to Ambassador Paul Bremer in the Coalition Provisional Authority. 

Ms. Silverberg holds a Bachelor’s Degree from Harvard and a 

Doctor of Juris Prudence from the University of Texas where she 

graduated with high honors. She’s served on the DC. Circuit Court 

of Appeals as a law clerk there and also for Justice Thomas on the 

Supreme Court. 

She’s been recognized for her commitment to public service by 

the University of Texas and she’s received a Secretary of Defense 

Outstanding Public Service Award for her service in Iraq and so 

it’s with great pride that I recommend and present to the committee a great Texan, Kristen L. Silverberg. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. At this time, I would turn to Senator Lugar for 

any comments that you would like to make. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, we can proceed to hear the witnesses. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of 

questions for the second panel, so I will wait to ask my questions. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. We will start with Panel 1. We will 

start with Mr. James Culbertson, nominated to be the Ambassador 

to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 

We would ask that if you have your family, that you please introduce your family to our committee, and again we very much appreciate your willingness to serve our Nation and the positions that 

you have been nominated for. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES CULBERTSON, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Yes, I do have my 

wife, Germaine. Would you stand, please? Next is the grandson, 

William, my daughter. Blair, grandson George, and son-in-law, 

James Robbins, and we’re very happy to have all of them here 

today, I am anyway. 

Senator CARDIN. We know this is a family effort, so we want to 

make sure the family gets acknowledged. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Thank you. And would you like for me to proceed? 

Senator CARDIN. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of 

this committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the 

486 

President’s nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to the 

Kingdom of the Netherlands. 

I am grateful for the trust President Bush and Secretary Rice 

have shown in nominating me to represent our country to one of 

the oldest and strongest allies of the United States. 

Since graduating from The Citadel in 1960 and serving in the 

Army as an officer in military intelligence, I have maintained a 

keen interest in the politics and foreign policy interests of our 

country. 

If confirmed, I will bring my professional experiences and lifelong 

interests in community service to bear as chief of mission for our 

embassy in The Hague, and I must say Senator Dole and Senator 

Burr included many more things that I was going to say about my 

personal private life. 

I’m going to skip a lot of that and keep you from the boredom 

of hearing it again. 

I would like to say as a member of the Council of Young Political 

Leaders, I made three trips to Europe. We visited with our counterparts, Young European Leaders, and their government and on one 

of the trips, I did visit The Hague and Amsterdam. 

I’ll skip the Economic Development Board. I would like to say a 

little more about the Fund for American Studies. 

We sponsored summer courses for college students from across 

America and the world at Georgetown since 1970 and we teach free 

markets, free government, and free and open journalism. We initiated similar arrangements with universities in Prague around 

1991, in Greece in 1996, and in Hong Kong in 2000, and we’re getting ready to do one for South America. 

One word about our Greek institute. It’s the most unique and 

held in Crete. It’s comprised primarily of Israeli and Arab students 

with a sprinkling of American students and a few other Europeans, 

but I’d say at least 80 percent of them are from either Israelis or 

Arab and when they come there, they literally hate each other and 

by the closing week, we had our 10th Anniversary over there in 

2006, I believe, and which I attended, and they are literally dancing and partying together on closing week and in all of these institutes with our young people, we hope that these are the young 

leaders, whether it be politics or industry or whatever capacity, 

academic, that will be make it a little easier to live together peacefully. 

One quick word about the American Battle Monuments Commission I’ve served on Margratten in the Netherlands. You know, 

there are 8,301 of our veterans, war casualties buried there. It’s 

rather unique. The Dutch people have adopted each grave—each 

one of those 8,301 graves—and they personally come out and bring 

flowers and paid appropriate moments, like Memorial Day, come 

out and visit and we even have a waiting list of Dutch citizens who 

want to service those graves—help us maintain those graves there. 

I’ll skip everything about my business background and would 

like to offer a few words on how I would like to build upon our 

strong and enduring relationship with the Netherlands. 

The Dutch share our commitment to uphold freedom and alleviate poverty around the world. Leaders of a major military contingent in the dangerous Southern region of Afghanistan, the Dutch 

487 

are also significant development partners in Afghanistan, Iraq, 

Latin America, and Africa. I will strive to enhance our military and 

development cooperation and expand Dutch support for peace, security, and democracy around the globe. 

The Netherlands, a nation of fewer than 17 million residents, is 

a key trading partner of the United States, and Senator Dole 

touched on that and I’ll skip the next few sentences there. 

Our embassy has a goal to promote a greater and more favorable 

understanding of the United States and its policies. I would like to 

expand on a program of dialog and exchange that has won rave reviews from leaders in the Dutch Muslim community and contributed to enhanced mutual understanding. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for 

the opportunity to appear before you. With your consent, I pledge 

to serve our country to the best of my abilities. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Culbertson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES CULBERTSON, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I am grateful for the trust President Bush 

and Secretary Rice have shown in nominating me to represent our country to one 

of the oldest and strongest allies of the United States. 

Please allow me to introduce my wife, Germaine. She will be an enormous asset 

to me, if I am confirmed, a most gracious representative of our country to the people 

of the Netherlands. Also, we have with us today our daughter, Blair, our son-in-law 

James, and our two grandsons, William and George Robbins. 

Since graduating from The Citadel in 1960, and serving in the Army as an officer 

in the military intelligence branch, I have maintained a keen interest in the politics 

and foreign policy interests of our country. If confirmed, I will bring my professional 

experiences and lifelong interest in community service to bear as chief of mission 

for our embassy in The Hague. 

As a 6-year board member of the American Council of Young Political Leaders, 

which was composed of an equal number of young Democrats and young Republicans, I was a member of three State Department-sponsored delegations to Europe. 

In 1967, I first saw the Berlin Wall and went through Checkpoint Charlie for a brief 

visit to East Berlin. The stark image of communism, supposedly at its best, contrasted sharply with the freedom we enjoy, and remains vivid with me to this day. 

In 1970, our visit included stops in The Hague and Amsterdam. We were at NATO 

Headquarters in Brussels in 1974, and also visited to London and Paris. During all 

of these trips we were hosted by young European leaders and their governments. 

For 8 years, from 1985–1992, I served on the Governor’s Economic Development 

Board in North Carolina. We undertook trade missions to other countries, as well 

as receiving trade missions to our State. 

For the last 20 years, I have been on the Board of Trustees for The Fund for 

American Studies. We have sponsored summer courses for college students from 

across America and the world since 1970 at Georgetown University, which teach 

free markets, democratic government, and journalism. We initiated similar arrangements with universities in Prague in 1991, in Greece in 1996, and in Hong Kong 

in 2000. Our Greek institute, which is held on the island of Crete, is our most 

unique. It is comprised primarily of Israeli and Arab students. Many arrive literally 

hating their counterparts from the other confession, but by the closing week, they 

are dancing and partying together. It is our fervent hope that one day they will be 

leaders in their countries and that this experience will hasten their living together 

peacefully. 

For the last 3 years, I have served on the American Battle Monuments Commission and have visited several cemeteries in France and Italy. Each is a moving reminder of our dedication to freedom and the sacrifices we have made to keep it secure. 

For 28 years, I owned a company which I started in 1972. We primarily sold financial software, but also sold the computers, printers, networks, etc., which the 

customer needed. Being a ‘‘one stop shop’’ gave us an advantage over our large, naVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00495 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
488 

tional, competitors who sold software only. My experience as the owner of a medium-size firm provided insight into the challenges of management and successful 

client relations. 

I would now like to offer a few words on how I would like to build upon our strong 

and enduring relationship with the Netherlands. 

The Dutch share our commitment to uphold freedom and alleviate poverty around 

the world. Leaders of a major military contingent in the dangerous southern region 

of Afghanistan, the Dutch are also significant development partners in Afghanistan, 

Iraq, Latin America, and Africa. I will strive to enhance our military and development cooperation and expand Dutch support for peace, security, and democracy 

around the globe. 

Since the tragic events of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in Europe, the 

Dutch have devoted increasing resources to counterterrorism and law enforcement. 

Six U.S. law enforcement agencies are represented at our mission, and I will work 

with these professionals to deepen law enforcement ties to combat terrorism, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, and financial crimes. 

The Netherlands, a nation of fewer than 17 million residents, it is a key trading 

partner of the United States. As centers of global finance and innovation, we have 

invested billions of dollars in each other’s economies and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. I intend to facilitate continued trade expansion and will explore new 

investment opportunities for U.S. firms. 

Our embassy has a goal to promote a greater and more favorable understanding 

of the United States and its policies. I would like to expand on a program of dialog 

and exchange that has won rave reviews from leaders in the Dutch Muslim community and contributed to enhanced mutual understanding. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity 

to appear before you. With your consent, I pledge to serve our country and nurture 

our valued relationship with the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the best of my abilities. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. 

I will now turn to Mr. David Girard-diCarlo to be Ambassador 

to the Republic of Austria. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GIRARD-diCARLO, 

AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE TO AUSTRIA 

Mr. GIRARD-DICARLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Senator Lugar and Senator Menendez. 

I would like to introduce my wife of more than 35 years, who’s 

been my closest friend and advisor and confidante over that period 

of time, my wife, Connie. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s my understanding that my full remarks will 

be provided for the record, so I will try to summarize those remarks in the interest of time. 

I am honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Austria. 

I am grateful for the confidence and trust that President Bush 

and Secretary Rice have placed in me to serve, if confirmed, as 

chief of mission. I certainly thank Senator Specter for his very gracious introduction. 

As you heard from Senator Specter, if confirmed, I would bring 

to this position more than 35 years of experience as a lawyer, an 

advocate, a leader, and a manager. 

Over the past 25 of those years, I’ve had the honor and privilege 

of leading Blank, Rome, LLP, a professional service firm. It is 

today comprised of over 1,200 individuals. 

As you heard, we have eight offices in the United States and one 

office in Hong Kong. I believe my management and leadership 

background will provide me the experience that is necessary not 

489 

only to advance the United States interests with Austria but to 

help Embassy Vienna fulfill its multioffice location operations and 

I can, I think, ably help provide the joint management support that 

is necessary for the trimission that is in Vienna as well as some 

joint management responsibilities we have with the nearby embassy in Bratislava. 

As you heard from Senator Specter, in addition to my professional responsibilities, my experience over the past three decades 

has given me the opportunity to actively participate in the business 

and cultural organizations within the communities in which I have 

lived and worked. 

This participation has given me a very keen appreciation for the 

interconnections between the public and private sectors, and I have 

learned that when these two sectors work in concert with one another, the whole becomes much greater than the sum of the parts, 

thereby enriching the lives and spirit of the entire community. 

The public diplomacy programs that are so important for our 

country, such as the Fulbright Program, and other academic, cultural, professional exchanges, work on those same interconnections. 

To increase the understanding and knowledge of the United States, 

not just government-to-government but people-to-people, and if confirmed as ambassador, I would most heartily support those programs so that the people of Austria understand the many values 

and goals that we share. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know and we all know, Austria has a 

proud history and its capital, Vienna, is a world-renowned cultural 

center. It serves as an exemplar of democracy, freedom, stability, 

and prosperity and even though a small country, it has contributed 

to peacekeeping missions around the world. In Southeastern Europe, it has contributed troops and assistance that are vital to the 

success of the United Nation missions in Kosovo and Bosnia. It has 

a contingent of peacekeepers in Chad which was its first foray into 

Africa as part of the European Union mission there, and it has assisted in aiding victims of civil unrest in Darfur, and in this time 

of global insecurity, no issue is of more immediate importance than 

our collaboration in the fight against international terrorism and 

transnational crime. 

As an active partner in this fight, Austria has sent police instructors to the Iraqi Police Academy in Jordan. It has provided advisors 

in Afghanistan. It has deployed peacekeepers to the Golan Heights 

as part of the U.N. mission there, and together with the United 

States and the European Union, it operated two counterterrorismrelated training programs for countries in Central Asia. 

If confirmed as ambassador, I would continue to press Austria for 

its active participation in the Partnership for Peace and would urge 

Austria to work more vigilantly with NATO when our interests 

converge. 

Mr. Chairman, as we know, this is a time of change in Austria. 

The European Union’s enlargement eastward has shifted Austria to 

the center of Europe. Austria has strong historical and cultural ties 

with countries to its south and east and sees a role for itself in 

helping countries of these regions integrate more successfully into 

an enlarged European Union. The United States encourages that 

490 

integration which is important to the stability of Europe as a 

whole. 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, Austria 

is a solid friend of Europe. If I am confirmed as ambassador, I 

pledge to use my experience as a leader and manager to build on 

the strong relations our two countries have and to lead our U.S. 

mission team in advancing the United States interests and forging 

even closer ties. 

I look forward to this challenge and opportunity. I thank you for 

the opportunity to speak before you today and I would welcome the 

opportunity, if confirmed, to serve my country. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Girard-diCarlo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID F. GIRARD-DICARLO, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be United States Ambassador 

to the Republic of Austria. I am grateful for the confidence and trust that President 

Bush and Secretary Rice have placed in me to serve, if confirmed, as chief of mission. I also thank Senator Specter for his very generous introduction. 

If confirmed, I would bring to this position more than 35 years’ experience as a 

lawyer, an advocate, a leader, and a manager. For the past 25 years, I have had 

the honor and privilege of leading and managing Blank Rome LLP. Currently, 

Blank Rome is comprised of approximately 1,200 professionals and nonprofessionals 

in eight offices within the United States and one office in Hong Kong. I am proud 

to report that during my tenure as the firm’s leader, the firm grew more than sixfold and is, today, one of the top 100 law firms in the United States. 

I believe that my management and leadership experience will enable me to advance the United States interests with Austria and help Embassy Vienna fulfill its 

bilateral mission. My experiences managing multilocation operations will enable me 

to assist Embassy Vienna as it provides joint management support to the United 

States Mission to the United Nations and the United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Vienna, and it also provides management and resource support for the nearby mission in Bratislava. 

I believe it is noteworthy to comment that relatively early in my career, I was 

appointed to the Board of Directors of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) by the then-Governor of Pennsylvania, Richard 

Thornburgh. Immediately after joining the board, I was elected chairman and chief 

executive officer. During my 31⁄2 year-tenure there, SEPTA employed approximately 

7,000 people, had an operating budget of about $500 million dollars, and had capital 

facilities worth several billion dollars. 

As the only noncareer professional among a cadre of career transportation professionals, I learned firsthand the importance of valuing the commitment, talent, and 

dedication that those professionals brought to their jobs. I committed myself to making SEPTA a better place when I left than it had been when I joined. I believe I 

accomplished that goal. If confirmed, I believe my responsibility to the President, 

to the American people and to Embassy Vienna should be, and will be, to do everything in my power to leave Embassy Vienna a better place at the conclusion of my 

assignment. 

In addition to my professional responsibilities, my experience over the past three 

decades has included my active participation in the business and cultural organizations within the communities in which I have lived and worked. I have served in 

leadership positions at the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, the Philadelphia Orchestra and Academy of Music, the Walnut Street Theatre, the John F. 

Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts here in Washington, and the Arizona Heart 

Foundation in Phoenix—to name only a few. 

Furthermore, I have always been committed to and actively involved with educational institutions in my community. At the request of Cardinal Anthony 

Bevilacqua, for 5 years, I chaired Business Leaders Organized for Catholic Schools, 

a Philadelphia-based organization which raised money for scholarships for children 

attending Catholic schools. I have also served on the boards of St. Joseph’s University, Drexel University, Harcum Junior College and Villanova University School of 

Law. 

491 

I believe my civic activities and community involvement have given me a keen appreciation for the interconnections between the public sector and the private sector. 

I have learned that the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts and, when 

these two sectors work in concert with one another, together they enrich the lives 

and the spirit of the people in the community. 

I would bring this experience and understanding to my new position if I am confirmed as Ambassador to Austria. Public diplomacy programs such as the Fulbright 

program and other academic, cultural, and professional exchanges work on those 

same interconnections to increase understanding and knowledge of the United 

States, not just government-to-government, but people-to-people, across a variety of 

sectors. 

I look forward to assuring a distinguished beginning to Ambassador McCaw’s initiative for a scholarship exchange program. This 10-year program would use funds 

from the Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation for Austrian and American exchange 

students to study at universities and technical colleges in each other’s country. If 

confirmed as ambassador, I would support these programs so that the younger generation of Austria would better understand the many values and goals we have in 

common. 

Mr. Chairman, Austria has a proud history and its capital, Vienna, is a worldrenowned cultural center. Today, Austria serves as an exemplar of democracy, freedom, stability, and prosperity. Though a small country, Austria has contributed to 

peacekeeping missions around the world. For example, in southeastern Europe it 

has contributed troops and assistance that are vital to the success of U.N. missions 

in Kosovo and Bosnia. Austria has a contingent of peacekeepers in Chad as part 

of the European Union mission there and it has assisted in aiding victims of civil 

unrest in Darfur. 

In this time of global insecurity, no issue is of more immediate importance than 

our collaboration in the fight against international terrorism and transnational 

crime. Austria is an active partner in this fight. Austria has sent police instructors 

to the Iraqi Police Academy in Jordan; has provided advisors in Afghanistan; and 

has deployed peacekeepers to the Golan Heights as part of the U.N. mission there. 

Together with the United States and the European Union, Austria operated two 

counterterrorism-related training programs for countries in Central Asia. If confirmed as ambassador, I would continue to press for Austria’s active participation 

in the Partnership for Peace and would urge Austria to work with NATO whenever 

our interests converge. 

Austria faces terrorist threats just as we do in the United States and other democracies do. This is why we must work to forge strong ties and fight this threat 

together. Austria has provided extensive cooperation to United States law enforcement agencies and has supported regional antiterrorism initiatives. If confirmed as 

ambassador, I would work to strengthen information exchange and cooperation on 

counterterrorism, and I would work to expand outreach to populations vulnerable 

to radicalization and terrorist recruitment. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a time of change in Austria. The European Union’s enlargement eastward has shifted Austria to the center of Europe. Austria has strong historical and cultural ties with countries to its south and east and sees a role for itself 

in helping countries of these regions integrate successfully into an enlarged European Union. The United States encourages that integration, which is important to 

the stability of Europe as a whole. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, Austria is a solid 

friend in Europe. If I am confirmed as ambassador, I pledge to use my experience 

as a leader and manager to build on the strong relations our two countries have 

and to lead our United States mission team in advancing America’s interests and 

forging even closer ties between the people of the United States and the people of 

Austria. I look forward to this challenge and thank you for both this opportunity 

to appear before you and the opportunity to serve my country. 

In closing, I want to thank my wife, Connie, my best friend for more than 35 

years, for her continuing support and counsel and for her enthusiasm with regard 

to this possible new venture in our lives. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your comments. 

Ms. Kristen Silverberg to be the United States Representative to 

the European Union with the rank and status of ambassador. 

492 

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN SILVERBERG, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION 

Dr. SILVERBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

I would like to introduce my mother, Rhoda Silverberg, my father-in-law and mother-in-law, Judge Charles Ledow and Sue 

Ledow, and my sisters-in-law, Renee Lerner Ledow and Alexandra 

Ledow. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m deeply honored to appear before you today as 

President Bush’s nominee to serve as United States Representative 

to the European Union. I would like to begin by thanking President 

Bush and Secretary Rice for their trust and confidence in nominating me for this important position. 

It has been my great privilege to serve for the last 3 years as 

Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs 

and for the previous 4 years as a policy advisor to the President. 

For the last 60 years, our agenda with Europe has been principally about Europe. From the passage of the Marshall Plan, to 

the defeat of communism, to our support for new democracies in 

Central and Eastern Europe, the United States has worked to support a Europe that is free, prosperous, and united, and while that 

work continues even today, Europe has made tremendous strides. 

Today, the 27 countries of the European Union form a single 

market with, collectively, the largest economy in the world and Europe’s leaders are working to ensure that the European Union has 

the will and the capacity to fulfill its responsibilities as a global 

leader. 

Indeed, today Europe is our leading partner in advancing democracy and freedom around the globe. As we work to promote democracy, confront terrorism, prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and defend human rights, we depend on what President 

Bush has called a powerful and purposeful Europe that advances 

the values of liberty within its borders and beyond. 

With respect to countless global issues, the strength of our partnership with the European Union will help determine success or 

failure in the months and years ahead. Continued United StatesEuropean Union cooperation will be necessary to convince Iran to 

comply with four U.N. Security Council resolutions. Cooperation 

will be necessary to lower regulatory barriers and unleash our full 

economic potential with more trade investment and innovation. 

We must work together to negotiate an ambitious market opening agreement in the DOHA Trade Round. We must together encourage Russia to play a constructive role in the international 

stage, improve human rights within its borders and bring energy 

resources to market within a free and competitive framework. 

We must work to bring all major economies into a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We must work together 

to support Israeli and Palestinian peace efforts. We must strengthen Governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and support a democracy 

in Lebanon as it resists foreign interference. 

We must defeat HIV/AIDS and malaria and help developing 

countries support their own development by promoting good governance and responsible free market practices, and we must join 

493 

forces to defend human rights and promote democratic reform in 

countries, like Burma and Zimbabwe and Cuba. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I 

look forward to working with the members and the staff of this 

committee to strengthen our relationship with the leadership and 

the people of the European Union for the benefit of both sides of 

the Atlantic and the global community. 

Thank you again for granting me the honor of appearing before 

you today. I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Silverberg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KRISTEN SILVERBERG, NOMINEE TO BE THE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION WITH THE RANK AND STATUS OF AMBASSADOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deeply honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as United States Representative to the European Union. I would like to begin by thanking President Bush and 

Secretary Rice for their trust and confidence in nominating me for this important 

position. It has been my great privilege to represent the United States for the last 

3 years as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs and 

for the previous 4 years as a policy advisor to the President. 

For the last 60 years, our agenda with Europe has been principally about Europe. 

From the passage of the Marshall Plan, to the defeat of communism, to our support 

for new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, the United States has worked 

to support a Europe that is free, united, and prosperous. And while that work continues even today, especially as we support Kosovo’s independence, Europe has 

made tremendous strides. Today, the 27 countries of the European Union form a 

single market with, collectively, the largest economy in the world, and Europe’s 

leaders are working to ensure that the European Union has the will and capacity 

to fulfill its responsibilities as a global leader. 

Indeed, today, Europe is our leading partner in advancing freedom and prosperity 

around the globe. As we work closely with Europe to promote democracy and the 

rule of law, confront international terrorism, prevent the spread of weapons of mass 

destruction, and defend international human rights, we depend on what President 

Bush has called ‘‘a powerful and purposeful Europe that advances the values of liberty within its borders, and beyond.’’ 

With respect to countless global issues, the strength of our partnership with the 

European Union will help determine success or failure in the months and years 

ahead. 

• To prevent nuclear proliferation, continued United States-European Union cooperation will be necessary to convince Iran to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities as demanded by four U.N. Security Council resolutions; 

• To strengthen our economies, we must work together to lower regulatory barriers and unleash our full economic potential with more trade, investment, and 

innovation; we must work to negotiate an ambitious, market-opening agreement 

in the Doha trade round; 

• We must together encourage Russia to play a constructive role on the international stage, improve human rights within its borders, and bring its energy 

resources to markets within a free and competitive framework; 

• To address climate change, we must work to bring all major economies into a 

global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 

• To advance peace in the Middle East, we should work together to support 

Israeli and Palestinian peace efforts; 

• Standing together, we can strengthen Governments in Iraq and Afghanistan 

against terrorist threats and support a democracy in Lebanon as it resists foreign interference; 

• Working together, we must defeat HIV/AIDS and malaria, and help developing 

countries support their own development by promoting good governance and responsible free market practices; 

• And, we must join forces to defend human rights and promote democratic reform in countries like Burma, Zimbabwe, and Cuba. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on these and many issues, our relationship with the European Union will continue to be vital to our ability to support peace, stability, and prosperity. 

494 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with the members and staff of this committee to strengthen our relationship with the leadership and people of the European Union for the benefit of both sides of the Atlantic and the global community. 

Thank you again for granting me the honor of appearing before you today. I look 

forward to answering any questions. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you for your testimony. Again, I 

thank all three of our nominees for their testimony here today. 

Ms. Silverberg, let me start with you, if I might. There’s a lot of 

issues concerning the United States and Europe, so you have a 

very broad agenda. I think about the decision yesterday on the appeal of the Boeing decision and, of course, there’s a longstanding 

dispute between the United States and Europe on subsidies for the 

aircraft industry. 

Both have filed claims with the WTO and there is, at least in 

Congress, a concern as to whether the WTO is the forum in which 

we can adequately present our claims. Our batting average there 

has not been very strong. Add to that the DOHA Round that you 

mentioned in which Europe basically underminded our ability to 

move forward because of their policies on agriculture. 

So I guess my question to you is how do you see your role in trying to deal with the growing problems between Europe and the 

United States on trade where we really seem to be at odds in using 

adversarial procedures rather than trying to work out our problems 

in a more amicable way? 

Dr. SILVERBERG. Mr. Chairman, I think one thing that distinguishes this DOHA Round from previous trade rounds is that in 

fact the United States and Europe are much closer together. In 

previous rounds the real heavy lifting was done between the 

United States and Europe and once that agreement was in place, 

the rest of the negotiations fell into place. In this round, United 

States and Europe are actually relatively close together and the 

real heavy lift is whether we’ll be able to persuade the major developing economies to come on board. 

Now that’s not to say that we don’t have persistent disagreements—we do—and as you point out in this DOHA Round, we have 

Ag disagreements on level of subsidies and market access issues on 

expert credits, but what we’re finding in our trading relationship 

with Europe is that the major obstacles aren’t the traditional high 

tariffs, it’s regulatory barriers. So it’s things, regulation in Europe 

that prevents market access because it’s designed to protect health 

and safety or to protect consumers. 

That’s the kind of thing we’ve seen with respect to GMOs where, 

of course, we have an outstanding WTO favorable decision. It’s the 

kind of thing we’ve seen with respect to poultry where we have a 

very serious pending disagreement with the Europeans. 

I think on all of these issues, our response is going to require a 

number of different tools. Sometimes that will be a negotiated settlement which is usually the preferable situation. Sometimes that’s 

going to be a WTO case. In most cases, I don’t think that WTO case 

indicates that our relationship is broken down. It really more indicates that our trading relationship is enormously complex. 

If confirmed, I would work to press market access issues in the 

strongest possible way. 

495 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just observe, and I’m sure you are aware 

of it, the negotiations between Europe and the United States in 

trade has gotten more difficult in recent years. 

I agree with you, historically,—well, we’ve had a lot of battle 

with developing countries, but the agriculture issues are only getting more complicated, considering the world circumstances on 

food. 

So I would just urge you to really place this as a high priority 

area in trying to work out a better working relationship between 

Europe and the United States. 

Let me move to one other question, if I might, for you and that 

is, the future of NATO as it relates to the efforts within Europe to 

develop their own security system under the European Union. Is 

this compatible or do you see that we may be in conflict with our 

strategic needs? 

Dr. SILVERBERG. I think it may be too early to tell. We’ve said 

that we welcome a Europe that’s ready and willing to assume its 

greater role for international peace and security and that there’s a 

role for the European Union in that and so we see European Union 

missions that we support in Chad which is critical to help resolve 

the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. We have a European Union mission in Afghanistan we strongly support, but what we’ve said is 

that the ESDP should result in more European resources for international peace and security. We don’t want to see the European 

Union in competition with NATO over scarce resources, so we don’t 

want to see an overlapping bureaucracy in Brussels. We don’t want 

to see the kind of overlapping conflict between the two organizations. 

We’ve called for what our current Ambassador to NATO, Troy M. 

Newland, has called seamless cooperation. This is thankfully an 

issue for the French presidency. President Sarkozy has taken this 

seamless cooperation on as part of his agenda and so the French 

will be hosting a conference this next month but that’s our general 

approach to the issue. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Mr. Girard-diCarlo, Austria has 

been a close ally of the United States. We’ve had a very strong relationship. 

The popular view in Austria is against Turkey’s admission to the 

European Union. Our position has been that we want to see the integration of Turkey within Europe. 

How do you see your role as our ambassador to deal with promoting the United States goal of further integration, particularly 

of Turkey, in Europe? 

Mr. GIRARD-DICARLO. Senator, I think that’s a very important 

issue. It is incumbent upon Embassy Vienna and, if confirmed, I 

would use whatever energies I have to be applied to this issue. 

It is in part an educational issue. It is in part perhaps a commercial issue. It’s in part perhaps a religious issue. It’s complex. As I’m 

sure you know, Austria now has a significant Muslim population 

which is not, from what I understand, being integrated very successfully into its society and that causes some problems. 

So I think it would be incumbent on me as ambassador, if I’m 

confirmed, to aggressively pursue educational informational views 

so that I can help promote the interests of the United States and 

496 

the interests of a global and stable Europe and without Turkey’s 

participation in that, I think we would be encumbered somewhat 

and Europe would be encumbered somewhat. 

So I would look forward to every opportunity that I have to not 

only inform and maybe influence but certainly engage the Austrians on this issue. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Culbertson. Let 

me—the Netherlands is one of our strongest trading partners, significant investment back and forth between our countries. We 

share a lot of common goals. 

There are some concerns developing within the Netherlands in 

regard to its policies related to minorities. There seems like there 

is a growing intolerance within—concerning the minority community, and I would just like to get your observations as to how high 

a priority that’s going to be, if you’re confirmed, in dealing with the 

respect for the minority population. 

There’s a Muslim population in the Netherlands that’s having 

difficulties, Jewish population. There’s been a rise in anti-Semitism 

within the Netherlands, and how this will be on your radar screen. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, that would certainly be one of 

the top three priorities. They have had a—we’ve had a minority immigration problem, I guess, for several hundred years. They’ve had 

this problem for around 30 years. 

I understand they have the second largest Muslim minority in 

Europe percentagewise. They’re 60 percent now. There’s a lot of 

hostility there. They haven’t, as of this point, done a great job in 

integrating that society, assimilating that society. 

We have, on the other hand, developed an outstanding outreach 

program to the Muslim community from our embassy. I think the 

prior ambassador has done a good job in a good outreach start. I 

certainly want to continue that, continue a dialog with the leaders 

of the Muslim community, the young folks, just the key leaders. 

By the way, the latest polls, I think, show that 62 percent of the 

Muslims have a very unfavorable view of the United States. Perhaps if we can find out the common interests and correct some of 

the incorrect viewpoints and try to deal with some issues that are 

more irreconcilable, it will help the Muslims and the Dutch even 

come to better terms. 

We can talk about our long struggle with civil rights in this 

country as well as our immigration problems and the ways we’ve 

dealt with it and sometimes the ways we haven’t properly dealt 

with it, but it’s an ongoing thing and I would—I understand public 

diplomacy has made the Netherlands a pilot country for even more 

outreach in the Muslim community and I’m looking forward to 

doing everything I can to be part of that program and lead it and 

see that it’s successful. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I’m not going to ask questions of each of the three 

because I know we have pressures of potential Roll Call votes and 

other witnesses to hear. 

I would like to second the chairman’s thought that the intersection of the world food crisis and the world energy crisis has a draVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00504 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
497 

matic impact on the United States and our European allies. It is 

clear we must work together to solve these crises. 

Certainly our farm subsidies are controversial, the Europeans 

likewise. Frequently in our Agriculture Committee meetings, Senators say we’re not going to unilaterally disarm and discontinue 

subsidies here in the United States. The United States and European subsidies are disastrous for the world in light of dangers of 

food shortages. 

Exacerbating this problem is a specific European problem and 

that is genetically modified seed. It will be virtually impossible, despite all the brave talk about increasing production in the world, 

for the world to increase production without the use of technology. 

We have found in American agriculture that we are able to triple 

and quadruple yields in our lifetimes in corn and soybeans and 

wheat and other crops, largely through these breakthroughs. 

Europeans in most cases have resisted this. I think this is a protectionist device against our exports, but this influences many 

countries in Africa and in Asia as almost a theological resistance 

to genetically modified seeds. 

Now, the net result is even in Switzerland, the Financial Times 

says in the last couple of days, that people raided a facility in 

which experiments on genetically modified organisms were occurring just to exemplify their antipathy to this. 

Now normally we talk about relationships with Russia, with 

China, with the European Union and so forth. This is a gut issue 

with regard to the possibilities that a lot of people are going to 

starve if we are not successful in convincing Europeans to work 

with us in this area. It will be a very tough one because emotion 

is running against us, both on subsidy as well as the genetically 

modified seeds. 

But I wish each of you well and you’re all well qualified in my 

judgment. I appreciate your willingness to serve our country in 

these capacities. I wanted to take this opportunity to say if we’re 

serious and we must be about the world food crisis, it will not be 

solved without European and United States cooperation. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me congratulate you all on your nominations and your willingness to serve the 

country. I appreciate it and I think everyone spoke very highly 

about you. 

I do have one question for Ms. Silverberg, two actually. One is 

I appreciate your statement. At the end of a long list, you talked 

about human rights and promoting democracy and you mentioned 

several countries. 

As we speak, the European Union is thinking about what it will 

do as it relates to Cuba. I certainly hope that if you are successful 

in being confirmed by the Senate, that you will put that high on 

the agenda. It’s a challenge. The Europeans don’t necessarily have 

the same views as us. They espouse that they believe in democracy 

and human rights for the people of Cuba but they have a much different way of approaching it and so I hope that you will put that 

not only on your radar screen but that you’ll use the power of your 

498 

office in a significant way to promote both the administration’s and 

to this point, the majority of the Congress’s views in that regard. 

I do have a question and that is, with reference to the Middle 

East: It seems to us, many of us, that we don’t quite understand 

why United States policy choices seem to differ often with the Europeans, even though we have largely the same goals, and yet we 

seem to come out in very different ways on how to pursue those 

goals. 

I’m wondering how is it that you assess the United States-European Union cooperation toward the Middle East, where are our differences, and how do we narrow those differences to pursue a common goal? 

Dr. SILVERBERG. Thank you, Senator. First, I can assure you that 

if confirmed, Cuba and pressing human rights in Cuba would be 

a fundamental priority for my mission. It’s been a priority in my 

current post and we agree strongly that this is the wrong time to 

send that kind of message to the Cuban Government, that it has 

somehow removed itself from the list of concerns of the international community. 

President Bush pressed this issue very strongly in his visit to 

Europe last week, and so we hope that the European Union will 

not take that position and we’ve been glad to see some European 

countries and particularly former Soviet bloc countries, the ones 

with the most recent experience with a repressive government, taking the most responsible line on that. 

On the Middle East, there are disagreements, of course, between 

us and the European Union and there may be a lot of reasons for 

that. They’ve had a different approach with respect to engagement 

with the Syrian Government than we have had. We have a closer 

bilateral relationship with Israel, I think it’s fair to say, but we do 

cooperate, I think, constructively across the board on the Middle 

East peace process. We both agree on the importance of the bilateral negotiations. We agree on the importance of building Palestinian institutions. We agree on building regional support for the 

process, and I think the European Union was strongly supportive 

of the Annapolis process. 

We support—we’ve cooperated on Iran, very successfully producing four Security Council resolutions, working with the Europeans as part of this P5+1 exchange. We’ve worked very closely 

with the French in particular on Lebanon which isn’t to say we’ve 

agreed on every tactical issue but on the whole, we’ve had very 

good cooperation, and I think even on Iraq where I think we had 

the greatest amount of disagreement, we’ve moved closer together 

in terms of encouraging the European Union to take on some of the 

important rule of law activities and other things. 

So generally, I am reasonably optimistic. There will be disagreements, but I think we can work within a broader framework. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator DeMint. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES DEMINT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Senator Cardin, and I want to 

thank all three of you for your willingness to serve as well, and I’ll 

499 

just maybe make just a quick challenge to Ms. Silverberg and let 

you have a quick response. 

The tie between the United States and Europe is much stronger 

on the economic level and more positive than political and I really 

think that’s the long-term bond that’s going to keep us as strong 

trading partners and allies. 

My hope is, is that, you will use every opportunity to promote 

free trade zone between the United States and Europe, overcome 

barriers, such as Senator Lugar was talking about, but I do believe 

we can set a model for the world since Europe and the United 

States are closest on a lot of their just humanitarian interests and 

environmental interests and I just think that’s real important for 

our country. 

I know from having a number of European companies in our 

State, that even when we’re squabbling with the French or the 

Germans on the political side, we’re great friends and business 

partners when it comes to doing business around the world. 

So I just see that as the tie that binds long term and I hope you 

see that as a priority going forward. 

Dr. SILVERBERG. Senator, I do, and if confirmed, it would be essential to continue to break down trade barriers, especially on Ag, 

but really across the board, and I know that the administration has 

taken this on as part of the TransAtlantic Economic Council discussions and it will continue to be a high priority. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank our three nominees for their response to our questions. We will now turn to the second panel. 

Thank you all very much. 

While we’re setting up for the second panel, let me announce 

that there’s anticipated votes on the Senate floor starting in about 

10 minutes. Senator Menendez and I will attempt to keep the committee in session during that period of time by us rotating voting, 

if that is possible, in order not to inconvenience the witnesses and 

those who are in the committee room. 

Senator DEMINT. Senator Cardin—— 

Senator CARDIN. Yes? 

Senator DEMINT [continuing]. Could I ask consent to submit my 

formal statement for the record? 

Senator CARDIN. Absolutely. Without objection, your statement 

will be made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator DeMint follows:] 

Senator CARDIN. On this panel, we do have five nominees for ambassadorships with European countries. The first nominee that we 

will hear from will be Mr. John R. Beyrle to be Ambassador to the 

Russian Federation. 

Mr. Beyrle has already been introduced by Senator Levin. 

Let me just tell you that I was humbled and impressed by the 

story of your father, a true hero, and I thank Senator Levin for 

sharing that with us, and thank you for your public service, all of 

you. 

500 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BEYRLE, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Mr. BEYRLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the committee. 

I’d like to recognize, if I could, members of my family. My fatherand mother-in-law, Kenneth and Ann Greene, and my daughter, 

Allison, who are here with me today. And I’d also like to thank 

Senator Levin for honoring the memory of my father and mother 

with his kind words. Thanks to him, I feel like they’re here with 

us today, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement that I’d request be entered into the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, all of your statements will be 

entered into the record. 

Mr. BEYRLE. I’m honored to appear before you today as President 

Bush’s nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the Russian 

Federation. I, too, am grateful for the confidence and trust expressed in me by the President and Secretary Rice through this 

nomination and, if confirmed, I will do my utmost to advance and 

defend American interests in Russia and I look forward to consulting and cooperating closely with the committee, with its staff, 

in pursuit of the goals of the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, I have to say it’s a special pleasure for me to be 

back in Dirksen 419 where I spent so many hours as a Pearson 

Fellow on the staff of Senator Paul Simon in the 101st Congress. 

When I see Bertie on the job here, I know that we’re in very good 

hands, indeed. 

I’ve now spent over three decades of my life studying, working, 

and living in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and in Russia, and 

I believe, thanks to that, that I’ve gained a broad range of experience that relates directly to the challenges and the opportunities 

that I would face if confirmed. 

I made my first trip to Russia as a somewhat younger university 

student in Leningrad in 1976, after 4 years of studying Russia at 

college in Michigan. I spent 2002 to 2005 as deputy chief of mission 

at our mission in Russia, but my first posting to the U.S. Embassy 

was 25 years ago. Obviously the world has been transformed since 

then. No longer are the United States and the Soviet Union pitted 

in that ideological and military confrontation of the cold war. 

Our bilateral relationship has experienced great changes over 

these years and I would say the world is a safer place in large part 

for those changes. Today, our relationship is much more complex, 

including elements of strategic cooperation and areas where we 

have sharp differences. 

As much as things have changed, however, I think important elements remain the same. Russia remains a great power. The largest 

country in the world, Russia’s attitudes and influence matter in almost every issue of importance to America, whether we’re talking 

about the fight against global terrorism, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or strategic and regional issues involving 

North Korea, Iran, or the Middle East. 

The United States recognizes the shared challenges that our two 

countries face and we will seek to cooperate with the Government 

of Russia whenever and wherever possible because we will always 

501 

achieve much more with Russia’s cooperation than we will without 

it. 

This principle was spelled out in the Strategic Framework Declaration announced by Presidents Bush and Putin in Sochi in April. 

A roadmap for the way forward in United States-Russian relations, 

the Declaration states that the two countries will work together to 

promote security, prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, combat terrorism, and advance economic cooperation. 

In less than two decades, we built a strong record of concrete cooperative achievements in these areas. For example, under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the United States has helped 

Russia improve physical security at chemical, biological, and nuclear research production and storage facilities. The United States 

has helped Russia dispose of fissile materials through the agreement. Material from dismantled warheads is being downblended 

into nuclear fuel used in the United States. 

Senator Lugar, thank you for your leadership in that from the 

very start. United States-Russia trade is growing. It totals now nearly $27 

billion. There are many other examples and I think the United 

States and Russia can point to those examples and should point to 

these achievements with pride. 

At the same time, our desire to strengthen our relations with 

Russia and our desire to see a democratic and a strong Russia as 

a constructive influence in world affairs means that we must be 

honest and open about the areas in which we have disagreements 

or in which we have concerns about Russia’s development. 

The President and Secretary Rice have been forthright about 

these issues in their public statements and their discussions with 

Russian leaders. They include concerns about trends that are moving Russia away from a stronger democratic future, weakening the 

institutions of civil society and endangering the sustainability of 

economic growth. 

We’ve seen opposition political parties and supporters facing increased restrictions. Nongovernmental organizations and the media 

have been subject to pressure, harassment, and sometimes violence. Problems with corruption and the rule of law persist in ways 

that hinder the operation of foreign businesses and dampen the investment climate. 

We are also very concerned about Russia’s relations with its closest neighbors. While we appreciate the great influence that Russia 

has in the world, we would like to see Russian leaders exercise that 

influence in a way that does not increase regional tensions but contributes to peace and stability. 

Russia’s long-term interests are best served by having strong 

sovereign and prospering neighbors and by energy dealings in 

which the terms are transparent, market-driven, and mutually 

beneficial. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States has a strong stake in Russia’s 

success. However, that success, as Russian President Dmitry 

Medvedev recently acknowledged, can be built only upon a foundation of democratic and free market reforms. These reforms are in 

Russia’s own interests and we remain committed to working with 

the Russian people and their leaders to implement them. 

502 

If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I plan to build on the excellent work 

of my distinguished predecessor, Ambassador Bill Burns, to expand 

the cooperation we’ve already undertaken with the Government of 

Russia and to speak honestly and constructively with Russian leaders when we encounter areas of disagreement. 

If confirmed, I believe that my experience in and knowledge of 

Russia, its history, culture, people, and language, will enable me to 

be an effective advocate for United States foreign policy interests. 

I thank you for the honor of appearing before this committee and 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beyrle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BEYRLE, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

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

today as President Bush’s nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to Russia. I am grateful for the confidence and trust expressed in me by the President and 

Secretary Rice through this nomination. If confirmed, I will do my utmost to advance and defend American interests in Russia, and look forward to consulting and 

cooperating closely with the committee and its staff, and with your colleagues in 

Congress, in pursuit of those goals. 

It’s a special pleasure to be back here in Dirksen 419, where I spent so many 

hours during the 101st Congress as a Pearson fellow on the staff of the late Senator 

Paul Simon. 

’ve now spent over three decades studying, working, and living in Eastern Europe, 

the Soviet Union, and in Russia. I believe I have gained a broad range of experience 

related directly to the challenges and opportunities I would face if confirmed for this 

position. 

I made my first trip to Russia as a university student in Leningrad in 1976, after 

4 years of studying Russian in college. In the late 1970s, I spent almost 3 years 

traveling to dozens of cities across the USSR on American cultural exhibitions organized by the U.S. Information Agency. I spent 2002 to 2005 as deputy chief of our 

mission in Russia, but my first tour at the United States Embassy in Moscow was 

25 years ago. The world has been transformed since then. Most importantly, no 

longer are the United States and the Soviet Union pitted in the ideological and military confrontation of the cold war. Our bilateral relationship has experienced great 

change in these years, and the world is a safer place for those changes. Today our 

relationship is much more complex, including elements of strategic cooperation, and 

areas where we have sharp differences. 

As much as things have changed, however, important elements remain the same. 

Russia remains a great power. The largest country in the world, the Russian Federation enjoys enormous global influence. It is the only nuclear power comparable 

to the United States, and the world’s largest producer of hydrocarbons. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia’s attitudes and influence matter in almost every issue of importance to America, whether the fight 

against global terrorism, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or strategic and regional issues involving North Korea, Iran, or the Middle East. 

The United States recognizes the shared challenges that our countries face. We 

seek to cooperate with the Government of Russia wherever possible, because we will 

always achieve much more with Russia’s cooperation than without it. This principle 

was spelled out in the Strategic Framework Declaration announced by Presidents 

Bush and Putin at Sochi in April. A roadmap for the way forward in United StatesRussian relations, the declaration states that the two countries will work together 

to promote security, prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, combat terrorism, and advance economic cooperation. In less than two decades, we have built 

a strong record of concrete, cooperative achievements in these areas. For example, 

under the 20-year-old Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, together we have eliminated an entire category of our nuclear weapons. Under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the United States has helped Russia improve physical security at 

chemical, biological, and nuclear research, production, and storage facilities. The 

United States has helped Russia dispose of fissile material through the agreement— 

material from dismantled warheads is being down-blended into nuclear fuel used in 

the United States. Two Russian plutonium-production reactors have recently been 

shut down and will be replaced by fossil fuel plants with United States assistance. 

503 

United States-Russia trade is growing, totaling nearly $27 billion last year. United 

States companies and their foreign subsidiaries have invested more than $16 billion 

in Russia, and Russian companies have invested more than $5 billion in the United 

States since 2000. Both Russia and the United States can and should point to such 

achievements with pride—and use them as benchmarks for future progress. 

At the same time, our desire to strengthen our relations with Russia—and to see 

a democratic and strong Russia as a constructive influence in world affairs—means 

that we must be open and honest about the areas in which we have disagreements, 

or concerns about Russia’s development. Both the President and Secretary Rice have 

been forthright about these issues in their public statements and their discussions 

with Russian leaders. They include concerns about trends that are moving Russia 

away from a stronger democratic future, weakening the institutions of civil society, 

and endangering the sustainability of economic growth. We have seen opposition political parties and supporters facing increased restrictions. Nongovernmental organizations and the media have been subject to pressure, harassment, and sometimes 

violence. Problems with corruption and the rule of law persist in ways that hinder 

the operation of foreign businesses and dampen the investment climate. Freedom 

for civil society to operate and for citizens to express their political will is vital to 

the democratic development of any country, but especially a country as influential 

as Russia. 

We are also very concerned about Russia’s relations with its closest neighbors. 

While we appreciate the great influence Russia has in the world, we would like to 

see Russian leaders exercise that influence in a way that does not increase regional 

tensions, but contributes to peace and stability. Russia’s long-term interests are best 

served by having strong, sovereign, prospering neighbors, and by energy dealings in 

which the terms are transparent, market-driven, and mutually beneficial. 

The United States has a strong stake in Russia’s success. However, that success, 

as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently acknowledged, can be built only 

upon a foundation of democratic and free market reforms. These reforms are in Russia’s own interest, and we remain committed to working with the Russian people 

and their leaders to implement them. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I will build upon the excellent work of my predecessor, Ambassador William Burns, to expand the cooperation we have already undertaken with the Government of the Russian Federation, and to speak plainly with 

Russian leaders when we encounter areas of disagreement. We will work to implement the roadmap of the Strategic Framework Declaration, including cooperation in 

the field of nuclear energy and nonproliferation; the expansion of Russian-American 

commercial ties and the integration of Russia into global economic institutions; the 

struggle against terrorism and transnational crime; and the encouragement of the 

development of democratic institutions, rule of law, and a vibrant civil society in 

Russia. 

Mr. Chairman, these are but a few of the many challenges and opportunities that 

define the relationship between the United States and Russia today. If confirmed, 

I believe that my experience in and knowledge of Russia, its history, culture, people, 

and language will enable me to be an effective advocate for the United States foreign policy interests. Thank you for the honor of appearing before you today, and 

for considering my nomination. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. We’ll now turn to Mr. 

Asif Chaudhry to be Ambassador of the Republic of Moldova. 

STATEMENT OF ASIF J. CHAUDHRY, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 

Mr. CHAUDHRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I would like 

to introduce my family. My wife, Charla Chaudhry, my daughter, 

Brianna Chaudhry, and my son, Rishan Chaudhry. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and 

a privilege to appear before you today as the President’s nominee 

to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova. I deeply appreciate the confidence and trust President Bush and Secretary Rice 

have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely 

with Congress to promote United States interests in Moldova. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States is a strong partner with 

Moldova as it continues along the path of building viable demoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00511 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
504 

cratic institutions and a free market economic system. While 

Moldova has made tremendous strides toward achieving these objectives, the country has faced serious challenges along this path. 

I would like to take a moment today to focus on four United 

States priority interests with Moldova that are directly linked with 

these challenges. 

First and foremost, the United States objective in Moldova is to 

help strengthen its democratic institutions, such that the citizens 

of that country can have faith in its political system. I believe that 

a democratic system supported by a free media is an essential element in facilitating Moldova’s integration with the EuroAtlantic 

community. 

The second priority area is keeping Moldova on the path of economic reform and development and making sure that the government consistently implements the laws on economic reform that 

are being passed by the country’s Parliament. 

Since corruption remains a major obstacle to sustained economic 

growth and development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation 

has implemented a $24.7 million threshold program to support 

Moldova’s fight against corruption and is reviewing a $518 million 

Compact proposal that will focus on positive economic growth. 

The issue that presents the most serious challenge to achieving 

the first two objectives is the unresolved conflict in Transnistria. 

The United States is committed to a resolution of this issue that 

guarantees Moldova’s territorial integrity and includes the withdrawal of Russian soldiers. This is a key to establishing Moldova’s 

sovereignty over all its territory. 

If confirmed, I will make this a major part of my mission as Ambassador to Moldova. 

The fourth area of priority interest for the United States is the 

issue of transporter crime and the tragic prevalence of trafficking 

in persons. Better controls over its border and economic prosperity 

within the country, along with a more concerted effort to fight domestic corruption, will do much to assist Moldova’s struggle to protect its citizens, especially women and young girls, from being exploited. 

If confirmed, I will urge the recently-appointed Prime Minister 

Greceanii to fulfill her commitment to fight crime, especially discourage of trafficking persons. 

Mr. Chairman, as Moldova is strategically located at the border 

of the European Union, it is important for us to engage its leadership on these key areas of interest. It is worth mentioning that in 

spite of these serious issues, Moldova has made noticeable strides 

in economic and political development. It is a friendly country 

where the United States enjoys considerable influence. It deserves 

our support and encouragement. 

Before concluding, I would like to once again take the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to thank my wife and children for all the 

sacrifices they make as we move from country to country as a result of my commitment to serve our country around the globe. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share my 

thoughts. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you closely 

to advance the interests of the United States in Moldova. 

Thank you, sir. 

505 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaudhry follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASIF J. CHAUDHRY, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and a privilege to 

appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova. I deeply appreciate the confidence and trust that President Bush and 

Secretary Rice have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely 

with Congress to promote United States interests in Moldova. 

I am a career Foreign Service officer with the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 

of the United States Department of Agriculture. I am currently assigned as the Deputy Administrator of FAS, in charge of the Office of Global Analysis. I have spent 

most of my career working on issues dealing with international trade, market reforms, and developing economic infrastructure in Eastern Europe and the Former 

Soviet Union countries. As the Agricultural Attache at the United States Embassy 

in Warsaw, Poland, in the early 1990s, I was fortunate to have been a part of 

United States Government efforts to establish rural infrastructure that was key to 

the successful transition of its economy to a new direction. 

As the Agricultural Counselor in Moscow Russia during 1996–1999, I was involved in implementing one of the largest ever United States Government commodity assistance programs that helped protect a $1 billion dollar market for U.S. 

agricultural products. During this time, I also had the opportunity to support 

United States efforts to reform parts of the Ukrainian agriculture sector. During my 

most recent overseas assignment as the Minister Counselor for Agricultural Affairs 

in Cairo, Egypt (2002–2006), I was fortunate to have negotiated the removal of several trade barriers and restrictions on United States exports in a number of countries in the Middle East including Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. If confirmed, 

I hope that my extensive leadership experience in working in economies in transition toward a free market system, especially in the former Soviet Union countries, 

and my commitment to the United States values of freedom and democracy will 

make me an effective representative of the United States and Ambassador to 

Moldova. 

The United States is a strong partner with Moldova as it attempts to deepen its 

democratic reforms at home and integrate with Europe. The United States has an 

excellent relationship with President Voronin, Prime Minister Greceanii, and other 

senior officials in the Moldovan Government. We support those in Moldova who are 

firmly committed to democratic principles and to sound economic policies. I would 

like to take a moment today to focus on the four United States priority interests 

with Moldova: first, democracy; second, economic development; third, the frozen conflict in Transnistria; and fourth, transborder crime and, in particular, trafficking in 

persons. 

FIRST: DEMOCRACY

Moldova will hold parliamentary elections in the spring of 2009 and the new parliament will elect the next President. The previous parliamentary elections in 2005, 

as well as June 2007 local elections, were judged by independent observers to be 

generally free and well administered. Both elections, however, fell short of meeting 

all standards central to a genuinely competitive election. The United States will be 

closely monitoring the 2009 campaign and election to encourage Moldova to meet 

all international election commitments. If confirmed, I will be personally involved 

in trying to ensure free and fair elections. Moldovan Government influence over and 

restrictions on the media remain a key concern as we look ahead to the elections. 

It is regrettable that overall media freedom has deteriorated in Moldova, according 

to international NGOs that monitor media practices. Freedom House, for example, 

rated the country’s media as ‘‘not free’’ for the past 4 years. Corruption is another 

serious obstacle to good governance in Moldova. It undermines Moldovan citizens’ 

faith in their democratic institutions and impedes Moldova’s modernization. 

SECOND: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Despite sustained economic growth, Moldova remains one of Europe’s poorest 

countries, with many of its citizens working abroad, not being able to find adequate 

opportunities at home. Moldova still lacks an adequate investment climate and 

needs to take a more concerted approach to economic reform. If confirmed, I plan 

on working with Moldova on these pressing issues. Additionally, Moldova remains 

dependent on Russia for its energy supplies and as the primary market for its exports, both of which Russia has disrupted in recent years. It is important that 

506 

Moldova employ sound policies to diversify its economic base and also take advantage of help and cooperation from other countries to sustain growth and find new 

markets. 

Cooperation with Moldova on the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC) 

Threshold Country Program has been very good. Corruption is a principal constraint 

to economic growth and saps confidence in the government. The $24.7 million 

Threshold Program administered by USAID is designed to help Moldova combat corruption in government institutions and improve transparency and accountability. As 

of the latest quarterly report in March 2008, the program met all performance targets. Moldova submitted its MCC Compact Program proposal in February 2008. The 

proposal requests $518 million in assistance for road and irrigation system rehabilitation, a transition to high-value agriculture, energy sector rehabilitation, and support for the development of rural primary health care. It is now under review by 

MCC, which is examining the proposed components to ensure they will have positive 

rates of return as well as the size of the funding request. 

THIRD: TRANSNISTRIA

The United States is committed to a resolution of the Transnistria conflict that 

guarantees Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. I am convinced that this 

long-standing conflict can and should be resolved. The United States remains committed to the 5+2 process, involving the Moldovan and Transnistrian sides, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Russia, and Ukraine, 

with the European Union and the United States serving as active observers. Despite 

the best efforts of many, including the Finnish Chairmanship of the OSCE, the 5+2 

talks have not made progress on core settlement issues, like the future status of the 

Transnistrian region or the withdrawal of the Russian peacekeeping presence. Recent, informal discussions among the 5+2 parties have focused on confidence-building initiatives that seek to create favorable conditions for resumption of formal settlement talks, and have shown some progress. I am encouraged by the Finnish 

OSCE Chairman in Office’s commitment to resolving the conflict and intend to do 

what I can to move an acceptable solution forward. In this vein, if confirmed, I intend to follow the example set by Ambassador Kirby and reach out actively to all 

parts of Moldova, including the Transnistria region, to show the interest and support of the United States in Moldova’s future as a united country. 

The United States and NATO allies have for more than 8 years urged Russia to 

fulfill its 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit commitments relating to withdrawal of Russian military forces and facilities from Moldova and Georgia. NATO allies have 

made clear that fulfillment of those commitments is essential for us to complete 

ratification of the Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (the 

Adapted CFE Treaty). In fall 2007, the United States developed, and NATO allies 

endorsed, a creative package proposal for parallel actions on fulfillment of remaining Istanbul commitments by Russia, and ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty 

by NATO Allies. That package, which has the support of the Government of 

Moldova, is still under discussion. The ideas set out in the package concerning Russian withdrawal from Moldova are among the most contentious with Moscow. We 

will remain in close contact with Moldovan authorities as those talks go forward. 

The United States regards the presence of Russian forces on Moldovan soil, without 

Moldova’s consent, as a violation of the basic principle—contained in the CFE Treaty—that countries should be able to choose whether or not to allow foreign forces 

on their territory. 

FOURTH: TRANSBORDER CRIME AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

Criminal networks that illicitly transport contraband goods, drugs, counterfeit 

currency, and people are active in Eastern Europe. The United States Government 

provides considerable training to Moldovan law enforcement agencies or officials to 

help combat transborder crime. We are particularly worried about trafficking in persons. Moldova is a major source country for trafficking in women and girls for the 

purpose of sexual exploitation. Labor trafficking of men to work in Russia is increasingly a problem, as well. The government’s lack of visible follow-up to allegations 

of government officials complicit in trafficking in persons is a serious concern. The 

State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons downgraded Moldova to Tier 3 on June 4, finding that the government does not fully comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making 

significant efforts to do so. Prime Minister Greceanii, who recently took office as 

Prime Minister, has stated that she is serious about combating trafficking in all 

forms. If confirmed as ambassador, I will urge the Prime Minister to make good on 

507 

these intentions, particularly in addressing the alleged complicity of some government officials in trafficking. 

IN CONCLUSION

Moldova is a country that continues to make strides in its economic and political 

development. It is a friendly country where the United States enjoys considerable 

influence. It deserves our support and encouragement. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to share my thoughts about 

the relationship with Moldova. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you 

closely, and would welcome the opportunity to host you and other members of Congress in Chisinau. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, 

and we’ll now turn to Ms. Tina Kaidanow to be Ambassador to the 

Republic of Kosovo. 

STATEMENT OF TINA KAIDANOW, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO KOSOVO 

Ms. aidanow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might, 

I’d like to introduce my parents, Howard and Esther Kaidanow, 

who are here today and residents of the great State of Maryland. 

Senator CARDIN. Take as much time as you want. [Laughter.] 

Ms. aidanow. That’s what I was aiming for. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it’s a privilege to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the first 

United States Ambassador to the Republic of Kosovo. I’m honored 

by the trust placed in me by President Bush and Secretary Rice, 

but success in achieving our goals in Kosovo and the region will depend on close consultation with this committee and with others in 

Congress. 

As you recall, Mr. Chairman, it took a NATO military intervention in 1999 to compel the Serbian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic to 

withdraw his security forces from Kosovo and end the systematic 

violence of his regime against Kosovo’s civilian population. 

In the aftermath of that conflict, the U.N. Security Council decided to remove Kosovo from Belgrade’s governance and the U.N. 

mission in Kosovo was established to help Kosovo recover from war 

and build its own institutions of democratic self-government. 

The United States supported U.N.-facilitated efforts beginning in 

2005 to determine the ultimate political status of Kosovo. After 

months of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, U.N. Special Envoy Maarti Ahtisaari produced a set of detailed provisions 

designed to facilitate Kosovo’s development into a stable multiethnic society. 

Ahtisaari also recommended that Kosovo become independent, 

subject to a period of international supervision. 

The United States supported these recommendations which offered Kosovo and its neighbors the best opportunity to move beyond the conflicts of the past. 

In its first 4 months of independence, Kosovo has made significant progress in implementing the Ahtisaari protections for its minorities. The Kosovo Assembly has adopted 40 new laws needed to 

implement the Ahtisaari plan and has approved a new constitution 

that meets the highest democratic standards. 

508 

There are still, of course, many, many challenges ahead. In particular, Belgrade’s opposition to independence as well as its overt 

policy of promoting ethnic separation in Kosovo, has created a serious threat to stability. 

Nevertheless, we believe strongly that the resolution of Kosovo’s 

status has opened the door for Kosovo to assume responsibility for 

its future and for the well-being of its people. 

To do this, Kosovo will need help. The European Union has rightly stepped up to provide the bulk of assistance to the new state and 

we will encourage Europe to continue to play this leading role. Active U.S. engagement, however, will remain essential. 

The United States is helping to strengthen Kosovo’s economy, 

promote democratic governance, and bolster civil society with a 

special emphasis on programs that benefit Kosovo’s ethnic minorities. 

Perhaps the single greatest United States priority in Kosovo is 

to foster a multiethnic society in which the rights, security, and 

culture of Kosovo’s ethnic minorities and particularly the Serb minority are firmly protected. 

In the last 2 years, the United States Government has built infrastructure in Serb communities, advocated on behalf of Serb concerns, and encouraged Kosovo’s Government to provide political 

and financial backing for sustainable Serb returns to Kosovo. 

Protecting the holy sites of the Serbian Orthodox Church has 

also been a major goal for us. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the success of 

Kosovo is in the United States interests. A strong and focused 

United States approach in tandem with our European partners remains absolutely fundamental to progress in Kosovo and the region. We and the people of Kosovo have everything to gain from 

this kind of active collaboration. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the committee, and I look forward to answering any questions that you 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kaidanow follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TINA S. KAIDANOW, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear before you 

today as the President’s nominee to be the first United States Ambassador to the 

Republic of Kosovo. I am honored by the trust placed in me by President Bush and 

Secretary Rice at this decisive moment for the people of Kosovo. Success in achieving our goals in Kosovo and the region will depend on close consultation with this 

committee and with others in Congress. If I may, I would like to say a special 

thanks to my parents, who are here today. Both of them came to the United States 

many years ago as immigrants, and they could not be prouder to see their daughter 

serve the country they love so much. 

Kosovo’s historic declaration of independence on February 17 marked the end of 

Yugoslavia’s nonconsensual collapse, one of the most tragic chapters of European 

history since World War II. During this period, United States policy in southeast 

Europe has been consistent. President George H.W. Bush, President Clinton and 

President George W. Bush have had a single vision for Europe since the fall of communism in 1989: a continent whole, free, and at peace. To implement this vision 

in Southeast Europe, we have acted to end wars, build multiethnic tolerance and 

bring the entire region closer to the Euro-Atlantic family of democracies. 

For the last 14 years, many of my assignments in the Foreign Service have dealt 

with the conflicts and problems caused by the break up of the former Yugoslavia. 

In Serbia, Bosnia, and now in Kosovo as Charge d’Affaires ad interim, I have witVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00516 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
509 

nessed the trauma of war and the power of U.S. involvement in bringing peace to 

the region and sustaining that peace. I traveled to Kosovo repeatedly during the 

conflict years of the late 1990s, and I later participated in the 1999 Rambouillet 

peace conference, as the international community tried to find a way out of the crisis and obtain Belgrade’s agreement to end its destructive and abusive policies in 

Kosovo. Kosovo’s recent history—and the key United States role in it—is in many 

ways personal for me. 

As you recall, Mr. Chairman, it took a NATO military intervention in 1999 to 

compel the Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his security forces from 

Kosovo. In the aftermath, the U.N. Security Council decided to remove Kosovo from 

Belgrade’s governance and the U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo was 

established to help govern and develop it. Under U.N. guidance, Kosovo gradually 

recovered from war and built its own institutions of democratic self-government. 

The United States supported U.N.-facilitated efforts that began in 2005 to determine the political status of Kosovo. After months of negotiations between Belgrade 

and Pristina, U.N. Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari produced a set of recommendations for Kosovo’s future. These proposals—the ‘‘Ahtisaari Plan’’—provided a comprehensive blueprint for Kosovo’s development into a stable, multiethnic society on 

its way to integration in the Euro-Atlantic community. Special Envoy Ahtisaari also 

recommended that Kosovo become independent, subject to a period of international 

supervision. The United States supported these recommendations, which offered 

Kosovo and its Southeast European neighbors the best opportunity to move beyond 

the conflicts of the past. As chief of mission of the United States Office in Pristina, 

I helped explain to the Kosovo leadership the benefits this package could offer their 

people, but also urged them to pronounce clearly their commitment to the substantial rights afforded by the plan to the Serb community and other minority communities in Kosovo. 

On the day after Kosovo declared its independence in line with the Ahtisaari 

Plan, President Bush recognized Kosovo as an independent state and agreed to establish diplomatic relations. Since February, 43 countries have recognized Kosovo, 

including more than 2⁄3 of European Union and NATO members and several significant countries from every region of the world. Beyond the question of recognition 

of Kosovo’s independence, the new state enjoys broad international support. Many 

countries that have yet to recognize Pristina formally are nevertheless providing 

personnel, technical assistance, and political backing for efforts in-country to build 

up Kosovo society. 

Although independence marked a significant step forward, Kosovo has serious 

problems. Economic development is slow, political institutions are weak, and interethnic tensions remain. I believe, however, it is a good sign that Kosovo’s minority 

Serbs have stayed in Kosovo after independence and that the atmosphere between 

the two communities has remained calm and peaceful overall despite serious provocations from Belgrade and hardline Serbs in Kosovo’s north. 

In its first 4 months of independence, Kosovo has made significant progress in implementing the Ahtisaari protections for its minorities. Prime Minister Thaci, President Sejdiu, and other key institutional leaders have reaffirmed their commitment 

to all aspects of the Ahtisaari Plan and have sent consistent messages of inclusion 

to Kosovo’s ethnic minorities. The Kosovo Assembly has already adopted 40 new 

laws needed to implement the Ahtisaari Plan, including legislation on the decentralization of local government, protection of minority rights, and cultural heritage 

safeguards. The Assembly also approved a new constitution that meets the highest 

democratic standards. Kosovo is working to deepen relations with its neighbors and 

has moved forward collaboratively with Macedonia to demarcate their mutual border in accordance with the Ahtisaari Plan. 

There are still, of course, many challenges ahead. Belgrade’s opposition to independence, as well as its overt policy of promoting ethnic separation in Kosovo, has 

created threats to stability, and it appears that Russia will act to block Kosovo’s 

entry into those international organizations where Russia or its supporters have a 

veto. There is much work ahead in managing Kosovo’s transition from U.N. administration to supervised independence, a journey unique to Kosovo given the unusual 

circumstances of its recent history. Nevertheless, we believe strongly that the resolution of Kosovo’s status has opened the door for Kosovo to assume responsibility 

for its future and for the well-being of its people. 

To do this, Kosovo needs help. The European Union has rightly stepped up to provide the bulk of assistance and guidance to the new state. The European Union will 

head up two new international presences in Kosovo, one responsible for rule of law 

and one responsible for supervising full implementation of the Ahtisaari plan. We 

will encourage Europe to continue to play this leading role. Active United States enVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00517 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
510 

gagement, however, will remain essential to the stabilization of Kosovo and the region. 

Nearly 1,500 United States Army National Guardsmen of a total force numbering 

approximately 16,000 currently serve in KFOR, the NATO-led stabilization force in 

Kosovo. Although United States troops can and have operated throughout Kosovo, 

they primarily help maintain a safe and secure environment in eastern Kosovo, 

where a majority of Kosovo Serbs live. They are universally respected by Albanians 

and Serbs alike for their professionalism and effectiveness in dealing with a mixedethnic civilian population. The United States supports ongoing NATO efforts to 

carry out certain Ahtisaari tasks, such as the establishment of a small Kosovo Security Force, which will allow Kosovo—over time—to contribute to its own security 

and permit the drawdown of international forces. 

For many years, over 200 United States civilian police officers have participated 

in the current U.N. mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). As UNMIK hands over justice 

functions to local authorities and to the European Union, the United States will provide a reduced number of police, prosecutors, and judges to the European Union’s 

new rule of law mission, known as EULEX. The United States is also helping to 

strengthen Kosovo’s economy, promote democratic governance, and bolster civil society, with a special emphasis on programs that benefit Kosovo’s ethnic minorities. 

While Europe remains firmly in the lead in material assistance and provides the 

ultimate incentive of closer association with the European Union, our resources will 

help Kosovo pay off its share of debt from the former Yugoslavia and accomplish 

a host of other important goals. 

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the single greatest United States priority in Kosovo is to 

foster a stable, multiethnic society in which the rights, security, and culture of 

Kosovo’s ethnic minorities are firmly protected. The United States Embassy in 

Pristina has been and will continue to be engaged on a daily basis with the Kosovo 

Government and with Kosovo’s ethnic communities to promote this objective. 

Although Kosovo Serbs opposed United States recognition of Kosovo’s independence, many of them recognize that the United States is actively committed to their 

community’s welfare. Our efforts to reach out directly to the Serb community and 

support its needs have had a tangible payoff in enhancing communication and trust. 

In the last few years, the United States Government has supplemented Kosovo’s inadequate resources by building schools, roads and other infrastructure in Serb communities; we have advocated on behalf of Serb concerns directly to the Kosovo central government and to local authorities; we have helped resolve property disputes 

for Serbs who wish to return to Kosovo; and we have supported the growth of a nascent Serb media in Kosovo that can articulate the ideas of that community without 

filtering from Belgrade. We have encouraged Kosovo’s government—which has already spent more than $77 million to build homes and provide support for returning 

Serbs—to expand those resources even further and provide political backing for sustainable returns. 

Protecting the holy sites of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as well as its rights as 

an institution, has also been a major goal for us. In addition to possessing churches 

and monasteries of global architectural and historic significance, the Serbian Orthodox Church plays an important role in the everyday lives of Kosovo Serbs. Kosovo’s 

Government has spent close to $10 million to reconstruct and preserve those churches that were damaged in the tragic March 2004 riots. This is an effort we have supported vigorously over the past 2 years. We have also worked successfully with local 

governments to modify development plans that might affect the Church’s holy sites, 

and we have facilitated understanding between religious leaders and local populations when Orthodox authorities have sought permission for construction that affects the wider community. 

Mr. Chairman, the success of Kosovo is in the United States interest. The circumstances of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia posed—and in some ways continue to pose—a fundamental challenge to stability in southeast Europe, and history 

has shown that broken societies attract the great scourges of our age, including 

transnational crime, ethnic conflict, trafficking in persons, and terrorism. 

To counter the impact of these forces, a strong and focused U.S. approach, in tandem with our European partners, remains absolutely essential. I believe our efforts 

in Kosovo and the region make a meaningful difference each and every day, and 

our continued involvement will promote long-term stability in this part of Europe. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with our allies and with you to help Kosovo take 

those steps necessary to become a productive member of the Euro-Atlantic family 

of democratic nations. We and the people of Kosovo have everything to gain from 

this collaboration. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before this committee today. I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

511 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for your testimony. We’ll now turn 

to Mr. Philip Thomas Reeker to be the Ambassador to the Republic 

of Macedonia. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP REEKER, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 

Mr. REEKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Menendez, Senator DeMint. 

I’m privileged to appear before you today and I’ll be pleased to 

submit my full statement for the record. 

I’m also very privileged to be joined at this dais by such a distinguished panel of colleagues. It’s a great honor for me to join the 

people I’ve known in the Foreign Service for many years. 

If I may, I would like to begin by introducing my adorable wife 

and partner in service to our Nation, Solveig Johnson Reeker, herself a career member of the United States Foreign Service, and I’d 

also like to recognize my father, Larry Reeker, and the two youngest of my four siblings, my brothers, Greg and Seth. Today happens 

to be Greg’s 28th birthday and we wish him all the best. Seth, in 

fact, spent the summer of 1998 with me in Macedonia, when he 

was just 8 years old, while I was serving at our embassy in Skopje 

as the public affairs officer under Ambassador Christopher Hill. 

Should the members of this committee and the full Senate confirm my nomination, I will do my utmost as ambassador to validate 

the trust placed in me to advance our Nation’s goals in Macedonia 

and in Southeast Europe and to represent our country to the best 

of my abilities. 

I am certainly struck by how far Macedonia, as a country, has 

come since I last served in Skopje. Indeed, no period since its independence in 1991 has been an easy one for Macedonia and the last 

9 years have been no exception. 

The country has suffered setbacks and challenges to its stability 

but has overcome each to regain its bearings and press forward 

again in pursuit of a better future. 

Today, Macedonia is a stable unitary model of multiethnic democracy in the Balkans, still in transition, but with much stronger 

democratic and entrepreneurial traditions of vibrant inclusive political process and steadily maturing institutions of government and 

civil society. 

Mr. Chairman, our relations with Macedonia have never been 

closer. Pro United States sentiment among Macedonians of all 

ethnicities is extremely strong. Americans and Macedonians share 

an affinity of values and we are partners in the major endeavors 

and challenges of our time. 

I just returned last week from service in Iraq and just last month 

in my previous capacity as counselor at our United States Embassy 

in Baghdad, I had the opportunity and honor to meet with the 

Macedonian Ranger and Infantry Platoons deployed with American 

forces at Tajik. They are brave and professional soldiers serving 

with distinction and high morale alongside United States troops 

since 2003 in Iraq. 

Macedonian troops in Iraq receive the highest praise and respect 

from the United States commanders. Macedonia is a small country 

but punching above its weight in United States-led coalitions. Once 

512 

a net security consumer, Macedonia is today a net security producer, keen on bringing its unique capability into NATO as a fullfledged member. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed as ambassador, I would strive to uphold and continue on the distinguished record of the men and 

woman who have held this position before me, promoting United 

States goals in Macedonia while maintaining a solid partnership 

with the host country. 

If confirmed, I and the mission I would lead will continue to help 

the leaders and people of Macedonia build on their successes and 

achieve through continued reform the multiethnic democracy and 

free market economy they desire, including integration into NATO 

and into the European Union. 

I know I cannot succeed in these endeavors without your support. If you confirm me, you can count on my close cooperation with 

you, the full committee, the entire legislative branch, as we work 

together to serve the American people and for the advancement of 

U.S. interests. 

I look forward very much to answering any questions you may 

have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reeker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP THOMAS REEKER, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

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

today as President Bush’s nominee to be our country’s next Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia. I am deeply honored by the confidence expressed by the President and Secretary Rice in selecting me for this important assignment. It has been 

my privilege to meet committee members and staff during my years in the Foreign 

Service, and I pledge continued commitment and candor as you consider confirming 

me for this new position. Should the members of this committee and the full Senate 

confirm my nomination, I will do my utmost as ambassador to validate the trust 

placed in me, to advance our Nation’s goals in Macedonia and in Southeast Europe, 

and to represent our country to the best of my abilities. That would include maintaining a close working relationship with this committee, its staff, and your congressional colleagues in furthering the security and interests of the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be accompanied today by my wife and best 

friend, Solveig Johnson Reeker, herself a career member of the Foreign Service. I 

would also like to recognize my father, Larry Reeker, and two of my four siblings, 

my brothers, Greg and Seth. Seth, in fact, spent the summer of 1998 with me in 

Macedonia when he was 8 years old, while I was serving at our embassy in Skopje 

as the Public Affairs Officer, under Ambassador Christopher Hill. If confirmed, I 

will return to a Macedonia very different than the one I left in 1999. I am struck 

by how far Macedonia, as a country, has come since I last served in Skopje. Indeed, 

no period since its independence in 1991 has been an easy one for Macedonia, and 

the last 9 years have been no exception. The country has suffered setbacks and challenges to its stability, but has overcome each to regain its bearings and press forward again in pursuit of a better future. In 1999, Macedonia rose to the challenge 

of the influx of Kosovar refugees from Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing campaign. It was 

profoundly tested again by an insurgency in 2001. With the help of the international 

community, Macedonia’s leaders lifted their country out of the clutches of interethnic conflict with a model political accord: the Ohrid Framework Agreement. 

With the Ohrid Agreement, Macedonia took a bold step, breaking the previous 

mold for the Balkans by ending conflict through a political agreement that addressed ethnic grievances through principles of equal rights for all citizens irrespective of ethnicity. The Ohrid Agreement, concluded with United States and European 

Union help, remains the foundation and roadmap for Macedonian peace and development. Successive multiethnic governments have reaffirmed the agreement by 

committing themselves to its implementation, a process the United States monitors 

closely. All of the constitutional and legal provisions mandated by the agreement 

have been adopted. Their implementation has progressed, including the key pillars 

513 

of equitable representation of minorities across state structures and of decentralization to make local governance more responsive to the people. In the spirit of Ohrid, 

interparty and interethnic dialog continues to be critical. While not immune from 

political gamesmanship, this dialog over the years has resulted in compromises and 

reforms that have strengthened Macedonia’s multiethnic democratic institutions and 

remain integral to securing for all Macedonia’s citizens a future in Europe, whole, 

free, and at peace. 

Today, 7 years on from Ohrid and after 17 years of independence, Macedonia is 

a stable, unitary, multiethnic democracy—still in transition, but with much stronger 

democratic and entrepreneurial institutions. Today, a still evolving Macedonia is a 

model of multiethnic democracy in the Balkans, working to address its internal social and ethnic challenges within a vibrant, inclusive, political process and steadily 

maturing institutions of government and civil society. 

Steps like ethnic rebalancing of the police, put in place by Macedonia in the wake 

of the 2001 insurgency, and the adoption of a police law in line with international 

standards and other key legal reforms have reinforced the independence of the judiciary and strengthened rule of law. Making strides economically, Macedonia is making up for its relative lack of development in the former Yugoslavia, for the economic downturns that accompanied Yugoslavia’s breakup, and for the investmentchilling effects of the 2001 insurgency. Unemployment, a strain on social stability, 

remains high, but real wages have gradually increased, inflation and deficits are 

manageable, and GDP has risen. The government has taken bold steps to improve 

the investment and business climate, leading the World Bank to cite Macedonia as 

a top 10 global reformer in its 2008 report on ‘‘Doing Business.’’ Macedonia also 

stepped up the fight against corruption, reflected by a significant jump in Transparency International’s 2007 ratings. And strong governmental efforts have brought 

Macedonia back into full compliance with the minimum standards to combat trafficking in persons. 

Macedonia has more work to do, but its progress is driven by values that we 

Americans recognize and share. These include recognition that the livelihoods of its 

communities and the success of the whole country and region depends on cooperation eclipsing confrontation, understanding supplanting mistrust, and healthy political competition and compromise becoming the tools to resolve differences. Macedonia also identifies with the Euro-Atlantic family of nations, with responsibilities—indeed a calling—to contribute to peace and stability for peoples beyond its 

borders. 

Mr. Chairman, this affinity of values explains, I believe, the depth of our partnership with Macedonia today. Our relations with Macedonia have never been closer; 

pro-United States sentiment among Macedonians of all ethnicities is strong. Today, 

we are partners in the major endeavors and challenges of our time. Just last month, 

in my previous capacity as Counselor for Public Affairs at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, I had the opportunity and honor to meet with the Macedonian 

special forces and infantry platoons deployed with American forces at Taji. They are 

brave and professional, serving with high morale alongside U.S. troops. Several 

Macedonian soldiers who served in Iraq were awarded medals of bravery by the 

United States. In Afghanistan, Macedonian forces are guarding NATO headquarters 

and displaying such proficiency that the United Kingdom placed a platoon of British 

troops under Macedonian command. 

Macedonia’s capable troop commitments reflect the substantial efforts of recent 

years to meet NATO defense standards. Macedonia also has proven itself as a 

strong contributor to regional stability. It has troops in the European Union Force 

in Bosnia and provides needed helicopter lift—in fact it lost 11 soldiers in a crash 

this year, but that tragedy did not deter its continued participation. For years Macedonia has provided critical logistical support for the NATO mission in Kosovo. And 

in an issue of utmost importance for Balkan stability—the fate of Kosovo—Macedonia ‘‘paid forward’’ by fully backing United States efforts to resolve Kosovo status 

peacefully via U.N. Secretary General Special Envoy Ahtisaari’s plan for supervised 

independence. As a close neighbor, Macedonia recognized that ending Kosovo’s limbo 

was important to the stability of the region. 

The unwavering support of Macedonia’s political leaders and parliament for Macedonia’s contributions to regional and global stability, and the overwhelming backing of Macedonia’s citizenry for NATO and European Union membership—over 90 

percent in each case—are reflections of the country’s self-identification with EuroAtlantic values and a mandate for Macedonia’s continued reform. Its hard work of 

building a multiethnic society based on equal rights and opportunities is not complete. As in our country, the process has not been perfect and the way forward has 

not been easy. At times, Macedonia has asked for the support of the United States, 

and we have given it, standing by the citizens of Macedonia, helping as we could 

514 

with counsel and assistance, and working with their political leaders to move beyond a zero-sum mentality. Macedonia’s track record in avoiding the terrible pitfalls 

witnessed in other parts of the region has shown the world that multiethnic democracy in the Balkans can, must and will succeed. 

Macedonia’s progress has been slow at times, but its way forward has never been 

in doubt. It is still a poor country, but rich with tradition and culture, with a capable and entrepreneurial citizenry, with multitalented and multilingual youth, and 

with a growing economy full of potential. It is a small country, but punching above 

its weight in U.S.-led coalitions. Once a net security consumer, today Macedonia is 

a net security producer, keen on bringing its unique capabilities into NATO as a 

full-fledged member. It is also an official candidate for the European Union, working 

to fulfill benchmarks and receive an invitation for membership talks. 

Macedonia’s success is critical to the region. Its achievement of NATO and European Union membership will be an important affirmation that political and economic reform is worth the hard work and that NATO and European Union doors 

remain open for countries that share Western standards and values. The fact that 

Allies at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April did not issue a membership invitation for Macedonia was a disappointment for Macedonia and also for the United 

States. The United States through several administrations has strongly supported 

Macedonia’s NATO aspirations. We do not consider that the dispute between Athens 

and Skopje over Macedonia’s name should have prevented Macedonia from receiving 

an invitation. We made a great push in the lead-up to Bucharest to work with Governments in Greece and Macedonia and with U.N. negotiator Ambassador Matthew 

Nimetz to help the parties find a mutually acceptable solution. This did not prove 

possible. At Bucharest, allies determined that Macedonia meets NATO’s performance-based standards and will receive an invitation as soon as the dispute with 

Greece over the name is resolved. As President Bush noted, ‘‘America’s position is 

clear: Macedonia should take its place in NATO as soon as possible.’’ We will continue to support the U.N. process to help Macedonia and Greece find a mutually 

acceptable solution to the name dispute as quickly as possible. 

Mr. Chairman, in May, Secretary Rice and Macedonian Foreign Minister 

Milososki signed a joint Declaration on Strategic Partnership and Cooperation as a 

sign of friendship and shared values between our two countries. This was an important signal to the people of Macedonia after the disappointment of the NATO Summit. As Secretary Rice said upon signing the declaration, the United States is proud 

to have been a part of the significant reforms that Macedonia has made. We believe 

a strong, stable, unitary, multiethnic Macedonia within its existing borders will enhance NATO’s strength, security and prosperity and democracy. We have encouraged and will continue encouraging Macedonia to work hard to strengthen what it 

will bring to the alliance. 

Macedonia’s parliamentary elections on June 1 underscored the challenges that 

remain for Macedonia in consolidating its progress. Frankly, they were a disappointment, with numerous instances of violence, intimidation, fraud, and irregularities 

predominantly in ethnic Albanian areas. We were encouraged by the authorities’ 

steps taken to address the problems, including the decision by the State Electoral 

Commission to hold broad reruns in affected areas and actions by law enforcement 

authorities to arrest and bring to trial the suspected perpetrators of those incidents. 

The June 15 reruns showed significant improvements, including effective and professional police conduct which created a much better security environment. Nevertheless, despite these improvements and good administration overall, the problems 

on June 1 and continuing irregularities in some polling stations led the OSCE international observation mission to conclude that the elections overall failed to meet 

some key commitments. The United States will continue to urge follow-through from 

the government, including holding accountable those responsible for the problems, 

to ensure in the future a fair electoral process that protects the rights of all citizens 

and fully repairs Macedonia’s credibility. This is a top priority, and the United 

States looks forward to working with the next Macedonian Government and all Macedonians to support them on this path. 

Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, my foremost priority as ambassador will be promoting United States interests in Macedonia while maintaining a solid partnership 

with the host country. The security of all United States citizens living and working 

in Macedonia is of course paramount. I would be committed to helping Macedonia 

achieve the multiethnic democracy and free market economy its citizens desire, advancing its integration into NATO and the European Union. As ambassador, I 

would continue to help Macedonia’s leaders and people build on their successes and 

achieve these goals. If confirmed to this position, I would encourage the Macedonian 

Government and people to continue contributing wherever possible to peace and stability in the region and globally. And I would if confirmed promote further maturaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00522 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
515 

tion of Macedonia’s own democratic institutions. I would also hope, if given the opportunity by the Senate, to facilitate greater United States business engagement in 

Macedonia, taking advantage of the Macedonian Government’s steps to improve the 

business climate, and enlisting United States companies to bring their talents to 

bear in support of Macedonia’s transformative efforts. No less importantly, I promise to manage our mission and its resources responsibly and to provide our embassy’s talented workforce and their families the safe and secure working conditions 

that allow them to contribute to our mission. Consistent with that goal, we would 

hope to take occupancy of a new embassy compound next year. 

In sum, Mr. Chairman, should my appointment be confirmed, I would strive to 

uphold and build on the distinguished record of the men and women who have held 

this position before me and who have contributed to the excellent relations between 

the United States and Macedonia and who thus have made such vital contributions 

to peace, stability, and prosperity in this important region of the world. I know that 

I cannot succeed in these endeavors without your support. If you confirm me, you 

can expect my close cooperation with you, your committee, its staff, and the entire 

legislative branch as we work together for the advancement of U.S. interests. I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for your testimony. We’ll now turn 

to Ms. Maria Yovanovitch to be Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. 

STATEMENT OF MARIA L. YOVANOVITCH, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Thank you, sir. Before I start, I’d like to acknowledge my mother, Nadia, who just turned 80 this week, and 

my brother, Andre. And I’d also like to thank Senator Dole for his 

kind introduction, and I’m pleased to submit my full remarks for 

the record. This is a truncated version. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it’s an honor for me 

to appear before you today. I’m honored also by the confidence that 

President Bush and Secretary Rice have shown in me by nominating me for the post of United States Ambassador to Armenia. 

Only in the United States would it be possible for a first generation immigrant like me to appear before you as an ambassadorial 

nominee. My father, who is no longer with us, fled the Soviets and 

then the Nazis. My maternal grandfather escaped from Russia 

after the Revolution and raised his family in wartime Germany 

where my mother grew up stateless. 

My parents brought me to this country in search of a safe harbor, 

a harbor that provides freedom and opportunity, dignity and respect. The United States offered our family a second chance, just 

as so many Armenian Americans received a second chance in our 

country after they were driven out of the Ottoman Empire. 

I cannot equate my own family history with that of Americans 

of Armenian heritage, but I do wish to convey that I understand 

from personal experience that the events of the past can haunt the 

present and that individuals born a generation or more after apocalyptic events seek recognition of the injustices of the past. 

The United States Government recognizes and deplores the mass 

killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated 

over 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The 

United States recognizes these events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the Great Calamity or ‘‘Medz Yeghern,’’ 

as many Armenians call it. 

The administration understands that many Americans and many 

Armenians refer to the atrocities of 1915 as genocide. It has been 

516 

President Bush’s policy, as well as that of previous Presidents of 

both parties, not to use that term. The President’s focus, the administration’s focus, is not only to remember the past so that it is 

never repeated, it is also to focus on the future, to create an environment that encourages Turkish citizens to reconcile with their 

past and also with the Armenians. 

It’s important to end Armenian isolation in the region by working toward normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey 

and the opening of their land border. If confirmed, one of my top 

priorities will be to support regional stability by facilitating Armenian-Turkish relations as well as a peaceful settlement to the 

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan. 

The status quo in both situations is unacceptable and not in regional interests or in U.S. interests. Some progress has been made 

in both areas recently which we welcome. 

Finally, but very importantly, restoring democratic momentum in 

Armenia after the flawed presidential elections and their violent 

aftermath is also a key United States goal as is assisting Armenia’s 

transition to a market economy. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would build on my 

22 years of service to our country to ensure that United States interests are promoted and protected, that the bilateral relationship 

flourishes and that Armenias isolation ends and regional stability 

is enhanced. 

Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yovanovitch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIE L. YOVANOVITCH, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored by the confidence that President Bush and Secretary Rice have shown in me by nominating me for the post of United States Ambassador to Armenia. If confirmed, I pledge to build on my 22 years of service to 

our country to protect and defend American interests in the increasingly vital region 

of the South Caucasus. 

Only in the United States would it be possible for someone like me—a first generation immigrant to the United States—to appear before you as an ambassadorial 

nominee. My father fled the Soviets and then the Nazis. My maternal grandfather 

escaped from Russia after the revolution and raised his family in wartime Germany, 

where my mother grew up stateless. My parents brought me to this country in 

search of a safe harbor, a harbor that provided freedom and opportunity, dignity, 

and respect. 

The United States offered our family a second chance, just as so many ArmenianAmericans received a second chance in our country after they were driven out of 

the Ottoman Empire. In no way do I want to equate my own family history with 

that of Americans of Armenian heritage here in the United States. But I do wish 

to convey that I understand from personal experience that the events of the past 

can haunt the present and that individuals, born a generation or more after apocalyptic events, seek recognition of the injustices of the past. 

The United States Government—and certainly I—acknowledges and mourns the 

mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one 

and a half million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The United States 

recognizes these events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the 

‘‘Medz Yeghern’’ or Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it. That is why 

every April the President honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with 

the Armenian people on Remembrance Day. 

The administration understands that many Americans and many Armenians believe that the events of the past that I have referred to should be called ‘‘genocide.’’ 

It has been President Bush’s policy, as well as that of previous presidents of both 

517 

parties, not to use that term. The President’s focus is on encouraging Turkish citizens to reconcile with their past and with the Armenians. He seeks to support the 

painstaking progress achieved to date. 

President Bush believes that the best way to honor the victims is to remember 

the past, so it is never repeated, and to look to the future to promote understanding 

and reconciliation between the peoples and governments of Armenia and Turkey. A 

key part of that effort is to end Armenia’s isolation in the region by encouraging 

normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey and the opening of their 

land border. The Armenian Government has requested that we facilitate this process. It will not be easy nor will it likely be quick, but there are some hopeful signs. 

President Bush believes that normalization can and should be achieved. The result 

would be an improvement in the life of every Armenian. 

If I am confirmed, my priority would be to support the efforts of the United States 

in working towards regional stability by facilitating Armenian-Turkish relations and 

a peaceful settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan. Armenia 

is isolated from its second largest neighbor, Turkey, and every year scores of soldiers die along the line of contact with Azeri forces in Nagorno-Karabakh. The status quo in both situations is unacceptable, a deterioration unthinkable and clearly 

not in U.S. or regional interests. 

Some progress has been made in both areas recently. Success would bring security 

to Armenia and great economic opportunities. This is a goal worth pursuing, and, 

if confirmed, I would give it my utmost attention—not only by supporting government-to-government discussions—but by promoting people-to-people contacts and 

partnerships, and other cross-border and regional initiatives. Contact begins to build 

trust, and trust is the necessary first step to reconciliation and conflict resolution. 

Promoting good governance in Armenia is also a key United States goal. The conduct of the recent Presidential elections and their violent aftermath in which 10 individuals died were deeply disturbing. The path towards democracy is rarely fast 

or smooth. Our aim is to help the Armenian Government and the Armenian people 

restore democratic momentum and to renew their own stated mission of moving forward to become a country where government institutions are fully transparent and 

accountable and where rule of law is accepted by all. 

It is important that the Armenian Government support an independent, objective, 

and inclusive investigation into the fateful events of March 1 and release those who 

have been held on politically-motivated charges. It is important that the judiciary 

becomes truly independent. It is important that freedom of assembly, freedom of the 

press, and freedom of expression are fully protected. It is important that the Armenian authorities show the will to move forward with a reform program that is responsive to the legitimate desires of the people and that inspires public confidence 

in the country’s political and economic processes. 

We are looking at how our democracy programs can be more targeted—better supporting civil society, watchdog organizations, the independent media, and development of the Internet. Our programs will continue to focus on anticorruption efforts 

and strengthening the rule of law. 

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Agreement in 2006 demonstrated 

our belief that Armenia was fulfilling MCC’s required criteria in the three broad 

areas of ruling justly, investing in people, and economic freedom. MCC is a performance-based program for governments that demonstrate commitment in these areas. 

In Armenia, the MCC Compact is a poverty-reduction program that focuses on 

building roads, improving the irrigation infrastructure, and training farmers. The 

program will eventually benefit 750,000 people, 75 percent of whom live in rural 

areas. 

This is an important program, and we have urged the new Armenian Government 

to act quickly to improve its standing in the 9 of 17 indicators that it currently fails. 

The United States Government is committed to assisting Armenia in this process, 

but it is up to the Armenian Government to take the necessary steps, so that the 

Compact program could continue. 

The Armenian economy has seen great success and double digit growth over the 

last 6 years. Our assistance programs—through technical assistance to improve the 

regulatory and legislative framework, through strengthening of the private sector, 

and through training in many sectors of the economy—have contributed at least in 

part to this success. 

Over the last 4 years, Armenia has contributed to global security by providing 

peacekeepers in both Kosovo and Iraq. In fact, the size of Armenia’s contingent in 

Kosovo was doubled just last week. By supporting Armenia’s defense sector reform 

and greater cooperation with NATO, we enhance Armenia’s ability to assist in 

peacekeeping operations and to work with coalition forces to combat global terrorism 

and make the world a safer place. 

518 

Armenia remains committed to overflight and landing rights for United States 

military aircraft and has worked to improve its capacity to combat both money laundering and terrorism financing. These are efforts we have strongly supported. Our 

assistance for Armenia’s work to strengthen its borders and combat illegal trade in 

arms, weapons of mass destruction, drugs, and people is important to regional stability. 

Our relationship with Armenia is broad and deep, both on a bilateral level and 

between our peoples. The United States was among the first to recognize Armenia’s 

independence, and the first to establish an embassy in Yerevan. Over the past 17 

years, the United States has provided close to $2 billion in assistance and materially 

improved the lives of millions of Armenians. While challenges remain, we expect our 

partnership will continue to strengthen, and that we will continue to cooperate in 

all areas. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if confirmed, I will do everything in 

my power to ensure that United States interests are promoted and protected, that 

the bilateral relationship flourishes, and that Armenia’s isolation ends and regional 

stability is enhanced. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank you and thank all of our witnesses for their testimony. 

As pointed out at the beginning of the hearing, you are seeking 

to continue your public service in countries that are critically important to U.S. interests and each of these countries have their 

own set of challenges. They’re not going to be easy and we thank 

you very much for being willing to assume this challenge and service to your country. 

So let me start with the Russian Federation because the Russian 

Federation is clearly a country that has increasing importance. 

Their economy has improved dramatically. They’ve been able to use 

their oil to improve their influence and yet the real challenge for 

us is whether Russia will become a democratic country, whether it 

will develop the type of democratic institutions and promote divergent views or whether it will continue a recent trend which we find 

very disturbing, and that is preventing dissent in a way in which 

a democratic country would promote those types of activities. 

So Mr. Beyrle, let me get your assessment as to at this moment, 

if you’re confirmed being the United States Ambassador to Russia, 

where Russia is gaining influence because of its economic strength 

and yet it seems to be discouraging independent press, discouraging minority views, in a government that’s pretty popular, 

doesn’t need to do all this but it does. How do you see your mission 

here? 

Mr. BEYRLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I said in 

my opening statement, we need Russia as a partner in the 21st 

century. 

The challenges that we’re facing in this century that I enumerated are almost impossible for us to achieve on our own. We need 

partners, friends, and allies in the European Union, in other parts 

of the world, but especially in Russia, because Russia is such a 

large and consequential country, and I think in our dealings with 

Russia, and I would certainly pursue this if confirmed, we need to 

make clear to Russia that we value that partnership but that our 

ability to build the kind of strong partnership, to have the joint 

projects that require a lot of trust between our two countries, the 

nonproliferation, counterterrorism dialog that we have with Russia, 

gets more difficult as we see trends in the country moving away 

from the democratic values that we both, I think, need to stand beVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00526 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
519 

hind, that the United States sees as so important in its most important relationships, for instance, with its European allies. 

I would try to make the point to our Russian partners, potential 

partners, that we need them to be a constructive force in the world, 

that we need their help, for instance, in convincing Iran to forswear 

its nuclear ambitions. We’ve had some success with Russia. We 

could have more. 

But divorcing those questions from Russia’s democratic development, it seems to me, is a mistake because a democratic Russia 

which is accountable to its people, which has a robust civil society, 

is simply a country that we understand better as Americans and 

will thus have more trust in. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you for that answer, particularly in relationship to Iran. We’ve had real difficulty. Russia did help us 

with the resolution through the Security Council, but its enforcements of effective sanctions leave a lot to be desired and it seems 

to me this is—if we’re going to be successful in diplomatic efforts 

and preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power, that 

we’re going to need more cooperation from Russia which is going 

to be one of the highest priorities on your agenda if you’re confirmed as ambassador. 

How do you see an effective strategy with Russia so that we can 

isolate Iran? 

Mr. BEYRLE. Mr. Chairman, I think that we need to continue 

along the road that we traveled with Russia until now. Russia has 

supported us now on four U.N. Security Council resolutions, three 

of which included sanctions, making the point to Iran that we reject its nuclear ambitions. 

I think with Russia, the challenges, that really are our strategic 

aims coincide. The Russian Government—Russian leaders have 

said very clearly that they have no interest and do not want Iran 

to become a nuclear power. We agree with that at the strategic 

level. 

The difference we have with them is in the tactics, the tactics 

that we implement to put pressure on Iran to convince Iran to 

move away from this, from what is very clearly a nuclear weapons 

program, and I think together with our European allies, we need 

to devise ways, perhaps not through, as much through the United 

Nations but through closer dialog that would simply make the 

point to Iranian leaders that they are isolating themselves from the 

world and denying their own people the chance at a better future 

by pursuing this program. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for that. I want to at least put on 

the record a couple issues that have been pending for a long time 

in our relationship with Russia that’s been of interest to this committee. 

We have the North Caucuses and we don’t want to lose sight of 

the responsibilities of the Russian Federation to exercise leadership 

in dealing with the human rights of the people of that region and 

there’s still concern that they’re overreacting to a serious situation 

but violating human rights issues. 

I also want to mention an issue that was brought up during Secretary Rice’s confirmation in our committee in which we had hearings on the Schneerson Collection, that Secretary Rice, during the 

520 

confirmation, said, and I quote, ‘‘The State Department would 

press the Russian Federation to return the Schneerson Collection 

of rare and irreplaceable religious text to the Chabet Community 

of the United States.’’ 

The last time I checked, the collection is still in Moscow. That’s 

still of interest and we would hope that you would use your good 

offices, if you are confirmed as ambassador, to bring this chapter 

to a successful conclusion by return of the—it looks like we’re losing our light. Oh, somebody—okay. Well, we’ll get that place back 

on. I thought that somebody from the Russian Federation didn’t 

like my question. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BEYRLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me respond very 

briefly on both of those issues. 

With regard to Georgia, Abkhazia, the states of the former Soviet 

Union, we have made it very clear that we’re committed to the sovereignty and independence of all the states of the ex-USSR and 

we’ve worked very hard to resolve the frozen conflicts, some of 

which we discussed here at this table just now, and to avoid new 

ones, and if confirmed, this will be one of my priorities, highest priorities, especially with regard to Georgia and Abkhazia, where we 

right now are actively trying to promote a settlement and direct 

talks. We need Russia’s assistance on that. 

The Schneerson Collection, I’m familiar with from the time I 

worked on the National Security Council staff in the mid 1990s, 

and I know very well that the promises that were made with regard to that collection still need to be fulfilled and I’ll be up to 

speed on that issue very, very quickly, if confirmed, when I arrive 

in Moscow. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me congratulate all of the nominees on their nominations and your willingness 

to serve and we appreciate that. 

Ambassador Yovanovitch, let me start at the outset by acknowledging and thanking you for your 22 years of very distinguished 

service to our country. I appreciate your service. 

In your opening statement, you acknowledge the mass killings, 

ethnic cleansing, and forced detentions that devastated over 1.5 

million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire, is that correct? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, sir, that’s correct. It’s the administration’s policy to acknowledge these historical facts. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Would you agree with the characterization— 

and if I may, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to be referring to a series 

of documents. If I could give the ambassador a copy of them so she 

could have them in front of her, that would be helpful, and I’d ask 

unanimous consent that these documents be included in the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, the documents will be included in the record. 

[The referenced documents have been reproduced and are included in the ‘‘Additional Material Submitted for the Record’’ section at the end of this hearing.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. I would ask you, would you agree with the 

characterization by President Bush on April 24 of 2004, which is 

521 

the first referenced item before you, where he says, and I quote, 

‘‘On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible 

tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1.5 

million Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of 

the Ottoman Empire?’’ Would you agree? I just need a yes or no. 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Okay. Thank you. Would you agree that the 

use of the words ‘‘ethnic cleansing,’’ which you used in your opening statement, would include the deliberate inflicting on a group of 

conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction 

in whole or in part? Would you agree that that’s what generally 

ethnic cleansing would be defined as? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. There’s no question—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. The deliberate—let me read it—say it again 

to you so that you’ve got it before you answer. 

‘‘The deliberate inflicting on a group of individuals of conditions 

of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or 

in part.’’ 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. The question that you’re asking, and I hope 

you understand my answer, the determination of that is a policy 

decision that I’m not authorized to make right now. It’s a decision 

for the administration, for the President and the Secretary. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I respect your answer. I’m not asking you 

what is the policy or a policy. I’m simply asking you. You used the 

words in your opening statement ‘‘ethnic cleansing,’’ and I’m asking 

you a simple question. 

Would you describe ethnic cleansing as a deliberate inflicting on 

a group of individuals conditions of life calculated to bring about 

its physical destruction in whole or in part? If the answer is no, 

then tell me what you mean by ethnic cleansing. 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. There’s no question that at the end of the 

Ottoman Empire, there was mass murder, there was starvation, 

there were deliberate rapes, there was forced exile of 1.5 million 

Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And is that what you describe as your definition of ethnic cleansing, those facts? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Would you look at the document that is referenced as Number 2 there which says—these are documents that 

I’m going to be referring to by American officials at the time of history, and I would ask you whether the statement by then U.S. Ambassador Morganthau, who wrote on July 16, 1915, ‘‘It appears that 

a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of 

reprisal against rebellion.’’ 

Is that a fact that you would agree with as reported as a historical fact that Ambassador Morganthau reported? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, it’s certainly a fact here as I’m reading 

off of this hand-out that you gave me that Ambassador Morganthau 

reported this. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. Would you look at Number 3 

where it says, ‘‘Where U.S. Counsel Aleppo Jesse Jackson reported 

to Ambassador Morganthau on June 5, 1915, that it’s without 

doubt a carefully planned scheme to thoroughly extinguish the Armenian race.’’ 

522 

Is that what Counsel Jackson said in his statement to Ambassador Morganthau? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, according to this document that you’ve 

given me, that’s correct. 

Senator MENENDEZ. In Number 4, where U.S. Counsel in Harput 

Leslie Davis reported to Ambassador Morganthau on July 24, 1915, 

‘‘It has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian 

race as a race, but the methods used have been more cold blooded 

and barbaric, if not more effective, than I had first supposed.’’ 

Is that the statement issued then by the counsel? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, as I’m reading this from what you’ve 

given me, yes. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And finally, on Number 5, where the U.S. 

Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1916 to 1917, Abraham 

Elkus telegraphed the Secretary of State on October 17, 1916, and 

said, ‘‘In order to avoid a program of a civilized world, which the 

continuation of massacres would arouse, Turkish officials have now 

adopted and are executing the unchecked policy of extermination 

through starvation, exhaustion and the brutality of treatment 

hardly surpassed even in Turkish history.’’ 

Is that the statement that is issued at that time by the U.S. ambassador? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, as I’m reading it here now. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. Now the final reference I want 

you to look at is Number 6, and would you agree that Article 2 of 

the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of 

Genocide of which the United States is a signatory party to and 

ratified, a copy of which I have before you, states under Article 2, 

‘‘In the present convention, genocide means any of the following 

acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a 

national ethnic, racial or religious group, as such killing members 

of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of 

the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’’ 

Is that a fair statement of the reading of Article 2 of the Convention? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Is that a yes? I’m sorry. 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes. I’m sorry. Yes. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Okay. Therefore, and Mr. Chairman, if you’ll 

indulge me, therefore, would not the facts that you acknowledge, 

and please listen to my question, would not the—intently. Would 

not the facts that you acknowledge in your opening statement and 

those facts that you have recognized as historical facts during the 

period of 1915 to 1923 meet the definition of Article 2 that you 

just—I just had you read? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Thank you. The—it’s certainly true that this 

is the definition of genocide here and I’m familiar enough with the 

record to have read some of the accounts from our embassy and our 

consulate at the end of the Ottoman Empire which are truly shocking in terms of scale and the individual stories of individual families and the things that happened. 

It’s the responsibility and the duty of embassies and consulates 

to inform and represent honestly, faithfully, objectively to the deVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00530 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
523 

partment, to Washington, to the President, and it is the President, 

it is the Secretary of State that makes the policy, that makes the 

determination of how to characterize such events. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And I am not asking you for a declaration 

of policy. I have not even asked you about a maybe more ultimate 

question. 

What I’m asking you as a career Foreign Service officer, well 

educated, with a lot of experience, would the facts as recognized by 

President Bush in public statements, as recognized by you in your 

opening statement, and in terms of the historical documents that 

I presented to you, would those facts fall in line—clearly, you mentioned the killing members of the group. You mentioned murder in 

your opening statement. 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. I did. 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, it is. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Would it not be fair to say in furtherance of 

some of the questions I asked you, and I think you very appropriately answered, some of the acts that took place, not only the 

murders, rapes and forced deportation of people, forced exile of people, would that not clearly be causing serious bodily or mental 

harm to members of a group? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes. Yes. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And clearly it would also be deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its 

physical destruction in whole or in part. Obviously those that were 

murdered in mass numbers, 1.5 million, obviously those who were 

exiled, obviously those who through other actions were taken place, 

that would fall into that category, would it not? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. It’s a policy decision, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I want to thank you for your honest answers. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I appreciate your indulgence, I will 

have a series of other questions for the record. I don’t want to belabor it. 

But what is going on here, it is a shame that career Foreign 

Service officers have to be brought before the committee and find 

difficulty in acknowledging historical facts and find difficulty in acknowledging the realities of what has been internationally recognized, Mr. Chairman, not because I say it. I don’t hold myself out 

to be that type of a scholar, but the fact is, is that the International 

Association of Genocide Scholars, the preeminent authority on 

genocide, has unanimously, not equivocated, unanimously declared 

the Armenian genocide a genocide, and it is amazing to me that we 

can talk about millions, you know, a million and a half human 

beings who were slaughtered, we can talk about those who were 

raped, we can talk about those who were forcibly pushed out of 

their country, and we can have presidential acknowledgements of 

that, but then we cannot call it what it is. 

It is a ridiculous dance what the administration is doing over the 

use of the term ‘‘genocide.’’ It is an attempt to suggest that we 

don’t want to strain our relationships with Turkey, but I have to 

say the fact that we are sending off our diplomats in such a manner, that they’re not able to recognize a historical event that is 

clearly documented by credible, objective historians, an event that 

524 

is so tragic, an event that the recognition of which is so personal 

for millions of Armenians and descendants of Armenians, many of 

whom are Americans, is also something that I think is detrimental 

to our foreign policy. 

Mr. Chairman, we have actually had the United States Ambassador, our former United States Ambassadors to Armenia attend 

every year in April the commemoration of the Armenian genocide. 

It’s amazing that we sent a United States Ambassador to the commemoration of an Armenian genocide which I would hope—that if 

your nomination is ultimately approved by the Senate that you 

would commit yourself to attending, and yet we cannot—how do 

you go and go to a commemoration of the Armenian genocide and 

never ever use the recognition of that fact? 

I believe acknowledging historical facts as they are is a principle 

that is easily understood both at home and abroad. So while the 

administration believes that this posture benefits it vis a vis our 

relationships with Turkey, I think they should also recognize that 

it hurts our relationship elsewhere and it tarnishes the United 

States history of being a place where truth is spoken to power and 

acknowledgement of our failures in the past make us stronger, not 

weaker, and recognizing the evils of the past do not trap us but 

they set us free. 

That is what I hope we can be able to achieve, Mr. Chairman, 

and I have great admiration for Ambassador Yovanovitch, she is 

the designee here and having to respond to questions and as I told 

her privately, I would be pursuing a line of questioning. 

I appreciate her intent to be as frank and open as possible, and 

Mr. Chairman, if you have a second, I have a different set of questions for one of the other candidates. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Senator Menendez, thank you for 

your questions. You and I have talked frequently on human rights 

issues. We share that same passion. One of my roles is to cochair 

the Helsinki Commission which human rights issues are one of our 

major focuses. 

There is no question in my mind that the facts speak for themselves and what happened was genocide. To me, it’s a clear issue. 

I think our nominee has demonstrated some of the reasons why 

she’s an experienced diplomat. I don’t agree with a lot of the administration’s policies, not just as relates to the genocide in Armenia but as it relates to policies in many parts of the world. 

Where we have career diplomats, I find, by and large, they are 

carrying out the mission of our Nation and in Armenia, we need 

an ambassador who is experienced, who understands the historical 

facts and has the historical facts correctly as stated, and I think 

I must say in your testimony, I think, and in your answer to Senator Menendez, you have spelled out very clearly what happened. 

The facts are the facts and we have to make sure that the international community never forgets what happened, so we can learn 

from the past and protect the future generations, and I think you 

have been pretty clear about the circumstances of ethnic communities that were being cleansed. 

And Senator Menendez, I agree with you, the definition couldn’t 

be clearer as to what that equals, genocide. 

525 

Let me turn, if I might, to Mr. Chaudhry, if might, with the Republic of Moldova. 

I was very pleased that you mentioned as one of your top priorities the trafficking issue. That is an issue that has been—that the 

United States Delegation to the OSCE has made one of our top priorities and we’re pleased about the attention that has been received 

in Europe, and we would ask that if you are confirmed as the ambassador, that that remain not just a priority of yours as relates 

to the Republic of Moldova but in that region of Europe. 

It’s a very serious issue that the United States needs to continue 

to exercise tremendous leadership. 

Mr. CHAUDHRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I absolutely pledge to 

you that this is an issue which is close to my heart and I intend 

to pursue it and follow it, if confirmed, to the fullest of my capabilities and continue to do the work that has been done by my predecessor in Moldova and in the region. 

Senator CARDIN. There’s been a lot of talk recently about Russia’s influence here and as to whether Moldova is perhaps looking 

at an arrangement where Russia will remove its troops from 

Transnistria and there may be some other parts to that arrangement. 

How do you see the prospects for a resolution, a political settlement of Transnitria? 

Mr. CHAUDHRY. Mr. Chairman, as far as Transnitria is concerned, the best way to resolve this is in the context of 5Plus2 talks 

that have been going on for some time. 

It is clear that these talks have stalled for some time, but there 

have been informal talks within the 5Plus2 as well as 3Plus2. That 

means excluding Moldova and the Transnitria side. 

As recent as this month, there were discussions in Helsinki 

among the 3Plus2 group where they committed that we need to 

move forward in trying to resolve the issue and that issue, as I see 

it and as the United States Government sees it, must involve the 

territorial integrity, preserving the territorial integrity of Moldova 

and that means allowing its sovereignty to be exerted over all of 

its territory, including Transnitria, and that would definitely include removal of or withdrawal of Russian soldiers from the 

Moldovan territory. 

Senator CARDIN. I agree with that. Thank you, Mr. Nominee. I 

appreciate that. That’s a statement I fully concur in. 

Let me turn to Kosovo for one minute, if I might. Ms. Kaidanow, 

you are seeking a critically important position. 

Kosovo is a country that is just going to be subject to a lot of 

challenges. We still have not resolved the Russian influence, what’s 

happening with Serbia. There’s still a lot of countries that have 

withheld their recognition of Kosovo. We still don’t have a clear 

mandate within the United Nations as relates to the security 

troops remaining or not. There are going to be a lot of challenges. 

So let me start first with the Ahtisaari Plan and the protection 

of minority communities, you mentioned that several times, and I 

think the real challenge here is whether the Kosovo majority, having been ignored by the Serbian Government as far as their independence is concerned, whether they will react in a way of protection to the minority community or whether they’ll yield to temptaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00533 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
526 

tion to sort of say, you know, you’re not going to work with us, so 

we’ll do it our way. 

I think the role that the United States plays here is going to be 

critical and everything you said in your statement I agree with, but 

it seems to me that we have to be extremely active to make sure 

the minority communities are properly protected within Kosovo. 

Ms. aidanow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can’t agree more. In 

fact, I would say that this is if not the single most important priority for the United States in Kosovo, it’s certainly one of the top 

priorities that we have. 

We have actually come quite a long way in Kosovo. I remember 

maybe a year or so ago when we were contemplating where we 

would go, there was quite a lot of concern about population movement, the possible, you know, the numbers of Serbs who might decide to leave Kosovo, the consequence of independence and so forth. 

Thankfully, we’ve not seen that, and I think that is a measure 

of the kind of progress that we’ve seen and the ability of Kosovo’s 

authority and Kosovo’s people to protect and to preserve its minority communities and particularly the Serb minority. 

I don’t want to say that there aren’t challenges ahead. You’ve 

identified them, I think, very, very accurately. It’s going to be incumbent upon the Kosovo Government and the people of Kosovo to 

ensure that their minority populations are not only protected but 

sustained and that they are given a chance to be living communities in Kosovo and that is critically important for us. 

It involves not just implementation of the Ahtisaari Plan, which 

is quite robust and has many protections for the minority communities in Kosovo, but it also involves, I think, reaching out to them 

in ways that are creative and important, building infrastructure in 

their communities, encouraging returns. All of these things are 

things that we’re going to have to, you know, work with them to 

do. 

We have been working with them, we’ll continue and certainly if 

I’m confirmed, that is something that we would make a priority. 

Senator CARDIN. And let me mention perhaps the most discriminated minority community in Europe and that’s the Roma population, a serious problem within Kosovo and many other European 

countries. 

I would hope that we would find ways as a new country is 

emerging in Kosovo that they do it right from the beginning,—— 

Ms. aidanow. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. That minority communities include 

the Roma and they’re entitled that their children could be educated, that they can get affordable housing, that they can integrate 

into the community and Kosovo could be an example to the rest of 

Europe in that regard. 

Ms. KAIDANOW. Absolutely. And in fact, I think the Roma community in Kosovo has suffered under some very specific historical 

circumstances that I won’t get into here but I think really merit, 

as you said, particular care and consideration on the part of the 

Kosovo Government, something that we, the United States, have 

been very active in looking at. We will continue to do so, but I can’t 

agree with you more that there are any number of minority ethnic 

communities in Kosovo. All of them have particular considerations 

527 

and particular needs and the Kosovo Government will have to be 

very, very astute and quite generous in looking at those communities and providing for their needs. 

Senator CARDIN. One last question on Kosovo. With the UNMIK 

mission expired, it’s not exactly clear as to the legitimacy of the 

protection troops within that region. Russia’s cooperation is not 

necessarily understood at this point. 

How do you see that challenge from the point of view of providing Kosovo the help they need so that they can maintain the 

type of protection to communities and stability that a young country needs? 

Ms. aidanow. There are multiple levels of security in Kosovo. The 

NATO-led force known as KFOR will continue to have a fairly robust presence in Kosovo under the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244 which continues to obtain and KFOR has a mandate 

under that Security Council Resolution. 

We, the United States, provide some small number of troops, 

1,500 troops to a 16,000-man force. I would anticipate that continuing, at least in the immediate future, and we take that responsibility very, very seriously, and our troops are doing just an outstanding job in doing it in Kosovo. 

In terms of policing, for the time being, the U.N. has agreed to 

maintain a role in law enforcement and justice in Kosovo until 

such time as the European Union can establish fully its new law 

enforcement and justice mission on the ground which will be 

known as EULEX. 

We will participate again in a small way but a significant way 

in that mission. We will have roughly 80 or so police to their 1,800 

or so police and justice officers and so forth. 

I think it’s critical that those European Union forces deploy as 

quickly as possible. Certainly the Kosovo Government and the people of Kosovo are looking forward to that deployment, but in the 

meantime, it’s also important that the U.N. security forces on the 

ground continue to receive the broad authority that they’ve had 

from the Kosovo people and every indication is that Kosovo will 

give them that authority and will agree to have them stay until the 

European Union can perform that duty. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I turn to 

Mr. Reeker for a moment, one last question, Ambassador. 

Would you, if you were to be confirmed by the Senate, make a 

commitment to this committee that you would attend the Armenian 

Genocide Commemoration which is held every April 24 as previous 

ambassadors have? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. If I were confirmed, I would certainly commit 

to attend to Armenian Remembrance Day. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. Mr. Reeker, let me first say with 

the adjective in which you introduced your wife, you’re definitely 

going to get a hot meal tonight. 

Mr. REEKER. I don’t have to go to Senator Dole’s. [Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. I have a few questions about your potential 

assignment. 

528 

The recent parliamentary elections that were held on June 1 

were marked by a series of irregularities, intimidation and violence, according to the Office for Democratic Institutions and 

Human Rights, and did not meet the Organization for Security and 

Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe Standards. 

Furthermore, our own State Department called for a rerun in almost a 190 districts, quoting ‘‘where people were not able to cast 

their ballot free from the threat of violence or intimidation.’’ 

The New York Times reported on June 2 of this month that Dennis McCone, a former Europe minister in Tony Blair’s government, 

who was in Skopje as a monitor for the Council of Europe, said 

that the ‘‘vote in FYROM would have no legitimacy unless new 

elections were called.’’ He said, ‘‘This vote is a tragedy for supporters of Macedonia’s European Union and TransAtlantic future.’’ 

It continues to quote him to say, ‘‘Nobody can form a government 

on the basis of an election in which police have stuffed ballot boxes 

and thugs are attacking polling stations.’’ 

Do you think—I read your full statement. You gave us an abbreviated statement. It’s very inspirational for Macedonia. It’s an aspiration we share, but for FYROM, do you think that this corresponds to a democratic country that fulfills the criteria to join 

NATO? 

Mr. REEKER. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question because I think for any of us who have followed events in Macedonia, 

the June 1 early elections, parliamentary elections were, frankly, 

very disappointing. They did not meet international commitments. 

As you noted, there were incidents of violence, intimidation, fraud, 

largely intraethnic among competing forces within the ethnic Albanian community. 

What we have seen over a period of many years since Macedonia’s independence is the development of institutions of government of civil society of democracy which rose to the occasion and 

did respond with reruns of those elections in numerous locations, 

ordered those reruns and those took place on June 15. 

As noted by a number of the observers that you referenced, there 

were substantial improvements. There was significantly improved 

security. The environment was considerably better, but again there 

was serious irregularities in some polling stations, and as the 

OSCE and the Council of Europe have noted, they did not meet 

some of the key commitments that Macedonia has made. 

I believe there will be additional reruns in several districts and 

that again shows that the institutions to respond to this kind of 

problems in Macedonia are in place and are working. 

What we had seen, of course, was a series of elections over time 

that had been very positive and shown a tremendous development 

in democracy. 

Senator MENENDEZ. But this latest round did not meet those 

standards. 

Mr. REEKER. That’s correct. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And we should be concerned about it. We’re 

thinking about allowing this country to enter into NATO. 

Now, clearly, it must have certain standards in order to join and 

so I would hope that in our desire to have them join NATO that 

we’re not willing to overlook those standards at the end of the day. 

529 

Let me ask you this. I have seen school textbooks and maps that 

circulate in the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia showing 

parts of Greece belonging to the so-called Greater Macedonia. 

Do you think that the practice of the government there is an act 

of good neighborly relations when they pursue that as part of their 

official education? 

Mr. REEKER. Senator, I have seen reports from both sides in the 

recent Macedonia dispute accusing each other of taking actions or 

making statements that have inflamed the issue of the name. 

Obviously this points to the fact that this needs to be resolved. 

I think the overwhelming majority of people in both countries have 

shown over a course of many years the people to people relations, 

the economic relations, suggest that the two countries in fact can 

get along extremely well and can mutually support each other. 

That underlies the fact that they have got to find a quick and 

mutually agreeable solution to the name issue and why we continue to encourage both countries to intensity their efforts along 

with the intensified efforts to the U.N. Ambassador Limits to find 

a solution. 

Senator MENENDEZ. In fact, NATO took the position that while 

it has the desire to make that offer; it’s not going to happen until 

there is some reconciliation and coming to a determination on the 

name, is that not so? 

So if that is the case, what will you be doing? I know that Limits 

is at the head of this, but obviously if you are to be confirmed, you 

would be in a position as our ambassador in that country to try to 

get that country to understand it is in its own interests to find an 

accommodation. Is that something that you would be pursuing? 

Mr. REEKER. Yes, Senator, I would certainly, if confirmed, continue to work through our embassy in Skopje, just as our embassy 

in Athens works with the Government of Greece to be supportive 

of both sides to encourage them to find a quick mutually agreeable 

solution because that is in the best interests not only of both Macedonia and of Greece but the region certainly and since the United 

States focus is to encourage a stable, secure partner in the center 

of the Balkans, in Macedonia, it is in our interests as well, and we 

will continue to push them to deal with as expeditiously as possible. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Finally, I’d like to ask each of the nominees, 

do you feel the United States should apologize to foreign governments when Congress speaks out on matters of human rights? If 

each of you would just give me an answer to that? 

Mr. BEYRLE. If the United States Government should apologize 

to the people, to the Government of Russia, would Congress—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. For each of your countries, should we feel 

compelled to apologize to foreign governments when Congress 

speaks on matters of human rights? 

Mr. BEYRLE. No. 

Mr. REEKER. I agree with the same answer, no. 

Ms. aidanow. No. 

Mr. CHAUDHRY. No. 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. No. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

530 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator. Let me ask one more question in regard to Macedonia. 

First of all, you see the Limits process still workable? It was unsuccessful in a resolution prior to the Bucharest Conference. Is it 

still a viable process in which we should expect the potential resolving of the issues between Macedonia and Greece? 

Mr. REEKER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is a viable process. 

The United States supports that process and, most importantly, 

both sides of the dispute support that process which is why we, in 

our capacity as a friend and ally to both Macedonia and to Greece, 

have encouraged both sides to find a quick mutually agreeable solution to this problem. 

It’s a difficult problem. It’s an emotional problem, but it is one 

that can be solved, we believe, and the Limits process is the way 

to go about that. So we’re encouraging both sides to show greater 

flexibility, creativity, cooperation, and do what is needed to find a 

solution. 

Senator CARDIN. Is part of that taking up issues, such as the 

name of the airport, Alexander the Great? I mean, it seems like 

some of this might be somewhat inflammatory. Is that part of the 

process? 

Mr. REEKER. As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, and I’ve followed 

these issues for some time, since I served my first tour in Macedonia, both sides have taken actions, made statements over time, 

that have certainly inflamed the issue. 

The important thing here is to move beyond that, to move toward 

cooperation, have that eclipse confrontation and have understanding supplant mistrust, use the Limits process because these 

countries have shown that as neighbors, in fact they can get along 

extremely well. They have robust trade relations. They have robust 

people to people relations. 

You know, you see Macedonians eager to travel to Greece. You 

see trade and investment from Greece coming to Macedonia, and 

I think that’s what’s important. So we can get over the difficult 

issues by using the diplomatic and the negotiating structures we 

have available. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. Let me make just one 

more comment, Ms. Yovanovitch, in regard to the Republic of Armenia. 

You mention in your statement the violence that erupted after 

the last elections in March. The comments by the Armenian Government, at least some of its officials, that this was instituted to 

try to overthrow the government or similar comments which I 

found no basis at all, in fact, is it our position that we are still 

awaiting and asking for an independent review of what happened 

in this violence when civilians were killed, so that we can try to 

prevent these types of episodes in the future? 

Ms. YOVANOVITCH. Yes, that is our position, that there be an objective, independent, and inclusive investigation. 

I would say that over the last couple of days, the Government of 

Armenia has established an investigation. It will be important that 

there is a positive process that all sides can buy into and participate in. 

531 

Senator CARDIN. All right. Thank you for that. Let me just make 

one announcement. Members will have until the end of tomorrow 

to ask questions for the record. I would ask that you respond to 

those questions as quickly as possible so the committee can take 

appropriate action in regard to your nominations as soon as possible. 

Once again, I want to thank all eight of our nominees for their 

patience today in answering our questions and their willingness to 

serve our country. 

With that, the committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

DOCUMENT NO. 1 FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ


michele1.eps
532 

DOCUMENT NO. 2 FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ


michele2.eps
533 

DOCUMENT NO. 3 FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ


michele3.eps
534 

DOCUMENT NO. 4 FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ


michele4.eps
535 

DOCUMENT NO. 5 FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ


michele5.eps
536 


michele5a.eps
537 

DOCUMENT NO. 5 FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ


michele6.eps michele6a.eps
538 


michele6b.eps
539 


michele6c.eps
540 


michele6d.eps
541 

LETTER FROM MATTHEW A. REYNOLDS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LEGISLATIVE

AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

Waashington, DC, July 29, 2008. 

Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR BIDEN: I am writing in response to your concerns regarding responses to questions for the record submitted by you and Senator Menendez regarding the nomination of Marie Yovanovitch as Ambassador to Armenia. 

Regarding your Question #1, Ms. Yovanovitch mentions an International Visitors 

Program under consideration that would bring archivists from Turkey and Armenia 

to the United States for professional training. Our goal is to help archivists protect 

the evidence of the past so that future generations will have the documentation of 

the mass killings and deportations of Armenians committed by Ottoman soldiers 

and other Ottoman officials in 1915. Our goal is not to open a debate on whether 

the Ottomans committed these horrendous acts; it is to help preserve the documentation that supports the truth of those events. 

Regarding Ms. Yovanovitch’s response to Senator Menendez’s Question #8, the administration recognizes that the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations of over one and a half million Armenians were conducted by the Ottoman Empire. We indeed hold Ottoman officials responsible for those crimes. 

In her testimony, Ms. Yovanovitch tried to convey her deep empathy with the profound suffering of the Armenian people and in no way sought to cast any doubt on 

historical facts. 

We hope this information is helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us 

if we can be of further assistance on this or any other matter. 

Sincerely, 

MATTHEW A. REYNOLDS, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs. 

RESPONSES OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY

Question. I strongly believe that the killings and other atrocities perpetrated 

against some 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire beginning in 1915 

clearly constituted genocide. Acknowledging when genocide has occurred is not simply a theoretical or legal exercise. It is key to preventing genocide from happening 

again. That’s why, in my view, we must change United States policy to reflect the 

true nature of the tragic events that were perpetrated against the Armenians by 

calling them what they were—genocide. 

I understand the following to be accepted facts: 

• Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines genocide as ‘‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group’’—and 

it lists ‘‘killing members of the group’’ as one of these acts. 

• The United States has ‘‘never denied the tragic events of 1915,’’ and the Bush 

administration has acknowledged ‘‘the forced exile and mass killing inflicted on 

as many as 1.5 million Armenians,’’ as indicated by the State Department in 

its response to my letter of June 5, 2006. 

• The atrocities conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 

1923 resulted in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom about 

1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, the expulsion of 500,000 survivors, and a concerted campaign that resulted in the elimination of the more 

than 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland. 

• The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire 

from 1913 to 1916, described to the Department of State the policy of the Government of the Ottoman Empire as ‘‘a campaign of race extermination,’’ and 

was instructed on July 16, 1915, by Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the 

‘‘Department approves your procedure . . . to stop Armenian persecution.’’ 

• Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term ‘‘genocide’’ in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th 

century. 

542 

• Proclamation 4838 of April 22, 1981 (95 Stat. 1813) issued by President Ronald 

Reagan, stated, in part, that ‘‘[l]ike the genocide of the Armenians before it, and 

the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it—and like too many other persecutions of too many other people—the lessons of the Holocaust must never be 

forgotten.’’ 

• President George W. Bush, on April 24, 2004, stated, ‘‘[o]n this day, we pause 

in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century, the 

annihilation of as many as 1,500,000 Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.’’ 

Do you dispute any of the above? If so, which facts and why? 

Answer. As noted above, the administration has never denied the facts of what 

happened in 1915, and it does not deny the facts that are listed above. The administration believes that the best way to honor the victims is to promote understanding 

and reconciliation between the people and Governments of Armenia and Turkey and 

to help Turkey come to terms with this dark chapter in history. The administration 

continues to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to work towards reconciliation. 

There are some hopeful signs that they are engaging each other. 

Many Americans believe that the events of the past should be called ‘‘genocide.’’ 

It has been President Bush’s policy—as well as that of several previous Presidents 

on both sides of the aisle—not to use that term. The administration’s focus is on 

encouraging people in Turkey to reconcile with their past and with the Armenian 

people regarding these horrific events. 

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the U.S. Government and I certainly recognize and deplore the mass killings and deportations that occurred in 

1915 and after. No words of any kind can convey our sorrow for the suffering that 

still endures as a result of these terrible events. It is exactly this tragedy that 

makes us so determined to support reconciliation between the Armenian and Turkish peoples today. 

Question. Do you personally believe that these atrocities meet the definition of a 

genocide? If not, please specify why not and provide your legal opinion. 

Answer. As the child of refugees—at a different time and place—I do feel very 

strongly about the great suffering experienced by the Armenian people, both at that 

time and today, as they remember this dark chapter in their history. I too mourn 

the loss of so many innocent lives and fully respect that the Armenian-American 

community and the Armenian people want their pain and loss to be acknowledged. 

The specific terminology the administration uses to refer to this tragedy is a policy 

determination made by the President. Should I be confirmed as the personal representative of the President, I would have the duty to faithfully represent the policies of the President and his administration. 

Question. Can you explain how the administration’s denial of the Armenian genocide can be reconciled with the United States long history of opposing genocide in 

any form? 

Answer. The administration has never denied the facts of what occurred in 1915. 

President Bush acknowledges this horrific tragedy each year on April 24, Armenian 

Remembrance Day. 

Question. Do you personally believe there should be a change in the administration’s policy of nonrecognition of this genocide? 

Answer. The administration has never denied the terrible events of 1915. The 

President annually recognizes this tragedy on Armenian Remembrance Day. This 

policy is determined by the President and, should I be confirmed as the personal 

representative of the President, I would have the duty to represent the policies of 

the President and his administration faithfully. I pledge to provide the very best advice in this process that I can; this is what I have tried to do my entire career. 

Question. Can you explain why the administration still refuses to recognize these 

atrocities as a genocide? 

Answer. The administration has never denied the terrible events of 1915 and acknowledges the human tragedy of the mass killings and forced exile of over 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The administration also understands that many Americans and many Armenians believe that these events should 

be called ‘‘genocide.’’ It has been the policy of this administration, as well as that 

of previous administrations of both parties, not to use that term. The President’s 

focus is on encouraging Turkish citizens to reconcile with their past and with the 

Armenian people. Our goal is to stimulate a candid exploration within Turkish society of these horrific events in an effort to help this reconciliation. This is not easy. 

543 

It was not easy for the United States to address its own historic dark spots. Turkey 

is making progress addressing these issues. The administration seeks not to undercut voices emerging in Turkey who call for a truthful exploration of these events 

in pursuit of Turkey’s reconciliation with its own past and with Armenia; we share 

their goal of opening Turkey’s past through honest, if painful, self examination. 

Question. To the best of your knowledge, is there any effort underway to reexamine this policy? If so, when can Congress expect the result of this reexamination? 

Answer. U.S. policy on all issues is open to discussion both within and from outside the administration. The Congress has been instrumental in raising this issue, 

as have many American citizens, as is appropriate in our democracy. Secretary Rice 

has made it clear that there are no taboo subjects and that all viewpoints are respectfully heard. If confirmed, I would seek to provide unbiased information and the 

best policy advice so that Washington policymakers can make the best decisions. 

Question. As the United States Ambassador to Armenia, would you personally 

work to change United States policy and have these atrocities acknowledged as a 

genocide? 

Answer. As the child of refugees—at a different time and place—I do feel very 

strongly about the great suffering experienced by the Armenian people both at that 

time and today as they remember this dark chapter in history. I too mourn the loss 

of so many innocent lives and fully respect that the Armenian-American community 

and the Armenian people want their pain and loss to be acknowledged. We all have 

strong feelings about this. But, as the personal representative of the President of 

the United States, an ambassador must faithfully represent the policies of the President and his administration. The Secretary has made it clear that there are no 

taboo subjects for internal discussion and that all viewpoints are respectfully heard. 

I pledge to provide the very best advice that I can; this is what I have tried to do 

my entire career. 

Question. As the United States Ambassador to Armenia, what actions, if any, 

would you take against your employees, if they properly characterized the massacre 

of Armenians during WWI as a genocide? 

Answer. As representatives of this administration, all State Department officers 

have the duty to represent the policies of the President and his administration faithfully, and I would expect the same of my staff. This is a basic tenet of a diplomatic 

career. 

Question. During your June 19, 2008 confirmation hearing, you stated that referring to the Armenian genocide as genocide was a ‘‘policy decision’’ that senior officials, such as the President and the Secretary of State, could determine. 

Please describe, in detail, the source, purpose, content, and conclusions of all administration ‘‘policy’’ documents, ‘‘decisions,’’ and other materials concerning the Armenian Genocide that you reviewed and provide copies of these materials to the 

committee for its review. 

Answer. The President’s policy on this issue is described in the President’s yearly 

Remembrance Day statements, and I have reviewed all the statements of this administration. They are part of the public record and are attached to this response. 

I have studied the history of the tragic massacres and forced exile that occurred at 

the end of the Ottoman Empire and U.S. policy in that regard. I have reviewed the 

‘‘U.S. Official Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915–1917’’ and have read a number of books that examine the subject from various perspectives, including ‘‘The 

Burning Tigris,’’ ‘‘A Shameful Act,’’ and ‘‘Unsilencing the Past.’’ The individual stories are horrifying; the magnitude of this terrible act—over 1.5 million murdered or 

deported—is simply incomprehensible. I also have reviewed the statements made by 

various U.S. officials at that time, including those presented to me at my confirmation hearing on June 19. 

[The above-referenced statements follow:] 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2001. 

PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE

Today marks the commemoration of one of the great tragedies of history: the 

forced exile and annihilation of approximately 1.5 million Armenians in the closing 

years of the Ottoman Empire. These infamous killings darkened the 20th century 

and continue to haunt us to this day. Today, I join Armenian Americans and the 

Armenian community abroad to mourn the loss of so many innocent lives. I ask all 

Americans to reflect on these terrible events.While we mourn the tragedy that 

544 

scarred the history of the Armenian people, let us also celebrate their indomitable 

will which has allowed Armenian culture, religion, and identity to flourish through 

the ages. Let us mark this year the 1700th anniversary of the establishment of 

Christianity in Armenia. Let us celebrate the spirit that illuminated the pages of 

history in 451 when the Armenians refused to bow to Persian demands that they 

renounce their faith. The Armenian reply was both courageous and unequivocal: 

‘‘From this faith none can shake us, neither angels, nor men, neither sword, fire or 

water, nor any bitter torturers.’’ This is the spirit that survived again in the face 

of the bitter fate that befell so many Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. 

Today, that same spirit not only survives, but thrives in Armenian communities 

the world over. Many Armenian survivors and their descendents chose to live in the 

United States, where they found safety and built new lives. We are grateful for the 

countless ways in which Armenian Americans continue to enrich America’s science, 

culture, commerce and, indeed, all aspects of our national life. 

One of the most important ways in which we can honor the memory of Armenian 

victims of the past is to help modern Armenia build a secure and prosperous future. 

I am proud that the United States actively supports Armenia and its neighbors in 

finding a permanent and fair settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. I hope 

that this year we will see peace and reconciliation flourish in the south Caucasus 

region between Armenia and all its neighbors. The United States welcomes the opportunity to support the courageous efforts by the Armenian people to overcome 

years of hardship and Soviet repression to create a prospering, democratic, and sovereign Republic of Armenia. 

Let us remember the past and let its lessons guide us as we seek to build a better 

future. In the name of the American people, I extend my heartfelt best wishes to 

all Armenians as we observe this solemn day of remembrance. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2002. 

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE ON ARMENIAN MASSACRE

Today, we commemorate an appalling tragedy of the 20th century, the massacre 

of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end 

of the Ottoman Empire. These horrific killings left wounds that remain painful for 

people in Armenia, in Turkey, and around the world. I join the Armenian community in America and across the globe in mourning this horrendous loss of life. 

Today is an occasion for the world to reflect upon and draw lessons from these 

terrible events. It is a day for recognizing that demonizing others lays the foundation for a dark cycle of hatred. Transcending this venomous pattern requires painful 

introspection about the past and wise determination to forge a new future based on 

truth and reconciliation. In this spirit, I look forward to Turkey restoring economic, 

political, and cultural links with Armenia. 

The United States greatly values the contributions that Armenians make to our 

national life. With faith and courage, generations of Armenians have overcome great 

suffering and proudly preserved their centuries-old culture, traditions, and religion. 

The United States is also deeply grateful for Armenia’s swift and decisive cooperation in the war against terrorism. 

Just as the United States reached out to the Armenian people to provide shelter 

and freedom early in the last century, so did Armenia extend a supportive hand to 

the American people in the immediate aftermath of September 11. Our two peoples 

stand together in this fight in support of values that define civilization itself. 

I am also very proud of America’s strong support for a free Armenian state, whose 

citizens enjoy the fruits of peace and increasing prosperity. In the months to come, 

America will continue to increase its security cooperation with Armenia and with 

Armenia’s neighbors to combat terrorism and pursue a lasting and just settlement 

to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which will strengthen peace and stability in the 

Caucasus. The United States will also continue its strong support for Armenia’s efforts to develop democratic and free market institutions, and to deepen its integration into the Euro-Atlantic community. 

On behalf of the American people, I send warm wishes and expressions of solidarity to the Armenian people on this solemn day of remembrance. Together, our 

nations look with hope and determination toward a future of peace, prosperity, and 

freedom. 

GEORGE W. BUSH

545 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2003. 

PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE: ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE DAY, 2003

Today marks the anniversary of a horrible tragedy, the mass killings and forced 

exile of countless Armenians in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. Many Armenians refer to these appalling events as the ‘‘great calamity,’’ reflecting a deep sorrow that continues to haunt them and their neighbors, the Turkish people. The suffering that befell the Armenian people in 1915 is a tragedy for all humanity, which 

the world should not forget. I join the Armenian-American community and Armenians around the world in mourning the horrendous loss of life. 

I also salute our wise and bold friends from Armenia and Turkey who are coming 

together in a spirit of reconciliation to consider these events and their significance. 

I applaud them for rising above bitterness, and taking action to create a better future. I wish them success, building on their recent and significant achievements, as 

they work together in a spirit of hope and understanding. 

As we remember those who perished and suffered, we salute the nation of Armenia, and Armenians everywhere. The United States is grateful for the contributions 

of Armenian Americans to our national life. Generations of Armenians have employed wisdom, courage, and centuries-old traditions to overcome great suffering 

and enrich their adopted American homeland. 

The United States is proud to be a friend of Armenia, a young state with an ancient heritage. We are deepening our partnership to help achieve a secure, prosperous, and dignified future for the citizens of Armenia. The United States is committed to achieving a just and lasting settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

We will also continue to help Armenia as it strives to strengthen its democracy and 

market economy. 

On behalf of the American people, I send solemn wishes to the Armenian people 

on this day of remembrance. Our nations stand together, determined to create a future of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the citizens of our countries, for our regions, and for the world. 

GEORGE W. BUSH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2004. 

ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE DAY

On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of 

the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through 

forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire. This terrible event remains a source of pain for people in Armenia and Turkey and for all those who believe in freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of every human life. I join with my fellow Americans and the Armenian community in the United States and around the 

world in mourning this loss of life. 

The United States is proud of the strong ties we share with Armenia. From the 

end of World War I and again since the reemergence of an independent Armenian 

state in 1991, our country has sought a partnership with Armenia that promotes 

democracy, security cooperation, and free markets. Today, our Nation remains committed to a peace settlement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and is grateful for 

Armenia’s continuing cooperation in the war on terror. By advancing understanding 

and goodwill, free nations can help build a brighter future for the world. Our country seeks to help Armenia expand its strategic relations with the United States and 

our European allies. 

Generations of Armenian Americans have also strengthened our communities and 

enriched our Nation’s character. By preserving their heritage, faith, and traditions, 

Armenian Americans enhance the diversity that makes America great. 

I commend individuals in Armenia and Turkey who have worked to support peace 

and reconciliation, including through the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, and call on Armenia and Turkey to restore their economic, political, and cultural ties. I also send warm wishes and expressions of solidarity to the Armenian 

people on this solemn day of remembrance. 

GEORGE W. BUSH

546 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY, APRIL 24, 2005. 

PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT ON ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE DAY

On Armenian Remembrance Day, we remember the forced exile and mass killings 

of as many as 1.5 million Armenians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire. 

This terrible event is what many Armenian people have come to call the ‘‘Great Calamity.’’ I join my fellow Americans and Armenian people around the world in expressing my deepest condolences for this horrible loss of life. 

Today, as we commemorate the 90th anniversary of this human tragedy and reflect on the suffering of the Armenian people, we also look toward a promising future for an independent Armenian state. The United States is grateful for Armenia’s 

contributions to the war on terror and to efforts to build a democratic and peaceful 

Iraq. We remain committed to supporting the historic reforms Armenia has pursued 

for over a decade. We call on the Government of Armenia to advance democratic 

freedoms that will further advance the aspirations of the Armenian people. We remain committed to a lasting and peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We also seek a deeper partnership with Armenia that includes security cooperation and is rooted in the shared values of democratic and market economic 

freedoms. 

I applaud individuals in Armenia and Turkey who have sought to examine the 

historical events of the early 20th century with honesty and sensitivity. The recent 

analysis by the International Center for Transitional Justice did not provide the 

final word, yet marked a significant step toward reconciliation and restoration of the 

spirit of tolerance and cultural richness that has connected the people of the 

Caucasus and Anatolia for centuries. We look to a future of freedom, peace, and 

prosperity in Armenia and Turkey and hope that Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent 

proposal for a joint Turkish-Armenian commission can help advance these processes. 

Millions of Americans proudly trace their ancestry to Armenia. Their faith, traditions, and patriotism enrich the cultural, political, and economic life of the United 

States. I appreciate all individuals who work to promote peace, tolerance, and reconciliation. 

On this solemn day of remembrance, I send my best wishes and expressions of 

solidarity to Armenian people around the world. 

GEORGE W. BUSH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2006. 

PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE

Today, we remember one of the horrible tragedies of the 20th century—the mass 

killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million Armenians in the final days of 

the Ottoman Empire in 1915. This was a tragedy for all humanity and one that we 

and the world must never forget. 

We mourn this terrible chapter of history and recognize that it remains a source 

of pain for people in Armenia and for all those who believe in freedom, tolerance, 

and the dignity and value of every human life. It is a credit to the human spirit 

and generations of Armenians who live in Armenia, America, and around the globe 

that they have overcome this suffering and proudly preserved their centuries-old 

culture, traditions, and religion. 

We praise the individuals in Armenia and Turkey who have sought to examine 

the historical events of this time with honesty and sensitivity. The analysis by the 

International Center for Transitional Justice, while not the final word, has made 

a significant contribution toward deepening our understanding of these events. We 

encourage dialogues, including through joint commissions, that strive for a shared 

understanding of these tragic events and move Armenia and Turkey towards normalized relations. 

Today, we look with hope to a bright future for Armenia. Armenia’s Millennium 

Challenge Compact reflects our confidence and the importance we place in Armenia 

making progress on democratic reform and advancement of free markets. We seek 

to help Armenia bolster its security and deepen its inclusion in the Euro-Atlantic 

family. We remain committed to securing a peaceful and lasting settlement of the 

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and hope the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan will 

take bold steps to achieve this goal. 

547 

On this solemn day of remembrance, Laura and I express our deepest condolences 

to the Armenian people. Our nations stand together, determined to create a future 

of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the citizens of our countries and the world. 

GEORGE W. BUSH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2007. 

PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE: HONORING MEMORY OF 1.5 MILLION ARMENIAN LIVES LOST

DURING OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Each year on this day, we pause to remember the victims of one of the greatest 

tragedies of the 20th century, when as many as 1.5 million Armenians lost their 

lives in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, many of them victims of mass 

killings and forced exile. I join my fellow Americans and Armenian people around 

the world in commemorating this tragedy and honoring the memory of the innocent 

lives that were taken. The world must never forget this painful chapter of its history. 

All who cherish freedom and value the sanctity of human life look back on these 

horrific events in sorrow and disbelief. Many of those who survived were forced from 

their ancestral home and spread across the globe. Yet, in the midst of this terrible 

struggle, the world witnessed the indomitable spirit and character of the Armenian 

people. Many of the brave survivors came to America, where they have preserved 

a deep connection with their history and culture. Generations of Armenians in the 

United States have enriched our country and inspired us with their courage and 

conviction. 

Today, we remember the past and also look forward to a brighter future. We commend the individuals in Armenia and Turkey who are working to normalize the relationship between their two countries. A sincere and open examination of the historic events of the late-Ottoman period is an essential part of this process. The 

United States supports and encourages those in both countries who are working to 

build a shared understanding of history as a basis for a more hopeful future. 

We value the strong and vibrant ties between the United States and Armenia. 

Our Nation is grateful for Armenia’s contributions to the war on terror, particularly 

for its efforts to help build a peaceful and democratic Iraq. The United States remains committed to working with Armenia and Azerbaijan to promote a peaceful 

settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We are also working to promote democratic and economic reform in Armenia that will advance the cause of freedom and 

justice. 

Laura and I express our deepest condolences to Armenian people around the 

world on this solemn day of remembrance. We stand together in our determination 

to build a more peaceful, more prosperous, and more just world. 

GEORGE W. BUSH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2008. 

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE DAY

On this day of remembrance, we honor the memory of the victims of one of the 

greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the mass killings and forced exile of as many 

as 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. I join the Armenian 

community in America and around the world in commemorating this tragedy and 

mourning the loss of so many innocent lives. 

As we reflect on this epic human tragedy, we must resolve to redouble our efforts 

to promote peace, tolerance, and respect for the dignity of human life. The Armenian 

people’s unalterable determination to triumph over tragedy and flourish is a testament to their strength of character and spirit. We are grateful for the many contributions Americans of Armenian heritage have made to our Nation. 

We welcome the efforts by individuals in Armenia and Turkey to foster reconciliation and peace, and support joint efforts for an open examination of the past in 

search of a shared understanding of these tragic events. We look forward to the realization of a fully normalized Armenia-Turkey relationship. 

The United States is committed to a strong relationship with Armenia based on 

shared values. We call on the Government of Armenia to take decisive steps to promote democracy, and will continue our support for Armenia to this end. We remain 

548 

committed to serving as an honest broker in pursuit of a lasting and peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

On this solemn day of remembrance, Laura and I express our deepest condolences 

to Armenian people around the world. 

Question. What, if anything, has the State Department directed you to say in public statements on the Armenian genocide? Who, if anyone, directed you to make such 

statements in public? 

Answer. I have not been directed to say anything. However, I understand that I 

have a duty to faithfully represent the policy of the President. There is the same 

expectation for all Foreign Service officers and executive branch officials—regardless 

of the subject. This is a basic tenet of a diplomatic career. At the same time, the 

Secretary has made it clear that there are no taboo subjects for internal discussion 

and that all viewpoints are respectfully heard. 

The United States Government acknowledges and mourns the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one and a half million 

Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The United States recognizes these 

events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the ‘‘Medz Yeghern,’’ or 

Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it. That is why every April the President honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with the Armenian people on Remembrance Day. 

Question. Have you been directed not to use the word genocide when discussing 

the Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. Policy on this issue is determined by the President. I understand that 

I have a duty to faithfully represent the policy of the President. There is the same 

expectation for all Foreign Service officers and executive branch officials—regardless 

of the subject. This is a basic tenet of a diplomatic career. 

The administration understands that many Americans and many Armenians believe that the events of the past that I have referred to should be called ‘‘genocide.’’ 

It has been President Bush’s policy, as well as that of previous presidents of both 

parties, not to use that term. The President’s focus is on encouraging Turkish citizens to reconcile with their past and with the Armenian people. 

Question. If the Republic of Turkey recognized the genocide, would the United 

States then recognize it also? 

Answer. The United States Government acknowledges and mourns as historical 

fact the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated 

over one and a half million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The 

United States recognizes these events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th 

century, the ‘‘Medz Yeghern,’’ or Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it. 

That is why every April the President honors the victims and expresses American 

solidarity with the Armenian people on Remembrance Day. It is the prerogative of 

the President to set the policy on how the administration characterizes these historical events. 

We have strongly encouraged Turkey to come to terms with its past. That will 

not be easy, just as it has not been easy for the United States to come to terms 

with dark periods of our own past. As one part of that effort, the United States is 

prepared to provide assistance if Turkey and Armenia agree to establish a joint historical commission. 

RESPONSES OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read this cable concerning Peace Corps-State Department Relations. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I understand and, if confirmed, will abide by the guidelines as conveyed in 04 STATE 258893. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

549 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I agree that the Peace Corps, in order to effectively carry out its mandate, needs to be distinct from the United States mission in Armenia, as in other 

countries. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. In line with Secretary Rice’s guidance on this issue, if confirmed, I intend 

to allow the Peace Corps to operate with as much autonomy as possible, bearing 

in mind my responsibility to provide for the safety and security of the volunteers 

and to coordinate United States objectives and policy in Armenia. 

RESPONSES OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BARACK OBAMA

Nearly 2 million Armenians were deported during the Armenian Genocide, which 

was carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, and approximately 1.5 

million of those deported were killed. It is imperative that we recognize the horrific 

acts carried out against the Armenian people as genocide. The occurrence of the Armenian genocide is a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming collection of historical evidence. I was deeply disturbed 2 years ago when the United 

States Ambassador to Armenia was fired after he used the term ‘‘genocide’’ to describe the mass slaughter of Armenians. I called for Secretary Rice to closely examine what I believe is an untenable position taken by the U.S. Government. I ask 

that you respond to the following questions: 

Question. How do you characterize the events surrounding the Armenian genocide? 

Answer. The United States Government acknowledges and mourns the mass 

killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one and a 

half million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The United States recognizes these events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the ‘‘Medz 

Yeghern,’’ or Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it. That is why every 

April the President honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with the 

Armenian people on Remembrance Day. As the child of refugees—at a different time 

and place—I do feel very strongly about the great suffering experienced by the Armenian people, both at that time and today, as they remember this dark chapter 

in their history. I too mourn the loss of so many innocent lives and fully respect 

that the Armenian-American community and the Armenian people want their pain 

and loss to be acknowledged. 

Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to remember the victims of the 

Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the tradition of participating in the official 

memorial event held in Yerevan every April. I will refer to this great historic catastrophe as the ‘‘Medz Yeghern,’’ the term often used within Armenia to refer to that 

dark chapter of history. If confirmed, I also would make it a priority to promote understanding and reconciliation between the peoples and Governments of Armenia 

and Turkey. It is important for the United States to do everything that it can to 

encourage dialog between Armenia and Turkey, and to encourage Turkey, in particular, to examine the terrible events of that time openly. This was a tragedy that 

we and the world must never forget, so that it is never repeated. 

Question. What steps is the State Department taking to encourage greater study 

and recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey? 

Answer. The United States Embassy in Ankara is committed to working with the 

Government of Turkey on ways in which the atrocities of 1915 can be studied. As 

a recent example, the administration is currently laying the groundwork for an 

International Visitor Program that would bring archivists from the Turkish State 

Archives to the United States to look at the ways in which we do historical research. 

As a confidence building measure, the United States Government has contacted Armenian archivists to participate in the program, in the hope that, upon return, the 

archivists from both countries could work together on a joint program that would 

study the issue. 

550 

In addition, our embassies take every opportunity in meetings with the Governments of Armenia and Turkey, and with civil society leaders from both countries, 

to encourage improved dialog between them. Since 2006, the United States Government has provided over $700,000 in support of initiatives to increase people-to-people connections between Armenia and Turkey, including research projects, conferences, documentary production, and exchange and partnership programs with the 

goal of increasing cross-border dialog and cooperation. These programs are focused 

on bringing together Armenian and Turkish NGOs, think tank researchers, academics, and business leaders at the grass roots level by creating opportunities for 

them to work together on common projects that will benefit both countries. 

Question. How will you work with your counterparts in Ankara to decriminalize 

discussion of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey? Is the Department satisfied with 

recent modifications to Article 301 of Turkey’s Criminal Code that allowed individuals such as Hrant Dink to be prosecuted for speaking about the Genocide? Why 

or why not? 

Answer. The administration has made clear to the Turkish authorities on many 

occasions that such prosecutions violate free expression, run counter to Turkey’s aspiration to join the European Union, and undercut Turkey’s strategic significance 

as an example of a secular democracy that can inspire reform throughout the broader Middle East and Central Asia. The scope for free expression in Turkey, including 

on the Armenian issue, has expanded significantly in recent years, but clearly there 

is much more to be done. In May 2008, Turkey amended Article 301 of its Penal 

Code, under which individuals have been prosecuted for ‘‘insulting Turkishness.’’ 

While the administration would have preferred to have seen the repeal of Article 

301, the amendments reduce the maximum possible sentence from 3 to 2 years and, 

most importantly, require the Minister of Justice to determine whether to accept the 

case for prosecution. The Minister’s role should help to reduce significantly the number of cases brought by zealous prosecutors. The administration has encouraged the 

Turkish authorities to continue this progress and to end legal action against citizens 

for expressing their views. 

RESPONSES OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. What conditions must be met for the administration to finally recognize 

the slaughter of over 1.5 million Armenians during WWI by the Ottoman Empire 

as ‘‘genocide’’? Specifically, if the Republic of Turkey recognized the genocide, would 

the United States then recognize it also? Additionally, how is the President’s policy 

on recognizing the Armenian Genocide different from the Turkish Government’s policy? 

Answer. In contrast to the Turkish Government’s policy, the United States Government acknowledges and mourns as historical fact the mass killings, ethnic 

cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one and a half million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The United States recognizes these 

events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the ‘‘Medz Yeghern,’’ or 

Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it. That is why every April the President honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with the Armenian people on Remembrance Day. It is the prerogative of the President to set the policy 

on how the administration characterizes these historical events. 

We have strongly encouraged Turkey to come to terms with its past. That will 

not be easy, just as it has not been easy for the United States to come to terms 

with dark periods of our own past. 

Question. Should you be confirmed, how will you work to promote Armenian-Turkish reconciliation in a direction that would lead to full recognition of the Armenian 

genocide by Turkey and the United States? Additionally, how would you support efforts to promote overall reconciliation and improved relations between Armenia and 

Azerbaijan? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue this administration’s efforts to promote 

Turkish-Armenian reconciliation and normalization of relations. Specifically, I will 

continue, working with our Embassy in Ankara, administration efforts to encourage 

Turkey to open its land border, reinstitute transportation, communication, and utility links between the two countries, and reestablish diplomatic relations. Contact 

begins to build trust, and trust is the necessary first step to reconciliation, facilitating Turkey’s ability and willingness to examine the dark spots in its own history. 

551 

The administration, through our Embassy in Ankara, also will be pressing for expanded freedom of expression in Turkey, helping to expand the public debate surrounding the events of 1915 that led to the amendment of Article 301 of the Turkish 

Penal Code, under which individuals have been prosecuted for ‘‘insulting 

Turkishness.’’ We welcome this progress, though clearly there is more to be done. 

The administration will continue to encourage the Turkish authorities to end legal 

action against citizens for expressing their views. 

As a Minsk Group cochair nation, we believe the single most important step toward bolstering peace and prosperity in Armenia as well as Azerbaijan would be a 

peaceful, just, and lasting settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. During the 

past 2 years, the parties have moved closer than ever to a framework agreement 

based on the Basic Principles that have been the subject of intensive negotiations, 

thanks in large part to the active mediation of the United States as a cochair of 

the OSCE’s Minsk Group. The Minsk Group cochairs remain fully committed to 

helping Armenia and Azerbaijan finalize these Basic Principles, and hope to build 

momentum in the coming months after an introductory meeting between Presidents 

Sargsyan and Aliyev in St. Petersburg on June 6. If I am confirmed, I would uphold 

our commitment to support the efforts of the Minsk Group cochairs to sustain the 

negotiations and narrow the differences between the sides to promote the soonest 

possible endorsement of the Basic Principles, so the parties can proceed on this 

basis with drafting a peace agreement. 

RESPONSES OF MARIE L. YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. Does the United States have military or economic interests in Turkey 

that influence its decision on whether to use the word ‘‘genocide,’’ when discussing 

the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians from 1915–1923? 

Answer. Turkey is a long-standing NATO ally of the United States and an important partner in promoting peace and stability in the broader Middle East, and one 

with which we share democratic values. We seek to maintain strong United StatesTurkey relations, just as we seek to maintain strong United States-Armenian relations. We believe our partnership will deepen with Turkey as it reconciles with its 

own painful past and with Armenia. We are encouraging Turkey to open its border, 

reinstitute transportation, communication, and utility links between the two countries, and reestablish diplomatic relations. The administration also has pressed for 

expanding freedom of expression in Turkey, which has helped to expand the public 

debate surrounding the events of 1915 and led to the amendment of Article 301 of 

the Turkish Penal Code, under which individuals have been prosecuted for ‘‘insulting Turkishness.’’ 

Question. What do you believe are the effects of Turkey’s state-sponsored denial 

of a genocide on the survivors and their descendants? 

Answer. Turkey’s difficulty in coming to terms with this dark spot in its history 

only adds to the pain experienced by many Armenians and Armenian-Americans. 

The United States Government acknowledges and mourns as historical fact the 

mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over 1.5 

million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The United States recognizes 

these events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the ‘‘Medz 

Yeghern,’’ or Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it. That is why every 

April 24 the President honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with 

the Armenian people on Remembrance Day. 

Question. Do you believe there can be reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia, 

without an acknowledgment of the genocide by Turkey? 

Answer. To achieve full reconciliation, Turkey must come to terms with its past. 

This will not be easy and progress so far has been slow, although there have been 

some signs of change, such as the outrage and ethnic solidarity that resulted from 

the murder of Hrant Dink, and recent changes to Article 301. The administration 

will continue to work to promote understanding between Turkey and Armenia, including by encouraging the normalization of diplomatic relations between the two 

countries and the opening of their land border. If I am confirmed, I will continue 

to promote not only government-to-government discussions, but also people-to-people 

cultural and economic contacts and partnerships, and other cross-border and regional initiatives. Contact begins to build trust, and trust is the necessary first step 

to reconciliation, facilitating Turkey’s ability and willingness to examine the dark 

spots in its history. 

552 

Question. In a 1951 U.S. court filing with the International Court of Justice, the 

U.S. filing stated that, ‘‘the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of 

millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of 

genocide.’’ Also, on April 22, 1981, President Ronald Reagan used the term genocide 

to describe the Armenian Genocide, stating, in an official proclamation: ‘‘Like the 

genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it—and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples— 

the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.’’ 

What is your understanding of the reasoning behind the change in United States 

policy today that now prohibits executive branch officials from using the term genocide to describe the Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. It has been President Bush’s policy, as well as that of previous Presidents of both parties, not to use that term. The President’s focus is on encouraging 

Turkish citizens to reconcile with their past and with the Armenian people. He 

seeks to support the painstaking progress achieved to date. A key part of that effort 

is to end Armenia’s isolation in the region by encouraging normalization of relations 

between Armenia and Turkey and the opening of their land border. President Bush 

believes that normalization can and should be achieved. 

The United States Government acknowledges and mourns the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one and a half million 

Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The United States recognizes these 

events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the ‘‘Medz Yeghern,’’ or 

Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it. That is why every April the President honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with the Armenian people on Remembrance Day. 

Question. How can we expect Turkey to come to terms with its past when we, as 

Americans, are unwilling to speak honestly about the Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. The administration has never denied the facts—over 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, starved, or deported at the end of the Ottoman Empire. This 

was a tragedy that we and the world must never forget, so that it is never repeated. 

Our focus is on encouraging the people of Turkey to reconcile with their past regarding these horrific events. We mourn this terrible chapter of history and recognize 

that it remains a source of great pain for the people of Armenia and of Armenian 

descent, and for all those who believe in the dignity and value of every human life. 

Question. As the ambassador-designate to Armenia you are clearly mindful of the 

work of your predecessors in this important diplomatic post, including former Ambassador John Evans, who was fired for speaking truthfully about the Armenian 

Genocide? What lessons do you draw from Ambassador Evans’ experience, particularly the way in which his tenure in Yerevan and his diplomatic career were ended? 

Answer. I understand that I have a duty to faithfully represent the policy of the 

President. There is the same expectation for all Foreign Service officers and executive branch officials—regardless of the subject. This is a basic tenet of a diplomatic 

career. At the same time, the Secretary has made it clear that there are no taboo 

subjects for internal discussion and that all viewpoints are respectfully heard. 

Question. There were some questions about the characterization of the Armenian 

Genocide that you were unable to answer because you were not authorized to speak 

on them. Do you know of other cases where the President limits speech of Department of State employees based on his policy determinations on the characterizations 

of historical events? 

Answer. As part of the executive branch, the State Department follows the President’s policies on all issues. There is the same expectation for all Foreign Service 

officers and executive branch officials—regardless of the subject. I understand that 

I have a duty to faithfully represent the policy of the President. This is a basic tenet 

of a diplomatic career. 

Question. Do you believe the 1951 United States court filing with the International Court of Justice stating, ‘‘the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of 

the crime of genocide’’ was inaccurate? 

Answer. The U.S. Government acknowledges and mourns the mass killings, ethnic 

cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one and a half million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The administration also understands 

that many Americans and many Armenians believe that these horrible acts should 

be called ‘‘genocide.’’ It has been President Bush’s policy, as well as that of previous 

presidents of both parties, not to use that term. 

553 

President Bush believes that the best way to honor the victims is to remember 

the past, so it is never repeated, and to look to the future to promote understanding 

and reconciliation between the peoples and governments of Armenia and Turkey. A 

key part of that effort is to end Armenia’s isolation in the region by encouraging 

normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey and the opening of their 

land border. The Armenian Government has requested that we facilitate this process. It will not be easy nor will it likely be quick, but there are some hopeful signs. 

President Bush believes that normalization can and should be achieved. 

Question. How does the administration’s non-use of the genocide term advance 

United States efforts to promote Armenian-Turkish reconciliation? 

Answer. The administration has never denied the terrible events of 1915 and acknowledges the human tragedy of the mass killings and forced exile of over 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The administration also understands that many Americans and many Armenians believe that these events should 

be called ‘‘genocide.’’ It has been the policy of this administration, as well as that 

of previous administrations of both parties, not to use that term. The President’s 

focus is on encouraging Turkish citizens to reconcile with their past and with the 

Armenian people. The administration’s goal is to stimulate a candid exploration 

within Turkish society of these horrific events in an effort to help this reconciliation. 

This is not easy. It was not easy for the United States to address its own historic 

dark spots. We seek not to undercut voices emerging in Turkey who call for a truthful exploration of these events in pursuit of Turkey’s reconciliation with its own past 

and with Armenia; we share their goal of opening Turkey’s past through honest, if 

painful, self examination. 

Question. The President’s policies are not promoting an honest reexamination of 

its history, but actually intensifying Turkey’s denial of the Armenian Genocide. 

What evidence can you identify for us today that can inspire any trust by the Senate 

that those words of facilitating dialog have borne any real results? 

Answer. The administration’s goal is to stimulate a candid exploration within 

Turkish society of these horrific events in an effort to help this reconciliation. This 

is not easy. It was not easy for the United States to address its own historic dark 

spots. 

The administration has long pressed for expanding freedom of expression in Turkey, which has helped to expand the public debate surrounding the mass killings, 

forced exile, and ethnic cleansing that occurred during WWI at the end of the Ottoman Empire. After a long silence, Turkey is making progress addressing these 

issues. More than 100,000 Turkish citizens of all backgrounds demonstrated at the 

funeral of Hrant Dink, an Armenian-Turkish journalist murdered by a Turkish 

ultranationalist, and they demonstrated in support of tolerance and a candid exploration of Turkey’s past.In May 2008, the Turkish Government amended Article 301 

of the Turkish Penal Code, under which individuals have been prosecuted for ‘‘insulting Turkishness.’’ While the administration would have preferred to have seen 

the repeal of Article 301, the amendments reduce the maximum possible sentence 

from 3 to 2 years and, most importantly, require the Minister of Justice to determine whether to accept the case for prosecution. The Minister’s role should help to 

reduce significantly the number of cases brought by zealous prosecutors. The administration will continue to encourage the Turkish authorities to continue this 

progress and to end legal action against citizens for expressing their views on this 

(and any) issue. 

The United States Embassy in Ankara also is committed to working with the Government of Turkey on ways in which the terrible events of 1915 can be studied. As 

a recent example, the United States Government is currently laying the groundwork 

for an International Visitor Program that would bring archivists from the Turkish 

State Archives to the United States to look at the ways in which we do historical 

research. As a confidence building measure, we also have contacted Armenian archivists to participate in the program, in the hope that, upon return, the archivists 

from both countries could work together on a joint program that would study the 

atrocities. 

In addition, our embassies take every opportunity in meetings with the Governments of Armenia and Turkey, and with civil society leaders from both countries, 

to encourage improved dialog between them. Since 2006, the United States Government has provided over $700,000 in support of initiatives to increase people-to-people connections between Armenia and Turkey, including research projects, conferences, documentary production, and exchange and partnership programs with the 

goal of increasing cross-border dialog and cooperation. These programs are focused 

on bringing together Armenian and Turkish NGOs, think tank researchers, acaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00561 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
554 

demics, and business leaders at the grass roots level by creating opportunities for 

them to work together on common projects that will benefit both countries. 

Question. The President opposes the recognition of the Armenian Genocide because he believes it will harm reconciliation, however, he does not take this same 

position with the genocide in Darfur, although it is still heartily denied by the Sudanese Government. How is the Armenian Genocide any different? 

Answer. The mass murder and ethnic cleansing of over 1.5 million Armenians in 

1915 is a tragedy of epic proportions for all of humanity and one that is commemorated every year in the United States so that we never forget this dark chapter in 

history. Many Americans believe that these events should be called ‘‘genocide.’’ It 

has been President Bush’s policy—as well as that of several previous Presidents on 

both sides of the aisle—not to use that term. The administration’s focus is on encouraging people in Turkey to reconcile with their past and with the Armenian people regarding these horrific events. 

Question. What will you do to help end Turkey’s over 15-year-long blockade 

against Armenia? 

Answer. Facilitating Armenia’s regional integration by opening its border with 

Turkey is a priority for the United States. If confirmed, this would be one of my 

key priorities as ambassador—not only by supporting government-to-government 

discussions—but by promoting people-to-people contacts and partnerships, and other 

cross-border and regional initiatives. Contact begins to build trust, and trust is the 

necessary first step to reconciliation and conflict resolution. If confirmed, I also look 

forward to working with my colleagues at our embassy in Ankara in this common 

effort. Clearly, the status quo is not helpful to anyone. 

Fortunately, some progress has been achieved in recent years. There are regular 

charter flights between Yerevan and Istanbul and other flights to Antalya; bus connections via Georgia are numerous; and trade with Turkey through Georgia is common. However, both countries would benefit greatly from increased direct trade, connecting their electrical grids, and implementing other measures natural to neighbors. 

The United States also supports more cross-border dialog and cooperation between 

the people of Armenia and Turkey through research initiatives, conferences, and exchange programs. Our embassies take every opportunity in meetings with the Governments of Armenia and Turkey, and with civil society leaders from both countries, 

to encourage improved dialog. Since 2006, the United States Government has provided over $700,000 in support of initiatives to increase people-to-people connections 

between Armenia and Turkey, including research projects, conferences, documentary 

production, and exchange and partnership programs with the goal of increasing 

cross-border dialog and cooperation. These programs are focused on bringing together Armenian and Turkish NGOs, think tank researchers, academics, and business leaders at the grass roots level by creating opportunities for them to work together on common projects that will benefit both countries. 

Question. How does Turkey and Azerbaijan’s blockade of Armenia harm United 

States interests in the region, in particular our interest to promote an East-West 

trade corridor and minimize the influence of Russia and Iran? 

Answer. Facilitating Armenia’s regional integration is a particular priority for the 

United States. The United States Government has worked to end Armenia’s isolation both by promoting reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey to reopen their 

land border, and by working to find a peaceful and lasting settlement to the 

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan. The U.S. Government believes regional 

integration is in the economic interest of all three countries and certainly in our interest. For example, U.S. investment is hampered by regional divisions. With its 

borders to the east and west closed, Armenia relies more than we would like on its 

relations with Iran. In terms of Russia’s influence, Armenia’s history and currently 

complicated relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey provide the impetus for a close 

relationship with Russia. In looking at the region as a whole, our strategic interests 

are focused on several issues—the advance of freedom and democracy; security, including counterterrorism and peaceful resolution of separatist conflicts; and energy. 

All would benefit greatly from good neighborly relations and regional integration of 

the South Caucasus. 

Question. Currently, the United States assistance to Nagorno Karabakh is limited 

to only humanitarian assistance, however, there are serious needs for economic development, which have been ignored for over a decade. Do you support a shift from 

humanitarian to developmental assistance for Nagorno Karabakh to facilitate the 

construction of a hospital and other projects? 

555 

Answer. Since 1998, the United States has provided roughly $29 million in funding for projects that meet the highest priority needs, such as demining, health, 

drinking water, shelter, and infrastructure reconstruction. The administration believes these are the most appropriate and pressing priorities, based on a very recent 

(December 2007) needs assessment conducted by USAID in Nagorno-Karabakh, actual humanitarian conditions on the ground, and international legal constraints 

arising from the unresolved nature of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

Question. What restrictions, if any, are in place that prohibit communications between United States and Nagorno-Karabakh officials? What is the justification for 

such restrictions, considering that the Nagorno-Karabakh officials have been democratically elected in free and internationally-monitored elections and are the legitimate representatives of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh? Where are these restrictions codified or enumerated? 

Answer. No country, including Armenia, recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as an 

independent entity. In accordance with the international legal principle of territorial 

integrity, Nagorno-Karabakh remains a part of Azerbaijan, and its future status is 

the subject of negotiations currently mediated by the OSCE’s Minsk Group, of which 

the United States is a cochair. The United States strives to remain an honest broker 

of these negotiations. Because of these sensitivities, our level of interaction with de 

facto officials from Nagorno-Karabakh is limited. State Department policy authorizes only the United States cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group and his staff to maintain regular contact with the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh authorities and to travel 

on a regular basis to Nagorno-Karabakh, with other United States officials meeting 

with the de facto authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh with the permission of the 

United States cochair. This policy is not codified in official State Department regulations, but is widely disseminated to all United States officials planning to travel to 

Armenia or Azerbaijan. 

Question. Would you permit USAID personnel, who are not Armenian nationals, 

to visit Nagorno-Karabakh? 

Answer. USAID personnel, like other United States officials, may travel to 

Nagorno-Karabakh with the permission of the United States cochair of the OSCE 

Minsk Group, who has the United States lead in mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh 

conflict. USAID personnel have traveled to Nagorno-Karabakh in the past with the 

permission of the United States cochair to implement humanitarian aid programs. 

Question. Would you visit with government officials from Nagorno-Karabakh, if 

they requested such a meeting? 

Answer. The United States cochair and his staff maintain regular contact with de 

facto officials from Nagorno-Karabakh. Under current U.S. policy, if confirmed, I 

would not meet with such officials unless requested to do so by the U.S. cochair. 

RESPONSES OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. Can you please provide the State Department’s definition of the term 

genocide and an explanation of how the killing and forced exile of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915–1923 fails to meet that definition? 

Answer. The United States became a State Party to the Convention on Prevention 

and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1989. Genocide is defined in Article 

II of the Convention, as subject to the understandings made by the Senate in providing its advice and consent to ratification, and the State Department accepts that 

definition. 

The administration has never denied the terrible events of 1915 and acknowledges the human tragedy of the mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 

million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The administration also understands that many Americans and many Armenians believe that these events 

should be called ‘‘genocide.’’ It has been the policy of this administration, as well 

as that of previous administrations of both parties, not to use that term. The President’s focus is on remembering the past and on encouraging Turkish citizens to reconcile with their past and with the Armenian people. The United States believes 

that establishing an honest albeit painful dialog on these events is the best way to 

achieve reconciliation, peace, and stability in the region and to help encourage a full 

understanding of these terrible events. 

Question. Have you, at any time, been advised, counseled, or informed in an explicit or implicit way not to use the term genocide? 

556 

Answer. Policy on this issue is determined by the President. I understand that 

I have a duty to faithfully represent the policy of the President. There is the same 

expectation for all Foreign Service officers and executive branch officials—regardless 

of the subject. 

Question. Have you reviewed the evidence provided by our own United States diplomats and ambassadors at the time of the 1915 Armenian Genocide (including reports and cables from United States Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, United States 

Ambassador Abram Elkus, United States Consul Jesse Jackson, and United States 

Consul Leslie Davis) that is available in the United States archives? 

Answer. I have read a number of books on this subject that quote from the officials you mention, and I am familiar with key passages that they have written, including those passages that were raised during my confirmation hearing on June 

19. I am acquainted with the history of the tragic massacres and forced exile that 

occurred at the end of the Ottoman Empire, and with U.S. policy in that regard. 

I also have reviewed the ‘‘U.S. Official Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915– 

1917,’’ and have read a number of books looking at the subject from various perspectives. The individual stories are horrifying; the magnitude of these terrible acts— 

over 1.5 million killed or forcibly deported—is simply incomprehensible. 

Question. Do you acknowledge that the United States Government affirmed the 

Armenian Genocide in its 1951 International Court of Justice (ICJ) filing, which 

read in part: ‘‘The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous 

practices, which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, 

when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and 

subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred 

throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish 

massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the 

Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide. (Document follows). 

557 

Answer. It is my understanding that the U.S. Government did file this document 

with the International Court of Justice in 1951. 

Question. Do United States-Turkish relations influence the Bush administration’s 

policy concerning the Armenian Genocide in any way? 

Answer. Turkey is a long-standing NATO ally of the United States and an important partner in promoting peace and stability in the broader Middle East. We seek 

to maintain strong United States-Turkey relations, just as we seek to maintain 

strong United States-Armenian relations. We do not believe that use of the term 

‘‘genocide’’ will contribute to Turkish-Armenian reconciliation and normalization of 

relations. Instead, we are encouraging Turkey to open its border, reinstitute transVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00565 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB

justice.eps
558 

portation, communication, and utility links between the two countries, and reestablish diplomatic relations. The administration also has pressed for expanding freedom of expression in Turkey, which has helped to expand the public debate surrounding the events of 1915 and led to the amendment of Article 301 of the Turkish 

Penal Code, under which individuals have been prosecuted for ‘‘insulting 

Turkishness.’’ 

Question. Do you fear you could lose your job or be demoted if you were to use 

the word ‘‘genocide’’ to describe the atrocities committed against the Armenians? 

Answer. Policy on this issue is determined by the President. I understand that 

I have a duty to represent the policy of the President faithfully. There is the same 

expectation for all Foreign Service officers and executive branch officials—regardless 

of the subject. 

Question. In preparations for this hearing, you may have reviewed your predecessor’s responses to questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Do 

you have any reservations about Ambassador Richard Hoagland’s initial written responses to the SFRC? 

Answer. I did review his responses. I believe that we must make it clear that the 

administration has never denied the facts—as many as 1.5 million Armenians were 

murdered, starved, or deported at the end of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, the administration has stated this quite clearly. This was a tragedy that we and the world 

must never forget, so that it is never repeated. We mourn this terrible chapter of 

history and recognize that it remains a source of great pain for the people of Armenia and of Armenian descent, and for all those who believe in the dignity and value 

of every human life. 

Question. What actions, if any, would you take against your employees if they 

properly characterized the massacre of Armenians during WWI as genocide? 

Answer. As representatives of this administration, all State Department officers 

have the duty to represent the policies of the President and his administration faithfully, and I would expect the same of my staff. This is a basic tenet of a diplomatic 

career. At the same time, Secretary Rice has made it clear that there are no taboo 

subjects for internal discussion and that all viewpoints are respectfully heard. I 

would follow the same policy with my employees. 

Question. Would you advise Members of Congress against supporting the Armenian Genocide resolution, H.Res.106, which was recently passed by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs? 

Answer. If confirmed, as the personal representative of the President of the 

United States, I would have the duty of faithfully representing the policies of the 

President and his administration. If asked by Members of Congress, I would provide 

my understanding of the reasoning underlying the President’s policy. 

Question. Would you support a decision to allow USAID personnel who are not 

Armenian nationals to visit Nagorno Karabakh? 

Answer. USAID personnel, like other United States officials, may travel to 

Nagorno-Karabakh with the permission of the United States cochair of the OSCE 

Minsk Group, who has the United States lead in mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh 

conflict. USAID personnel have traveled to Nagorno-Karabakh in the past with the 

permission of the United States cochair to implement humanitarian aid programs. 

Question. Would you visit with government officials from Nagorno-Karabakh if 

they requested such a meeting? 

Answer. The United States cochair and his staff maintain regular contact with de 

facto officials from Nagorno-Karabakh. Under current U.S. policy, if confirmed, I 

would not meet with such officials unless requested to do so by the United States 

cochair. 

Question. Will you consult with former Ambassador John Evans before you depart 

for Armenia? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would consult with former Ambassador Evans and 

others before I depart for Armenia in order to better understand the complex issues 

and challenges that I would face. 

559 

RESPONSES OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR ROBERT P. CASEY, JR. 

Question. United States assistance to Armenia has demonstrated effectiveness in 

promoting free market reform and is vital to democracy building in Armenia. What 

actions will you take to continue to facilitate a robust assistance program? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will strongly support the continued evaluation and finetuning of the United States Government assistance programs and will coordinate 

closely with the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress to ensure that future budget requests meet United 

States Government policy goals, as well as the development needs of Armenia. 

Many of the United States Government assistance programs in Armenia have 

achieved measurable success, particularly in promoting economic growth. For example, in part because of United States Government assistance, the poverty rate in Armenia fell from 56 percent in 1999 to 30 percent in 2005 (based on IMF reporting); 

rural poverty fell from 48 percent to 28 percent. However, the events surrounding 

the flawed Presidential elections in February and its aftermath prove that there is 

still much work needed to foster democratic reform. In the wake of these developments, the U.S. Government is evaluating how to better target our assistance programs to achieve our policy objectives by focusing more on increasing the capacity 

of civil society to seek accountable and transparent governance. 

Armenia was recently chosen as one of 10 pilot countries for which the United 

States Government will develop a ‘‘Country Assistance Strategy’’ (CAS). The CAS 

will identify goals and priorities for United States assistance over a 5-year period, 

and will cover not only the Department of State and USAID, but all other United 

States Government agencies providing assistance to Armenia. The process of developing the CAS should assist us in determining how the United States can best contribute to Armenia’s economic, social, and democratic development. 

Question. Please explain the rationale behind the administration decision to reduce aid to Armenia by over 50 percent in its fiscal year 2009 request, while maintaining or increasing aid to every other former Soviet republic? 

Answer. The reduced request for fiscal year 2009 does not detract from the critical 

importance of Armenia to United States interests nor does it signal a change in 

United States policy. Rather, the request level meets the country’s development 

needs and is appropriate within the context of assistance priorities within the region 

and around the globe. Armenia has made real progress on reversing rural poverty; 

nevertheless, the government’s commitment to democratic reform is not as strong 

as others in the region, and Armenia still struggles with rampant corruption and 

weak democratic institutions. 

Within the fiscal year 2009 assistance request for Eurasia, funding is prioritized 

to help the most reform-oriented countries in the region—Georgia, Ukraine, and 

Moldova—by promoting economic and energy independence, helping to diversify export markets, and improving democratic governance in the face of increasing Russian economic and political pressure. 

Question. What will be your key priorities as Ambassador to Armenia? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, my top priority would be to support the efforts of the 

United States in working toward regional stability by facilitating Armenian-Turkish 

relations, including the opening of their border, and a peaceful settlement to the 

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan. The status quo in both situations is unacceptable and not in U.S. or regional interests. Promoting good governance in Armenia is also a key United States goal. The conduct of the recent Presidential elections and their violent aftermath in which 10 individuals died were deeply disturbing. The path toward democracy is rarely fast or smooth. The United States 

Government’s aim is to help the Armenian Government and the Armenian people 

restore democratic momentum and to renew their own stated mission of moving forward to become a country where government institutions are transparent and accountable and where rule of law is accepted by all. The relationship of the United 

States Government with Armenia is broad and deep, both on a bilateral level and 

between our peoples. Over the past 17 years, the United States has provided close 

to $2 billion in assistance and materially improved the lives of millions of Armenians. If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to ensure that United States 

interests are promoted and protected, that the bilateral relationship flourishes, and 

that Armenia’s isolation ends and regional stability is enhanced. 

Question. What do you think will be your greatest challenges? 

Answer. If confirmed, my greatest challenges will be in working to reduce Armenia’s geographic isolation and helping Armenia recover from recent setbacks to its 

560 

democratic development. Supporting Armenia’s regional integration is a priority for 

the United States. 

Achieving normal relations between Armenia and Turkey is a principal concern. 

As a key part of that effort, the United States supports the opening of the TurkishArmenian land border. The status quo is not helpful to either country. Some 

progress has been achieved in recent years. There are regular charter flights between Yerevan and Istanbul and other flights to Antalya; bus connections via Georgia are numerous; and trade with Turkey through Georgia is common. Both countries would greatly benefit from increased, direct trade with the other, connecting 

their electrical grids, and implementing other measures natural to neighbors. The 

United States also supports more cross-border dialog and cooperation between the 

people of Armenia and Turkey through research initiatives, conferences, and exchange programs. 

Reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey, however, will require dealing with 

sensitive, painful issues. Turkey needs to come to terms with a dark chapter in its 

history—the mass killings and forced exile of up to 1.5 million Armenians at the 

end of the Ottoman Empire. That will not be easy, just as it has not been easy for 

the United States to come to terms with dark periods of our own past. For its part, 

Armenia must be ready to acknowledge the existing border and disavow any claim 

on the territory of modern Turkey, and respond constructively to any efforts Turkey 

may make. 

Another major step toward regional integration would be a peaceful, just, and 

lasting settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. During the past 2 years, the 

parties have moved closer than ever to a framework agreement based on a set of 

Basic Principles developed through intensive negotiations under the auspices of the 

Minsk Group cochairs. 

Another challenge will be to work with Armenia to strengthen its democratic institutions and processes, including respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to regain the democratic momentum lost after the flawed presidential 

election in February and its violent aftermath. 

Question. How do you plan to help promote United States-Armenia trade and 

business cooperation? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work to provide United States businesses with 

information about opportunities involving Armenia. The United States now ranks 

near the bottom of the list of Armenia’s trading partners, with trade turnover in 

2007 of approximately $194 million—just 4.4 percent of the total. Promotion of trade 

and business cooperation between the United States and Armenia will require 

greater awareness of Armenia and the Caucasus as a whole by United States business. Some sectors, such as information technology, already have significant U.S. investment. But others, financial services and insurance for example, hold largely untapped potential. I also believe there is considerable opportunity for the establishment of United States-based franchises in Armenia. If confirmed, I would work to 

identify new opportunities for United States exports to Armenia. This week’s visit 

to Armenia by Assistant Secretary of Commerce David Bohigian is an important 

step forward. 

Another critical factor for improved trade and business relations between the 

United States and Armenia is the need for the Armenian Government to create a 

more favorable investment environment through reforms of its tax administration 

and customs procedures, and improvements to its legal system. The United States 

Government is already actively working on these issues with the Armenian authorities through a variety of assistance programs. Our embassy also works closely with 

the American Chamber of Commerce in Armenia, which has played a significant 

role in creating private sector support for needed reforms. 

Although our embassy does not have a Foreign Commercial Service presence, it 

plays a strong advocacy role on behalf of United States firms that encounter legal 

problems while doing business in Armenia. The United States Government presses 

the Armenian Government to investigate and resolve disputes in a prompt and equitable manner, noting that the perception of an unfair business climate will not encourage the foreign investment that Armenia seeks to attract. 

Finally, I believe that the key to unlocking Armenia’s economic potential—and 

opening up more opportunities for United States-Armenian business cooperation— 

lies in the resolution of regional conflicts. If confirmed, I will support the continued 

efforts of the United States Government to open the land border with Turkey and 

to achieve a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Armenia’s economic 

integration into the wider region remains an important United States policy objective. 

561 

RESPONSES OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR NORM COLEMAN

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Genocide remembrance is vital in the effort to end this crime against humanity, 

and the world rightfully looks to the United States to demonstrate leadership in 

both remembrance and prevention. The Armenian Genocide is settled history, and 

is overwhelmingly documented in the WWI-era archives of the United States, 

France, Great Britain, Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. Nevertheless, it has 

been the continual policy of the executive branch in contemporary history to refrain 

from employing the accurate and generally recognized term ‘‘genocide’’ to describe 

what President Bush himself acknowledged was ‘‘one of the most horrible tragedies 

of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1,500,000 Armenians through 

forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.’’ 

Question. Do you acknowledge that the events in 1915 involved the annihilation 

of as many as 1,500,000 Armenians through forced exile and murder at the hands 

of the Ottoman Empire? 

Answer. Yes, the United States Government acknowledges and mourns the mass 

killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over 1.5 million 

Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The United States recognizes these 

events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the ‘‘Medz Yeghern,’’ or 

Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it. That is why every April the President honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with the Armenian people on Remembrance Day. This was a tragedy that we and the world must never 

forget, so it is never repeated. We mourn this terrible chapter of history and recognize that it remains a source of great pain for the people of Armenia and of Armenian descent, and for all those who believe in the dignity and value of every human 

life. 

Question. In your view, what specific actions should the United States take to convince the Turkish Government that a global campaign of genocide denial and intimidation of 3rd parties that seek to reaffirm this crime against humanity serve no constructive purpose? 

Answer. The United States Government has worked to stimulate a candid exploration within Turkish society of these horrific events in an effort to help Turkey reconcile with the past. This is not easy. It was not easy for the United States to address its own historic dark spots. 

The administration has long pressed for expanding freedom of expression in Turkey, which has helped to expand the public debate surrounding the mass killings, 

forced exile, and ethnic cleansing that occurred during WWI at the end of the Ottoman Empire. After a long silence, Turkey is making progress addressing these 

issues. More than 100,000 Turkish citizens of all backgrounds demonstrated at the 

funeral of Hrant Dink, an Armenian-Turkish journalist murdered by a Turkish 

ultranationalist, and they demonstrated in support of tolerance and a candid exploration of Turkey’s past. 

The scope for free expression in Turkey, including on the Armenian issue, has expanded significantly in recent years, but there is much more to be done. The Turkish Government responded in May 2008 by amending Article 301 of the Turkish 

Penal Code, under which individuals have been prosecuted for ‘‘insulting 

Turkishness.’’ While the administration would have preferred to have seen the repeal of Article 301, the amendments reduce the maximum possible sentence from 

three to 2 years and, most importantly, require the Minister of Justice to determine 

whether to accept the case for prosecution. The Minister’s role should help to reduce 

significantly the number of cases brought by zealous prosecutors. The administration will continue to encourage the Turkish authorities to continue this progress and 

to end legal action against citizens for expressing their views. 

Our Embassy in Ankara also is committed to working with the Government of 

Turkey on ways in which the terrible events of 1915 can be studied. As a recent 

example, we are currently laying the groundwork for an International Visitor Program that would bring archivists from the Turkish State Archives to the United 

States to look at the ways in which we do historical research. As a confidence building measure, we also have contacted Armenian archivists to participate in the program, in the hope that, upon return, the archivists from both countries could work 

together on a joint program that would study the issue. 

In addition, our embassies take every opportunity in meetings with the Governments of Armenia and Turkey, and with civil society leaders from both countries, 

to encourage improved dialogue between them. Since 2006, the United States has 

562 

provided over $700,000 in support of initiatives to increase people-to-people connections between Armenia and Turkey, including research projects, conferences, documentary production, and exchange and partnership programs with the goal of increasing cross-border dialog and cooperation. These programs are focused on bringing together Armenian and Turkish NGOs, think tank researchers, academics and 

business leaders at the grass roots level by creating opportunities for them to work 

together on common projects that will benefit both countries. 

Question. As Ambassador to Armenia, what will you do to assure the Armenian 

Government and its people that the United States is mindful of the facts and ongoing unresolved consequences of the events of 1915? 

Answer. As the child of refugees—at a different time and place—I do feel very 

strongly about the great suffering experienced by the Armenian people both at that 

time and today as they remember this dark chapter in their history. I, too. mourn 

the loss of so many innocent lives and fully respect that the Armenian-American 

community and the Armenian people want their pain and loss to be acknowledged. 

If confirmed, I would assure the Armenian people that the United States Government acknowledges and mourns the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one and a half million Armenians at the end of the 

Ottoman Empire; that we recognize these events as one of the greatest tragedies 

of the 20th century; and that every April the President honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with the Armenian people on Remembrance Day. If confirmed, I also will continue the tradition of participating in the official memorial 

event held in Yerevan every April. I will refer to this great historic catastrophe as 

the ‘‘Medz Yeghern,’’ the term often used within Armenia to refer to that dark chapter of history. Most importantly, I would make it a priority, if confirmed, to promote 

understanding and reconciliation between the peoples and governments of Armenia 

and Turkey. It is important for the United States to do everything that it can to 

encourage dialog between Armenia and Turkey and to encourage Turkey to come 

to terms with this dark chapter in history and examine the terrible events of that 

time openly. This was a tragedy that we and the world must never forget. 

Question. As you know, Armenia continues to offer full relations to Turkey without preconditions, and a bilateral commission to deal with historic and contemporary issues that presently divide the two nations. As Ambassador to Armenia, 

what specific steps will you take with your counterpart serving in Turkey to hasten 

the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey and to secure an affirmative response from Turkey to Armenia’s offer of a bilateral commission? 

Answer. The administration strongly encourages Turkey to move ahead in normalizing relations with Armenia and reopening the two countries’ border. 

If confirmed, I will support efforts by the United States Embassy in Ankara to 

launch an International Visitor Program that would bring archivists from the Turkish State Archives and hopefully from Armenia to examine methodologies for conducting historical research, including on the mass killings and forced deportations 

of 1915. 

I will also support our effort begun in 2006 to promote people-to-people connections between Armenia and Turkey, including research projects, conferences, documentary production, and exchange and partnership programs with the goal of increasing cross-border dialog and cooperation. These programs are focused on bringing together Armenian and Turkish NGOs, think tank researchers, academics and 

business leaders at the grass roots level by creating opportunities for them to work 

together on common projects that will benefit both countries. 

Turkey has suggested convening a bilateral commission to deal with historic and 

contemporary issues, as part of the normalization process. The administration hopes 

to see the commission convene and full relations normalize between Turkey and Armenia in the nearest future. 

Question. The United States has repeatedly and unsuccessfully demanded that 

President Aliyev and other senior Azerbaijani officials desist from war preparations 

and threats against Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. What specific additional actions should the United States take to ensure that war is not triggered 

by the actions of Azerbaijan? 

Answer. The United States Government, as a cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group 

mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has led the way in formulating a set of 

Basic Principles that offers the best hope for a negotiated and peaceful settlement. 

We are actively involved in encouraging the Government of Azerbaijan to work with 

the Government of Armenia and within the Minsk Group to finalize the Basic Principles and proceed on that basis with drafting a comprehensive peace settlement, 

which would provide the surest guarantee there is not another war. The June 6 

563 

meeting in St. Petersburg between Azerbaijani President Aliyev and Armenian 

President Sargsyan restored momentum in the Minsk Group talks and should clear 

the way for an invigorated effort to bridge remaining differences on the Basic Principles. The U.S. Government played an active role in deescalating military tension 

in early March, during the most serious ceasefire violation along the Line of Contact 

in over a decade. Additionally, the United States calibrates all of its security assistance to Azerbaijan to ensure that it is not usable in an offensive operation against 

Armenia, does not affect the military balance between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and 

does not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement of 

the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

Question. What is your analysis of the pace of democratic advancement in Armenia in light of the February elections, as well as efforts by the new president to further democratic reform—including the formation of a coalition government, the organization of a public council to include all sectors of civil society, the support for 

the creation of a commission of inquiry into the post-election violence, and pledged 

electoral and governance reform? 

Answer. The developments noted in the question are positive in principle, and we 

welcome them. However, the key will be to have these steps fully implemented, not 

just announced. Implementation of other reforms has not been as fast as we had 

hoped, and we continue to press for changes not just in law but also in practice. 

While we welcome recent revisions to the Law on Rallies, Marches, and Protests, 

we have been disappointed that the opposition has been unable to gain permission 

to rally, despite applying for it almost 50 times. We welcome the fact that the opposition was allowed to hold a demonstration on June 20, despite never being given 

official permission. While we welcome the recent release of some persons detained 

for their political views, we note that many dozens more remain in prison and must 

be released. We look to the upcoming Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe meeting this week for their views on the pace of progress and encourage the 

Government of Armenia to do all that it can to heal the rifts created in its society 

in the aftermath of the March 1 violence. 

Question. In your view, what is the most constructive way in which the United 

States, and you as United States Ambassador, work to further democratic reforms 

in Armenia? What immediate steps does this involve? 

Answer. Promoting good governance and democracy in Armenia is a key priority. 

The conduct of the February Presidential elections and their violent aftermath on 

March 1, in which at least 10 individuals died, were deeply disturbing and disappointing. The United States Government’s aim is to help the Armenian Government and the Armenian people restore democratic momentum and to renew their 

own stated mission of moving forward to become a country where government institutions are transparent and accountable and where rule of law is accepted by all. 

In the short term, it is essential that the Armenian Government support an independent, objective, and inclusive investigation into the fateful events of March 1 and 

release those who have been held on politically-motivated charges. It is important 

that freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are fully protected. Longer 

term, it is important that the judiciary becomes truly independent. The U.S. Government is looking at how our democracy programs can be targeted to better support civil society, watchdog organizations, the independent media, and development 

of the Internet. U.S. Government programs will continue to focus on anticorruption 

efforts and strengthening the rule of law. The Armenian authorities need to show 

the will to move forward with a reform program that is responsive to the legitimate 

desires of the people and that inspires public confidence in the country’s political 

and economic processes. 

RESPONSES OF PHILIP REEKER TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. As ambassador, what steps would you take to resolve the name dispute 

between Athens and Skopje? If confirmed, what steps will you take to coordinate 

with your counterpart in Athens to assure that the dispute receives adequate attention from the State Department? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the political and party leaders in 

Macedonia to urge their utmost flexibility, cooperation, and constructive engagement in the U.N. process led by Matthew Nimetz, so that a mutually acceptable solution can be found and Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration can proceed. 

564 

If confirmed, I will coordinate very closely with Ambassador Speckhard in Athens 

to ensure that the administration is well informed of developments related to the 

name issue and that our reporting and recommendations from the field reflect a 

joint best assessment of the situation and how the administration’s continued close 

engagement could help facilitate a solution. 

With my counterpart in Athens, if confirmed, I also will seek to facilitate constructive communication between both sides to clarify their respective positions, reduce tensions, and resolve any bilateral irritants that might impede resolution of 

the issue. 

Question. Are you satisfied with the progress of the United Nations-sponsored 

process to bring a resolution to the naming dispute? Why or why not? 

Answer. Although a mutually acceptable solution remains to be found, U.N. Negotiator Ambassador Matthew Nimetz’s significant experience and strong engagement 

remain invaluable contributions to a solution to the name dispute. 

With the strong support of the administration, Ambassador Nimetz has stepped 

up his efforts and the dialog between the parties has intensified. I believe that the 

sooner this issue is resolved, the better the chances for Macedonia to rapidly move 

toward full integration in NATO and the European Union. 

If confirmed, I will fully support the U.N. process toward resolving the name 

issue, as do both Governments in Skopje and Athens. 

Question. What role should the United States play in promoting reconciliation between the country’s ethnic Albanian parties? 

Answer. The United States Government has long encouraged constructive dialog 

between Macedonia’s political parties and between government and opposition on 

issues of overriding interest for the country—especially implementation of the Ohrid 

Framework Agreement. 

The administration will continue to urge that interparty rivalry and competition 

for votes finds healthy expression and outlet within Macedonia’s democratic institutions and in accordance with Macedonian law. If I am confirmed, I will use my good 

offices to facilitate positive dialog and consensus-building, for implementation of the 

Ohrid Framework and other issues critical to Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. 

Question. How will you and the embassy work to address the issue of smuggling 

along the border with Kosovo? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will seek, within means provided by Congress, to continue 

important United States assistance programs that assist the Macedonian Government increase the capacity of its law enforcement, customs, security, and border 

control institutions. These programs also assist the Macedonian Government to address remaining weaknesses in the judiciary and to tackle corruption. 

The United States Government is providing Macedonia’s Interior Ministry, criminal and border police, and customs specialized training, equipment and advice on 

developing a modern, highly effective border control system to combat traffickingin-persons, smuggling of WMD materials, conventional weapons, and narcotics, and 

to detect and intercept illicit movements of people and other contraband across Macedonia’s borders. 

The administration also is working to enhance the capacity of Macedonia’s judicial 

institutions and prosecutors to fight transnational crime, trafficking, money laundering and terrorism, and prevent Macedonia from becoming a transit hub for organized crime to the European Union and to the United States. 

The administration also is facilitating regional cooperation on investigations, seizures, arrests, prosecutions, and other joint efforts to deter criminal or terrorist organizations from using the region as a safe haven or transit point. 

If confirmed, I will work with our Ambassador in Pristina to deepen coordination 

between the Governments of Macedonia and Kosovo and, as appropriate, with 

NATO’s Kosovo Force, the international civilian and security missions in Kosovo, 

and other international organizations active in the region, to advance these efforts. 

RESPONSES OF PHILIP REEKER TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref: 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read the cable. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

565 

Answer. I understand and agree to abide by the guidelines as conveyed in the 

cable. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I understand and accept these principles, which govern the relationship 

between U.S. missions and the Peace Corps. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. I pledge to exercise my authorities as chief of mission according to this 

guideline laid out by Secretary Rice as Departmental policy. 

RESPONSES OF ASIF CHAUDHRY TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable ref 04 STATE 258893—Peace Corps-State Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes, I have read the cable 04 STATE 258893 concerning Peace CorpsState Department Relations. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes, I understand the principles set forth in 04 STATE 258893 and, if 

confirmed, will abide by the guidelines described in the cable. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and that ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies’’? 

Answer. I understand and accept that in order for the Peace Corps to maintain 

its unique people-to-people contacts to promote world peace and friendship, it needs 

to remain substantially separate from the mission. I agree that this need is distinct 

from other U.S. Government agencies. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Carps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. Consistent with the guidance contained in 04 STATE 258893, if confirmed, I will allow the Peace Corps to operate in Moldova with as much autonomy 

and flexibility as possible, so long as those operations are consistent with my responsibility to coordinate United States objectives and policy in Moldova. 

RESPONSES OF JOHN BEYRLE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. For the last several years, the Russians have proven very adept in dividing traditional allies within the Euro-Atlantic community. If confirmed, what 

steps would you take to develop a joint strategy for managing relations with Russia 

in cooperation with our European allies? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to enhance trans-Atlantic cooperation by continuing to engage our European partners in Moscow on a variety of key strategic 

issues, specifically those related to Russia. Throughout my career I have found discussions on Russia with European colleagues in both official and informal settings 

to be thought-provoking and productive, and I would hope to continue such talks 

in Moscow, if confirmed. Through the use of a variety of existing mechanisms that 

include NATO and the NATO-Russia Council, the G–8, the OSCE, United StatesEuropean Union summits and meetings at all levels, as well as bilateral meetings 

with individual European partners, the United States continues to strengthen EuroAtlantic coordination on issues of paramount importance to our nations. 

566 

Question. Where does the administration think Russia will be in 5 or 10 years? 

Where would you like Russia to be? To what extent will our current policy toward 

Russia allow us to bridge the gap between those answers? 

Answer. We desire for Russia to develop strong democratic institutions, modernize 

its economy, join global, rules-based organizations, such as the WTO and OECD, 

and develop and maintain productive relationships—characterized as respectful— 

with both its neighbors and other countries around the world. Russia remains an 

important partner to address nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Iran, 

North Korea, Middle East Peace, and other global challenges such as climate 

change, corruption and international organized crime, and terrorism. We have 

sought ways to cooperate on these important issues to our national security, without 

losing sight of the importance of free market principles and promoting democratic 

values as Russia continues to transform. It takes steady engagement to nurture 

such a relationship. Our current policy has been aimed at precisely this, but at this 

time of change in the Kremlin and our own administration we will need to look for 

new opportunities for engagement and be ready to adjust to changes and challenges 

as needed over the next decade. 

Question. Russia faces a host of existential threats to the country’s future—demographic collapse, an insurgency in the North Caucasus, depopulation of the far east, 

and a failure to invest in the country’s domestic energy infrastructure to name a 

few. How effective has the Russian Government been in dealing with these challenges? Are the Kremlin’s recent actions in Abkhazia intended to deflect attention 

away from these domestic problems? 

Answer. Russia does indeed face a number of significant challenges, including improving the health of its population and decreasing mortality rates, addressing complex and diverse challenges to stability in some of the Southern republics, addressing migration out of certain regions, such as the Far East, and modernizing its infrastructure. The Russian Government appears to recognize these challenges, 

launching a number of initiatives in each of these areas. For example, since 2005, 

President Medvedev (then Deputy Prime Minister) directed implementation of ‘‘National Projects’’ in health, agriculture, education, and housing. While demographic 

results improved in 2007, 2008 appears mixed with a decline of .07 percent in population from January to April. The impact of other reforms has also been mixed, but 

we expect the new government to continue to focus on these critical development 

challenges. We hope that as Russia addresses these challenges, it does so in adherence to international obligations in areas such as human rights. Regarding 

Abkhazia, Russian behavior may be motivated by both domestic and foreign policy 

concerns. We look to Russia to act responsibly to deescalate the situation,μwork 

with the Friends of Georgia to encourage the defacto Abkhaz authorities to engage 

in direct negotiations with Georgia, and respect Georgia’s territorial integrity and 

sovereignty. 

Question. Corruption is reportedly endemic in Russia. How high does the problem 

go, and what—if anything—is the Russian Government doing to combat it? What 

role should the U.S. Embassy play in efforts to root out corruption? 

Answer. President Medvedev and other Russian Government officials acknowledge 

the enormous challenge of addressing corruption, which runs deep in Russian society and government. Medvedev has placed a renewed emphasis on the need to establish respect for rule of law and enact comprehensive anticorruption measures. 

Within the first months of his presidency, Medvedev has created a Presidential 

Council on corruption, an interagency anticorruption task force, has instructed government agencies such as the Procuracy to review legislation with an eye to eliminating loopholes for bureaucrats who encourage corrupt practices, and encouraged 

law enforcement reforms, investigations, and prosecutions. Bodies such as the Investigative Committee under the Procuracy and Ministry of Interior have formed special anticorruption units. In the Duma, a special anticorruption committee has been 

formed to review legislation and make recommendations for future anticorruption 

legislation. In the past 2 months there have been examples of investigations and 

prosecutions of corrupt officials ranging from mid-level law enforcement to mayors 

and governors. Also, President Medvedev is considering measures to increase the 

independence of the judiciary. 

Despite these efforts, the scope of the corruption problem is large and many investigations and prosecutions are arbitrary and often for political or commercial purposes. The challenges of corruption are significant and systemic, but the United 

States stands ready to assist in supporting Russia’s internal efforts to combat corruption and strengthen rule of law, whether through accession to the OECD Bribery 

Convention (a prerequisite for OECD membership), cooperation in implementation 

567 

of the U.N. Convention against Corruption, or through bilateral technical cooperation. 

Question. Prior to her assassination, Anna Politkovskaya was widely known as 

one of the bravest voices for decency in Russia. While she never stressed the point, 

she was also an American citizen. What has the U.S. Government done to help 

bring the individuals responsible for her murder to justice? 

Answer. The United States remains deeply disturbed by acts of violence committed against journalists, particularly killings, such as the brutal murders of independent journalist Anna Politkovskaya and Paul Klebnikov. We have repeatedly 

urged the Russian Government to ensure that it is meeting its commitments to protect journalists and freedoms of speech and press, as well as bringing those responsible for such acts of violence to justice. We have been in regular touch with Novaya 

Gazeta, Politkovskaya’s newspaper, law enforcement authorities, and the Ministry 

of Foreign Affairs, as we follow the case and press for progress. 

RESPONSES OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What has the State Department done to end Turkey’s denial of the Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. The administration has worked to stimulate a candid exploration within 

Turkish society of these horrific events in an effort to help Turkey reconcile with 

the past. This is not easy. It was not easy for the United States to address its own 

historic dark spots. 

The administration has long pressed for expanding freedom of expression in Turkey, which has helped to expand the public debate surrounding the mass killings, 

forced exile, and ethnic cleansing that occurred during WWI at the end of the Ottoman Empire. After a long silence, Turkey is making progress addressing these 

issues. More than 100,000 Turkish citizens of all backgrounds demonstrated at the 

funeral of Hrant Dink, an Armenian-Turkish journalist murdered by a Turkish 

ultranationalist, and they demonstrated in support of tolerance and a candid exploration of Turkey’s past. 

The scope for free expression in Turkey, including on the Armenian issue, has expanded significantly in recent years, but clearly there is much more to be done. The 

Turkish Government responded in May 2008 by amending Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, under which individuals have been prosecuted for ‘‘insulting 

Turkishness.’’ While the administration would have preferred to have seen the repeal of Article 301, the amendments reduce the maximum possible sentence from 

3 to 2 years and, most importantly, require the Minister of Justice to determine 

whether to accept the case for prosecution. The Minister’s role should help to reduce 

significantly the number of cases brought by zealous prosecutors. The administration will continue to encourage the Turkish authorities to continue this progress and 

to end legal action against citizens for expressing their views. 

Our embassy in Ankara also is committed to working with the Government of 

Turkey on ways in which the terrible events of 1915 can be studied. As a recent 

example, the United States Government is currently laying the groundwork for an 

International Visitor Program that would bring archivists from the Turkish State 

Archives to the United States to look at the ways in which we do historical research. 

As a confidence building measure, the United States Government has contacted Armenian archivists to participate in the program, in the hope that, upon return, the 

archivists from both countries could work together on a joint program that would 

study the issue. 

In addition, our embassies take every opportunity in meetings with the Governments of Armenia and Turkey, and with civil society leaders from both countries, 

to encourage improved dialogue between them. Since 2006, the United States has 

provided over $700,000 in support of initiatives to increase people-to-people connections between Armenia and Turkey, including research projects, conferences, documentary production, and exchange and partnership programs with the goal of increasing cross-border dialog and cooperation. These programs are focused on bringing together Armenian and Turkish NGOs, think tank researchers, academics and 

business leaders at the grass roots level by creating opportunities for them to work 

together on common projects that will benefit both countries. 

Question. What is the United States doing to end the destructive Turkish blockade of Armenia? Is it your intention to have the United States Ambassador in Ankara visit Yerevan in an effort to move this issue? Is it your intention to have the 

568 

new ambassador to Yerevan (if confirmed) travel to Ankara to advance an end to 

the blockade? 

Answer. Facilitating Armenia’s regional integration by opening its land border 

with Turkey is a priority for the United States. If confirmed, I would give this important issue my utmost attention—not only by supporting government-to-government discussions—but by promoting people-to-people contacts and partnerships, and 

other cross-border and regional initiatives. I would certainly work closely with my 

counterpart in Ankara to advance this goal, including travel to each other’s host 

country, as appropriate. Contact begins to build trust, and trust is the necessary 

first step to reconciliation and conflict resolution. I also look forward to working 

with my colleagues at our embassy in Ankara in this common effort. Clearly, the 

status quo is not helpful to anyone. 

Fortunately, some progress has been achieved in recent years. There are regular 

charter flights between Yerevan and Istanbul and other flights to Antalya; bus connections via Georgia are numerous; and trade with Turkey through Georgia is common. However, both countries would benefit greatly from increased direct trade, connecting their electrical grids, and implementing other measures natural to neighbors. The United States also supports more cross-border dialog and cooperation between the people of Armenia and Turkey through research initiatives, conferences, 

and exchange programs. Our embassies take every opportunity in meetings with the 

Governments of Armenia and Turkey, and with civil society leaders from both countries, to encourage improved dialog. Since 2006, the United States Government has 

provided over $700,000 in support of initiatives to increase people-to-people connections between Armenia and Turkey, including research projects, conferences, documentary production, and exchange and partnership programs with the goal of increasing cross-border dialog and cooperation. These programs are focused on bringing together Armenian and Turkish NGOs, think tank researchers, academics and 

business leaders at the grass roots level by creating opportunities for them to work 

together on common projects that will benefit both countries. 

Question. Wouldn’t the end of the blockade and the establishment of peaceful commerce and economic linkages between Armenia, Turkey, and among the states of 

the South Caucasus not promote the long-term stability and prosperity of the entire 

region? Doesn’t the absence of these linkages undermine the region’s peace and 

prosperity? 

Answer. I agree that improved commerce and economic linkages in the region 

would promote its stability and prosperity. Therefore, facilitating Armenia’s regional 

integration is a priority for the United States. We work steadfastly to end Armenia’s 

isolation both by promoting reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey to reopen 

their border, and by working to find a peaceful and lasting settlement to the 

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan. The administration believes regional 

integration is in the economic interest of all three countries and certainly in our interest; for example, United States investment is hampered by regional divisions. 

With its borders to the east and west closed, Armenia relies more than we would 

like on its relations with Iran. In terms of Russia’s influence, Armenia’s history and 

currently complicated relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey provide the impetus for 

a close relationship with Russia. The administration is working with Armenia to 

help it diversify its sources of energy supply through electricity cooperation with 

Georgia, and eventually, by tying Armenia into Caspian oil and natural gas infrastructure. In looking at the region as a whole, the administration’s strategic interests are focused on several issues. The advance of freedom and democracy; security, 

including counterterrorism and peaceful resolution of separatist conflicts; and energy. The administration believes that all would benefit greatly from good neighborly relations and regional integration of the South Caucasus. 

Question. Azerbaijan’s substantial revenue stream from its oil exports is facilitating increasingly aggressive military spending and dangerous rhetoric. What is 

the administration doing bilaterally to prevent further destabilizing conflict in the 

South Caucasus? What is the administration telling Baku? 

Answer. The administration consistently stresses publicly and privately in Baku 

that there is no military solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. As a cochair of 

the OSCE Minsk Group mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the United 

States has led the way in formulating a set of basic principles that offers the best 

hope for a negotiated and peaceful settlement, which is the only way ahead. The 

administration consistently stresses to the authorities in Baku that any rhetoric intimating that war is an option is dangerous and undercuts our efforts to negotiate 

a just and lasting settlement, which is outlined by the basic principles. The administration therefore encourages the Government of Azerbaijan to work with the GovVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00576 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
569 

ernment of Armenia and within the Minsk Group to finalize the basic principles. 

The June 6 meeting in St. Petersburg between Azerbaijani President Aliyev and Armenian President Sargsyan restored momentum in the Minsk Group talks and 

should clear the way for an invigorated effort to bridge remaining differences on the 

basic principles. The U.S. Government played an active role in deescalating military 

tension in early March, during the most serious ceasefire violation along the Line 

of Contact in over a decade. 

Question. Fourteen years passed since the end of the conflict over NagornoKarabakh without a permanent resolution and still people are dying along an unsettled border. What progress has the Minsk process achieved in that time and doesn’t 

the lack of progress warrant a reexamination of this approach? 

Answer. During negotiations over the past 2 years, Armenia and Azerbaijan have 

moved closer than ever to a framework agreement based on the ‘‘basic principles’’ 

outlined by the Minsk Group cochairs. The Minsk Group cochairs—the United 

States, France, and Russia—are working with the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and 

Azerbaijan to build on new momentum following the positive meeting of Presidents 

Sargsyan and Aliyev on June 6 in St. Petersburg, with the goal of narrowing the 

remaining differences on the basic principles between the sides in coming months. 

Ultimately, it is up to the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to take the difficult 

decisions required to finalize the Basic principles. 

RESPONSES OF TINA KAIDANOW TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. Kosovo faces a challenging road ahead, particularly as it relates to 

interethnic reconciliation. The minority protections that were engineered into the 

Ahtisaari Plan and are now being adopted by the Kosovar Government could end 

up completely insulating the two communities from each other. Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian leadership have already made some admirable initial attempts to reach out 

to minority Serbs, but what more needs to be done to ensure that the two communities are not permanently estranged? How is the Department planning to contribute to this process? 

Answer. Implementation of the Ahtisaari plan, with its significant provisions for 

protection of minority rights in Kosovo, remains a key priority for the United States 

Government. The newly-established International Civilian Office (ICO) will have the 

leading role in supervising the implementation of the plan. 

The United States is supporting ICO’s efforts through both secondment of personnel and strong political backing on the ground. The United States Embassy in 

Pristina is also directly engaged on a daily basis in encouraging Kosovo’s Government to reach out to its minority communities, with a special emphasis on the Serb 

community. The embassy has supported the formation of a government with Serb 

participation, ensured that Kosovo’s constitution contains all the protections for minorities required by the Ahtisaari plan, and worked to propel passage of over 40 

new laws enshrining those protections. The embassy will continue to encourage 

Kosovo’s Government to implement laws on decentralization of authority, provide 

funding and support for returns of Serb refugees and internally displaced persons, 

and ensure Serb and other minority concerns are heard and acted upon as a matter 

of priority. The embassy will continue to speak with members of the Serb community directly, facilitate communications with the government when necessary, and 

sponsor other creative ways of encouraging interethnic dialog, including programs 

for youth and civil society initiatives that work at grass roots level. 

Question. The United States support for the people of Kosovo is a compelling 

counterargument to the narrative put forward by radical extremists that the United 

States is anti-Muslim. It is a case in which the United States risked American lives 

to protect innocent Muslim civilians, stood by them for 8 long years, and midwifed 

the creation of an independent Muslim state in the heart of Europe. Why hasn’t the 

administration done more to highlight United States support for Kosovo in the Muslim world? Are there plans to do so in the future? 

Answer. Since Kosovo declared its independence in line with the Ahtisaari plan 

in February 2008, 43 countries have announced recognition of the new state, including several members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC 

has historically has been supportive of Kosovo. The United States and its European 

partners, as well as the Kosovo Government itself, are working to encourage further 

recognitions among the OIC countries. Kosovo’s newly appointed Foreign Minister, 

with United States support and assistance, has met with representatives of key 

570 

Middle Eastern and Gulf states, while United States officials have also made highlevel approaches to these countries. We anticipate that with continued progress and 

stability in Kosovo, additional OIC member states will recognize its independence 

in the next few months. 

(571) 

NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Alemayehou, Mimi, to be the United States Director of the African 

Development Bank 

Durkin, Patrick, to be a member of the board of directors of the 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

Peel, Ken, to be the U.S. Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

San Juan, Miguel, to be the U.S. Director/Executive Director of the 

Inter-American Development Bank 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez and Lugar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. The hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Relations will come to order. Today, the committee meets to consider the nomination of four individuals for key leadership positions in the administration. 

The President has nominated Mimi Alemayehou to be the United 

States Director of the African Development Bank, Ken Peel to be 

the U.S. Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Miguel San Juan to be the U.S. Director—Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank, and Patrick 

Durkin to be a member of the board of directors of the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation. 

I want to congratulate you all on your nominations, and we look 

forward to hearing from each and every one of you this afternoon. 

I will start off with an opening statement. Hopefully, it will buy 

some time for some of our colleagues to get here. I want to make 

introductions, and if we have any other members, we will acknowledge them as they come—such as the distinguished ranking member of the full committee. 

The United States plays a crucial role in promoting economic and 

social development, trade, political stability, and poverty alleviation 

around the world. Multilateral development banks and the OverVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00579 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
572 

seas Private Investment Corporation are a part of the toolkit the 

United States has to address these challenges. 

Each nominee before us, if confirmed, would be expected to play 

a key role in these organizations’ missions and the overall U.S. 

Government strategy overseas, something that I take very seriously. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Assistance, 

my role is to look at the overall funding, management, and implementation of our foreign assistance. 

I look at how each organization contributes to the overall context 

of our larger development goals and foreign policy goals. Are we 

getting the most for our money? Are we carrying out the right mix 

of programs? How do we balance priorities in education, health, 

economic growth, social investment, and the environment? What 

oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure that the funds are 

being used for the purposes Congress intended? 

And particularly with our contributions to multilateral efforts, I 

look to see how the goals of the United States are conveyed and 

carried out along with other member nations. I know that this administration’s use of the term ‘‘multilateral’’ has often been used in 

vain, but now it is used out of necessity, but rarely has it been 

used by choice. The United States should be using it as a way of 

strengthening a unified effort, rather than as a last resort. 

I personally believe that multilateralism is a strong element of 

our foreign policy. In fact, I believe it so much that I have a bill, 

which was recently voted favorably out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that equally divides contributions between bilateral efforts and multilateral efforts. It would provide $2.5 billion 

over 10 years for the U.S. Agency for International Development 

and the Inter-American Development Bank. In addition, it would 

pay the arrears the United States owes to the IDB. 

The United States contributions to the multilateral development 

banks give the United States a seat at the table, a seat that allows 

the United States to contribute to direct programs that help countries develop their economies, strengthen their institutions of governance, and care for their people. 

Mr. San Juan, your position, if confirmed, will be to represent 

the United States in the largest multilateral bank in the Western 

Hemisphere. You would be in the unique position to communicate 

and advance the U.S. priorities for the region and represent the 

United States in an important process of developing consensus 

among member states. 

However, as I am sure you know, the IDB is not without its own 

challenges. In particular, a decreasing demand for sovereign loans 

is forcing the IDB to go through a transformation, a transformation 

which may result in a significantly different institution than we 

just saw 10 or 20 years ago. And I look forward to hearing from 

you today how you believe we can reconcile these challenges while 

advancing the bank’s mission in the region. 

Mr. Peel, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is also a bank in transition, but maybe in different ways. 

Given the constantly changing nature of the region, the bank is 

now reducing the amounts it lends to countries of Central Europe 

and expanding lending to countries like Kazakhstan. These 

573 

changes are not without complications, and I look forward to your 

views on how you will help the institution deal with this. 

Mr. Durkin, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation is 

something that I am actually quite familiar with. I worked on the 

reauthorization of OPIC’s legislation both during my time in the 

House of Representatives and now in the Senate. I am hopeful that 

OPIC’s reauthorization is passed soon to allow OPIC to get back to 

business. 

I understand that your nomination is for a part-time position as 

a member of the board of directors of OPIC. And while this committee does not always hold hearings for OPIC board members, 

given the increasing role that OPIC is playing in development-related efforts, I felt that it is important to have you here today, and 

we appreciate your appearance. 

Like any institution, OPIC is not without its challenges either. 

It has a mixed history of rigorous oversight of programs and a 

mixed history of what I would call success. While I understand 

OPIC officials often emphasize the fact that OPIC has no net cost 

to the United States taxpayer, and in fact, through the fees it collects, OPIC actually generates income and contributes significant 

resources annually to the U.S. Treasury, I recognize those facts. 

However, just because the particular structure of OPIC is less 

costly to the taxpayer, it doesn’t mean that Congress doesn’t hold 

OPIC to a similar standard of excellence. I expect the same kind 

of oversight and rigorous evaluation of projects as I expect from all 

of our initiatives overseas. 

I look forward to your thoughts on the OPIC’s role in our overall 

development efforts and your thoughts on its changing role. 

Ms. Alemayehou, the African Development Bank is an institution 

for a region devastated by war, famine, AIDS, and genocide. We 

need to use every tool at our disposal to make sure that the cycles 

of tragedy that are all too familiar on the continent of Africa are 

controlled, tempered, and eventually eliminated. 

So, together, your positions, if you are confirmed, would be partly 

responsible for setting the tone of the relationship with the United 

States and carrying out their respective missions. You would play 

a vital role in work that is neither trivial nor extracurricular, but, 

in my view, work that is at the core of U.S. efforts to combat the 

world’s most intractable problems, problems that merit our undivided attention. In short, this work matters. 

In that spirit, I look forward to hearing your testimony today. 

And now I would like to turn to the distinguished ranking member 

of the committee, Senator Lugar, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, as you have mentioned, the committee will have a discussion with nominees for positions at the African Development Bank, 

the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the InterAmerican Development Bank, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. 

The United States has strong national security and humanitarian interests in alleviating poverty, promoting development 

574 

around the world. These efforts of these organizations are important to this mission. Each of our nominees will play a key role in 

formulating policies that will impact on U.S. standing in their respective organizations. 

During the past 5 years, our committee has held 6 hearings on 

the operation of the multilateral development banks. Those hearings contributed to the committee’s understanding of both the value 

of the banks’ efforts and problems with their operations. 

In 2005, building on this initiative, I introduced Senate bill 1129, 

the Development Bank Reform and Authorization Act, and most of 

the provisions of this bill were enacted into law in November of 

2005. With the passage of this legislation, Congress made a strong 

statement that recognized the critical role of MDBs in achieving 

the development goals around the world, but also that the operation of these banks must be transparent and free of corruption. 

The United States Government must work to ensure that this 

money is spent efficiently, both because of our responsibility to 

American taxpayers and because inefficiency and corruption undermine the basic humanitarian and foreign policy objectives of our 

participation in MDB financing. 

I continue to work with my colleagues toward reauthorization of 

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which provides 

project financing, investment insurance, and other services for 

United States business in over 150 developing countries and 

emerging economies. OPIC’s authorization expired April 1, and 

cannot enter into new commitments. This is deeply concerning, 

given OPIC’s dedication to the United States foreign policy goals, 

including economic development in countries recovering from conflict. 

OPIC has not drawn on appropriated funds in recent years because it has recorded a positive net income for every year of operation, with reserves now totaling more than $5 billion. OPIC is 

proactively incorporating the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, the EITI, into its project selection and project selection design. This is an excellent example of how United States agencies 

should be integrating the initiative. 

EITI, endorsed repeatedly by the United States at the G–8, is 

one tool to ensure that earnings from oil and gas revenues are 

tracked. History shows oil and natural gas reserves can be a bane 

as well as a blessing for poor countries, leading to corruption, 

wasteful spending, military adventurism, and instability. Because 

the resource curse threatens our own security in the United States 

and our economic interests, I have asked the committee’s minority 

staff to assess the efforts so far in lifting it. 

Now, looking at more than 20 countries around the world, staff 

found that while awareness of the potential dangers from sudden 

oil wealth has grown, progress has been spotty. I would be interested in hearing from the nominees about the respective development banks to which they are nominated to serve as to how they 

are currently integrating EITI into their operations. 

I congratulate all of the nominees on your nomination. I thank 

the chairman for the opportunity to make this statement and to 

participate in questions and answers with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

575 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

We are going to start. Senator Hutchison may join us at some 

point, at which time we will certainly recognize her to introduce 

one of our nominees. But in order to try to give her some more time 

for that opportunity, we will start the process of hearing from our 

members. 

So we invite you all to summarize your statements for about 5 

minutes. Your full statements will be entered into the record in its 

entirety. 

And certainly, if you have members of your family or friends who 

are accompanying you, we would love to have you introduce them 

to us because we understand that these sacrifices are not just of 

the individual, but of families themselves. And so, we appreciate 

their sacrifice. 

So let us start with you, Ms. Alemayehou. You are recognized for 

your statement. And if you have family here, we would be happy 

to be introduced to them. 

STATEMENT OF MIMI ALEMAYEHOU, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED 

STATES DIRECTOR OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 

FOR A TERM OF 5 YEARS 

Ms. ALEMAYEHOU. Thank you, Chairman Menendez and members of the committee. 

First, I would like to introduce my family. They have a saying 

in Africa, ‘‘It takes a village to raise a child,’’ and I am afraid that 

my whole village is here today. But I would like to especially thank 

my son, Jacob, for being so patient with me. He wants me to introduce him as Spiderman today. So, Jacob? 

And his father, Papa; my Uncle Johannes; my brother, Addis, is 

here all the way from Ethiopia with his wife, and the rest of my 

family. Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Welcome to all of you. And for Spiderman, 

we need to talk afterwards. So I have got a few things I need to 

be taken care of. So—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ALEMAYEHOU. Chairman Menendez and members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you. I am 

truly honored that President Bush has nominated me to serve as 

the U.S. Executive Director for the African Development Bank. 

After his recent visit to Africa, President Bush commented, 

‘‘Things have changed in Africa since my first visit. I mean striking 

changes. And we are treating African leaders as equal partners. We 

expect them to produce measurable results. We expect them to 

fight corruption and invest in the health and education of their 

people and pursue market-based economic policies.’’ 

I truly share the President’s vision that it is through such respectful and engaged partnerships that Africans can play a driving 

role in Africa’s development, and African leaders can be accountable for their actions. If confirmed, I pledge to work with this committee and the full Congress, as well as Secretary Paulson, the 

Treasury Department, and the administration in furthering U.S. 

international development goals. 

Increasingly, America’s prosperity is becoming linked to peace 

and the raising of living standards for all individuals in the develVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00583 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
576 

oping world. Throughout my life, I have made choices which prepared me for this challenging role—to serve as a bridge between 

our country of opportunity and the continent of Africa, with its tremendous yet far from realized potential. 

I have been fortunate in my professional life to continuously 

work on United States and Africa-related matters, from my policy 

experience serving right here on Capitol Hill to my private sector 

international telecom work and, more recently, as an entrepreneur 

serving—supporting the efforts of the United States-sponsored Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. 

I have learned a great deal from this and enjoyed working with 

African and United States officials. I must say, however, that I 

have taken the most pleasure working with actual African entrepreneurs with great skills, but in desperate need of basic tools and 

training to effectively develop their businesses. 

Today’s Africa is a far cry from my early years in Ethiopia under 

a Communist regime, which left an indelible mark on me. Entrepreneurship and democracy are now the order of the day, but the 

African private sector cannot thrive without an upgrade of the continent’s infrastructure, financial systems, transparency, and governance. America’s style of government and its liberalized economic 

model put us in an exceptional position to help steer the bank toward more effective policies. 

While humbled by the nomination, I am excited about the prospects facing the continent. I do hope to have the opportunity to 

play a role in enabling the United States and the African Development Bank to work more closely together and to help improve the 

lives and dignity of all 940 million Africans. 

Thank you for considering my nomination. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Alemayehou follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIMI ALEMAYEHOU, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF 5 YEARS

Chairman Menendez, Senator Lugar, and members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored that President 

Bush has nominated me to serve as the U.S. Executive Director for the African Development Bank. 

After his recent visit to Africa, the President commented: ‘‘Things have changed 

in Africa since my first visit, I mean striking changes;’’ and then he continued: 

‘‘We’re treating African leaders as equal partners. We expect them to produce measurable results. We expect them to fight corruption, and invest in the health and 

education of their people, and pursue market-based economic policies.’’ 

I share the President’s vision of a ‘‘partnership of equals’’ between the United 

States and Africa. It is through such respectful and engaged partnership that Africans can play a driving role in Africa’s development and African leaders can be accountable for their actions. If confirmed, I pledge to work with this committee, Congress, and the administration in furthering U.S. International Policy and Development goals. Increasingly, America’s prosperity is becoming linked to peace and the 

raising of living standards for all individuals in the developing world. The African 

Development Bank is one of the most important regional development banks as it 

serves the world’s least developed continent. The bank’s activities have a very high 

impact on the region and therefore command the focused attention of Africa’s leadership. 

Throughout most of my life, I made personal and professional choices which prepared me for a focused and challenging role—to serve as a bridge, an enabler, between our country of opportunity, and the continent of Africa, with its tremendous 

yet far from realized potential. I am grateful for the educational and professional 

opportunities the United States has afforded me. This, I believe, prepared me for 

577 

a role in the development of Africa and the international private sector as early as 

my days serving as an aide on Capitol Hill. Africa and the private sector reemerged 

later in my work in international telecoms focusing on the introduction of a new 

technology to African countries, and more recently as an entrepreneur supporting 

the efforts of the United States-sponsored Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. I 

started TradeLinks in order to assist AGOA eligible member countries in the regional grouping of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) 

so that they may increase their exports to the United States. While I enjoyed working with the African Governments and United States officials, I took the most pleasure from working with African entrepreneurs with great skills and products but 

were in desperate need of basic tools. They were in need of training or adequate 

equipment so that they can produce consistently high quality goods on a meaningful 

scale and in a tight timeframe. 

Today’s Africa is a far cry from my early years in Ethiopia under a communist 

regime that left an indelible mark on me. Entrepreneurship and democracy are now 

the order of the day; but the African private sector cannot thrive without a significant upgrade of the continent’s infrastructure and financial systems. These challenges call for a strong and active African Development Bank to finally help turn 

Africa’s long held promise into a reality. This optimism does, however, bring increased expectations with respect to governance, transparency, regional integration, 

and the need to develop African skills. That is the reason why Africa needs reliable 

partners such as the United States and strong institutions such as the African Development Bank. America’s style of government and its liberalized economic model 

put us in an exceptional position to help steer the bank toward the right policies 

and usher an unprecedented era of sustainable economic growth in Africa. The implementation of United States policy toward Africa, as well as our role on the Board 

of the African Development Bank, together constitute key tools to help Africa 

achieve this growth. It would therefore be a privilege to work with Secretary 

Paulson, the Treasury Department, and Congress to increase the African Development Bank’s impact and effectiveness. 

While humbled by the nomination, I am excited about the prospects and challenges facing the African continent. I do hope to have the opportunity to play a role 

in getting the United States and the African Development Bank to work more closely together in order to help improve the lives and dignity of all 940 million Africans. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the committee, thank you for considering my nomination. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIMI ALEMAYEHOU, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR FOR THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Chairman Menendez, Senator Lugar, and members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored that President 

Bush has nominated me to serve as the U.S. Executive Director for the African Development Bank. 

After his recent visit to Africa, the President commented: ‘‘Things have changed 

in Africa since my first visit, I mean striking changes;’’ and then he continued: 

‘‘We’re treating African leaders as equal partners. We expect them to produce measurable results. We expect them to fight corruption, and invest in the health and 

education of their people, and pursue market-based economic policies.’’ 

I share the President’s vision of a ‘‘partnership of equals’’ between the United 

States and Africa. It is through such respectful and engaged partnership that Africans can play a driving role in Africa’s development and African leaders can be accountable for their actions. If confirmed, I pledge to work with this committee, Congress, and the administration in furthering U.S. International Policy and Development goals. Increasingly, America’s prosperity is becoming linked to peace and the 

raising of living standards for all individuals in the developing world. The African 

Development Bank is one of the most important regional development banks as it 

serves the world’s least developed continent. The bank’s activities have a very high 

impact on the region and therefore command the focused attention of Africa’s leadership. 

Throughout most of my life, I made personal and professional choices which prepared me for a focused and challenging role—to serve as a bridge, an enabler, between our country of opportunity, and the continent of Africa, with its tremendous 

yet far from realized potential. I am grateful for the educational and professional 

opportunities the United States has afforded me. This, I believe, prepared me for 

a role in the development of Africa and the international private sector as early as 

my days serving as an aide on Capitol Hill. Africa and the private sector reemerged 

later in my work in international telecoms focusing on the introduction of a new 

578 

technology to African countries, and more recently as an entrepreneur supporting 

the efforts of the United States-sponsored Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. I 

started TradeLinks in order to assist AGOA eligible member countries in the regional grouping of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) 

so that they may increase their exports to the United States. While I enjoyed working with the African Governments and United States officials, I took the most pleasure from working with African entrepreneurs with great skills and products but 

were in desperate need of basic tools. They were in need of training or adequate 

equipment so that they can produce consistently high quality goods on a meaningful 

scale and in a tight timeframe. 

Today’s Africa is a far cry from my early years in Ethiopia under a communist 

regime that left an indelible mark on me. Entrepreneurship and democracy are now 

the order of the day; but the African private sector cannot thrive without a significant upgrade of the continent’s infrastructure and financial systems. These challenges call for a strong and active African Development Bank to finally help turn 

Africa’s long held promise into a reality. This optimism does, however, bring increased expectations with respect to governance, transparency, regional integration, 

and the need to develop African skills. That is the reason why Africa needs reliable 

partners such as the United States and strong institutions such as the African Development Bank. America’s style of government and its liberalized economic model 

put us in an exceptional position to help steer the bank toward the right policies 

and usher an unprecedented era of sustainable economic growth in Africa. The implementation of United States policy toward Africa, as well as our role on the Board 

of the African Development Bank, together constitute key tools to help Africa 

achieve this growth. It would therefore be a privilege to work with Secretary 

Paulson, the Treasury Department, and Congress to increase the African Development Bank’s impact and effectiveness. 

While humbled by the nomination, I am excited about the prospects and challenges facing the African continent. I do hope to have the opportunity to play a role 

in getting the United States and the African Development Bank to work more closely together in order to help improve the lives and dignity of all 940 million Africans. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the committee, thank you for considering my nomination. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Peel. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. PEEL, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED 

STATES DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. PEEL. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Senator Lugar. 

I am grateful to the President for nominating me to be U.S. Executive Director to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I am deeply honored to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today to discuss my qualifications. 

Being here today, I feel that I have come home. Since July 2001, 

I have served in a series of foreign and economic policy positions 

in the administration. But for 6 years before that, I served two 

Senators on this committee—Senator Hagel, when he chaired the 

International Economic Policy Subcommittee, your predecessor subcommittee, and Senator Snowe during her first 2 years in the Senate when she chaired the International Operations Subcommittee. 

The great bulk of my professional career has been working on 

foreign policy and international economic policy in Congress, with 

a special focus on multilateral diplomacy. Before working in the 

Senate, I spent 12 years in the House, 10 of them as a professional 

staff member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Since July 2001, I have held three executive branch positions. I 

have served, first, as a member of Secretary Powell’s policy planning staff, working on international organization and Eurasian 

issues; second, as an NSC director, covering international energy 

579 

and environment issues; and then, currently, as Treasury’s Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for International Development Finance, and 

Debt. 

In short, I believe that I am well equipped, both by my academic 

and professional background, to take on the position for which I am 

nominated. My current job prepares me particularly well. As a deputy assistant secretary at Treasury, I oversee U.S. policy toward all 

of the major multilateral development banks, such as the World 

Bank, and the regional development banks, such as the European 

Bank for Reconstruction and Development. 

Even though this nomination is coming late in the administration, there are huge issues currently at the EBRD, as there are at 

the other institutions, that will affect our interests in both the institution and in the region over the next 6 months. As you know, 

U.S. executive directors at MDBs are essentially our ambassadors 

to those institutions. Since I work day in and day out on MDB policy, I see how important it is to have strong Senate-confirmed directors in place. 

I would just note at these three institutions, Clay Lowery, who 

you all know very well, is our executive director to those institutions in absentia. And while we have very talented people staffing 

those offices, it still makes a difference when you don’t have a Senate-confirmed ED in place. 

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I would put my skills and background to immediate use in advancing U.S. interests at the EBRD. 

I believe in our sometimes-complicated system of government. Our 

coequal, separate branches give us a unique strength when we 

work together, when we genuinely consult on policy directions, and 

when we can speak with one voice. 

If confirmed, I look forward to being available to speak or meet 

with you or your staff at any time, and I hope you won’t mind if 

I seek your advice on some of the very key issues that will be facing U.S. interests at the EBRD in the months ahead. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, I am truly grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today and, of course, would be pleased 

to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. PEEL, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES

DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

Chairman Menendez, Senator Lugar, and members of the committee, I am grateful to the President for my nomination to be U.S. Executive Director to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and I am deeply honored to appear 

before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss my qualifications for this 

position. 

Being here today, I feel that I have come home. Since July 2001, I have served 

in a series of foreign and economic policy positions in the administration. For 6 

years before that, I served two Senators on this committee: Senator Hagel, when 

he chaired the International Economic Policy Subcommittee, and Senator Snowe, 

during her first 2 years in the Senate when she chaired the International Operations Subcommittee. 

The great bulk of my professional career has been working on foreign policy and 

international economic policy in Congress, with a special focus on multilateral diplomacy. Before working in the Senate, I spent 12 years in the House, 10 of those as 

professional staff on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Since July, 2001, I have held three positions in the executive branch. I served: 

580 

• As a Member of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Policy Planning Staff working 

on international organization and Eurasian issues; 

• As an NSC Director covering international environment and energy issues; and 

• As Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Development Finance and Debt 

at the Treasury Department. 

In short, I believe that I am well equipped, both by my academic and professional 

background, to take on the position for which I have been nominated. My current 

position prepares me particularly well. As Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary, I 

oversee U.S. policy toward all of the major multilateral development banks such as 

the World Bank and the regional development banks, including the European Bank 

for Reconstruction and Development. 

Even though this nomination is coming late in the administration, there are huge 

issues currently at the EBRD that will affect our interests in both the institution 

and in the region over the next 6 months. As you know, U.S. Executive Directors 

at the multilateral development banks are essentially our ambassadors to those institutions. Since I work day in and day out on MDB policy, I see how important 

is to have strong Senate-confirmed directors in place. 

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I look forward to bringing my skills and background to advancing U.S. interests at the EBRD. I believe in our sometimes complicated system of government. Our coequal, separate branches of government give 

us a unique strength when we work together, genuinely consult on policy directions, 

and speak with one voice. If confirmed, I look forward to being available to speak 

or meet with you or your staff at any time, and hope you won’t mind if I seek out 

your advice at critical junctures in several of the key issues facing U.S. interests 

at the EBRD in the months ahead. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the committee, I am grateful for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to answer any of your 

questions. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

I am incredibly impressed that both of you are under your timeframe. So that is very rare before the committee. 

Mr. Durkin. Not that I want to put any pressure on you. You can 

use your full 5 minutes if you want to. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. DURKIN, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING 

DECEMBER 17, 2009 

Mr. DURKIN. And I will endeavor to make that shorter. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Lugar. 

I am deeply honored to be President Bush’s nominee to serve as 

a board member for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 

a corporation I have known since 1980. And I appreciate the trust 

placed in me. 

If I am confirmed, I would be honored to bring my private sector 

and NGO experience and former government experience to 

strengthen OPIC. The unique role of OPIC in mobilizing private 

capital on a self-funded basis to promote economic and social development is important to help sustainable economies improve the 

lives of people and support U.S. foreign policy interests. In my own 

work over 20 years in the emerging markets, I have seen OPIC be 

a catalyst for responsible investments in developing countries that 

would not have taken place without the organization’s support. 

Besides experience in the private sector and in government, I 

have a commitment to public service and nongovernmental organizations, and I greatly value their roles. Amongst others, I have 

been involved and served on the boards of CARE, the American 

Red Cross, College for Every Student, and the New York Advisory 

581 

Committee for Human Rights Watch, and I value that experience 

immensely. 

Taken together, this background has given me a great appreciation for the importance of the public and private sectors working 

together to achieve common goals not only here, but overseas. Nowhere is this more important than in developing economies and nations of the world where OPIC programs are focused. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Senator Lugar, thank you and 

your staff for expeditiously considering my nomination and for including me in this hearing. If confirmed, I pledge to commit my full 

energies and experience and time to carry out the important responsibilities of the OPIC board. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Durkin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. DURKIN, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION FOR

A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 17, 2009 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to consider my nomination to serve on the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). I am honored to be 

President Bush’s nominee to serve as a board member for OPIC and appreciate the 

trust placed in me. 

I learned about OPIC 28 years ago when I was working as a legislative assistant 

in the House of Representatives and have watched it effectively execute and expand 

its political risk insurance and financing to help U.S. businesses in the developing 

markets for many years. In my own work in the emerging markets, I have seen 

OPIC be a catalyst for good investments in developing countries which would not 

have taken place without the organization’s support. 

The role of OPIC in promoting economic and social development remains important to help establish sustainable economies, promote democracy, and improve the 

lives of millions of people. It is also exemplary how OPIC has operated in the most 

challenging markets and countries in the world and functions as a self-sustaining 

organization. This is a great tribute to the leadership of OPIC and the Congress. 

I believe my background and experience in international finance are relevant in 

assisting OPIC fulfill its mission. I have spent my career in both the private and 

public sectors. During the last 22 years in business at Credit Suisse and Donaldson, 

Lufkin, and Jenrette, I spent the majority of that time in the international markets 

and as a managing director of our international banking group. I established businesses for advisory, capital raising, and direct investment in Africa, Asia, Central 

and Latin America, Emerging Europe, India, and the Former Soviet Union. I began 

working in these markets 20 years ago at the early stages of private sector financing 

and learned how difficult it can be to get capital in the hands of good entrepreneurs 

and businesses. 

While some capital to the developing nations has become more available, there is 

still a great need for OPIC to provide financing and insurance in the most challenged emerging economies, and particularly for smaller businesses. Expanding 

international opportunities for U.S. small business, particularly minority- and 

women-owned business, has been a high priority for current OPIC President Robert 

Mosbacher, and I look forward to working toward this important objective. 

Besides the private sector, I have a commitment to public service in both government and nongovernmental organizations and greatly value their roles. Prior to a 

career in finance, I served as a Legislative Assistant in the House and a Special 

Assistant and Speechwriter at the U.S. Treasury Department. I also served on the 

Executive Staff of the President’s Commission on the 1987 Markets Collapse (Brady 

Commission). I have been deeply involved for over 20 years with CARE, a leading 

humanitarian organization fighting global poverty, and have served on its board. I 

am currently on the boards of the American Red Cross of New York, and College 

for Every Student, and have served on the New York Advisory Committee for 

Human Rights Watch for over 10 years. I am also a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. 

My work in the international markets, government, and not-for-profit organizations has given me a great appreciation for the importance of the public and private 

sectors working together to achieve common goals. Nowhere is this more important 

582 

than in the developing economies and nations of the world, where OPIC programs 

are focused. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for including me in this hearing. If confirmed, I pledge 

to commit my full energies and experience in carrying out the important policy and 

fiduciary responsibilities of the OPIC Board and the organization. 

I would be pleased to respond to your questions. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. San Juan. 

STATEMENT OF MIGUEL R. SAN JUAN, NOMINEE TO BE 

UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERAMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF 3 YEARS 

Mr. SAN JUAN. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Lugar, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I am honored that President Bush has nominated me to serve as 

the United States Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank. I am grateful to have the support of the President 

and Secretary Paulson and the privilege of your consideration. 

I would like to introduce members of my family sitting in the audience, my wife, Lucia, who is more used than I am to be in front 

of cameras, if you will, and my sons, Miguel, Marcus, and Maximo, 

who is at the moment asleep, and let us hope that continues for 

the good of this hearing. My family continues to support me as a 

full partner in my quest for public service. 

I have long held aspirations of working in the public service, especially in a capacity dealing with the Americas. Further, I believe 

strongly in the Inter-American Development Bank’s mission. I look 

forward to having the opportunity to state my objectives as a candidate for the position, as well as answering any questions regarding my experience and qualifications. 

By the good graces of many, my family and I were reunited in 

Houston, TX, after many years of separation following my departure from Cuba. I feel extremely fortunate that my career in economic development has given me an opportunity to give back to the 

country that welcomed us with open arms so many years ago. 

I am very eager to apply the lessons I learned at one of the Nation’s premier chamber organizations in service of the United 

States and another region dear to my heart, Latin America and the 

Caribbean. 

Vicious cycles of poverty and crime pose an ongoing threat to the 

region’s vast potential. The words of Nobel Laureate Octavio Paz 

come to mind, and I quote, ‘‘America no es tanto una tradicion que 

continuar, como un futuro que realizar.’’ America is not so much a 

tradition to continue, as a future to realize. 

If Latin America is to realize the future it deserves, it must overcome these longstanding obstacles. There are, however, signs of 

hope and progress everywhere. I believe the IDB plays a critical 

role in accelerating economic and social development in the region. 

In so doing, it also fosters hemispheric and global security. And at 

a critical point in the hemisphere’s history, the IDB constitutes a 

force that can hold the region together while others threaten to 

tear it apart. 

Another area on which I hope to focus is in the development of 

small- and medium-sized industries in the region. President Bush 

583 

has stated the relevance of SMEs to the health of this Nation’s 

economy. The same logic applies to the whole of the Americas. 

Today’s SMEs are tomorrow’s multinationals. They are the seeds 

that create jobs and economic prosperity. To stimulate their growth 

in the region, I advocate for increased cooperation and coordination 

between the IDB and the Chambers of Commerce throughout Latin 

America and the Caribbean. Above all, I view the principal role of 

the IDB’s executive director as representing the United States. 

In closing, I want to acknowledge my family as the bedrock of my 

value system. We are hard-working, God-fearing people who keep 

and treasure our immigrant roots. Public service allows us to give 

back some of the many blessings that have come our way. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of my nomination and stand ready to respond to 

any questions that you may have. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. San Juan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIGUEL R. SAN JUAN, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF

3 YEARS

Chairman Menendez, Senator Lugar, members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored that President Bush has 

nominated me to serve as the United States Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank. I am grateful to have the support of the President and Secretary Paulson and the privilege of your consideration. 

I would like to introduce members of my family sitting in the audience. My wife, 

Lucia, and my sons, Migue, Marcus, and Maximo. My family continues to support 

me as a full partner in my quest for public service. 

I have long held aspirations of working in the public sector, especially in a capacity dealing with the Americas. Further, I believe strongly in the Inter-American Development Bank’s mission. I look forward to having this opportunity to state my objectives as a candidate for the position, as well as to answering any questions regarding my experience and qualifications. 

By the good graces of many, my family and I reunited in Houston, TX, after many 

years of separation following our departure from Cuba. I feel extremely fortunate 

that my career in economic development has given me an opportunity to give back 

to the country that welcomed us with open arms so many years ago. I am very eager 

to apply the lessons I learned at one of the Nation’s premier chamber organizations 

in service to the United States and another region dear to my heart, Latin America 

and the Caribbean. 

Vicious cycles of poverty and crime pose an ongoing threat to the region’s vast 

potential. The words of Nobel Laureate Octavio Paz come to mind: ‘‘America no es 

tanto una tradicion que continuar, como un futuro que realizar.’’ America is not so 

much a tradition to continue, as a future to realize. If Latin America is to realize 

the future it deserves, it must overcome these longstanding obstacles. There are, 

however, signs of hope and progress everywhere. 

I believe the IDB plays a critical role in accelerating economic and social development in the region. In so doing, it also fosters hemispheric and global security. And 

at a critical point in the hemisphere’s history, the IDB constitutes a force that can 

hold the region together, while others threaten to tear it apart. 

Another area on which I hope to focus is the development of small to medium size 

industries in the region. President Bush has stated the relevance of SMEs to the 

health of this nation’s economy. The same logic applies to the whole of the Americas. 

Today’s SME’s are tomorrow’s multinationals. They are the seeds that create jobs 

and economic prosperity. To stimulate their growth in the region, I advocate increased cooperation and coordination between the IDB and Chambers of Commerce 

throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Above all, I view the principal role of the IDB Executive Director as representing 

the United States. 

In closing, I want to acknowledge my family as the bedrock of my value system. 

We are hard-working, God-fearing people who keep and treasure our immigrant 

584 

roots. Public service allows us to give back some of the many blessings that have 

come our way. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, Senators, members of the committee, I respectfully 

ask for your favorable consideration of my nomination and stand ready to respond 

to any questions that you may have. Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. Thank you all for 

your testimony. 

We will start with 7-minute rounds of questions, and the Chair 

will recognize himself. 

Ms. Alemayehou, let me ask you, what, to your knowledge—(I 

know you are not at the bank yet), so I am sure you have prepared, 

to some degree. What is the engagement of the African Development Bank with the Sudan? 

If you could pull the microphone toward you. 

Ms. ALEMAYEHOU. Hello? Can you hear me now? Okay. 

From some of the readings that I have, I don’t believe the African Development Bank is doing any projects currently in Sudan. 

And Zimbabwe, actually, too. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Okay. I hope that you will look at this because my understanding is that there is a capacity-building for poverty reduction and good governance project with the Government of 

Sudan that works with the Ministry of Finance. And my further 

understanding is that the grant is used to support a capacity-building project, which would support the implementation of the Poverty 

Eradication Strategy Paper. 

Now, those are all good goals. My difficulty, to be very honest 

with you, is I am not quite sure how the African Development 

Bank can possibly be working with a government and providing 

funds to the government when everyone knows that it is one of the 

most corrupt and illegitimate regimes, at least in my view, in the 

world right now. And whose high-level officials, including the President himself, was just indicted by the International Criminal Court 

as it relates to the genocide in Darfur. 

So one of the things I would like you to know is that if you are 

to achieve the success of not only the committee, but ratification by 

the Senate that, in fact, this is something that we need to look at. 

Because I think it is, if we are doing this, it seems to me to be 

sending the wrong policy and the wrong messages. 

So will we have your commitment that if you are to be confirmed 

by the Senate, that you will look at this, if, in fact, these facts are 

right? 

Ms. ALEMAYEHOU. Yes, I definitely will, if confirmed, look into 

that issue. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Now let me ask you this, what do you believe is the appropriate role for China to play at the African Development Bank? China’s relatively small contribution as an African 

Development Bank funder is, as I said, it is relatively small. Are 

we concerned that Chinese firms are receiving an inordinate 

amount of the funds from the bank, considering they are a relatively small size of the bank’s funders? 

Ms. ALEMAYEHOU. Thank you for that question. That is—the 

China issue, as you know, is one on the minds of many of us that 

work on Africa, just because in the last few years, the investment 

from China has really increased, particularly in very resource-rich 

countries. And the concern is very real, as we just went through 

585 

several rounds of debt relief, and we definitely should be concerned 

that some of these countries may be accumulating debt. 

I think one of the issues that—one of the ways I believe that we 

could deal with the China issue, obviously, is engage them more. 

They are represented on the board of the African Development 

Bank by our neighbor and ally Canada, and we need to engage 

them more on that issue. 

And another thing is, I believe, technical assistance programs to 

some of these countries, especially the resource-rich countries that 

are negotiating the terms of the contracts with China, I think that 

is where the bank could really come in handy in making sure that 

these countries have the capacity to actually negotiate what they 

are negotiating, and they are not— they are looking into the concerns of social, environmental impacts to make sure that their people benefit in the long term. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. San Juan, let me ask you, one of the significant initiatives 

that I have been pursuing for some time actually includes the 

bank, the Inter-American Development Bank. It is the Social Investment Fund for the Americas, something that we have had good 

bipartisan support. Senator Martinez is our main cosponsor. We 

are privileged to have Senator Lugar on it, Senator Biden, and others. Passed through the committee, see what action we can get on 

the floor. 

I don’t know that the calendar will allow us to achieve everything we want to, but it talks about a significant engagement. 

Nearly 50 percent of the funds would be used with the IDB, and 

our whole effort is to, of course, use the bank to leverage these dollars and create a multiplier effect, including pursue the private sector. 

If you were to receive the approval of the Senate, could we count 

on you, as the American director at the bank, should this legislation pass, to be actively supportive in the bank to promote its 

goals? 

Mr. SAN JUAN. Senator, as you know, the legislation that you 

have drafted and introduced with Senator Martinez of Florida is 

somewhat in line with the works and activities of the Inter-American Development Bank, which is to create economic prosperity and 

social prosperity for the region. So we, indeed, welcome the initiative that you have taken, specifically also as it addresses the debts 

or the arrears in which the United States finds itself as it relates 

to the Inter-American Development Bank. 

So I would, indeed, support the effort, and I would look forward 

to working with you and your colleagues in making it happen. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, let me ask you one other question before my time runs out, and I will come back for our other witnesses 

after I turn to Senator Lugar. 

Five years ago, the IDB Board of Governors proposed that the 

bank should take a more countercyclical approach to lending, expanding its assistance at times when private capital is hesitant to 

come into the region and lessening its flow of assistance when private capital flows were stronger. In recent years, there appears to 

have been little discussion at the IDB about this concern. 

586 

What is the administration’s view, as represented through your 

nomination, about countercyclical lending? Should the bank expand 

its lending during slack times and reduce its lending when the flow 

of private funds is strong? Or should the IDB emphasize projects 

and not the overall pattern of capital flows in this respect? Give us 

your views on that. 

Mr. SAN JUAN. Senator, as you know, the bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the IDB has rules of engagement in place 

where they look at the projects as they come in, and they are evaluated on whether they meet the challenges of effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, accountability, and also combat corruption. 

I would support, if—with the support of this hearing and of the 

full Senate, that we continue to evaluate the projects as they come 

in to determine that they are doing and fulfill the mandate for 

which they are being proposed. And in so doing, I think the bank 

has an obligation to make those projects happen. 

There are over 100 million people that are still under the poverty 

line in Latin America. Depending on how inflation and with energy 

and food prices impacts them, an additional 26 million people could 

also be—come under the poverty line. So I think the commitments 

of the bank need to continue to be on a project-by-project basis and 

that the bank of which, if approved, I would be part of, to make 

sure that they meet the guidelines of the bank, the governance that 

the bank has established for them. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So that should be the priority versus whether or not private capital is available? We should be looking at the 

projects. If they meet those criteria, the bank should be robust in 

its engagement irregardless of whether the private capital is there 

lending or not? 

Mr. SAN JUAN. I think every effort should be made to bring private capital into the equation. But, yes, it would be my position to 

make sure that we evaluate projects as they come in on the need 

basis. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Peel, there has been a debate at the EBRD 

on whether or not Turkey should become a recipient member. Some 

are interested in linking Turkey more closely to Europe through 

the EBRD. Others suggest that the mission of the bank to begin 

with was to transition countries from communism to capitalism. 

What is your judgment on whether Turkey should become a recipient member, and at what point should the EBRD think about 

changing its mandate or its method of operation? 

Mr. PEEL. Senator Lugar, thank you for your question. 

That actually is one of the key issues right before the EBRD 

right now and one which I have had the pleasure to discuss with 

your staff, with Senator Menendez’s staff, and with Senator Biden’s 

staff as well. 

Turkey applied for membership. The EBRD was set up, and its 

charter says that it is supposed to support countries in Central and 

Eastern Europe making the transition toward free market economies with multiparty democracies. The charter itself is silent on 

what the beginning state is. But at the time that the EBRD was 

established in 1991, it was very clearly understood that its purpose 

587 

was to help the former Communist countries make this historic 

transition to free market economies. 

Turkey, as you know, is a country that has many of the characteristics of some of the economies that are transitioned economies, 

like Bulgaria or Romania or Ukraine. Turkey believes that it can 

benefit from the very special expertise that EBRD has for building 

free markets, for building small- and medium-sized enterprises. 

And Turkey’s particular interest is outside of the Ankara and 

Istanbul area, out in Anatolia, where the economy of Turkey takes 

on a much different characteristic. 

We are looking at this issue right now. We have not come to any 

conclusion. There are really two questions there. One is a legal 

question. Do we believe legally Turkey can qualify under the charter as a country of operation? 

And then there is the policy issue, and that is sort of in two 

parts. That is first, do we believe that Turkey would benefit, and 

Turkey, of course, is one of our most important allies in Europe— 

in fact, one of our most important allies in the world. And Turkey 

is facing some difficult economic times, and would Turkey benefit? 

And then, second, is this the right direction for the institution to 

take? Even if we feel comfortable with Turkey, both on legal and 

policy grounds, we might still feel uncomfortable because this is not 

really what the institution was intended for. 

And then the final issue is, is if Turkey comes in, can Turkey 

come in such a way that it does not prejudge the very important 

question on whether the bank should change its nature in a more 

fundamental way? I believe that that will a central issue that we 

will be debating, beginning next year in the Fourth Capital Resources Review. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, you have certainly outlined the dilemma. 

How will you make a decision? Will this be guided by our administration’s overall foreign policy views? Or how would you describe 

your own role in this? 

Mr. PEEL. Well, my own role, if confirmed, would actually be very 

similar to the role I have right now as one of the key members of 

the policy team that is reviewing and making recommendations to 

my superiors. And a part of that is a very close consultation with 

this committee, which I have had two conversations so far at the 

staff level and would want to continue. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me explore a different sort of dilemma that 

some have criticized the bank for increasing its loans and investments in Russia. Those critics have argued that financing is not 

apparently helping Russia to become more market-oriented and 

that a few of the recipients of the financing are so-called oligarchs. 

What is your assessment of the EBRD’s lending policy to Russia? 

Mr. PEEL. Our view is that while we believe that there are great 

opportunities, great needs for Russia to continue and to actually 

make the transition, the historic transition to a free market, 

multiparty democracy, we have had some concerns with the kind 

of priorities the bank has been making in Russia and across a 

range of ways. 

I mean, there are a number of tests we look at when we look at 

EBRD. One is additionality. If it is something that is going to happen in the private sector anyway, we shouldn’t be putting essenVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00595 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
588 

tially taxpayer money at risk. You can actually be undermining the 

private sector if you start to skew the market. 

For the EBRD, transition impact is absolutely vital. It can’t just 

be a good commercial project like you would see at the IFC, at the 

World Bank, for instance. It has to fit within the mission. 

And then on state ownership, it is okay to be involved with state 

ownership if you are doing it in a way that involves privatization, 

helping to move state companies into becoming private companies. 

What we see in Russia these days, unfortunately, is many private 

concerns being essentially nationalized in fact or de facto. 

And then, finally, the issue you raised—the integrity issue. It is 

vitally important on who you partner with. We have found in years 

before last year, we would only be voting against a handful of 

projects in Russia. And the character is the—it was no different 

from other countries. We always vote against certain projects because we don’t think they make sense or they trigger a voting mandate. 

However, in the last year, we have found, as we looked back, we 

opposed 17 out of 54 projects. That is a very, very high percentage. 

It is an outlier, both at the EBRD and at any of our institutions. 

And so, we have begun discussions with the new president of the 

EBRD, Thomas Mirow, who is formerly the Deputy Finance Minister of Germany. This will be one of our key priorities because we 

are very concerned about the direction that the EBRD has been 

takingin Russia. 

And this is a concern not just of Treasury, but NSC, State Department. We have these conversations interagency, and we have 

had these conversations with your staff, as well. So this is one of 

these areas where I think the whole of the U.S. Government can 

work together to help the bank make better investment choices in 

Russia. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have concluded that my time is up. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

We will do another round of 7 minutes, and then, hopefully, we 

will conclude. 

Let me just—I want to return in a moment to Ms. Alemayehou. 

I wanted to make sure that what I was telling you was right, and 

we have here a story from the bank that where the Sudan Minister 

of Finance, who we are concerned may be implicit in some of the 

issues that have been raised in the Sudan, calls for a greater role 

of the AFDB in Sudan’s reconstruction. 

And we have had a Sudan country report from the bank that approximately puts the amounts of monies that we have invested 

there around $400 million, in United States. This is a concern. So 

I reiterate it again so that as you look forward, we will hopefully 

have your engagement on that. 

Mr. Peel, let me pick on a continuation of where Senator Lugar 

was. I thought he had a good line of questioning. And certainly the 

European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which I will 

just call the bank moving forward, for the record, its Articles of 

Agreement says that the bank should take into account in its aid 

program the degree to which countries are committed to and are 

589 

implementing the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism, 

and market economies. 

And it seems to have become increasingly—to me, in the context 

of Russia, these principles seem to be in short supply. It seems to 

have become increasingly less democratic, more authoritarian in its 

political style, as well as that many of the countries of Central Asia 

also remain firmly authoritarian. 

Nevertheless, the bank has been increasing dramatically the 

amount of assistance that it provides to Russia and Central Asian 

states. Now, I heard your responses to Senator Lugar. I heard the 

use of the word ‘‘concerns.’’ I am glad we are concerned. 

Let me express, at least from this one Senator, that I am very 

concerned when we are having resources of the United States committed to certain countries through the bank in which those goals 

that the articles speak to are far from being pursued. And so, and 

Russia is not a country of lack of resources as it has huge reserves 

and, especially with the price of oil, is very proactively pursuing 

policies that are very significant in its own national interests. 

Can you speak to us a little bit more about how, as the director 

for the United States of the bank, you are going to be looking at 

this element of the Articles of Agreement and how forceful you will 

be in its pursuit? 

Mr. PEEL. Sure. I will be glad to do that. 

The Articles of Agreement are exactly as you laid out. Only three 

countries really have by a de facto decision by the Board of Directors—Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan—had their EBRD operations very sharply curtailed as a result of political concerns and 

of, frankly, noncompliance with Article 1. 

There are real opportunities in Russia. I mean, Russia is—the increase in the volumes, I think what you have seen is in part because the bank is rapidly decreasing its volume in the so-called 

‘‘European Union eight,’’ the first eight countries that joined the 

European Union. And all of those countries will be graduating by 

2010. 

But in the small and medium enterprise area, I think there are 

great opportunities in building entrepreneurs. One thing to remember is that the EBRD does almost all of its work in the private sector. So we are not against lending in Russia. We are for the right 

kind of lending in Russia, if you are talking about, again, smaller 

and medium enterprises, enterprises out in the hinterlands away 

from Moscow and St. Petersburg. As you point out, there are lots 

of resources going into those parts of the country. 

But I am frank in raising our concerns, we have shown our concerns by our voting habits along with a number of other countries 

on the board, who have with us on many of these projects as well. 

So, you have my commitment that this would be one of my top concerns, and I think that this is an issue that warrants close observation by this committee and by the U.S. Government. And, again, 

it is an area of concern, and I don’t know how to say it otherwise. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Durkin, I don’t want to not keep you in 

this conversation. So let me ask you, particularly with your background and your experience, there are detractors here of OPIC, 

who say we shouldn’t have an OPIC. I am not one of those, but 

nonetheless, to what extent should OPIC base its investment deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00597 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
590 

sions on economic analysis and rates of return when choosing 

projects to support? 

And as a corollary to that question, to what extent should strategic considerations of foreign policy factors play a role in its decision-making? 

Mr. DURKIN. Thank you, and that is okay that I have few questions, and I will keep my answers short. 

I have had the great fortune, over about 20 years, in seeing 

OPIC at work. I have provided private capital to over 40 developing 

countries, and I see OPIC, when they do work in these countries 

in the past, there has to be commercial viability first. 

But I have seen them also be very diligent about making sure 

the goals, the developmental goals are met. I know that the issues 

of environmental quality are important. I know, more recently, and 

I think it has to do a lot with the urging of this committee, that 

human rights issues, worker rights issues are taken into consideration, and I think that has led us to a point where also that it all 

wraps around. There has to be broad foreign policy goals in what 

we are doing. 

But I think, first and foremost, the projects have to work in order 

to make them viable and sustainable because that is the only way 

that I have witnessed and I think in the future OPIC will be, have 

an impact, a long and meaningful impact to the communities in 

which they work. 

It is an extraordinary organization. I have provided private capital, but I have seen where OPIC, particularly in small- and medium-sized enterprises in these transitioning economies, just can’t 

get capital. And often they are competing against other countries 

that come into developing nations that have subsidized capital by 

their own governments. China being one of them, and Africa, 

where I have worked for 8 or 9 years. 

So, yes, commercial. But there have to be other aspects of the decision, and indeed, the interests of the U.S. Government have to be 

paramount in every decision of capital that is committed. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I appreciate that answer. Let me ask you 

this. Do you believe, from your experience with it from the private 

sector side, looking at it now from a director’s side, that we are 

striking the right balance at OPIC? 

Mr. DURKIN. You know, I think that OPIC is probably striking 

a better balance today than it was 7 or 8 years ago because I think 

it has transitioned out of economies where there is plenty of private sector capital for worthy projects and moving OPIC’s attention 

to more challenged countries and economies, particularly in the 

Middle East, Africa, some parts of Central Asia, but particularly 

Africa and the Middle East. 

And there are still areas of Central America, which is one of the 

earlier regions that I came into contact with OPIC, when we were 

providing private sector capital to the biggest organizations’ enterprises. 

But I think OPIC has been very sensitive to where its capital— 

because it is limited. It is a lot on any relative scale, but it is limited compared to the demands for that capital. It is putting it in 

countries where it is in high demand, where it can have impact, 

591 

and particularly in areas of the business size that just don’t have 

access to capital from the outside or even within the countries. 

Senator MENENDEZ. One last question. With the premise that 

commercial viability exists in the project, what role do you think 

OPIC should play in helping to reduce global climate change and 

harm to the environment? Should that be one of the priorities of 

OPIC, within commercial viability? 

Mr. DURKIN. Yes, you are right. I mentioned four or five things 

in the past. Let us add that as a six. I know that the organization—I have had the fortune to spend a meaningful amount of time 

with staff and also with Mr. Mosbacher. And that is important, and 

they have a goal to reduce their CO2 footprint by 20 percent over 

the next 10 years. 

Possibly you could be more aggressive, but I think that should 

be a part of every decision that is made, particularly in the energy 

sector and some of the extractive areas that the organization 

works. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Following up, Mr. Durkin, with OPIC’s authorization expiring April 1, what does this mean? What sort of activities can continue? What has been stopped? In other words, describe 

to us just the organizational dilemma that you have there. 

Mr. DURKIN. Well, first, I would say that I haven’t been part of 

the committee hearings, but I have been told that this committee 

has been a proponent of moving it along, and thank you very much. 

The organization can do its work to evaluate projects and to try 

to fulfill its goals, but it cannot allocate capital. So its hands are 

caught behind its back. 

And while I am not a board member, I have been briefed on the 

kind of projects that the organization is looking at, particularly in 

the Middle East and Africa, that are certainly worthy projects. And 

I think particularly, again, in some of these challenging countries 

and economies where this capital, whether it is in housing or for 

small enterprise assisting, can have an immediate impact on people’s attitudes toward the United States and the stability of the 

economies and the political environment. 

So all I am is trumpeting a concern, and if there was something 

I could do with my local senator, I will do it to push the work that 

this committee has done in order to bring a vote on this to the full 

Senate. 

Senator LUGAR. Ms. Alemayehou, what is the African Development Bank’s assessment of the Extractive Industry Transparency 

Initiative, and how, if at all, is the bank integrating EITI into its 

operations, in your judgment? 

Ms. ALEMAYEHOU. Thank you, Senator Lugar, for that question. 

I do share your concern about EITI. I know when I met with 

your staffer, that was one of the issues that was raised. For Africa 

particularly, a lot of the citizens that live in the resource-rich countries have not benefited for the last 30 years, only the very few connected. 

The African Development Bank, I believe, ratified EITI in October of 2006, but ratifying it is one thing internally at the bank, but 

not a lot of the resource-rich, mineral-rich countries have really 

592 

joined or ratified it. So that is one of the issues that needs to be 

worked on further. 

I know they are providing some sort of technical assistance to 

some of the countries that do want to adopt EITI, but do not have 

the capacity for financial or other reasons. And they are trying that 

in several countries right now. And if confirmed, I look forward to 

working with this committee to make sure that EITI is ratified, 

just as OPIC has in its projects, on the country level. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I think it is an increasingly important 

issue, with which apparently you agree, in Africa. Now you raised 

the point that individual countries have to adopt those principles, 

and that gets us into the internal politics, some would say the sovereignty, of various countries. However, we note, as persons outside 

of Africa, increasing conflict at the sites of oil wells or oil lines 

being disrupted. There are spikes in the markets here because of 

activities that are occurring on the ground there, and they do have 

something to do with perceptions of citizens as to the distribution 

of that wealth of the country. 

Now you cannot do this at the bank all by yourselves, but at the 

same time, I raise the question as serious foreign policy issue as 

well as an equity issue for the people who are being served by the 

loans. 

Ms. ALEMAYEHOU. I completely agree with you, Senator. And the 

good thing is I know President Kaberuka has endorsed EITI at the 

bank, and he is personally committed to this policy. 

Senator LUGAR. Earlier, Mr. Peel, we touched upon this thought 

that the scope of the bank that you would be serving in Central 

Asia, these are not European countries, although the scope of 

NATO may include countries as you move around the Caspian Sea 

and what have you in due course. So there are a number of interests involved. What sort of lending is occurring in Central Asia at 

this point? 

Mr. PEEL. I would have to—I don’t know if I have that in my materials to show the breakdown. But I could certainly get that for 

you. 

One thing, Central Asia is actually an area of operation. When 

the EBRD was established, when they said ‘‘Central and Eastern 

Europe,’’ the Soviet Union was initially a member, and when the 

Soviet Union broke up, all of the Soviet Union and then we later 

brought in Mongolia as well because it was part of the Soviet—— 

Senator LUGAR. I see. So, by definition, all of the countries—— 

Mr. PEEL [continuing]. Sort of a Soviet satellite. So that is the 

area of operation. 

And we believe, in fact, we have pressed the bank, what we say 

is it should be going further and faster south and east into the 

areas where the bank’s need is greatest. And that is the Caucasus 

and Central Asia, the Western Balkans, and Ukraine. The needs 

in those countries are huge, and the expertise that the EBRD can 

bring to those countries is very sizable. 

The bank has been moving that direction, increasing its volume 

in those regions. And I would also include in that Kosovo. Kosovo 

is not yet a member, but the bank can do work in Kosovo in the 

private sector, and we are hoping that Kosovo will be able to in the 

593 

relatively near future become a formal member of the bank. The 

votes aren’t quite there yet, but it is getting close. 

Senator LUGAR. Just a matter of curiosity, is there a data bank 

or at least some background which members of the boards that 

make these decisions have some idea of the economies, as you move 

south and east? To what extent is there extensive knowledge that 

might be available, let us say, in Western Europe or the United 

States or elsewhere as you try to make those loans? 

Mr. PEEL. Yes, the bank does very extensive research on all of 

its countries of operation, and they do a transition analysis of every 

country. It is one of the things that the bank does the best. 

If I can just take a moment and go back onto the EITI, just to 

mention what the EBRD is doing? The EBRD is actually ahead of 

all of the other MDBs. They not only have endorsed it and worked 

with countries that are members or seeking to become members of 

the EITI—and those are Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Mongolia—the bank has gone further and has adopted transparency in 

its own natural resource projects. So those who are borrowing from 

the bank have to meet these criteria for their own projects. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

Let me thank all four nominees for testifying today and for their 

willingness to serve our country in these important positions. 

I do have additional questions for each of you, but I will submit 

them for the record for your written answer so not to keep you here 

under the lights any longer. I am sure you will be responsive. 

The record will remain open for all members for 1 day so that 

the committee members may submit additional questions for the 

record, and we ask that each nominee respond expeditiously to 

these questions, as they are always a prerequisite toward being 

able to move to the floor’s consideration and the committee’s full 

consideration. 

With that, if there are no other members seeking additional comment, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF MIGUEL SAN JUAN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. President Moreno’s reorganization of the International Development 

Bank (IDB), adopted in 2007, seeks to change the bank’s institutional culture and 

to make the bank more responsive to its borrowers’ needs. Could you elaborate on 

the kinds of problems the new reform is intended to remedy? How will we know 

if the reorganization has been successful? 

Answer. The bank is in the midst of a large and complicated reorganization but 

from what I understand, when this process is complete the bank will be more nimble and in a better position to meet the needs of the growing region. 

According to the bank, global economic conditions and the participation of the region’s countries in the globalization process have substantially changed the environment in which the bank operates, presenting it with significant opportunities and 

new challenges. This is the general context for the process of realignment of the 

IDB. 

The realignment will allow the bank to work to become an organization that efficiently aligns its resources to its strategy, enabling it to respond promptly to the 

changing needs of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. At the same 

594 

time, the bank indicates that it must become more adaptable to the constant 

changes taking place in the region. 

The realignment has two basic objectives: (1) To increase the development effectiveness of bank activities by means of a greater country focus, deeper sector expertise, and improved management based on risk management and attainment of results. This is how the bank will attempt to enhance its relevance in the region; and 

(2) To increase organizational efficiency through better corporate integration of operations and scaling up the various functions. 

Prior to the April annual meeting, IDB management released a paper entitled 

‘‘The Realignment to Date: Main Achievements’’ which presents an overview of its 

achievements since the realignment proposal’s approval at end-2006, including enhancing country focus, improving coordination between the private sector windows, 

and deepening sector specialization. 

Recently, the bank submitted to the board its proposed corporate performance 

framework. This framework defines the key objectives for the institution and provides specific indicators that will allow management to evaluate its progress. The 

framework, which focuses on development results, country and client satisfaction, 

and efficient use of the bank’s resources, should indicate the success of the realignment. 

Question. What is the IDB’s current assessment of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI)? How, if at all, is the IDB currently integrating EITI into 

their operations? What steps have been taken? What will be your role in promoting 

EITI? 

Answer. The EITI was launched in 2003 to promote transparency in resource-rich 

countries through the reporting and publication of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas, and mining operations. EITI is implemented through 

multistakeholder partnerships (government-industry-civil society) that adhere to a 

series of 20 voluntary steps embodied in a ‘‘validation grid.’’ Countries are deemed 

to be EITI compliant if they have met all 20 steps, and EITI candidates if they have 

met the first four ‘‘sign up’’ steps. To date, no country is compliant; 23 countries 

are candidates (Peru is the only candidate from Latin American and the Caribbean). 

Candidate countries have two years to achieve compliance (implement the 20-steps). 

The United States, through the State Department, sits on the EITI board of directors, which sets broad policy for the initiative. The U.S. recently contributed around 

$3 million to the EITI trust fund administered by the World Bank, and has provided 

nearly $2 million in bilateral support to help countries to implement EITI. 

The United States has actively pressed the IFIs to support EITI through their policy dialog, lending and technical assistance programs, and analytical work. 

The IDB has not yet formally endorsed EITI, despite encouragement by the U.S. 

Government to do so. However, bank management has indicated that they are preparing a proposal regarding EITI which will be submitted to the board shortly. 

Steps for integrating EITI into operations will depend on the outcomes of the consultations with the board. 

If confirmed, I will work with IDB management and the board to integrate EITI 

into their operations and also engage upstream with bank staff and management 

to promote the related objectives identified in recent legislative guidance on IFI extractive industry projects. 

Question. If confirmed, how would you further promote anticorruption efforts at 

the Inter-American Development Bank? What specific actions would you take? Are 

current efforts adequate? What more would you do? 

Answer. The Office of Institutional Integrity (OII) is the IDB group’s primary office for addressing external matters of integrity, fraud, and corruption. As a measure of the significance that the IDB group attaches to integrity, OII reports directly 

to the President. OII coordinates this work closely with other entities in the bank 

group, particularly the Oversight Committee on Fraud and Corruption (OCFC) and 

the Sanctions Committee. OII also plays a supportive role in internal ethics and integrity matters and helps member countries develop and refine their own integrity 

programs. 

OII approaches its mandate based on three ‘‘pillars’’ as defined by Strengthening 

a Systemic Framework against Corruption for the Inter-American Development 

Bank, the IDB group’s comprehensive blueprint for addressing corruption. These pillars include staff integrity, support for member governments, and the fiduciary obligation to ensure that activities financed by the bank are free of corruption. 

Overall, in 2007, OII made significant progress in streamlining investigative activities, enhancing the department’s capacity, and building knowledge-based systems to strengthen prevention efforts. OII also broadened its research on past cases, 

595 

expanding outreach and pursuing more complex investigations. Of course, a large 

part of what OII does is to respond to inquiries regarding possible fraud and corruption. 

Recently, former U.S. Attorney General Thornburg was commissioned to conduct 

an evaluation of OII. This type of evaluation will be similar to the Volcker Report 

at the World Bank. Work began in late 2007 and is continuing this year. 

Current efforts to promote anticorruption and transparency efforts at the IDB are 

well established. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the Bank and its shareholders to promote these efforts, including efforts to complete anticorruption policy 

goals, specifically whistle blowing. Despite the presence of safeguards and procedures related to whistle blowing, outside parties have continued to express some 

doubts about their effectiveness. I understand that the OII is undertaking efforts 

to bring its whistle blowing safeguards and protections in line with international 

best practice standards. 

If confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for greater transparency and accountability. 

Question. Do you agree to appear and testify upon request, before any duly constituted committee of the Senate? If your agreement is subject to any conditions, 

please specify those conditions. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. When you receive written inquiries from the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee, will you respond in writing, within 30 days of receipt of such inquiries? 

Answer. Yes. 

RESPONSES OF KENNETH L. PEEL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. What is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s 

(EBRD) current assessment of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative 

(EITI)? How, if at all, is the EBRD currently integrating EITI into their operations? 

What steps have been taken? What will be your role in promoting EITI? 

Answer. The EBRD supports the EITI and is participating in the work of the 

EITI. For all natural resource projects, the EBRD requires its project sponsors to 

publicly disclose their material project payments to the host government, regardless 

of whether the government is a member of the EITI. The EBRD is actively involved 

in the EITI consultative process, including through providing input into the development of technical mechanisms for reporting (templates, aggregation of data, etc.). 

The EBRD promotes transparent revenue reporting, as well as increased financial 

and organizational transparency, with the draft EITI reporting guidelines providing 

a useful starting point for even greater revenue transparency. The EBRD is working 

in cooperation with other international financial institutions and the participating 

private financial institutions to promote governance and transparency initiatives in 

the financial community. The EBRD is helping to build capacity in countries of operation to enable them to implement the objectives of the EITI. Two countries, Azerbaijan and the Kyrgyz Republic, have been in the forefront on this, and may be 

among the first countries to achieve full EITI compliance. In Mongolia, the EBRD 

is helping the country to implement the EITI through its work with mining companies. 

My role would be to monitor EBRD activities in this area and also to engage upstream with bank staff and management to promote the related objectives identified 

in recent legislative guidance on IFI extractive industry projects. Accountability and 

transparency are key to the mandate of the EBRD to promote transition to market 

economies. 

Question. Given your current position as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Development Finance and Debt, what is the Asian Development Bank’s 

current assessment of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative? How, if at 

all, is the Asian Development Bank currently integrating EITI into their operations? 

Answer. The Asian Development Bank endorsed the EITI on February 29, 2008. 

The AsDB has five member states that have already agreed to comply with EITI 

principles: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia, and Timor 

Leste. All of these countries are at the EITI’s ‘‘candidate’’ stage. 

The AsDB already promotes transparency and anticorruption efforts in its projects 

and its developing member countries through projects and initiatives. These efforts 

will be strengthened by the endorsement of EITI, which is a natural complement 

to these existing activities. Also, the AsDB is currently revamping its safeguards 

596 

policies and our expectation is that extractive industries, and the principles of the 

initiative, will be part of that. 

Question. Also, what is the World Bank’s assessment of the Extractive Industry 

Transparency Initiative? How is the World Bank currently integrating EITI into 

their operations? 

Answer. The World Bank formally supported EITI in December 2003 as a global 

initiative, which aims to support good governance and transparency in resource-rich 

countries through the publication of payments and revenues from oil, gas, and mining in a multistakeholder process. EITI is achieving strong momentum globally and 

has become an established standard for transparency. There are EITI programs in 

23 candidate countries, 21 of which have active bank programs. In addition, there 

are several countries that have publicly stated their intention to join EITI and others who are in contact with the World Bank group about the EITI process. 

The World Bank group role, led by the oil, gas, and mining policy division 

(COCPO), is to support EITI implementation at the country level and globally. 

COCPO’s technical assistance programs on EITI are supported by a multidonor 

trust fund (MDTF). The MDTF seeks to broaden support for the EITI principles and 

process through the establishment of extractive industries transparency initiatives 

in countries that have signed on to EITI through programs of cooperation among 

the government, the private sector, and civil society. The MDTF is instrumental in 

funding the EITI work programs and grants in 10 countries and 7 additional programs are in negotiation. The World Bank group also has special funds dedicated 

to supporting civil society groups working on EITI through the Development Grant 

Facility. Following strong U.S. leadership during negotiation of the 15 replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA) in 2007, the World Bank 

expressed a continued commitment to enhance transparency of revenue flows to governments from extractive-industry projects. 

World Bank group support for EITI includes making EITI consultants and advisors available to governments to assist them in implementation and sharing international best practice. The bank also works with client governments on EITI issues 

as part of broader bank-supported programs on extractive-industries reform, natural 

resource management, and good governance/anticorruption. Aside from the MDTF, 

the bank has also provided financial support from its own funds to a number of civil 

society groups involved in EITI implementation. 

Question. If confirmed, how would you further promote anticorruption efforts at 

the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development? What specific actions 

would you take? Are current efforts adequate? What more would you do? 

Answer. Promotion of good governance is an important part of EBRD’s mission. 

I would work with the EBRD staff and the board to continue to strengthen the 

EBRD work in this important area. 

The EBRD has in place policies and practices to combat corruption that are quite 

good, but best practices are always evolving. In particular, the EBRD undertakes 

extensive due diligence to ensure the integrity of project sponsors prior to making 

any investments. The EBRD recently updated its due diligence guidelines to 

strengthen ‘‘know your customer’’ rules, identifying beneficial ownership and investigating risks associated with politically exposed persons. 

This autumn, we anticipate board discussion on, among other things, an enforcement mechanism for fraud and corruption cases in private sector operations, formal, 

written policies with respect to compliance and anticorruption, and a revised procurement policy. 

I would take every opportunity to ensure that these and other anticorruption 

measures are acceptable to the United States, consistent with international best 

practice, and most importantly, are scrupulously implemented by the EBRD. I 

would make every effort to support the work of the Office of the Chief Compliance 

Officer, the internal auditor and other key staff. 

Question. Do you agree to appear and testify upon request, before any duly constituted committee of the Senate? If your agreement is subject to any conditions, 

please specify those conditions. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. When you receive written inquiries from the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee, will you respond in writing, within 30 days of receipt of such inquiries? 

Answer. Yes. 

597 

RESPONSES OF MIMI ALEMAYEHOU TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. Some analysts are concerned about the development effectiveness of African Development Bank projects and programs. If necessary, what recommendations would you suggest to strengthen its performance? What unique roles, if any, 

does the African Development Bank play in a crowded field of development donors 

in Africa? 

Answer. President Kaberuka has embarked on institutional reforms to consolidate 

the bank’s role as Africa’s premier development finance institution. As such, the 

bank, which is predominantly African-owned, speaks with a voice that often has 

greater legitimacy to African Governments and offers a role bolstered by its unique 

African character and perspective. Its competitive advantages include unparalleled 

access to and trust of African decision makers, a seasoned staff with deep knowledge 

of the African economic environment, and vast institutional memory on African 

projects. 

The bank, like no other institution, has a mandate for supporting regional integration, which is key for economic development of the continent. I believe that proportionately the bank supports more regional operations than any other development institution. With my background in trade, I will be able to lend my experience 

to encourage the bank’s support in trade, regional integration, and private sector 

development. The enhanced focus on fragile states, as agreed to in the African Development Fund’s eleventh replenishment, is also an area where institution can 

make a unique and critically important contribution. 

With the bank’s renewed press on managing for results, agreed to in the recent 

replenishment of the African Development Fund, we will be better able to determine 

the development effectiveness of the bank’s projects and programs. This work is important and I will continue to press for the measurement, monitoring, managing for 

and reporting of results because we all want to see the positive results on the 

ground and the difference that the institution is making in the lives of the African 

people. 

Question. What is the African Development Bank’s assessment of the Extractive 

Industry Transparency Initiative? How, if at all, is the bank currently integrating 

EITI into their operations? What steps have been taken? What will be your role in 

promoting EITI? 

Question. AfDB President Kaberuka endorsed the EITI in October 2006. Since 

then, I understand that the bank has developed an implementation framework to 

guide the bank’s operations to help African countries improve resource management 

of extractive industries. The framework is results-oriented and includes both shortand medium-term measures to help countries strengthen transparency and accountability in the management of extractive industries. The approach includes technical 

and financial assistance for countries which have demonstrated political will by endorsing the EITI and for those countries participating in EITI++, advocacy and outreach activities to encourage resource rich countries to improve governance, and 

mainstreaming the EITI principles in the bank’s own natural resources operations. 

The AfDB has worked with the Liberian Government to develop its EITI work plan, 

and has assisted Madagascar to become an EITI candidate country. The bank is also 

financing efforts by the Central African Republic, Botswana, and other countries to 

become EITI candidates. 

I believe that it is very important that every appropriate measure is taken to ensure that all people in resource rich countries benefit from the extraction of resources, and not just a well-connected few. As U.S. Executive Director, I will actively promote the bank’s involvement in achieving the important transparency and 

accountability objectives of the EITI in the bank’s borrowing member countries. Furthermore, I would work to block any support by the bank for the extraction and export of certain natural resources unless the government of a country has in place 

functioning systems which meet three broad standards on revenue accounting, independent auditing of accounts, and transparency. 

Question. If confirmed, how would you further promote anticorruption efforts at 

the African Development Bank? What specific actions would you take? Are current 

efforts adequate? What more would you do? 

Corruption is a critical obstacle to development. It diverts development resources 

from where they need to go, reducing the potential for economic growth necessary 

for poverty reduction. The African Development Bank has a central and crucial role 

to play in assisting African countries to build capable states, strengthen governance, 

and combat corruption. I understand that the bank has an established mandate in 

598 

good governance and has recently put forward a governance strategy and action 

plan to sharpen its strategic focus in the area of good governance and 

anticorruption. It is imperative that the bank use its position as the premier development finance institution in Africa to intensify its efforts to help African countries 

improve transparency and accountability in the management of public resources and 

fight corruption. 

Institutionally, the bank has a zero tolerance with respect to corruption or fraud 

with the bank’s operations. Support from the top is essential for strong 

anticorruption enforcement and President Kaberuka is fully behind the bank’s governance work overall and the bank’s auditor general function, in particular. The 

auditor general directs an anticorruption and fraud team which investigates complaints of possible fraud, corruption, or misconduct and many of the allegations 

came to the team through the bank’s whistle-blower mechanism that was approved 

in early 2007. 

As U.S. Executive Director, I would work to ensure that the bank’s support for 

good governance is effective and ask that the performance and impact of this work 

be measured and reported. In addition to making sure that the anticorruption measures already adopted are being properly implemented, I will urge the AfDB to work 

closely with African Governments on the adoption and implementation of best practice anticorruption measures. The AfDB can be more effective within the countries 

where it works by helping to improve underlying conditions such as civil service reform, better public sector financial management, and judicial sector reform. 

Question. Do you agree to appear and testify upon request, before any duly constituted committee of the Senate? If your agreement is subject to any conditions, 

please specify those conditions. 

Answer. Yes, I agree to testify upon request before any committee of the Senate 

without any condition. 

Question. When you receive written inquiries from the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee, will you respond in writing, within 30 days of receipt of such inquiries? 

Answer. Yes, I will respond in writing within 30 days to any written inquiries 

from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

RESPONSES OF MIMI ALEMAYEHOU TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY

SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. Sudan—What is the current engagement of the African Development 

Bank with Sudan? What loans are outstanding? What, if any, projects or programs 

are planned? What is bank’s engagement since 2002 in terms of loans provided and 

support given? Please provide detailed information on budget figures since 2002. 

Also, please provide your views on the appropriate role of the bank with the Government of Sudan, given the current political and humanitarian situation. Should the 

bank be providing loans for reconstruction assistance in Darfur or in South Sudan? 

If so, how should those loans be managed and how should the projects be implemented? 

Answer. Sudan has been in arrears to the African Development Bank since 1995. 

As of the end of June, these arrears stood at roughly $208 million. Accordingly, for 

the last 13 years AfDB has only engaged in limited support in relief of humanitarian emergencies and institutional capacity building. The only such support since 

2002 is a $15.3 million grant for governance capacity building approved by the AfDB 

in February 2007. This grant was provided in line with the policy that allows for 

post-conflict countries in arrears to receive limited financing if targeted for strengthening institutional capacity. AfDB currently plans for a second phase of this support 

in 2010. The design of this second phase of support will be informed by a social sector assessment scheduled for 2009. 

The U.S. Executive Director is currently directed by congressional voting mandates on international terrorism, religious persecution, and the Sudan Peace Act to 

oppose (vote ‘‘no’’ on) any financing to Sudan. Until and unless Sudan changes its 

behavior with respect to these critical issues, the United States Executive Director 

will not be in a position to support any assistance to Sudan. In fact, the Sudan 

Peace Act calls for the United States to actively oppose any such assistance. 

599 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

I am pleased to speak in favor of the nomination of Miguel San Juan to be United 

States Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank. I have known 

Miguel for many years. He has been a great friend to me, and a great leader for 

the State of Texas. 

Currently, he serves the Houston region as senior vice president of Business Development for the Greater Houston Partnership. The GHP is the primary advocate 

of Houston’s business community and is dedicated to building regional economic 

prosperity. Miguel’s role in the GHP has given him the knowledge and training in 

key business and trade areas that will enable him to immediately benefit our Nation 

through the Inter-American Development Bank. 

In recent years, Houston’s extraordinary economic growth has been fueled in large 

part by Miguel and his team at the GHP. Today, the Port of Houston ranks first 

in the United States in foreign tonnage, and second in total tonnage. In 2007, exports rose 25 percent to $72 billion. 

Miguel’s previous positions include serving as president of the Partnership’s 

World Trade Division from 1992 to 2004. He also distinguished himself as vice 

president of government and public relations for CITGO Petroleum Corporation. 

In addition, Miguel has been actively involved in public service at both a national 

and local level. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to the President’s Export Council, the premier national advisory council. He serves on the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo’s development committee and is currently a director 

of the Houston Hispanic Forum. 

These experiences have given Miguel the wealth and diversity of knowledge to become an outstanding Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank. 

I can think of no more deserving individual than Miguel for this position, and I 

hope that the committee quickly approves his nomination. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to support the nomination of Kenneth Peel for 

the position of U.S. Director for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 

Ken served as my Foreign Relation Counsel for almost 5 years, from 1997–2001. 

He was instrumental in helping draft the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Climate Change Resolution, and played an important role in the Senate’s 1998 ratification of the treaty enlarging NATO. He accompanied me on many congressional delegation trips around 

the world, including visits to Russia, Central Asia, South America, the Middle East, 

and Europe. 

Since 2006, Ken has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for 

International Development Finance and Debt. This position carries responsibility for 

American participation in multilateral institutions, including the World Bank, regional development banks, the Global Environment Fund, and the International 

Fund for Agricultural Development. He has also represented American interests 

with the Paris Club of international creditors. 

Recently, Ken has been working to secure American participation in a new Clean 

Technology Fund, within the World Bank. This fund aims to reduce the growth of 

greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries through financial assistance to 

bridge the cost gaps between dirty and clean technology. I strongly support this initiative and, along with Senators Lugar and Menendez, I am a cosponsor of Chairman Biden’s legislation to authorize contributions to this fund. 

In his new position as the U.S. Director for the EBRD, Ken will be responsible 

for representing the interests of the United States with this important multilateral 

development institution. The EBRD was chartered in 1991 to help the state-run 

economies of Eastern Europe transition to modern, free-market economies. Through 

financing, expertise, and capacity-building, it has helped shepherd 11 former communist economies into the European Union. Today, the EBRD operates in 29 countries, ranging from European Union members like Poland and the Czech Republic 

to Central Asian states like Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. This area 

of the world is one of the most strategically important areas of the world, and it 

will continue to be important that the interests of the United States—as the bank’s 

largest shareholder—are strongly represented in decisions that affect this region. 

Ken Peel has deep knowledge and experience with this region and with international development and finance. Ken is the right leader for the job, and I support 

600 

his nomination and recommend his confirmation to be the United States Director 

for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

RESPONSE OF PATRICK J. DURKIN TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. Please describe OPIC’s policy regarding the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative. How is OPIC integrating EITI into its policies and operations? 

How is implementation proceeding? 

Answer. As I understand it, in 2006 OPIC included the Extractive Industries 

Transparency Initiative (EITI) in its initiative to combat corruption and improve 

transparency. Under the policy announced by OPIC President Robert Mosbacher, 

OPIC will encourage its investors to abide voluntarily by EITI guidelines to ensure 

that revenues from extractive industries projects contribute to sustainable development and poverty reductions and not individual enrichment. Implementation of 

EITI has been a high priority and OPIC is working with the EITI Secretariat to 

encourage compliance with other multilateral organizations and OPIC counterparts. 

I understand the OPIC Board of Directors has approved the first OPIC-supported 

project where the agency’s commitment to greater transparency in reporting on royalty payments to host governments on extractive projects has been realized. Additionally, OPIC’s pending reauthorization legislation would formalize OPIC support 

for EITI principles. 

(601) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008, MORNING 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Eastham, Hon. Alan W., to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Congo 

Simon, John, to be Ambassador to the African Union 

Swan, James, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti 

Symington, Hon. W. Stuart, to be Ambassador to Rwanda 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Russell D. Feingold 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Feingold, Nelson, Lugar, and Isakson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. The committee will come to order. 

I would like to begin by thanking our four nominees for being 

here today, but more importantly for your many years of service 

and for your willingness to work in some of the most demanding 

positions in the United States Government and some of the more 

difficult postings around the world. I am confident that you agree 

with me that our missions across Africa are doing some of the most 

important diplomatic work of the 21st century. 

More than any time in the past, United States policies and relationships in Africa are now in the spotlight. Next month, we will 

mark the 10th anniversary of the bombings of the United States 

embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. 

Since those tragic attacks, we have increasingly opened our eyes 

to the real threats that emanate from weak states and ungoverned 

spaces. The new United States combatant command for Africa, 

AFRICOM, expected to be stood up this October, is one response 

to that realization. 

However, military tools and expertise can only contribute so 

much and perceptions of an overly militarized presence can generate hostile backlash. In order to fully address Africa’s security 

challenges, we need to get at the underlying roots of instability and 

violent conflict. We also need to provide sustained support for conflict prevention, human rights, and economic development. 

Diplomats are uniquely positioned to identify and implement 

strategic long-term objectives. If confirmed, you will be the eyes 

602 

and ears of our Government. We will turn to you for analysis of 

changing dynamics on the ground, as well as how we here in Washington can make the most effective foreign policies. 

As you know, information-gathering and reporting is especially 

challenging in Africa. In many countries and regions across the 

continent, the United States does not have a long history of engagement or a whole lot of institutional knowledge. Fostering diverse contacts, not just with government officials, but also with 

business, religious, civil society, and other leaders is essential. We 

must not lose sight of the fact that today we are building the reputation and relationships that will determine our ability to help 

shape outcomes in Africa for decades to come. The four postings before the committee today embody those challenges. 

First, if confirmed, Ambassador Stuart Symington will head to 

Rwanda, ‘‘the land of 1,000 hills.’’ Rwanda is still overcoming the 

tragic legacy of the 1994 genocide but is making great gains in economic growth and political stability and has been a tremendous 

contributor to U.N. peacekeeping missions across the continent. 

U.S. assistance has played a significant role in this progress and 

increased fourfold over the last 4 years. 

However, diplomatic engagement will be crucial to ensure democratic reforms before the 2010 elections and to ensure that Rwanda 

plays a constructive role in helping to resolve the violence in the 

neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Turning then to the Republic of Congo, normal United States 

diplomatic activities in Brazzaville have only recently resumed 

after years of recurring violence and a new embassy building is set 

to open early next year. If confirmed, Ambassador Alan Eastham 

will have a unique opportunity to build a United States diplomatic 

presence in Congo at a time when the country’s oil-based economy 

is growing rapidly but suffering from the challenges of resource 

management and economic governance. 

Next, Djibouti is a country rapidly becoming a regional financial 

hub based around its strategic port for the Red Sea and Indian 

Ocean. However, Djibouti’s hopeful future is somewhat limited by 

its rough neighborhood and hampered by recent tensions with both 

Ethiopia and Eritrea. If confirmed, James Swan will have to manage United States-Djiboutian relations in light of those regional 

challenges, as well as navigate the complexities of having the 

United States Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa based 

within that country. 

Finally, if confirmed, John Simon will tackle a different kind of 

challenge as he engages an emerging regional institution with 

great ambitions but limited capacity. In its first years, the African 

Union has already become a significant player in continental peace 

and security, whether it be peacekeeping in Darfur, sanctions in 

Mauritania, or mediation in Kenya. The AU offers a framework for 

real African solutions to African problems, but its long-term capabilities will require sustained United States investment and strategic engagement. 

So, again, I would like to thank you all for embracing these responsibilities, as well as to extend a warm welcome to your families 

and friends. I know that these people have played a critical role in 

603 

your respective journeys and will continue to support you in the 

challenges that lie ahead. 

I would now like to invite my colleague, Senator Johnny Isakson, 

the ranking member of the subcommittee, to offer some opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

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

I am proud to welcome all four nominees, of which I have had 

the privilege of meeting with each of them in the days preceding 

this hearing. I have said many times that I think Africa is the continent of the 21st century for America, and these are tremendously 

important roles that each of you will play and some of you have 

been playing. 

I want to particularly acknowledge Stuart Symington whose storied history—his family’s storied history, obviously, is known to all 

of us. But I had the benefit of receiving his hospitality in Djibouti 

earlier this year, and I appreciate very much what he has done 

there on behalf of our country. And I know he will do wonderful 

things in Rwanda. 

I have also had the privilege of going to Ethiopia and to our embassy in Ethiopia in Addis Ababa, and I know the tremendous potential our relationship with Ethiopia has and the help that Ethiopia has been to the United States most recently in Somalia. 

I am also particularly excited about the posting at the Africa 

Union. Darfur is of great concern to the chairman and myself. The 

African Union is a fledgling organization in Africa that could be essential in putting an end to genocide and beginning to a new freedom for all people on the African continent. So your posting there, 

John, will be very important for the United States and for that 

country. 

But to all of you, thank you very much for your willingness to 

serve and what your commitment to give the United States of 

America. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Isakson. 

I am so pleased to see Senator Lugar here, the ranking member 

of the committee, the former chairman of the full committee, and 

somebody who has been very diligent throughout his career with 

regard to Africa. Senator, would you like to make any remarks? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

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

have just come today, as we always do, to support the nominees for 

these important positions in Africa. I appreciate your special diligence in calling the hearings in a timely way so these embassies 

can be filled with talented Americans. It is a pleasure to be here 

this morning. I look forward to hearing the nominees. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

And now I would like to turn to two of my distinguished colleagues who are here to introduce, I believe, Ambassador Symington. First, we will go to the Senator from Missouri, Senator McCaskill. 

604 

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This morning it is such an honor for me. It completes a circle 

that as a young child I never dreamt that I could complete. I remember distinctly the day the photograph arrived at my home 

when I was a youngster. It was a framed photograph of Senator 

Stuart Symington personally inscribed to my parents. It was not 

taken to my father’s office and it was not put back in my mother’s 

desk in the utility room. It was put in our living room with our 

family photos because it was a photograph that we were so proud 

of. 

His grandson is here today, and this is, in fact, a hall of fame 

family in terms of public service to our country. When I realized 

that I am so honored to sit in the Senate seat not just of Harry 

Truman but of Senator Stuart Symington, that frankly is hard for 

me to really get my arms around that I have distinct privilege and 

honor. And I know how proud Senator Symington would be of his 

grandson. 

After being raised in Missouri and graduating from Brown and 

getting his law degree from Columbia, he clerked for the Eastern 

District of Missouri, practiced corporate law across the world, returned back to St. Joseph, MO, before he became a Foreign Service 

officer in 1986. He has been all over the world for his country and 

has served in both dangerous situations and very politically difficult situations, from Mexico to Ecuador, Niger, Djibouti, and now 

on to Rwanda, a strategically very important country for our Nation on the important continent of Africa. 

I must also acknowledge that in addition to a grandfather, he 

had an uncle that was very important in my life who is here this 

morning, Congressman Jim Symington, who served in Congress for 

a number of years. And I was pleased to be the campus chairman 

for Symington for Senate, and I was even more pleased to begin my 

career on the Hill as an intern in Jim Symington’s office in the 

summer of 1974. 

As I say, this is a distinct pleasure for me, and you should not 

by my remarks for a minute assume that mentioning his grandfather and mentioning his uncle in any way takes away from the 

talent, the strength, and the intellect that this man offers our 

country. We are lucky to be able to draw on that intellect and that 

strength at this important time in the continent of Africa. It is my 

honor to introduce him and I am even more pleased as an American at his willingness to serve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. I agree with 

your comment. It is hard not to mention the Symington family because those of us who are old enough to remember—can you imagine a year in which four sitting United States Senators ran for 

President? Oh, that is right. It just happened again. [Laughter.] 

But with the names—correct me if I am wrong. I believe the Senators were John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, 

and Stuart Symington. Is that right? 

Ambassador SYMINGTON. Exactly. 

605 

Senator FEINGOLD. And also a guy named Adlai Stevenson. That 

was a heck of a primary, too. 

So anyway, memory lane on that one for me. 

And now we go to the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

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

and I am here to honor all of the nominees and also my friend, Stuart Symington. He must be pretty special to have the two new 

women Senators come here and speak for him. But I am actually 

here—as I hear you bring up the senior Stuart Symington and Hubert Humphrey, we have now bridged the gap between Missouri 

and Minnesota. And I know him as a friend. 

His brother, who is here today, is a very good friend of mine and 

married my roommate from college. I still remember being in that 

wedding in my lovely peach bridesmaid dress and seeing him then. 

And I also remember doing the toast and having Uncle Jim come 

up and tell me that I think you could run for office. So I appreciate 

the blessing of their wonderful family. 

As you all know, Ambassador Symington has dedicated his career to advancing U.S. national security and diplomatic interests 

around the world. Since entering the U.S. diplomatic corps in 1986, 

he has held, as Senator McCaskill pointed out, numerous positions 

all across the world and, in the important position of United States 

Ambassador to Djibouti, has coordinated United States policies 

around the Horn of Africa among the world’s most difficult diplomatic and security environment. 

I had the pleasure of having him over for dinner with my friends. 

I have to tell you, Senator Lugar, I rarely cook. So he must be 

something special. But we had them over and it was just so heartwarming to hear his views on Africa and his views on what we can 

do in Rwanda. We know that Rwanda’s transition from the sorrow 

of the past to the potential of the future will require a strong partner in the United States which still carries the burden of remorse 

from failing to respond 15 years ago. Ambassador Symington— 

what I heard that night—his vision of bringing together all parts 

and functions of the United States Government, the private sector, 

the NGO community, in a united policy to partner with the Rwandan Government is the right vision. 

And I was thinking, just to end, of something. I heard Senator 

Durbin tell a story when he was talking about Darfur once on the 

Senate floor, and he talked about one of his favorite movies, 

Schindler’s List. And he talked about at the very end when 

Schindler, who as you know at the beginning was a war profiteer 

and was making money off the war, and then came to see the victims of the war and came to help them and give them safety and 

hide them. At the very end, those that he had saved from the concentration camps came together and they got all the gold that they 

could find and made him this ring. At the end of the movie, he 

breaks down as they are around him, and says, if only I could do 

more. If only I could have done more. 

606 

Well, these people before you who are taking on such difficult assignments, especially as I think about Rwanda—I do not think they 

are going to be in that position to say if only I could have done 

more because they are doing the right thing at the right time for 

this country. And I am just honored to be here with my friend, Stuart Symington. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

We understand that the Senators need to go to other locations, but 

they are, of course, welcome to stay if they wish. 

But I think it is only fitting now we go to Mr. Symington, who 

will offer his testimony after he says goodbye to the Senators. Each 

of you please, of course, feel free to introduce any family or friends 

that you would like to introduce to the committee. Mr. Symington. 

STATEMENT OF HON. W. STUART SYMINGTON, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA 

Ambassador SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Thank you for holding this hearing, as you always have, in a way 

to keep our diplomatic missions staffed, for the opportunity to appear before you, the pleasure of being with you again, Senator 

Isakson, and the pleasure and honor of being with you, Senator 

Lugar. 

I am deeply grateful to the President of the United States and 

to the Secretary for the honor of being their nominee to serve in 

Rwanda. 

I also want to point out that one of the many things that the 

United States and Rwanda share is the remarkably important role 

of women in public life, and having just heard from two remarkable 

United States Senators, I cannot think of a better way to begin my 

engagement, not just with the men of Rwanda, but with the women 

too. 

Before I turn to my prepared statement, I would like to mention, 

in addition to Uncle Jim and my brother John, the real diplomats 

of the family who are with me today, my wife, Susan, and my 

daughter, Janey, and my son, Stuart. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Let us see where you are please, if you could 

rise. Thank you. Welcome all. We are very happy to see you here. 

Ambassador SYMINGTON. Thank you, Senator. 

They have never been confirmed, but I want you to know they 

are the real ambassadors, and they have been since Stuart was 1 

month old and went to our first post. 

I also want to acknowledge that I am lucky enough to have with 

us today America’s Executive Director to the World Bank, Whitney 

Debevoise, and his wife, Heidi, who is a friend of many years. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Welcome. 

Ambassador SYMINGTON. And finally, thinking of interns and 

those people who brought us here, in this room are both members 

of the promotion panel of the State Department that I am working 

with this week and the desk officer for Rwanda and an intern who 

put together my book. So for them and all the other friends and 

family here, my thanks. 

607 

Finally, my role model in diplomacy is sitting right behind me 

and she has been both behind me and in front of me for my whole 

career, Ambassador Ruth Davis. 

Senator, I want to mention also, as I think about your efforts to 

see that we integrate all the instruments of our Nation’s strength, 

public and private, Chairman Ike Skelton, who could not be with 

us today but who challenged me a long time ago with two ideas. 

The first is that the strength of the United States lies in its people 

and their principles. And the second is that only by integrating all 

agencies and all services and public and private efforts can we 

achieve our goals in the world. I thought it was absolutely true and 

I will try to continue to do that, if confirmed, to be your ambassador in Rwanda. 

The people of Rwanda today have a remarkable opportunity to 

show that it is possible for any people to forge a common future 

in a land consumed by the horror of genocide so few years ago. It 

is vital to all of us that they succeed. The Rwandans and the rest 

of the world must ensure that the genocide is never forgotten and 

that it is never repeated. 

Rwandans know that the best way to honor the victims of genocide is to look forward and unite after having looked back to remember what can happen through division and hatred. Rwandans 

today recognize that they have a chance to make this future better. 

They have, over the last few years, improved security and stability, 

education, health care, advanced reconciliation, and made progress 

meting out justice to many of those involved in the genocide. They 

continue to face security threats, but in the midst of that, have created economic growth and worked with us to improve the investment climate. They have achieved noteworthy progress, but they 

still face enormous challenges. 

As Rwandans look to their future, they call on all Rwandans to 

unite and to see themselves as one people with equal justice and 

opportunity under their law. That call is also their own test. 

Rwandans are testing themselves to counter extremists while vigorously protecting human rights, to improve governance while also 

improving transparency, to strengthen democratic institutions at 

the same time that they are trying to deliver basic services, attract 

investment, and promote jobs and growth. To create a shared sense 

of national unity and a positive climate for development, they know 

that they must instill widespread faith throughout every Rwandan 

in the fairness of their governing institutions. That means being 

open to dissent and permitting free access to information and to 

the work of a free, responsible, and independent press. Progress 

meeting this test is particularly important in the run-up to their 

September elections for the House of Delegates and to the next 

presidential elections. 

If confirmed, I will work with all those parts of America’s investment in Rwanda, especially the people out of your mission there, 

to help them strengthen their democratic institutions and their 

economy, to take care of Rwandans who need our help, and to advance transparency and respect for human rights. With continued 

progress, I absolutely believe that Rwanda will be a catalyst for regional peace and development and an instrument for good beyond 

its borders. 

608 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to ask that the 

remainder of my testimony be entered in the record and would welcome any questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Symington. Without objection, that will be done. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Symington follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. W. STUART SYMINGTON, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO RWANDA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to be Ambassador to Rwanda. 

I am deeply grateful to the President and to Secretary Rice for this honor. I also 

want to thank you Senators for the kind introduction. One of the many things the 

United States and Rwanda have in common is the prominent role of women in public life. I know of no better American examples of that success. 

Before I turn to my prepared statement, may I introduce the members of my family who are here with me today? First, my wife, Susan, and children, Janey and Stuart—they are the real diplomats in our family and they have served America as true 

ambassadors at every stage of what has truly been ‘‘our career.’’ 

May I also point out that I am pleased to be joined by my Uncle, former Congressman Jim Symington, and my brother, Doctor John Symington; I thank them as well 

as those friends and colleagues who have joined us here today. Finally, I’d like to 

thank Chairman Ike Skelton for the inspiring challenge he put to me years ago. He 

said that our greatest strengths as a nation were our people and our principles, and 

that one of our greatest challenges was to act jointly, with a common purpose, 

across agency and service lines, to achieve our national objectives. If confirmed, that 

is what I will seek to do in Rwanda. 

Mr. Chairman, the people of Rwanda have a remarkable opportunity today to 

show that it is possible for a people to forge a common future in a land that was 

consumed by the horror of genocide just 14 years ago. It is vital that they succeed. 

The Rwandans (and the rest of the world) must ensure that the genocide is never 

forgotten and that it will never be repeated. 

Rwandans know that the best way to honor the genocide victims is to look forward and unite, after looking back to remember the terrible cost of division and hatred. Rwandans recognize today that they must work together to realize their promising future. Over the last decade, they have improved education and health care; 

they have advanced reconciliation and made progress meting out justice. They have 

countered security threats and cared for genocide victims. They have created economic growth and improved the investment climate. They have achieved noteworthy 

progress, but they still face enormous challenges. 

As the government and many Rwandans view their future, their call is for all 

Rwandans to see themselves as one people, with equal justice and opportunity 

under law. Their call is also a test. Rwanda faces the test of countering extremists, 

while vigorously protecting human rights; of improving governance and transparency; of strengthening democratic institutions, while delivering basic services; 

and of attracting investment, while promoting job and income growth. To create a 

shared sense of national identity and a positive climate for development requires instilling widespread faith in the fairness of governing institutions as well as permitting free access to information and to the work of a free, responsible, and independent press. Progress meeting this test is particularly important in the run-up to 

the September House of Delegates elections and to the 2011 Presidential elections. 

If confirmed, I will work with all Rwandans to help them strengthen their democratic institutions and their economy in an unstable region and to advance transparency and respect for human rights. 

We have a strong bilateral partnership with Rwanda, reflected in President 

Bush’s visit there in February this year. Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, my goal 

will be to advance America’s interests by synchronizing the efforts of all U.S. Government agencies and personnel working in Rwanda. We will also enlist the help 

of the American private sector and nongovernmental groups, working with 

Rwandans to achieve our shared goals. We will focus on fighting disease and hunger, promoting democratic prosperity and growth, facilitating national reconciliation, 

and advancing regional stability and global security. 

Rwanda’s commitment to regional stability is reflected in its role as a member of 

the U.S.-led Tripartite Plus peace process. Rwanda has been a constructive partner 

in those efforts to develop and implement a joint approach to increasing security in 

the Great Lakes region. The United States will continue to play a leading role proVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00616 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
609 

moting good relations between Rwanda and its neighbors. If confirmed, I will work 

in concert with my U.S. colleagues in the neighboring countries to support together 

ongoing efforts to bring an end to the threat of armed groups in the region and to 

secure the safe and voluntary return of refugees. This remains essential, if the people of the Great Lakes are to live in peace and to train their sights on generating 

growth instead of resolving conflict. 

No country on the globe has a greater reason to stop genocide that Rwanda. It 

is no surprise that Rwandan troops are the backbone of the African Union and 

United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur. Just last week, that Rwandan force 

suffered five casualties while successfully repelling a largescale attack in Darfur. 

Today, some 2,500 Rwandan peacekeepers are on the frontline against genocide in 

Darfur. 

At home, Rwandans recognize that their lasting security depends on generating 

economic growth and creating jobs. Rising prosperity will help to underpin reconciliation and may aid efforts to ensure equal treatment under law, and political transparency. Today, Rwandans see significant economic progress. Those gains are particularly remarkable given the devastating losses from the genocide. While most 

Rwandans continue to live in poverty, the government has embarked on an ambitious plan to improve the standard of living through higher education and infrastructure development. If confirmed, I plan to seek ways to contribute to that effort, 

especially by encouraging opportunities for private sector investment and job training to prepare Rwandans for new jobs. Rwanda is opening its business environment. 

The Trade Investment Framework Agreement helped propel a 32 percent increase 

of United states-Rwanda trade in 2007, and the Bilateral Investment Treaty signed 

by President Bush and President Kagame in February will help attract new U.S. 

investment. Our extensive program to construct coffee washing stations has been a 

singular success, with Starbucks and other major coffee chains clamoring for 

Rwanda’s world-class specialty coffee. 

Increased prosperity will help Rwandans focus on working together to shape a 

better, united future, but the cleavages caused by genocide will take years to heal. 

Rwanda has a national policy favoring reconciliation and deemphasizing ethnic 

identification, but this will be the work of generations. Therefore, ongoing efforts to 

promote reconciliation are essential, both at the grassroots and in the capital. On 

the national level, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), may play a central 

role. The newly approved $24.73 MCC Threshold Country Plan will fund justice sector initiatives designed to strengthen democratic governance and the capacity of 

civil society organizations. At the grassroots level, the Peace Corps is sure to have 

a very positive impact. The first volunteers are slated to arrive in Rwanda this year. 

In Rwanda, investments of development resources have been shown to have great 

impact due to the Government of Rwanda’s focused leadership. As a priority country 

for PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) and PMI (President’s Malaria Initiative), the United States has been in the forefront of combating HIV/AIDS 

and malaria pandemic in Rwanda. Through our USAID mission, we also fund programs in democracy and governance, economic growth, food security, and 

healthcare. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States is making a difference in Rwanda and Rwanda 

has, and will, make a difference in the world. If confirmed, I will work to build on 

that success. I am convinced that Rwanda’s democratic development, economic 

growth, and security are essential for its citizens and critical to the stability of much 

of Africa. I look forward to working closely with you, Mr. Chairman, and with the 

committee in this most important endeavor. 

Thank you again Chairman Feingold, Senator Isakson, and the members of the 

committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome any questions 

that you might have. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Eastham? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN W. EASTHAM, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO 

Ambassador EASTHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo Stuart Symington’s gratitude to you and the committee for holding this 

session on such a timely basis, although it did require me to come 

back here from my present post in Malawi on very short notice and 

to prepare for this in a compressed period of time. I do appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you and appreciate the nominaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00617 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
610 

tion by the President to take up my position in the Republic of 

Congo, or as we call it in the shorthand, Congo-Brazzaville. 

This is the second time that I have appeared before the committee. I was here 3 years ago as a candidate for confirmation as 

Ambassador to Malawi, and I have had that position for the last 

3 years. 

If I may, before beginning my testimony, I would like to introduce my family members who are here. My wife, Carolyn, and my 

sons, Mark and Michael. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Would you please rise? Thank you very much 

for being here. Welcome. 

Ambassador EASTHAM. Carolyn and I have been together for 

longer than my Foreign Service career has lasted and probably for 

longer than she would like me to say in public session. [Laughter.] 

Mark is at Elon University in North Carolina and will be in his 

second year this year, and Michael will be starting at James Madison University in Virginia next month. Michael also happens to be 

our African connection since he was born in Nairobi, Kenya during 

our first assignment in Africa. 

If confirmed, this will be my fourth African post. I have served 

in Nairobi, Kinshasa, and my present post in Lilongwe. 

I have had other professional responsibilities relating to Africa 

which I think serve as qualification. I spent a year as the U.S. Representative to the Kimberley Process talks on conflict diamonds, 

which gave me an introduction to resource management and the 

misuses to which resources can be put in extreme cases. I think 

that will serve me well in Congo. 

I also served for 3 years as the Director of Central African Affairs in the State Department and had occasion to visit Brazzaville 

a couple of times during that service. 

If confirmed, my top priority will be to promote and protect 

United States interests in the Congo. That includes U.S. citizens, 

U.S. interests and investments, and not least important, U.S. values. These values include promoting human rights and democracy, 

promoting economic good governance, and also supporting efforts 

by the Congolese leadership to play a positive and leading role in 

the resolution of conflicts in the Central African region. 

On the economic front, we have to ensure that American commercial interests can operate in a free, lawful, and orderly economic and regulatory environment, which I believe involves encouraging the Congolese authorities to combat corruption, to account 

for revenues, to invest those revenues in human and social development, and to manage and protect the economic resources with 

which the Congo is blessed. 

Our political goals include supporting the country’s democratic 

institutions and encouraging their further development and promoting civil and political rights including, when necessary, talking 

about and intervening in particular cases relating to human rights 

abuses. This includes also support to civil society, as well as encouraging the Republic of Congo to protect its most vulnerable populations, including victims of child labor exploitation, child and 

human trafficking, and violence against women. It is important to 

support efforts to encourage timely, free, fair, and transparent elections for the presidency which will occur in 2009. 

611 

At the regional level, President Sassou-Nguesso was recently appointed as a co-mediator in the Chad-Sudan conflict, and he has recently been involved in the contact group process and hosted the 

most recent meeting in Brazzaville. We appreciate the Republic of 

Congo’s role in the Chad-Sudan mediation and urge them to work 

diligently with regional partners to facilitate a resolution of that 

conflict. 

It is important to note, as you did, Senator, in your statement 

at the beginning, that in both program and operational terms, the 

United States mission in Brazzaville is rebuilding. The embassy 

was closed for several years. It was followed by a difficult period 

when staff of the embassy were based across the river in Kinshasa 

and were obliged to travel across the river to do their work. There 

is a new building under construction which will be, I hope, occupied 

early next year. 

In addition, the process of rebuilding the professional staff and 

procedures is underway. I hope to be able to continue to strengthen 

the U.S. diplomatic platform, if confirmed by the Senate. 

At present, the major tools available to pursue United States interests in the Congo are diplomacy and close engagement with the 

people and the government. There are also public diplomacy initiatives that we can take that further our goals and strengthen mutual understanding between our two countries. It is my intention, 

if confirmed, to examine our programs currently active in Congo 

and I will definitely be recommending changes and proposing some 

new initiatives to support our objectives. In particular, I hope to be 

able to attract additional resources and attention, both public and 

private, clearly linked to United States policy objectives and to 

positive actions by the Government of the Republic of Congo to add 

to our tool kit in Brazzaville. 

I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to appear 

before you today. I would be happy, of course, to respond to any 

questions that you might wish to pose. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Eastham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN W. EASTHAM, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF CONGO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege and a distinct 

honor to appear before you for a second time as the President’s nominee to serve 

the United States in Africa. The first time, over 3 years ago, was as Ambassador 

to Malawi, a post I will be relinquishing next month. At present, I am seeking confirmation as United States Ambassador to the Republic of the Congo (ROC). 

If I may, I would like to introduce my wife, Carolyn, who has been at my side 

for 34 years. She has also served our country in seven of the eight foreign posts to 

which I have been assigned. She is looking forward to seeing the Congo River for 

the first time, as no family members were allowed to live in Kinshasa during the 

2 years I served there. I have to say that she works as hard as I do to support 

United States activities in Malawi, and she will do the same in Brazzaville, if I am 

confirmed by the Senate. Let me also introduce my sons—Mark, who attends Elon 

University in North Carolina, and Michael, who will begin his studies at James 

Madison University next month. They have grown up in the Foreign Service and 

I expect that there is a good chance you will see them serving the United States 

abroad in some capacity in the coming years. 

If confirmed, Brazzaville will be my fourth Africa post overseas. I have served in 

Nairobi, Kinshasa, and Lilongwe. I have visited 20 African countries in an official 

capacity, and I have had other professional responsibilities relating to Africa, including a year as the U.S. representative to the Kimberley Process talks on conflict diamonds and 3 years as Director of Central African Affairs in the State Department. 

612 

As Director, I had responsibility for the Republic of Congo. I have visited the country several times, both before and after the destructive civil war. 

United States policy in the Republic of the Congo centers on promoting human 

rights, democracy, and good governance in the country. We also support efforts by 

the Congolese leadership to play a positive and leading role in the resolution of regional conflicts. 

If confirmed, I will fully exercise my mandate to promote and protect U.S. interests in that country, including U.S. investments, U.S. citizens, and U.S. values. 

Economic governance is a strong priority for the United States. We must ensure 

that American commercial interests can operate in a free, lawful, orderly, and transparent economic and regulatory environment. This involves encouraging the authorities to combat corruption, invest oil revenues in human and social development, 

and manage the country’s precious environmental resources. 

Our political goals include supporting the country’s democratic institutions, and 

promoting civil and political rights. This includes support to civil society as an effective mechanism of checks and balances to promote government accountability and 

transparency as well as encouraging the ROC to protect its most vulnerable populations, including victims of child labor, child trafficking, and violence against 

women. It is also important to note that Congo will be holding presidential elections 

in 2009. It is important to support efforts to make those free, fair, and transparent. 

There is also important work to be done to further the implementation of the 2005 

Peace Agreement between the government and the last remaining rebel group, in 

order to create a positive atmosphere for free and fair presidential elections in 2009. 

Following the Republic of Congo’s tenure as President of the African Union and 

nonpermanent member of the United Nations Security Council in 2006, the ROC 

has enhanced its role in regional and multilateral issues. President Sassou-Nguesso 

was recently appointed as a comediator in the Chad-Sudan conflict, and has been 

actively involved in the contact group process, and hosted a meeting in Brazzaville. 

We appreciate the ROC’s role, and urge them to work with regional partners to facilitate a resolution of the conflict. 

The ROC is increasingly becoming a partner in the area of security cooperation. 

Last October, the Government of Congo hosted a United States Navy ship visit. We 

continue to support capacity building efforts to enhance the country’s maritime security awareness. Our training of the Congolese military will also support the country’s efforts to contribute to future central African peacekeeping efforts and promote 

awareness for human rights in the country’s armed forces. 

It is important to note that in both program and operational contexts the United 

States mission in Brazzaville is in a rebuilding phase. The embassy was closed for 

several years, followed by several difficult years of coverage by personnel under severe security strictures and based across the river in Kinshasa. The embassy building was destroyed during the civil war, and a new building under construction is 

expected to be ready for occupancy early next year. This building is necessary to 

support our efforts in the ROC and will provide a strong visible indication of our 

commitment to strong relations with the country. The process of rebuilding professional staff and procedures is well under way. I hope to be able to continue to 

strengthen the U.S. diplomatic platform if I am confirmed by the Senate. 

If confirmed, I would support these policy efforts through diplomacy and close engagement with the government. I would also support public diplomacy initiatives 

that further our goals and strengthen the mutual understanding between our two 

countries. I also intend to examine our programs currently active in Congo, and recommend changes and propose new initiatives to support our objectives. In particular, I hope to be able to attract additional resources, clearly linked to United 

States policy objectives and to positive actions by the Government of the Republic 

of Congo, to add to our toolkit in Brazzaville. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would 

be happy to respond to any questions you might choose to ask, and I look forward, 

if confirmed, to serving the United States in Brazzaville. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you so much, Mr. Eastham. 

Mr. Swan. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES CHRISTOPHER SWAN, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI 

Mr. SWAN. Mr. Chairman Feingold, Ranking Member Isakson, 

Senator Lugar, it is an honor to appear before you today as the 

nominee for chief of mission at Djibouti. I have a very brief oral 

613 

statement and would ask that my written testimony be included in 

the record, if possible. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Without objection. 

Mr. SWAN. I am grateful for the confidence the President and 

Secretary of State have shown by nominating me to this position 

and for the support of Assistant Secretary for African Affairs 

Jendayi Frazer. 

First, Mr. Chairman, if I may acknowledge several family members and colleagues who are here today. My wife, Daphne Michelle 

Titus, please stand up. Daphne is also a Foreign Service officer 

with extensive experience in Africa. I would also like to mention 

our children, Mitchell and Garner, who are not able to be here 

today but who are here with us in spirit, and also to note the presence of our goddaughter, Kiama Alexis, who is visiting from Los 

Angeles. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Welcome. 

Mr. SWAN. Let me please also recognize several Africa Bureau 

colleagues, including of course, chief of staff, Ruth Davis, who has 

already been mentioned; desk officer Sarah Skerubsky. And let me 

also say that I am honored to appear today with other friends and 

colleagues working on African issues. 

Mr. Chairman, during more than 20 years at the State Department, I have devoted my career to the challenges of developing 

countries in transition, especially in Africa. Since 1992, my overseas assignments have been all in Africa, including work in Cameroon, Somalia, the Republic of Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in the last two posts as deputy chief of mission. I currently serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs with 

broad policy and program responsibility for Central and East Africa, including Djibouti. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to leading Embassy 

Djibouti’s dedicated team of Foreign Service, Civil Service, military 

staff assigned to the embassy, and Foreign Service national employees in advancing the interests of the United States. In Djibouti, 

these interests are primarily in the areas of peace and security, 

good governance, and economic development. 

First, with respect to peace and security, Djibouti has long been 

a pocket of stability in a turbulent region and is an important partner in the fight against terrorism. As has been mentioned, Djibouti 

hosts the only United States military base in sub-Saharan Africa, 

Camp Lemonier, headquarters for the Combined Joint Task ForceHorn of Africa, with some 2,200 personnel. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to build our close relationship with the Government of Djibouti on regional peace and security issues. 

And in view of the importance of CJTF–HOA, let me also state 

that I am committed to close coordination and cooperation between 

embassy personnel and CJTF–HOA and to ensuring that all CJTF– 

HOA programming in Djibouti fits within overarching United 

States Government priorities for the country. 

With regard to democracy and governance, Mr. Chairman, 

Djibouti is a nascent democracy, independent only since 1977. We 

have been encouraged by the results achieved by U.S. engagement 

on human rights issues, for example, progress on trafficking in persons, and we will continue to seek to enlarge space for private 

614 

media and civil society groups that at times have faced constraints. 

If confirmed, I will work with our Djiboutian partners to support 

and deepen their democracy governance reforms. 

On the economic front, Mr. Chairman, Djibouti is seeking to become a center for regional and international trade, financial services as well. Nonetheless, the country remains very poor, ranked 

149 out of 177 countries, according to the UNDP Human Development Index. The United States, consequently, has a small but active aid mission in Djibouti focused on health and education and 

on responding to urgent humanitarian requirements. If confirmed, 

I will continue to make support for economic development in 

Djibouti a priority. 

Finally, but most importantly, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my 

highest priority will be the safety and well-being of Americans living in or visiting Djibouti. With only a few hundred private American citizens in the country, I would expect, if confirmed, to remain 

in frequent contact with them, most importantly on consular and 

security issues, but also to benefit from the wisdom of longtime 

residents, aid workers, and others with expertise on developments 

in Djibouti. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the honor to appear before 

you today. Of course, we welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES SWAN, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI

Chairman Feingold, Ranking Member Isakson, members of the committee, it is an 

honor to appear before you today as the nominee for chief of mission Djibouti. 

Thank you for convening this hearing so quickly during a very busy season of Senate business and campaign preparations. I am grateful for the confidence the President and Secretary of State have shown by nominating me to this position, and particularly for the support of Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer 

in this appointment. 

First, Mr. Chairman, let me mention several family members and colleagues who 

are here today. My wife, Daphne Michelle Titus, is here, and I would also like to 

mention our children, Garner and Mitchell, who are not present in this room, but 

are with us in spirit. Daphne is also a Foreign Service officer with extensive experience in Africa. We have been full partners not just in the home, but also as we’ve 

worked in embassies abroad and in public service here in Washington. Let me also 

add that I am honored to appear before you on this panel with my two friends and 

colleagues, Ambassadors Eastham and Symington. 

Mr. Chairman, during more than 20 years at the State Department, I have devoted my career to the challenges of developing countries in transition, many involving unsettled security environments and complex political reforms. My overseas assignments have included service as political officer in Cameroon during its first 

multiparty Presidential elections, as ‘‘Somalia Watcher’’ in Nairobi during the final 

pull-out of U.N. forces in the mid 1990s, and as deputy chief of mission in both the 

Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo during efforts to bring an 

end to conflicts and humanitarian crises in those countries and to promote democratic reforms. In Washington I have served as Director for African Analysis in the 

Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and most recently as Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs with broad policy and program responsibility for Central 

and East Africa, including the Horn of Africa and Djibouti. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to leading Embassy Djibouti’s dedicated team in advancing the interests of the United States. This team of over 200 

consists of Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel, military staff assigned to the 

embassy, and of course our invaluable Foreign Service national employees. Our interests in Djibouti are primarily in the areas of peace and security, good governance, 

and economic development. 

615 

PEACE AND SECURITY

Djibouti is a small but important country on the Horn of Africa. It occupies a strategic position at the Bab el Mandab Strait, which joins the Red Sea and Gulf of 

Aden. These waters are used by some 40 percent of the world’s commercial ships. 

Djibouti hosts the only United States military base in sub-Saharan Africa, Camp 

Lemonier, headquarters for the Combined Joint Task Force—Horn of Africa (CJTF– 

HOA) and its approximately 2,200 personnel. Djibouti has long been a pocket of stability in a turbulent region, and is an important partner in the fight against terrorism. It borders Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia/Somaliland, and faces Yemen less 

than 18 miles across the strait to the east. Djibouti has often used its close relations 

with all of its neighbors to promote peace and understanding in the region. It is the 

regional headquarters for the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. In 

June, Djibouti hosted an important meeting between Somalia’s Transitional Federal 

Government and the opposition Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia, which led 

to an agreement that both sides have now initialed. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, 

I will continue to build our close relationship with the Government of Djibouti on 

regional peace and security issues. 

In view of the large and important CJTF–HOA presence, let me underscore my 

commitment, if confirmed, to continue close coordination and cooperation between 

embassy personnel and the CJTF–HOA contingent. If confirmed, I will also ensure 

that all CJTF–HOA programming in Djibouti fits within overarching United States 

Government priorities to advance our key interests in the country. 

DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE

Djibouti is a nascent democracy. It has been independent only since 1977 and 

faced a limited but persistent internal rebel movement in the early 1990s. With the 

negotiated conclusion of the rebellion, a ‘‘grand coalition’’ was formed that effectively 

rules the country. Presidential elections in 2005 were determined by international 

observers to be free and fair. Recent parliamentary elections in February returned 

all of the seats to members of the ruling coalition. At the regional level, however, 

other political groups obtained greater representation. We have been encouraged by 

the results achieved by active U.S. engagement on governance and human rights 

issues—for example on trafficking in persons. Djibouti’s rapid passage of a new 

antitrafficking law and followup implementation were reflected in an improvement 

in Djibouti’s trafficking in persons ranking from Tier II Watch List to Tier II. If confirmed, I will work with our Djiboutian partners to continue their democracy/governance reforms—including to enlarge space for private media and civil society groups 

that at times have faced constraints. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On the economic front, Mr. Chairman, Djibouti’s leadership is seeking to embrace 

the opportunities of globalization. Capitalizing on its location and excellent deepwater port, Djibouti has privatized its port and airport and has embarked on construction of a new port facility that will dramatically increase capacity. This privatization has reduced corruption and increased revenues flowing to the government. 

Djibouti is also emerging as a regional banking center, albeit on a modest scale. 

Making Djibouti an attractive place for investment and a center for regional and 

international trade will be critical to its economic development. Djibouti remains 

very poor, ranked 149 out of 177 countries on the UNDP Human Development 

Index. Nearly 90 percent of Djiboutian land is desert. The United States has a small 

but active AID mission in Djibouti, focused on health and education, particularly to 

combat low life-expectancy, maternal and under-5 child mortality, and transmission 

of infectious diseases. The United States also responds to the current regionwide 

problem of food insecurity through support for the Famine Early Warning Network 

office in Djibouti, as well as Food for Peace and Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance programs. If confirmed, I will continue to make support for economic development in Djibouti a priority. 

ERITREA/DJIBOUTI BORDER

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, we have important interests in Djibouti. Djibouti’s 

role in regional peace and security, its democratic and governance reforms, and its 

economic prospects merit support and encouragement from friends of Djibouti. Yet, 

one of its neighbors—Eritrea—has instead sought to foment instability, creating a 

potential new border conflict where before none existed. The establishment of Eritrean military positions just over the Ras Doumeira ridge on the Djiboutian side of 

the border represents a worrying threat to Djibouti. The Eritrean Government has 

616 

rebuffed efforts by the African Union, League of Arab States, and bilateral partners 

of the two countries to negotiate resolution. Now the United Nations Secretariat, at 

the behest of the Security Council, is sending a team to gather further details of 

the border standoff and report back to the council. In view of Eritrea’s destabilizing 

role elsewhere in the region, this move against Djibouti can only be seen as yet another deliberate threat by this dangerous spoiler on the Horn. If confirmed, I will 

give my full support to international efforts to resolve this incipient conflict peacefully and restore the border to the status quo ante. 

AMERICAN COMMUNITY

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my first, most immediate priority will be the 

safety and well-being of Americans living in or visiting Djibouti. With only a few 

hundred private Americans in-country, I would expect, if confirmed, to remain in 

frequent contact with them, most importantly on consular and security issues, but 

also to benefit from the wisdom of long-time residents, aid workers, and others with 

expertise on developments in Djibouti. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the honor to appear before the Committee 

today. I would be happy to take any questions you may have. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Swan. 

Mr. Simon. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. SIMON, NOMINEE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE AFRICAN UNION, WITH THE RANK AND STATUS OF AMBASSADOR 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would 

like to echo the thanks of my colleagues for the opportunity to testify before you here today. And in particular, Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to thank you and your staff for allowing me the opportunity to join my colleagues. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to 

appear before you in consideration of my nomination to serve as 

the United States Ambassador to the African Union. I want to 

thank President Bush and Secretary Rice for the confidence and 

trust they have shown in nominating me for this position. 

I have submitted written comments for the record, and with your 

permission, Mr. Chairman, I will summarize them here. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Without objection. 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to acknowledge my 

wife, Laura, who is here with me today. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Welcome. 

Mr. SIMON. Without her love and sacrifice and that of my children, Will, Leo, Maya, and Jayne, my career in public service 

would not have been possible. 

I would also like to thank the African Union desk in the State 

Department and the many offices and bureaus that worked overtime to prepare me for this hearing today. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have spent the 

past 6 years working on global development issues. The primary 

focus of this work has been in Africa. Over that time, I have had 

the extraordinary honor and privilege to serve our country as an 

official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, as Senior 

Director for Relief, Stabilization, and Development on the staff of 

the National Security Council, and most recently, as executive vice 

president for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. In 

these capacities, I have helped to support the President’s international development agenda at a time of dynamic economic and 

political change around the world. 

617 

Nowhere has this change been more profound than in Africa. The 

United States has been an active partner in helping Africans along 

this journey, with far-reaching initiatives on the continent, including the Millennium Challenge Account, the President’s Emergency 

Plan for AIDS Relief, the President’s Malaria Initiative, the African 

Education Initiative, the Women’s Justice and Empowerment Initiative, the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, the African Mortgage Market Initiative, and the African Financial Sector Initiative. 

I have been honored to have played a role in every one of these efforts. 

The African Union is the most prominent manifestation of the 

new era on the continent. Founded in July 2002, the African Union 

heralded a change from its predecessor’s focus on noninterference 

to one, in the words of its first chairman, Alpha Oumar Konare, of 

nonindifference. 

Over the last 18 months, the breadth of the AU political initiatives has dramatically expanded. It has registered some significant 

successes, including stabilizing Comoros and Burundi, establishing 

the Democracy and Electoral Assistance Unit, and adopting the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance. 

Although making significant progress, the African Union still 

faces considerable challenges. Capacity gaps, understaffing, and regional conflict, such as in Zimbabwe, Somalia, and Sudan, all 

threaten the nascent strides the African Union has made. These 

challenges on the one hand and the increasing vitality of the AU 

on the other provide the United States with a unique opportunity 

to engage the AU, which is looking to the United States for support. 

For instance, given the recent elections in Zimbabwe and others 

that have suffered from serious irregularities, it is imperative that 

the United States and other donors assist the African Union to develop institutions that ensure the standards enshrined in the AU 

charter function to guarantee free and fair elections that are respected throughout the continent. 

Building upon our historic ties, shared culture, and deep appreciation of the African continent’s strategic significance, the United 

States in August 2006 became the first country to establish a separate diplomatic mission accredited to the AU. USAU was established with the intention to forge a strategic partnership between 

the United States and the African Union by building upon the AU’s 

capacity to strengthen democratic institutions, promote peace and 

security, improve the lives and health of all Africans, and support 

sustainable economic development through increased trade and investment. If confirmed, I will strive to forward this agenda. I will 

also use every opportunity to press AU to live up to its own standards of nonindifference, especially in promoting human rights and 

democracy. 

I would look forward, if confirmed, as the U.S. Representative to 

the AU, to working closely with you, Mr. Chairman, your staff, and 

other Members of the Congress to ensure that United States interests, policies, and assistance to the African Union achieves maximum impact. 

618 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions you and the members of the 

committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN SIMON, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE AFRICAN UNION

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

today in consideration of my nomination to serve as the United States Ambassador 

to the African Union. I want to thank President Bush and Secretary Rice for the 

confidence and trust they have shown in nominating me for this position. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the members of my family who are 

here with me today. First, my wife, Laura, and my daughter, Maya. My two sons, 

Will and Leo, and my other daughter, Jayne, could not be here today. I would also 

like to thank my parents, Barry and Hinda Simon, for their generous and unfailing 

love and support. Without my family’s love and sacrifice, my career in public service 

would not have been possible. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have spent the past 6 years working on global development issues. The primary focus of this work has been in Africa. 

Over that time, I have had the extraordinary honor and privilege to serve our country as an official at the U.S. Agency for International Development; as Senior Director for Relief, Stabilization, and Development on the staff of the National Security 

Council; and, most recently, as executive vice president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. In these capacities, I have helped to support the President’s 

international development agenda at a time of dynamic economic and political 

change around the globe. 

Nowhere has this change been more profound than in Africa. Thanks to improved 

governance, balanced fiscal and monetary policies, and investments in health and 

education, Africa as a whole is experiencing its most significant economic expansion 

since independence, with 10 years of uninterrupted growth, the last 5 at rates in 

excess of 5 percent. Africans have also experienced a growth in freedom and democracy, with more countries classified as free by the nongovernmental organization 

Freedom House than at any time in the continent’s history. 

The United States has been an active partner in helping Africans along this journey. Through the groundbreaking Millennium Challenge Account, with firm bipartisan backing from Congress we have supported the rule of law, sound economic 

policies, and investments in people. Through the President’s Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief and the President’s Malaria Initiative, Americans have helped Africans 

make unprecedented strides against two of the most deadly diseases on Earth. 

Through the Africa Education Initiative and the Women’s Justice and Empowerment Initiative, the United States has worked to educate and empower Africans 

from all strata of society. And through the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, the 

African Mortgage Market Initiative, and the African Financial Sector Initiative, we 

have helped to lift the staggering burden of debt and develop the institutions of a 

modern economy. I have been honored to have played a role in every one of these 

efforts. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will work with the African Union (AU) to 

highlight these initiatives as important developmental issues for the AU to pursue. 

The African Union is the most prominent manifestation of the new era on the continent. Founded in July 2002, the African Union heralded a change from its predecessor’s focus on ‘‘noninterference’’ to one, in the words of its first Chairman, Alpha 

Oumar Konare, of ‘‘nonindifference.’’ This was a highly significant change and a recognition that Africa not only can, but must take charge of its own destiny if it is 

to compete and prosper in the 21st century. The creation and success of the African 

Union is not only critical to the continent, but to the international community and 

to the interests of the United States. 

The African Union is an active, multilateral organization orchestrating complementary agendas for change and development. The permanent representatives of 

its 53 member states are setting political directions in areas as disparate as election 

monitoring and climate change. The African Union Commission, effectively the AU’s 

Executive Secretariat, is implementing the policies endorsed by the AU’s Assembly 

of Heads of State. Over the last 18 months, the breadth of AU political initiatives 

has dramatically expanded, and it has registered some significant successes, including stabilizing Comoros and Burundi, establishing the Democracy and Electoral Assistance Unit, and adopting the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance. 

619 

Although making significant progress, the African Union still faces considerable 

challenges. Capacity gaps, understaffing, and regional conflict, such as in Zimbabwe, 

Somalia, and Sudan, all threaten the nascent strides the African Union has made. 

These challenges on the one hand, and the increasing vitality of the AU on the 

other, provide the United States with a unique opportunity to engage the AU, which 

is looking to the United States for support. 

For instance, given the recent elections in Zimbabwe, and others that have suffered from serious irregularities, it is imperative that the United States and other 

donor partners assist the African Union to develop institutions to ensure that the 

standards enshrined in the AU charter function to guarantee free and fair elections 

are respected throughout the continent. Despite its shortcomings, the AU sent an 

observer mission to the June 27 Zimbabwean runoff, and that mission concluded 

that the election had fallen short of AU standards. The June 30-July 2 AU summit 

in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt issued a statement stating that they were deeply concerned with the prevailing situation in Zimbabwe and called for negotiations between parties and recognition that some form of transitional government would be 

necessary. 

Building upon our historic ties, shared culture, and deep appreciation of the African continent’s strategic significance, the United States, in August 2006, became the 

first observer country to establish a separate diplomatic mission accredited to the 

AU. USAU was established in 2006 with the intention to forge a strategic partnership between the United States and the African Union by building the AU’s capacity 

to strengthen democratic institutions, promote peace and stability, improve the lives 

and health of all Africans, and support sustainable economic development through 

increased trade and investment. If confirmed, I will strive to forward this agenda. 

I will also use every opportunity to press the AU to live up to its own standard of 

‘‘nonindifference,’’ especially in promoting human rights and democracy. 

I would look forward, if confirmed as the United States Representative to the AU, 

to working closely with you and other Members of Congress to ensure that U.S. interests, policies, and assistance to the African Union achieves maximum impact. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you and the members of the committee may have. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Simon. Thank you all. 

We will begin our first round of questions. I will begin it. We will 

do 7-minute rounds. 

Ambassador Symington, you spent the last 3 years as United 

States Ambassador to Djibouti. What lessons do you hope to bring 

with you from your experience in Djibouti? 

Ambassador SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking me 

the question that I focused on every day as I prepared for this 

hearing. 

I think that there are three important lessons. The first is the 

one that I mentioned inspired both by Chairman Skelton and by 

you of working together jointly. I think that it is synchronizing not 

just what government does but what government does to enable 

the private sector to do more. So to continue to focus on what every 

agency of our Government does and then to push forward on the 

economic development side by creating conditions that can help the 

people of Rwanda not only find peace but a path to prosperity 

strikes me as the very first and most important. 

The second thing is that I am keenly aware, in an insecure part 

of the Horn, how important security is, and so I will, with the help 

not only of the rest of the United States Government, but with the 

continued help and support of you and the Senate and the House 

funding our efforts, to not only have boots on the ground, but also 

to have seats at the table with that kind of support in development, 

with that kind of resource required to not just talk about security, 

but to be in a position as we have been in Rwanda, training folks 

to then deploy in Darfur, do something about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

620 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Now, similar to Djibouti, Rwanda faces a major violent conflict 

in a neighboring country. In fact, the extreme violence that has 

plagued the Kivu Region of Eastern Congo can be, of course, directly traced to the legacy of the 1994 genocide and the continuing 

Hutu-Tutsi tensions. In response to the presence of the FDLR and 

former members of the Interahamwe in Eastern Congo, the Rwanda Government funded Tutsi insurgents until at least 2003. 

Now, do you see, sir, a potential to resolve this crisis, and how 

do you intend to work with President Kagame and others in the 

region to do so? 

Ambassador SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is clearly a potential to resolve it. The magnitude of the 

problem, while still considerable, has diminished, thanks to the efforts not only of other American ambassadors in Rwanda, but also 

the considered efforts of the Tripartite Plus process and the conversations between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and 

Rwanda and other leaders at very many levels pushed forward by 

a meeting last year that the Secretary of State chaired in Addis to 

bring the Tripartite Plus together in which the Minister of the Interior of the Democratic Republic of Congo and President Kagame 

got together and talked about the way forward. 

There is a tremendous opportunity to address this problem by focusing, I think, on three things. 

The first is getting together to talk about the common interests 

in a lasting peace. And they are doing that more regularly. 

The second is to focus explicitly on the security concerns, and all 

the parties share a desire to make sure that there are not groups 

operating in the area that threaten the stability of law. 

But the third element is to turn this part of Africa from a place 

of troubles to a place of promise, and that means going beyond the 

focus on security to focus on the sort of opportunities for economic 

integration represented by Rwanda’s recent joining of the East African community and its membership in COMESA. We need to 

take some of that growth that I saw in Djibouti that is coming 

across the Indian Ocean and reach into the heart of Africa so that 

they can cooperate together. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Ambassador. 

According to the State Department’s country reports on human 

rights practices for 2007, extrajudicial killings by security forces increased, as well as restrictions on freedom of speech, association, 

and press. 

How would you assess the challenges of building democracy in 

Rwanda and the current state of democracy there? 

Ambassador SYMINGTON. As we were discussing earlier, one 

great test for their commitment to multiparty democracy will be 

the multiparty elections that are about to take place in September. 

And so this is a perfect time to see whether or not Rwanda continues to make progress towards that goal. 

In the course of the last year, I was pleased to see progress in 

a couple of those areas, particularly in that relating to extrajudicial 

killings. Another very significant issue that has plagued them in 

the past has been both the crowdings and the conditions of their 

prisons, and they continue to make progress there. 

621 

But there are genuine human rights concerns in Rwanda today, 

and as I see our efforts, I am reminded of a very simple truth that 

I learned which is that when I swear an oath to serve as your ambassador in Djibouti, I swear that oath to preserve and to protect 

the Constitution, a body of ideas. What we have at the core of our 

being is those principles, and it is what holds us together and gives 

us our strength in the world. 

If Rwanda is to realize its promise of a single united Rwanda 

playing a positive role in Africa, it must show the same adherence 

to principles that we do and not because we tell them to, but because those principles are their principles and they work for them. 

And that test is one they must pass every day, but it will be a 

great challenge to work with them as they try to make progress in 

that area. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Symington. 

Mr. Eastham, since ending its civil war, oil production in the Republic of Congo has increased significantly and it continues to do 

so. 

What United States companies, petroleum companies, are active 

in the country, and do you expect that Congolese oil exports to the 

United States will increase in the coming years? 

Ambassador EASTHAM. On the second question, Senator, I do 

not—I think the market will determine whether imports to the 

United States will increase. I would anticipate that they will simply because there will be more Congolese oil available. There is an 

expectation that when a new field comes on line next year, that 

there will be an additional 90,000 barrels a day of production, 

bringing Congo up from its present level of approximately 240,000 

barrels a day, up to around 330,000 in the coming year. At present, 

Congo is the fifth largest producer in Africa. I do not think that 

that will change the ranking for the additional capacity to come on 

line. 

Operating in the Republic of Congo at the moment, there are several United States oil exploration and production companies, as 

well as a number of other companies that support them. I believe 

that the exploration companies are Chevron, Congo SA, the Murphy West Africa Limited, and Neighbors Offshore. Supporting services companies include Halliburton, Baker Oil Tools, Schlumberger, 

and Trac d’Afrique. There are a couple of other American companies also engaged in Congo, one in bauxite and another in milling 

of flour for consumption in the Congo. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Eastham. When I have my 

second round, I will return to this subject, but I will just simply 

comment in all this debate about energy and oil, there is insufficient attention to the role of African oil supplies, both the positive 

aspects and the challenges. I know that the ranking member has 

talked about it, but this is something the American people have, 

I think, a limited awareness of. And I am hoping that through our 

work together we can let people know that there are not simply 

Middle Eastern sources of oil. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On that subject, I want to acknowledge that Ambassadors Symington, Eastham, and Swan all made reference in their stateVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00629 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
622 

ments to the important role of supporting the private sector in each 

of those countries. And with the chairman mentioning oil and the 

resources of Africa, I think it is important to note, Mr. Eastham, 

that not far from your positing is Equatorial Guinea where the 

United States left some years ago and did not have an embassy, 

but has come back and brought Ambassador Johnson. U.S. companies, Marathon in particular, but also Hess, Formed a joint venture 

with that government, discovered a huge reserve of natural gas in 

the Gulf of Guinea and Marathon invested $1.5 billion in a 

liquefication facility which is now operating. 

And as a result of that, two things happened. One, the economy 

of Equatorial Guinea and the money it is raising, is being invested 

in hospitals and schools, and is helping the populace, but also as 

recently as last month, President Obiang released 37 political prisoners we have been trying to encourage him to release for a number of years. I think that shows that if we can help empower the 

private sector to participate in joint ventures on the continent of 

Africa, particularly in energy, but in other areas as well, the result 

is not only wealth for the people of Africa, but also a more democratic government emerges from that prosperity. 

I am making a speech, not asking a question, but I thought it 

was important to note that all three of you voluntarily noted that 

point. 

Mr. Eastham, in your printed testimony and verbal testimony, 

you talked about American interests being able to operate in free, 

lawful, orderly, and transparent economic and regulatory environments, in particular, you mentioned the problem of corruption and 

making sure that we do everything to have honorable dealings. 

What is in the Congo as far as corruption? How is it? Is it a 

major problem? Is it improving? 

Ambassador EASTHAM. Thank you for the question because that 

is one of the most important things that I believe I will be addressing, if I am confirmed and go to this post. 

My impression from my preparations here is that I would rather 

call it lack of accountability is getting in the way of a lot of things 

that Congo would like to do. For example, they have gone off track 

with the International Monetary Fund after a promising start 

about 2 years ago because of a problem of overexpenditure that 

caused them to miss their targets to continue on their poverty relief and growth facility program. 

Similarly, their progress toward debt relief under the HIPC program has gone off track, largely as a result of being off track with 

the IMF because, again, of a lack of accountability. 

There are nongovernmental organizations that are extremely 

credible on this subject, such as Global Witness, that have noted 

in public the problems of accountability with regard to the revenues from petroleum that is exported from the Republic of Congo. 

Now, I am not the ambassador yet. You will determine that, but 

I think that at this stage in my preparation for this post, I would 

prefer to look at it as a glass a quarter full rather than characterizing it as corruption. So let me just assure you that I think that 

that is an issue that cuts across through the Congo and Congo’s 

governance. The question of how they account for the money and 

how they spend it in terms of—well, I will go back to your example 

623 

of Equatorial Guinea—spending on hospitals and infrastructure 

projects that benefit the population of the country, I have a feeling 

that is going to be a core aspect of my mission there, if I am confirmed. 

Senator ISAKSON. I really appreciate not only the answer, but the 

way in which you answered it because ‘‘corruption’’ is a word that 

gets thrown around a lot. I think the reference to transparency and 

accountability is the key because with a transparent and accountable economic and regulatory system in a country, the United 

States can compete most favorably, but when it lacks that it benefits other countries who might want to come benefit from the resources in the country but not necessarily do it in a transparent 

or accountable way. And I think you are right on target. I will not 

mention who I am talking about on that, but I think it benefits the 

United States for that to exist. 

Mr. Swan, I had the privilege of visiting Ambassador Symington 

in Djibouti earlier this year, and I appreciate in your remarks that 

you addressed Camp Lemonier and what the United States is doing 

in concert with other countries at that tremendous military facility, 

but acknowledge that it is—and you correct me if I am wrong, Mr. 

Symington, but when I was there, I was not only astounded, but 

I was pleased to see the tremendous role of helping people in Africa. Those personnel there are drilling wells and building bridges. 

They are ambassadors of the United States. Camp Lemonier is of 

tremendous value, I think, to our country and to the Horn of Africa 

as well, so I commend you on your mentioning of that and I hope 

you will be very committed, as Ambassador Symington has been, 

to coordinate and cooperate with the personnel there. 

Ambassador SWAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Yes, indeed, sir. As I mentioned in my remarks, I think this is 

going to be a key priority to ensure that we have a very close relationship with the leadership and, indeed, the other personnel of 

CJTF–HOA. I think there has been an excellent base already established—a base of collaboration, I should clarify I suppose—already established in terms of our relationship not only with the 

leadership, but in terms of our embassy personnel working directly 

with a number of CJTF–HOA officials as well to coordinate activities. 

I think it is important to remember, Senator, that although 

based in Djibouti, CJTF–HOA has an area of responsibility that 

currently extends to some 13 countries, including Yemen. So it is 

a matter of coordinating our activities with CJTF–HOA not only as 

it relates to Djibouti, but more broadly in terms of its activities 

elsewhere on the Horn of Africa and extending into Yemen. With 

the transition to AFRICOM on October 1, we expect CJTF–HOA’s 

assets will, in fact, be available for programming even outside its 

existing area of responsibility. 

There is no doubt that its civil affairs activities have been very 

important in terms of helping people who desperately need help in 

the Horn of Africa and have also been very helpful in terms of putting a more positive light on the role of the United States military 

and what kinds of contributions it can make in contributing to improvements in those societies. I think we do see, however, that 

what CJTF–HOA has as a critical asset is its ability to engage on 

624 

security cooperation issues, as well as traditional military-to-military activities. So we see CJTF–HOA as a critical component, one 

of an array of instruments of U.S. security influence, including diplomatic elements, informational elements, economic elements, development elements, and also this military component. So coordination will be key. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, my time is up, but I do remember when 

I went to Camp Lemonier and walked in to meet with—was it Admiral Hart? Is that correct? Who was commanding officer, and he 

introduced me to the British general and the French general that 

were there with him, and I realized there is a very diplomatic role 

in that camp with other countries in Europe and around the world. 

You have a very important posting, and that is a very important 

facility for the people of the United States, as well as the people 

of Africa. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In 2006, our committee commissioned a report which was entitled Embassies as Command Posts in the Anti-Terror Campaign. 

But specifically a lot of the emphasis came to special challenges for 

our embassies in Africa. So I am going to ask you, Ambassador 

Swan, and you, Ambassador Symington in order, first of all, to describe from your experiences in that report what we have learned 

about coordination in our embassies of all the various facets of the 

United States Government—civilian, military, somewhere in between—in very challenging circumstances where special responsibilities come to the ambassador. And likewise, to what extent 

have we utilized the lessons learned, providing information for future ambassadors or, for that matter, to young Foreign Service officers who are coming into service posts in the way that you have 

over the last two decades in both of your careers? Can you, Ambassador Eastham, give us some outlook from the position you have 

had back in the State Department on this? And then I will ask Ambassador Symington for his views out in the field. 

Ambassador SWAN. Certainly, Senator, there is no doubt that 

having a coordinated U.S. Government policy that includes, as I 

mentioned, all the instruments of power and all of the interagency 

elements is critical to achieving our objectives. In most posts, as 

you may know, Senator, we have what is effectively a country 

team, led by the ambassador and the deputy chief of mission, 

which brings together all of the agencies at post to ensure that 

there is a common message to ensure that there is a collective and 

collaborative and coherent effort aimed at achieving the objectives 

that are established, both through the interagency process in 

Washington and by the chief of mission on the ground. And that 

certainly, if confirmed, would be the approach that I would intend 

to take in Djibouti. 

I think in Djibouti, there is, of course, also this special issue of 

the relationship with CJTF–HOA. This is also the case for other 

missions on the Horn of Africa in which CJTF–HOA has relations. 

But there is, in fact, quite an established framework already to ensure good coordination. 

625 

For example, within the country team at the embassy, there is 

a coordination element, a representative of CJTF-HOA who participates in those discussions to ensure that there is good coordination. 

There is also at CJTF-HOA a senior State Department political advisor, a POLAD, to ensure that messages are well transmitted. And 

recently there has been the addition of a development advisor from 

USAID to CJTF-HOA. So I think there is a serious effort to ensure 

close collaboration and coordination. 

With respect to lessons learned on coordination, I think more and 

more we are seeing an emphasis on training at the State Department at all levels of leadership and management. Much of this is, 

in fact, due to Ambassador Davis’ initiatives when she was the Director General of the Foreign Service. But we see in each of those 

elements an emphasis on the need for coordination in terms of 

maximizing the impact on the ground. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much. 

Ambassador Symington. 

Ambassador SYMINGTON. Senator Lugar, thank you for that 

question. 

I learned three lessons. The first is that you need to coordinate 

at the level of the sergeants and at the level of the admirals and 

at the level of Washington. The second is that you need to do that 

every day, and the third is that you need to do that in every country. 

If you do those three things so that you are constantly syncing 

up your goals and your assets and working together, and if you do 

that in a spirit that ultimately says this is not about what the 

United States is doing alone, but what we can do with the partner 

nations and the people there, then you have a chance to succeed. 

If you drop any part of that, if you think it is about us and not 

about them, if you think it is about me and not about you, then 

it does not work. 

But I would also add one other thing that you and the chairman 

have been working for for much of your public life, for which I am 

extraordinarily grateful. We cannot have effective interagency cooperation around the world if the civilian agencies are not funded 

sufficiently well to do their part of the job. And I know that in the 

current budget, with the prospects looking ahead, this is very difficult. But I applaud your efforts and those of your colleagues to 

bring us those resources. And I just hope that we will continue to 

do it. 

One area, for example, is some of these young diplomats who are 

now, frankly, much better trained in working in sync with the military than I am—I got 90 days once working in an intensive operation with them, and I have worked with military personnel 

throughout my career on civil affairs work. Many of my young colleagues, whose files we are reading today to decide on promotions, 

have served one and two and sometimes three tours in places like 

Afghanistan and in Iraq and out in a PRT. They know more about 

it than I know. And I am looking forward to learning from them 

as they come back. 

But in every case, it helps to have, for example, discretionary 

funding. That is as much true for your ambassadors as it is for 

your generals and admirals. And those commander’s funds that 

626 

they have are wonderful, fast dispensing, get a target of opportunity chances to do some good. 

So those are my lessons and those are a little of my thanks to 

you for your leadership over the years in getting us the resources. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I appreciate your comments, and in a diplomatic way, you have raised an important issue for this committee 

and for the Congress. We have had a lot of testimony about the disproportionate funds available to the military as opposed to our civilian or diplomatic components. And Secretary Gates, our Secretary of Defense, has recognized this publicly and indicated that 

we are going to have to have some leveling up. Or if we have urgent military needs, we will need to rebuild the funds that are 

available for American diplomacy if this type of coordination that 

we have been talking about is to be more satisfying. 

But finally, I appreciate likewise your recognition that sometimes, in the course of fighting the war on terror, we have had military expeditions or even intelligence expeditions that were not altogether known by our ambassador or at least the briefings were incomplete. 

Now, one of the reasons for this coordination in effect is to make 

certain we are all on the same page. Each of you as professionals 

recognize the importance of that. Likewise, as ambassadors, just 

the essential aspect of knowing what is going on in the country for 

which you have responsibility. 

I think we are making headway, but I wanted to raise this question at this hearing just to have testimony from two veterans of the 

trail. And I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to come by since these professionals are going to 

a very important part of the world with regard to our relations and 

since our relations are really on the up-tick with each of these 

posts that you are going to, indeed, over most of Africa. 

Mr. Chairman, for example, the Ambassador in Tanzania told me 

a couple of weeks ago that he thinks our favorable toward the 

United States is now at about 60. In Kenya, I was having dinner 

with a group of Kenyans, both in the government and in the business sector, and they said that the good will toward America was 

upwards about 85 percent. And of course, we were laughing, depending on the turnout in the election, that it might go to 99.9 percent. 

But all over Africa, you give credit where credit is due to the 

President with his PEPFAR program, the fact that we have now 

tripled it in the Senate, for not only that, but malaria and AIDS. 

The fact that in Zanzibar this coming year they expect malaria to 

be zero. These are some incredible things, and since the United 

States is, in fact, initiating a lot of this, that good will is being extended there. 

627 

Of course, the very emotional experience that we have seen how 

President Kagame in Rwanda over the course of 14 years—14 years 

ago, April 6, 1994—when as general of the rebel army that he enters the capital city and sees the city strewn with corpses, with 

dogs eating their flesh, and how he held that army together with 

discipline so that they would not all go out, as some of them individually did, taking retribution into their own hands, but that he 

could work with reconciliation after that slaughter of a million 

within a 100-day period of the Tutsis. That right there is just a 

wonderful story of reconciliation and healing that the whole world 

would do well to understand. 

So, Ambassador Symington, you, along with the others, are all 

professionals, career service. You go to a very important part of the 

world for them and for us. 

Now, it is going to be interesting to see, as we take the first little, timid steps into this Africa Command, how that works, but it 

has a great deal of promise. We are already seeing it happening in 

South America in Southern Command because the commander, Admiral Stavridis, is not only a warrior, he is a diplomat. So too as 

we set up in Africa, the military can do a lot of things that other 

agencies cannot, but the military has got to be in the proper place 

reaching out with coequals, with State, with USAID, with Agriculture, with Health, and on down the line. And that is going to 

be a very important part. 

I will just conclude by saying that I am seeing in just a few minutes General Zinni. He was the commanding general of Central 

Command some 10–12 years ago, but he was very visionary because he said in third world countries, the United States military 

has got to take exactly this kind of approach if we are going to be 

successful. 

So you all are on the front lines. Thank you for your public service, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Nelson. I can confirm, 

having served on this subcommittee for 16 years, this is the highest 

level overall of senatorial interest in Africa that I have witnessed. 

The subcommittee is used to being a little lonelier. And it is a very 

good sign, and it is bipartisan. So this is a good sign. I appreciate 

Senator Nelson’s very strong interest in Africa and his demonstrated willingness to make the trips there and make the contacts. It is very helpful. 

Let me return to Mr. Eastham on the oil issue. Earlier this year, 

the Republic of Congo was accepted as a candidate country for the 

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. What does EITI implementation consist of, and how can the United States best contribute to that process? 

Ambassador EASTHAM. It is important to note, Senator, that EITI 

is a voluntary scheme of transparency and accountability. The Republic of Congo has just begun its implementation of the scheme. 

They have set up the committee that is going to implement the requirements for joining. They are at present a candidate country for 

EITI. 

I do not think that very much progress has been made in actually producing the documentation and the procedures that will 

have to be followed. 

628 

I think that, in the first instance, their voluntary submission to 

the process, which has been going on for a couple of years now, is 

an important indication of their willingness to be more transparent 

in the publication of the actual revenue side. 

It is also important to note that it does not address the budget 

side. What happens to those revenues, once they come into the government treasury or the government coffers, is not addressed by 

EITI. 

I have met with the folks in the State Department who are 

charged with monitoring EITI, and they have noted to me that as 

a candidate country, Congo has nearly 2 years to complete the 

process. So there is a deadline out in early 2010 by which this must 

be completed or they will no longer be a candidate. 

I am hopeful that when I get there, if confirmed, that I will be 

able to push this along. I noted earlier that I think that this issue 

of accountability is going to cut across everything I do in Congo, 

accountability on the oil revenue side in the first place, but also accountability on the expenditure side, as well. 

I would note that at my present post, the Malawians were fortunate enough to be able to qualify for Millennium Challenge threshold funding, and one of my major jobs in Malawi has been overseeing a program that did a great deal to improve their ability to 

monitor their revenues and expenditures within the government 

side in the interest of transparency and in the interest of accountability on the government side. We do not have that kind of resources available for Congo, but I hope to use our diplomatic tools 

to be able to push that forward. 

It seems to me that accountability is an issue that gets in the 

way of just about everything that you want to do that is right in 

Congo and the EITI is one part of the piece. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Eastham. 

Mr. Swan, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, Djibouti is a 

small country in a rough neighborhood. If confirmed, how do you 

envision your role in the wider region? How do you intend to coordinate with other ambassadors and actors in the region to work 

toward peace and stability? 

Mr. SWAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, indeed, Djibouti’s role historically on the Horn of Africa has 

been as this small place of stability in what you aptly term a rough 

neighborhood, to the north, Eritrea; to the west, Ethiopia; to the 

south, Somalia and Somaliland. And just 18 miles across the Gulf 

of Aden is Yemen. So it has in many ways defined its national mission as being that pocket of stability in the turbulent neighborhood. 

And Djibouti has played a helpful role in terms of seeking to promote stability in the region in the past. It is the headquarters of 

the international organization for drought and development in the 

Horn of Africa. It is a member country of the League of Arab 

States. It recently played host to an important piece, negotiation, 

between the transitional federal government in Somalia and the 

opposition alliance for the reliberation of Somalia, and while not directly involved in the talks, which were led by the U.N., the Special 

Representative of the Secretary-General, nonetheless, Djibouti 

played an important role as a neutral venue for these discussions 

to take place. 

629 

In terms of coordination with other missions in the region, if confirmed, Senator, I would obviously maintain regular contact, frequent contact with the other chiefs of mission on the Horn of Africa 

and in Yemen through sort of day-to-day e-mails, telephone calls, 

and other efforts to stay in constant contact. 

Second, there are some institutional means already in place in 

terms of ensuring regular contact. Under the rubric of our counterterrorism efforts, there are twice yearly meetings of the East Africa 

Regional Security Initiative, with a particular focus on counterterrorism. At the annual chiefs of mission conference, there is typically a session devoted explicitly to Horn of Africa issues as a 

means of institutionalizing this coordination. And then clearly, sir, 

I would, of course, have to take reference regularly from the State 

Department in Washington and the interagency here in Washington in terms of the overall direction of our policy with respect 

to the Horn of Africa. 

Senator FEINGOLD. As you mentioned in your testimony, Djibouti 

and Eritrea have been engaged in border skirmishes over recent 

months at the mouth of the Red Sea. What progress has been made 

to mitigate these tensions, and what role could the United States 

play in resolving this kind of border dispute? 

Mr. SWAN. Certainly, sir. The dispute really arose as a consequence of an Eritrean incursion across the border into Djibouti. 

It is a remote area in the north of Djibouti, the south of Eritrea 

with no physical demarcation of the boundary, but with an agreement that the ridge line between the two countries constituted the 

border. And Eritrean forces moved across that ridge line in April 

and took up positions. There was, indeed, exchange of fire between 

the two sides, most recently in June, but there has not been further exchange of fire between the two sides since June. 

In response to this situation, the United States played really a 

leading role in terms of bringing this matter to the attention of the 

U.N. Security Council, which issued a very strong presidential 

statement, and then followed up with a determination to send an 

official of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping—I am sorry—of 

Political Affairs to meet with the two sides and seek a way forward 

in terms of resolving this peacefully. 

I think the challenge, sir, is going to be, once again, obtaining 

Eritrean support for a solution. The Eritreans rejected earlier initiatives by the League of Arab States, by the African Union, and 

by some bilateral partners to try to achieve a negotiated settlement. I think, unfortunately, this is an example once again of Eritrea playing an unhelpful role as a spoiler in the region. If confirmed, however, I would obviously continue to support international efforts to resolve this peacefully and return to the status 

quo ante on the border. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Swan. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One, as a hometown boy, I have to say this to all of you. CDC 

is headquartered in Atlanta, GA and they have a significant number of people on the ground in Africa and have had, even before 

PEPFAR, working on the African AIDS problem. I know you will 

be in Addis Ababa, Mr. Simon. They have a significant group there, 

630 

as well as probably in each of the other countries, or near them. 

So any support you can give Dr. Gerberding and always look out 

for the CDC people, I would appreciate. 

My one question remaining. It really is for Mr. Simon. I appreciated the fact that you remarked on the progress of the African 

Union, but also the significant challenges, particularly Zimbabwe, 

Somalia, and the Sudan. 

And in particular, I have grave concerns over the Darfur issue. 

I know the African Union is managing or has been selected to be 

the group to try and go in there and end the killing, but I also 

know there has been a short supply of things like helicopters and 

other equipment that are absolutely necessary. I know some of our 

other world powers are not as interested in Darfur becoming a safe, 

civilized place again, but I am and I think every Member of this 

United States Senate is. 

As the representative to the African Union, it would seem to me 

that Darfur would have to be mission one or certainly on the priority list, so I would appreciate your discussing what you know 

about the situation as far as the African Union and Darfur and 

what progress they are making, and also if you will be a source for 

us to know what we need to do as a country to help facilitate that 

becoming a reality rather than just a hope. 

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Mr. Senator. 

Darfur is clearly going to be a priority not only of this mission, 

the United States mission to the African Union, but is a priority 

obviously of Congress and of the President. 

The African Union has had troops on the ground in Darfur since 

2004. They went in early. They are the core of the 11,000 U.N. personnel there under UNAMID, and 10,000 of those personnel come 

from the African Union. And they are in harm’s way and recently 

they have been taking casualties. So the African Union has played 

a very important and very constructive role in Darfur in terms of 

trying to create an environment for peace and security. 

The African Union has said—and we believe as well—that there 

needs to be a strong U.N. presence to supplement what they are 

doing, and that is why we argued strongly for a dual-hatting of the 

mission in Darfur with U.N. support, as well as AU support. 

Also, the size of the force needs to be more than the 11,000 that 

exist today, as high as 26,000. And critical to getting the forces up 

to that level is both increasing the number of troop-contributing 

countries and the Government in Khartoum allowing countries that 

are non-Africans to provide troops to the forces that exist there on 

the ground. There has been some progress on that latter point recently. Khartoum has allowed Nepalese and Thai troops to join the 

UNAMID forces in Darfur. 

And then the other major challenge that the African Union faces 

is having its troops, as you mentioned, Senator, brought up to the 

standards of the U.N. and of the U.N. peacekeeping mission. In 

that regard, the United States has spent $450 million, increasing 

the capacity and the equipment of the African Union forces in 

Darfur that are part of UNAMID. 

If confirmed as ambassador, I will continue to work to ensure 

that the African Union forces get the resources they need to meet 

the standards of the United Nations and of UNAMID and work to 

631 

increase pressure within the African Union for the Government in 

Khartoum to allow more troop-contributing countries that are nonAfrican to add the necessary forces to reach the 26,000 number 

that was approved by the United Nations. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I think that is important. I cannot remember his name. I think it was the White House liaison to 

Darfur. He testified before our Foreign Relations Committee and 

talked about—Williamson, yes—they still have problems with security for the convoys of humanitarian aid going into Darfur. If they 

cannot even protect those convoys going in, then it seems to me 

that any hope of that bringing us some resolution is unlikely. Anything we can do to help be a constructive player in supporting getting to the 26,000 and encouraging anybody in the U.N. that is 

maybe reluctant to do so, I would appreciate your information on 

what we can do as the United States Senate to raise the visibility 

of that issue here. 

Mr. SIMON. As you asked, Senator, if confirmed, I will be conveying information to you on where the challenges stand in reaching that 26,000 number. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Simon, in addition to Darfur, you mentioned in your testimony, or we did, problems with Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. 

Now, at least the press accounts following the African Union meeting were that President Mugabe got a free ride out of the situation. 

In other words, he defied the other people sitting around the table 

of the African Union on the basis perhaps that some of you gentlemen got to where you are likewise through either strengthened 

methods that were not necessarily democratic and who are you to 

be criticizing me on that basis—and sort of stood them down. 

Not only that, but there are inferences in the press that the 

United Nations, in terms of its activity, was somewhat stymied by 

the fact that some leaders in Russia and China also were reticent 

to get involved in discussions of democracy and the purity of the 

election methods in Zimbabwe and did not necessarily give a free 

pass, providing some criticism perhaps, but nothing stronger than 

that. 

I raise that because that was then. This is now. On the front 

pages of national papers today, you see four people seated, including the two major candidates for the presidency, and apparently 

they are visiting about life and the times and the future. 

Can you give us some idea of what progress the African Union 

may have brought about in this, or is this entirely an internal negotiation within Zimbabwe without reference to the neighbors? 

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Senator. 

The situation in Zimbabwe, obviously, is very dynamic and 

changing very quickly. 

Where we stand today is there has been an MOU signed between 

the ZANU–PF and the Movement for Democratic Change, the opposition, although by rights perhaps it should not be the opposition. 

That MOU is basically a process for starting negotiations. It is 

632 

really not much more than that. It does include an expanded role 

for the African Union as part of an expanded mediation group, and 

from our perspective, that is a positive development. However, 

there are a lot of open questions about how this MOU and this 

process will go forward. 

From our perspective, our focus is on the outcome, and the outcome must be a Zimbabwe Government that is representative of 

the will of the people of Zimbabwe that will stop the intimidation 

and the killing and the long suffering of the people of Zimbabwe 

and lay the foundation for the prosperity that that country so rich 

in human and natural resources should be able to enjoy. That is 

the outcome that we as a government are focused on. And if confirmed as an ambassador, that is the outcome that I will try and 

focus the African Union on. 

The African Union has within its charter embedded the principles of democratic governance and, like I said, the principle of 

nonindifference, and it is by stressing those principles that we need 

to focus the African Union on achieving an outcome that truly represents the will of the Zimbabwean people. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I appreciate that last comment that there 

is some progress—the African Union is there and there is this 

pledge to work toward democratic solutions—to recognize that is 

important. I suppose some could say in the past, prior to the African Union’s intervention in all these affairs, that this was the way 

the world works. The Zimbabwe election and various others might 

have gone without further ado. 

But the promise of the African Union is I think what you have 

stated. There is at least a principle there that hopefully nations are 

struggling to fulfill, and our role in that and your role as ambassador from the United States can be a very important one in trying 

to refine this, give support to it. So we wish you well on that mission because your work is cut out for you there. 

Mr. SIMON. Senator, I would note that there are many voices 

within the African Union that have been very public about their 

condemnation of the current situation in Zimbabwe, including the 

Pan-African Parliament, which is an organ of the African Union, 

including the observer mission that the African Union went to observe the runoff which commented that the standards of the runoff 

did not meet the standards of the African Union, and including, of 

course, several African leaders who have been very vocal about 

their concern about the situation in Zimbabwe. I think, if confirmed 

as ambassador, my role will be to try and encourage those voices 

to be the voices that are heard and to ultimately be the voices upon 

which action is taken. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you for recognizing those voices, and 

really credit should be paid to those persons who were with the observers and others who assisted them. Thank you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

We will begin a third round. 

This is for Mr. Swan again. According to the State Department’s 

country reports on human rights practices for 2007, women in 

Djibouti face specific challenges, including domestic violence, prostitution, and female genital mutilation. What measures, if any, 

have been taken by the Djiboutian Government to combat these 

633 

problems and protect women’s rights? If you are confirmed, how 

will you draw attention and U.S. resources to this area? 

Mr. SWAN. Senator, for a variety of cultural and historical reasons, the status of women has been low in Djibouti, historically. I 

think we have seen some movement on this front in recent years, 

however, including in terms of their political participation. There 

are seven women in the 65-seat parliament, for example. There are 

two women in the cabinet. The President of the Supreme Court is 

a woman. So I think we are beginning to see more positive movement at this point in terms of the role of women. 

You drew attention to a very important continued challenge, Senator, and that is female genital mutilation, which regrettably is 

practiced on an estimated 98 percent of the female population, including frequently some of the most severe forms, the so-called 

infibulation. 

The Djiboutian Government has adopted legislation that, indeed, 

outlaws that practice. That legislation is on the books, although my 

understanding is that, as yet, there have not been any convictions 

in regard to that. But I think it is testimony to the increased 

awareness on the part of Djiboutian authorities of these challenges 

and of the need to respond. 

If confirmed, Senator, this would certainly be an important priority as well for me and for the team at the embassy in terms of 

continuing efforts to raise awareness of these issues and to seek 

change and government follow-up in terms of taking action. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you for that answer, Mr. Swan. 

Mr. Simon, if you are confirmed, this would be your first diplomatic post in Africa as well as at a multilateral institution. What 

do you think qualifies you for this posting, and how will you apply 

your previous experiences to the challenges of the African Union? 

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Senator. 

It is a question that I have asked myself many times when the 

suggestion first arose that I be nominated to this position. 

For the last 6 years, I have worked on development and international issues and have worked in multilateral fora, whether that 

is involvement in the G–8 conferences, the G–8 summits, both 

Gleneagles and the Sea Island Summit that we had here in the 

great State of Georgia, whether it was working with the U.N. finance for development process, or whether it has been working 

with the international financial institutions here in Washington. 

As part of those efforts, I have been heavily focused on development in Africa. That was the focus of our work in Scotland for the 

Gleneagles Summit. That has been the focus of much of the President’s development agenda over the past 6 years. And as part of 

that work, I have worked closely, whether it was at the United 

States Agency for International Development, whether it was at 

the National Security Council, or whether it was in my current position at the Overseas Private Investment Corporation with the 

other agencies involved in development in the United States Government. 

Almost all of the initiatives that I referenced in my testimony are 

multiagency initiatives that involved several different parts of the 

U.S. Government working together to accomplish a positive result. 

And I think the result that we have achieved on the African conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00641 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
634 

tinent, through things like the President’s Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief or the President’s Malaria Initiative or the Millennium 

Challenge Account, really indicates how that type of work can credit both the United States and the Americans who are helping to 

fund it and help the Africans themselves and help the Africans realize the opportunity that the current era presents for them. 

If confirmed at the African Union, I would see a major focus of 

my efforts being to marshal all of the resources that the United 

States Government has and has committed to the continent together to help build the capacity of the African Union and help it 

truly achieve its goals which are very closely aligned to our goals 

for the continent of Africa. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I am pleased to hear about the range of Africa issues you have worked on over the last 6 years, but I do have 

to note a lack of specific peacekeeping or security-related experience, both of which are a priority for the African Union right now. 

Please describe the tools and the expertise you would bring to the 

table when you are working on these kinds of issues. 

Mr. SIMON. As Senior Director for Relief Stabilization and Development, the Director for Stabilization reported to me. So the Director for Stabilization on the National Security Council was the official of the National Security Council in charge of peacekeeping 

issues and basically everything that he did was something that I 

was apprised of and kept in the loop. 

Now, I happen to have an excellent Director for Stabilization, 

Clint Williamson, who is now the U.S. Ambassador for War 

Crimes. And so I can honestly say that my involvement in that was 

less than maybe some of these other issues because he was so good. 

But I was involved in all of the initiatives in that area that we engaged in, including the Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative, 

including the SCRS, the conflict and reconstruction coordinator’s 

position that was created at the State Department, and including 

the creation of a civilian reserve. 

Part of what we recognized in putting the Director for Stabilization or part of what Steve Hadley, the National Security Adviser, 

recognized in putting the Director for Stabilization in the Relief 

Stabilization and Development Directorate instead of in the Defense Directorate was that ultimately stabilization is not purely a 

military matter. Ultimately it is a matter that must involve the 

military working together with the civilian agencies to create an 

environment for economic growth and prosperity to basically win 

the confidence of the people that putting down their weapons and 

picking up their plowshares and picking up their computers and 

picking up the other elements of economic growth can ultimately 

lead to a better result for them and their families than continued 

conflict and continued trying to play the zero sum game of getting 

more of what other people have. 

So like I say, peacekeeping was always something that was part 

of what I did at the National Security Council even though my personal focus was largely on many of the economic issues. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

And finally, Mr. Simon, in the realm of counterterrorism, what 

are the African Union’s chief concerns, and to what extent do the 

United States and the AU engage in counterterrorism cooperation? 

635 

Mr. SIMON. The AU has a small counterterrorism cell in Algiers 

and it is only now being built up. The capacity there clearly could 

be enhanced, and if confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the African 

Union, that is certainly an issue that I would take on. 

However, the United States itself has several counterterrorism 

initiatives throughout the continent, including the counterterrorism 

program, including the East African security program that Mr. 

Swan mentioned. And part of the role that the U.S. Ambassador 

to the African Union should play, and if confirmed, part of the role 

that I would play, would be to connect the AU to these other initiatives so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And 

that would be a major role that I would look to play, and frankly, 

I would hope that the AU itself would look to find ways that it 

could increase its capacity by working with the other initiatives 

that exist on the continent. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any more questions. I just want to end by thanking the families of these four gentlemen for all the support they give to them to allow them to do 

a very important job for a great country. Thank you for what you 

do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join my colleague, Senator Isakson, in thanking not only the nominees for 

your service but the families, and their presence today is very 

meaningful I think to all of us. But I appreciate your responses and 

we look forward to supporting each one of you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues especially, but I thank 

all the nominees for your patience. It was a longer hearing, but I 

think it is a good sign. It is a sign of great interest in these matters 

and great hope that, should you be confirmed, things go well for 

you and for our country as you represent us. Thank you very much. 

And we will do what we can, as we are doing today, to try to expedite these nominations. 

That concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF JOHN SIMON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in facing 

the African Union (AU)? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights and democracy among members of the AU and within the body 

as an institution? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. The African Union faces a wide array of human rights challenges, including advancing peace and security and protecting basic human rights in Darfur, Somalia, Eastern Congo, and other parts of Africa where there is insecurity and instability. The AU also faces the daunting challenge of fighting poverty and disease 

while creating economic opportunities, which will help Africa’s poorest develop the 

educated and middle class constituencies that are the strongest local advocates of 

human rights. 

636 

These challenges require institution and capacity building at the AU and education and support for dialog between government and opposition as well as greater 

participation by civil society groups. 

If confirmed, I will devote my energy and focus to work with the commissioners 

of the African Union and the member states to better understand their needs and 

how the United States, in partnership with international institutions and other interested parties, can mobilize the resources and expertise necessary to help the AU 

take a leadership role on the continent in addressing these issues. 

In this context, it is clear that as a strong partner of the African Union, we can 

and must work together to promote peace and security, a fundamental priority if 

we are to advance human rights and democracy on the continent. The AU and the 

United States stand together in support of the AMISOM troops in Somalia and the 

need for a greater international response to stabilize the conflict there and advance 

reconciliation. We are in strong partnership in support of forces in Darfur. Further, 

we are working together to promote political reconciliation and respect for human 

rights and democracy in Zimbabwe. If confirmed, I will work to maintain and 

strengthen cooperation with the AU in these critical areas. 

To further promote human rights and democracy within the AU, the USAU must 

also expand its engagement with the Commission for Political Affairs, the Commission for Social Affairs, and the Division for Women and Gender, among others. If 

confirmed, I will work through the AU permanent representatives to express the 

United States interest in the signature and ratification of the Charter on Democracy, Governance, and Elections and support United States Government efforts to 

request observer status to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 

(ACHPR). As an observer, the United States will be able to both highlight issues 

of concern with and express support for the ACHPR in the African Union’s plenary 

sessions. 

Through a very coordinated and cooperative relationship with the AU, member 

states, and donors, I believe we can accomplish greater dialog among diverse groups, 

between government and opposition, civil society and bureaucrats, and transparency, which will allow all people to be a part of process that creates more open, 

free, and democratic states. We must work with the AU to ensure the continent’s 

people have the opportunities for democracy and human rights promised in the AU 

charter. If confirmed, I will work to see that opportunities are created, but more importantly, support the ability of African States to advance human rights and democracy. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in advancing human rights and democracy, in general? 

Answer. The obstacles include the persistence of conflicts that plague parts of Africa from Somalia to Sudan to Cote d’Ivoire, the resistance of a minority of leaders 

in Africa, like Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Bashir in Sudan, and inaction of the international community to some of the pressing stabilization needs on the continent. 

Some leaders have argued, as President Isaias in Eritrea, that you cannot have democracy without economic advancement. I submit that we can have both and must 

do both. Democracy feeds the soul while economic advancement meets the needs of 

the people. The success of Liberia, Burundi, and other countries underscore that we 

can resolve conflict in the current environment in Africa. Mauritius’ political maturity underscores that people can have a voice in the affairs of their government. 

Our challenge is to build on these successes. This requires building political will 

within the AU for just and sustainable settlements of current conflicts, capacity 

within the AU to implement such settlements, and international support to provide 

the necessary assistance to the AU. It will not be easy, but if confirmed, I will work 

with our partners in Africa, and those interested in Africa, to forge the commitment 

required to make a difference. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. As an official at the United States Agency for International Development 

and the National Security Council, I helped design the selection criteria for the Millennium Challenge Account, which emphasized the importance of democracy and political and human rights in its ‘‘ruling justly’’ category. These criteria have proven 

a powerful incentive for democracy and good governance in Africa, as documented 

in academic statistical studies and by particular cases. For instance, in 2006, the 

prospect of an MCC Compact helped ensure free and fair election in the Republic 

of Benin. 

637 

As Senior Director for Relief, Stabilization, and Development at the National Security Council in 2005, I helped secure funding and support for the Women’s Justice 

and Empowerment Initiative, a Presidential initiative launched prior to the G–8 

Summit at Gleneagles that works with African partners to strengthen the capacity 

of local justice systems to protect women from sexual violence and abuse and punish 

perpetrators, as well as provide victims access to shelter, counseling, and 

healthcare. The initiative is now active in four countries—Benin, Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia. 

More generally, over the past 6 years, I have been integral to a series of development initiatives, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the 

President’s Malaria Initiative, the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, the African Financial Sector Initiative, and post-conflict reconstruction in Liberia. By increasing 

the health and welfare of Africa’s people and the opportunities for employment and 

economic growth, these efforts reinforce the positive trends occurring on the continent in the realm of democracy and human rights. 

If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize democracy and human rights as a fundamental pillar of United States engagement with African Governments, leaders, 

and people. I will also encourage investment to create economic opportunity to provide jobs that are sustainable and enable people to invest in their own futures. Addressing economic development is a critical component in promoting human rights 

and democracy. 

Question. Peacekeeping is one of the foremost functions of the AU at this time. 

What are the key limiting factors on the effectiveness of AU peacekeeping operations? What are the strengths of previous or ongoing operations? If confirmed as 

ambassador, how would you seek to enhance these capabilities? 

Answer. The African Union has taken the lead role in several critical peacekeeping missions across the continent despite suffering from a number of deficiencies in this area. The United States, through the Africa Contingency Operations 

Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program, has helped equip and train AU peacekeeping troops with great effectiveness in places like Burundi and Congo. 

Yet challenges remain on sustainability, including paying and supporting troops 

in the field, mission planning and financial management, and attracting additional 

troop contributing countries to the current AU missions on the continent. More importantly, the AU needs to secure international financial and political support for 

the missions it currently has in the field, including the AU mission in Somalia 

(AMISOM) and the AU contribution to the UN–AU mission in Darfur (UNAMID). 

The AU has proven that, with sufficient donor assistance, it can respond to conflicts on the continent when the U.N. is either unwilling or unable to act. In several 

instances, including Burundi, Comoros, Darfur, and Somalia, the AU has led the 

way when the U.N. was unable to react to a crisis, whether because of its own deliberative process or because of restrictions levied by host governments. Yet the AU 

cannot and should not bear the full burden of long-term, complex missions on its 

own. 

As ambassador, I will, if confirmed, build on our engagement with the AU through 

ACOTA to encourage the AU to work with the United States, U.N. and other key 

donors to enhance its capacities at the headquarters level, particularly in the areas 

of financial management, human resources and mission planning. I will also seek 

to ensure that our ongoing capacity-building efforts continue, and that we pursue 

new opportunities for collaboration with the AU. In particular, I will, if confirmed, 

work with the U.S. mission at the U.N. and U.S. ambassadors to our allies to get 

the AMISOM and UNAMID the international assistance they need. 

Currently, the United States is supporting the Strategic Planning and Management Unit (SPMU) of the AU by providing funding for equipment and a logistics 

advisor through the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). The United States 

is also providing peacekeeping equipment, training, and logistics support to the African Union mission in Somalia (AMISOM). The United States is supporting long 

term efforts to build the capacity of the African Standby Force (ASF) through the 

bilateral and multilateral peacekeeping training activities of ACOTA program, as 

well as support for subregional components of the ASF like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Standby Force (ESF). 

638 

RESPONSES OF W. STUART SYMINGTON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in 

Rwanda? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human 

rights and democracy in Rwanda? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. While making admirable advances over the last decade in economic development and making significant progress in the adjudication of an enormous backlog of genocide cases, Rwanda continues to face challenges regarding reconciliation, 

human rights, and democratization as it continues its efforts to rebuild a society 

torn asunder by ethnic hatred, war, and genocide. The 2007 Human Rights Report 

cites the Government of Rwanda’s demonstrable efforts to address human rights, 

however significant human rights abuses occurred. Principal human rights problems 

include restrictions on citizens’ right to change their government peacefully and 

freely; the security forces’ use of extrajudicial killings, torture, and arbitrary arrest 

and detention; lack of judicial independence; harsh prison and detention center conditions; prolonged pretrial detention; limits on freedom of expression and association; limits on freedom of press; and limits on civil society. 

If confirmed, I will engage at every level in Rwanda to help them strengthen 

democratic institutions and to advance transparency and respect for human rights. 

Leading up to the September Parliamentary elections and 2011 Presidential elections, I will support efforts by Rwandans to improve platform development and increase the channels of communication open to all parties. Our key goals are to work 

together to open political space, increase civil liberties, and to strengthen the judiciary. The newly approved $24.73 MCC Threshold Country Plan will also be a key 

area for engagement. It will supplement other United States Government programs 

to address problems in the justice sector by seeking to strengthen democratic governance, build the capacity of civil society organizations, and advancing press freedom. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues that you have identified as most pressing? 

Answer. Improving respect for human rights in Rwanda is an essential part of 

reconciliation and a key element needed for Rwandans to succeed in efforts to unite 

as a people and make progress for the future. Passions generated by the decades 

of misrule by previous governments have not disappeared; overcoming this difficult 

legacy of mistrust and violence is the work of generations. Rwanda’s main obstacle 

in this period of reconciliation is to address the issues of governance and ensure 

that justice is not perceived as one-sided. Dealing with the sheer magnitude of the 

issues the country faces causes people to look at human rights through the prism 

of recent and awful ethnic division. It is essential in the pursuit of human rights 

in Rwanda, and in its pursuit for unity and prosperity, that the country be seen 

by its own people to provide equal justice under law applicable to all. 

Question. In response to a question before your confirmation as Ambassador to 

Djibouti, you described how you have worked to advance human rights in the Sahel 

and Latin America. How has your experience as chief of mission further shaped 

your perspective on this issue? Specifically, how were you able to elevate the importance of human rights issues in the United States relationship with the Djiboutian 

Government and to engage with civil society and other groups to promote increased 

respect for human rights? 

Answer. While I was Ambassador to Djibouti, embassy staff and I regularly engaged the Government of Djibouti, NGOs, and the private sector on human rights 

issues—through both public and private efforts. The embassy organized and hosted 

events to improve women’s participation in and understanding of the political process. We brought members of the opposition party together with members of the ruling coalition party to address improvements in the electoral process. We engaged 

with police prosecutors and others on trafficking in persons, supporting Djibouti’s 

successful efforts to draft and enact new antitrafficking laws. 

As chief of mission in Djibouti, I have seen that significant and lasting improvement in human rights is tied to working in partnership at all levels with host government officials, private sector leaders, and civil society. This is needed to ensure 

that all progress in the promotion of human rights is effective and sustainable. 

Question. Rwanda held its first local elections in over 30 years in March 2001 and 

Presidential and Parliamentary elections in 2003. What is your assessment of the 

state of democracy in Rwanda? Do you consider Rwanda to be tolerant of dissent 

639 

and democratic? Please describe the state of freedom of the press in Rwanda. If confirmed as ambassador, how would you see your role to help foster such freedoms? 

Answer. The people and the Government of Rwanda have made democratic advances since the 1994 genocide, though Rwanda has much work to do before it can 

achieve democracy. Over the last decade, they have made notable progress, including a constitution which prohibits discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, or 

creed; laws in place which prohibit torture; a decrease in the prison population; and 

the application of criminal penalties for corruption. Rwanda has advanced reconciliation and made progress meting out justice. While it has accomplished much, it continues to face enormous challenges. It continues to encounter obstacles in finding 

the right balance between the need to maintain internal stability and the requirement to instill fundamental democratic values including respect for a free and independent press. While the constitution provides for freedom of the press, press freedom in Rwanda remains limited, due in part to the active role of domestic media 

organs in the genocide and the resulting mistrust of the media by the government. 

If confirmed, I hope to help the Rwandan’s achieve progress toward a democratic 

system that they see as representative of and responsive to the wishes and hopes 

of all Rwandans. I think that continued progress toward this goal is both right and 

essential to underpin progress on the economic front. It will permit Rwandans to 

unite to achieve a shared vision for a more stable and prosperous future. 

Question. The United States has played an important role in helping to create the 

possibility of greater peace and stability in the region through the Tripartite Plus 

process. If confirmed as ambassador, how would you seek to build on this progress? 

Answer. Significant progress has been made since the Tripartite Plus’ inception. 

To highlight the priority for peace in the Great Lakes, Secretary Rice chaired the 

Tripartite Plus Heads of State meeting in Addis in 2007. Inside of this mechanism, 

member countries agreed to continue military and political pressure on the FDLR, 

the former Rwandan genocidaire rebel group now based in DRC, and to ensure that 

the FDLR fulfills its commitment to disarm and repatriate to Rwanda. Tripartite 

members also agreed to advance diplomatic relations and establish mechanisms for 

safe and voluntary refugee return. In concert with the international community and 

UNHCR, these initiatives are taking shape. 

If confirmed as ambassador to Rwanda, I will encourage and facilitate Rwanda’s 

full participation in the Tripartite. This facilitation will include diplomacy in Kigali 

with European Union, United Kingdom, French, Belgian, and MONUC representatives for implementation of international sanctions imposed on the FDLR and participation in the Joint Monitoring Group, established as the monitoring mechanism 

for the Nairobi Communique between the Government of Rwanda and the Government of the DRC. Such tangible acts and confidence-building mechanisms will keep 

Tripartite members, especially Rwanda, engaged in building peace through their 

own initiatives with the support of the international community. 

RESPONSES OF JOHN SIMON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. What is your assessment of the performance of African Union peacekeeping missions including in Sudan and Somalia? What are the principal challenges the African Union faces in this regard? 

Answer. African Union troops are performing with commitment to duty and dedicated service, particularly in Sudan and Somalia. There, troops are facing extraordinary challenges. In Somalia, over 2,500 troops from Uganda and Burundi serve 

under harsh conditions. Troop levels remain far below what is necessary to maintain 

peace in this volatile region. Financing, logistical support for supplies and equipment, and force protection issues pose the greatest challenges to AMISOM’s objectives. The lack of troops, armored vehicles, and air assets makes it impossible for 

the AMISOM force to patrol and secure Mogadishu as well as monitor and secure 

areas outside Mogadishu, particularly in the highly dangerous lower Juba region 

where extremists, such as al-Shabaab operate. A political solution is key to enhancing stability. The recent Djibouti peace accord offers renewed hope for a framework 

to promote peace. The negative influence of Eritrea as well as threat from extremism from outside Somalia complicate the challenges facing the African Union in 

stabilizing Somalia. 

In Sudan, the killing of seven UNAMID peacekeepers, including five from Rwanda, underscores the deadly situation the troops operate under. Challenges include 

the need for a political solution to resolve the instability, including the Sudanese 

Government engagement of the south in implementing the Comprehensive Peace 

640 

Agreement. The slow rate of deployment of additional forces and the lack of air and 

heavy transport assets makes it difficult to monitor the region and support 

UNAMID operations. 

Question. What steps should the United States take to help the African Union 

build its capacity and resource base to carry out PKO missions? 

Answer. The United States, as an observer mission, can play a crucial role mediating and facilitating coordination and cooperation among the donor community in 

providing resources to help the African Union build capacity and secure resources 

for its operations. The United States provides limited funding to the African Union, 

but this can be targeted at critical gaps and supplemented through the help of other 

donors for projects and programs of importance to the African Union. This includes 

enhancing its capacities at the headquarters level, particularly in the areas of financial management, human resources, and mission planning. 

Currently, the United States is supporting the Strategic Planning and Management Unit (SPMU) of the African Union with funding for equipment and an ‘‘inkind’’ logistics advisor through the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). The 

United States also is providing peacekeeping equipment, training, and logistics support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). In addition, we are helping long-term efforts to build the capacity of the African Standby Force (ASF) 

through the bilateral and multilateral peacekeeping training activities of ACOTA 

program. We also support subregional components of the ASF like the Economic 

Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Standby Force (ESF). 

If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that our ongoing capacity-building efforts continue, and that we pursue new opportunities for collaboration with the African 

Union. In particular, I will, if confirmed, work with the United States mission at 

the U.N. and United States ambassadors to our allies to get the AMISOM and 

UNAMID missions the international assistance they need. 

Question. What role should other donors play to help the African Union build its 

capacity and resources base to carry to carry out PKO missions? 

Answer. The needs of the African Union in the peacekeeping arena cannot be met 

by one donor alone. The international community must work together to increase 

the planning, logistics, financial management, and training capabilities of the African Union. In addition, the African Union peacekeeping troops in the field need 

equipment, supplies, financial support for troop payments, and additional forces. In 

the case of the two African Union missions currently in the field, AMISOM and 

UNAMID, a more robust international response is necessary to reach the troop levels and capability required to stabilize those conflicts and promote reconciliation. 

If confirmed, I will endeavor to create closer coordination among the donor community and work with the African Union to focus limited funding on key issues that 

will help advance cooperation as well as streamline operations. 

Question. What is your assessment of the African Union’s capacity to use effectively and account for donor funds provided to assist it in building its capacity and 

resource base to carry out PKO missions? 

Answer. The African Union has limited financial management capacity, in general, and this applies to its peacekeeping operations as well. In addition, the African 

Union is still developing capabilities to coordinate among member states on equipment, resources, and information. It requires further expertise to establish competent fusion cells and centers to handle peacekeeping missions. These shortcomings 

explain deficiencies in recruiting, training, equipping, paying, and dispatching 

troops. 

The new African Union chairman, Jean Ping, was elected on a platform of management reform and is working to strengthen these systems. If confirmed, I will 

work with the chairman and commission to assist them in making as much progress 

in the area of financial management and accountability as possible. 

Question. What is the cost of moving the nominee to Djibouti? Will he be accompanied or unaccompanied? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will be residing and working in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 

the seat of the African Union and the United States mission to the African Union. 

To date, no decision has been made as to whether my family will accompany me, 

if confirmed. If I travel to Addis alone, the Department estimates the total cost will 

be approximately $241,000. If I am accompanied by my wife and four children, the 

Department estimates the total cost will be approximately $321,000. These cost estimates include round-trip airfare costs, round-trip transportation costs for household 

effects, unaccompanied air freight, a personally-owned vehicle, and operating expenses in Addis. 

641 

Question. Please describe the circumstances of the outgoing Ambassador Cindy 

Courville’s departure from the post? 

Answer. It is my understanding that Ms. Courville resigned her appointment as 

the U.S. Ambassador to the African Union. 

Question. Why was our ambassador to Ethiopia not selected to maintain U.S. representation at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa for the short term 

instead of selecting a new ambassador for the vacant post? 

Answer. The establishment of the United States mission to the African Union was 

an important step in furthering our engagement in Africa. Its opening was received 

warmly across the continent and the European Union has followed our example and 

established a mission to the African Union. Reverting to covering the post part-time 

during this period of significant activity at the African Union on a number of 

fronts—peacekeeping in Sudan and Somalia, political crisis in Zimbabwe, greater vitality in health and development issues, initiation of management reforms—would 

undermine our success and decrease our opportunity to influence and assist the African Union just when it is looking to the United States for leadership and support. 

Moreover, while Ambassador Yamamoto is currently maintaining diplomatic relations with the African Union, the significant workload of handling United States affairs with Ethiopia, including a large assistance program and meeting the difficult 

drought problems plaguing Ethiopia, limit the time he can spend on African Union 

issues. Therefore, the administration believes selecting a full-time ambassador to 

the African Union is necessary to reinforce our commitment to support the African 

Union and the region as a whole. 

RESPONSES OF JAMES SWAN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What, in your view, are the most pressing human rights issues in 

Djibouti? What are the steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human 

rights and democracy in Djibouti? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. As we have catalogued in our annual Human Rights Report, despite recent improvements, Djibouti’s human rights record remains poor. Problems include 

arbitrary arrest and detention, harsh prison conditions, executive branch influence 

on the judiciary, corruption, interference with privacy rights, and restrictions on 

freedom of the press, assembly, and association. Accordingly, human rights are part 

of our regular diplomatic dialog with the Djiboutian Government, including the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Labor, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Embassy staff 

also meets regularly with individuals and groups affected by these problems, as well 

as minority political parties to gain a better understanding of obstacles they are facing as the decentralization process moves forward. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that human rights and democracy remain a fundamental focus of all embassy activities. I will work closely with the Government of 

Djibouti at every level to ensure that government officials understand the importance of the promotion of human rights and democratization, and that they remain 

committed to improving the country’s human rights record. I will encourage an acceleration of progress on these issues, and in addition to working with government 

officials, will make engagement with civil society, media, and other advocacy groups 

a priority. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous responses? What challenges will you face in Djibouti in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The challenges and obstacles in advancing human rights and democracy 

in Djibouti are significant. Djibouti faces high unemployment, has a high degree of 

illiteracy, and is located in an unstable region. Opposition parties are still in the 

development stages, and still trying to find their voice in Djibouti. They face financial and organizational obstacles, and often get caught up in internal disputes. Few 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are present in Djibouti working on democratization and human rights issues. 

Although President Guelleh ran unopposed amid an opposition boycott in Presidential elections in April 2005, international observers considered the election generally free and fair. In March 2006, Djibouti held its first-ever municipal elections, 

in which several new independent opposition parties successfully participated. Although the President’s party won an overwhelming majority of seats, these opposiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00649 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
642 

tion parties won several seats, including 12 in the capital. Legislative elections in 

February 2008 returned the ruling coalition, Union for a Presidential Majority 

(UMP), to all 65 seats in Djibouti’s unicameral legislature. However, despite a boycott call from a rival coalition, voter turnout was over 72 percent, and international 

election observers did not report any irregularities. If confirmed, I will work closely 

with the Djiboutian Government to encourage an independent judiciary, the expansion of the political space, and respect for human rights. 

Question. If confirmed in your new position, what steps will you take to ensure 

that promotion of human rights objectives will be an integral part of the U.S. Embassy’s activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign 

Service officers who engage in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior service? 

Answer. Human rights issues touch on every element of an embassy’s work, and 

as such, if confirmed, I will ensure that the promotion of human rights is an integral component of each officer’s portfolio. I will stress to all embassy employees that 

the promotion of human rights values should not only be a part of their formal work 

with the embassy, but also a part of their daily lives as they interact with 

Djiboutians at all levels. If confirmed, I will ensure that our human rights goals are 

formally recognized within the embassy, and that those members of the embassy 

team who best work to further these objectives are also formally recognized—both 

with award nominations and in their annual evaluations. 

Question. What are the most significant actions you have taken in your career to 

promote human rights and democracy? Why were they important? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. In my Foreign Service career, all of my assignments have been to countries where human rights issues were at the top of the agenda. I have personally 

drafted eight Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, and took pains to ensure 

that these reports were as thorough and accurate as possible. I believe that the promotion of human rights and democracy is integral to all U.S. policy objectives, and 

if confirmed, I will continue to prioritize effective promotion of our human rights 

and democracy goals. 

In my current position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 

I have ensured that human rights concerns are high on our agenda in some of the 

most challenging political and security environments on the continent, including the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and other Great Lakes states, and Somalia and 

other countries in the Horn of Africa. I have personally pressed host-country officials throughout central Africa and the Horn to address human rights problems. 

While serving as deputy chief of mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, I 

ensured that human rights issues received high-level attention and coverage, including by increasing reporting from the rebel-held areas of eastern Congo. I focused attention on the grave challenges of sexual and gender-based violence, an area in 

which the embassy and USAID conducted a number of programs both to heighten 

awareness and to respond to the needs of victims. I also pressed to ensure inclusion 

of civil society and human rights groups as part of the Inter-Congolese Dialog that 

led to the transition government after the rebellion ended in 2003. As a sign of the 

high value I placed on human rights, I nominated our principal human rights reporting officer for the Department of State’s worldwide human rights award, which 

she won in 2003. 

While deputy chief of mission in the Republic of Congo, I drew human rights 

abuses to the attention of the Congolese Government during the 1998–1999 civil 

war and oversaw grants to NGOs focused on promotion of human rights. These included programs to address the needs of the marginalized pygmy population. 

As chief of the political section in our embassy in Cameroon in 1992–1994, I organized election observers for the first ever multiparty, Presidential elections, oversaw 

grant programs to support human rights organizations, helped to train several 

human rights groups on international standards and investigative methods, and 

conducted extensive public outreach on governance and human rights. In Nicaragua, 

as the embassy labor and human rights officer, I worked with USAID and mission 

implementing partners to support independent trade unions and human rights 

groups in the aftermath of the National Opposition Union victory over the Sandinistas in 1990. 

Question. Djibouti reportedly has one of the most serious corruption problems in 

the region. What is your assessment of the causes of corruption in Djibouti? What 

additional measures, in your view, might be needed to deal with corruption? 

Answer. Djiboutian law provides criminal penalties for official corruption, and the 

Government of Djibouti has increased its efforts to implement such laws and combat 

643 

corruption. However, the government has not yet been able to implement these laws 

effectively, and corruption remains a serious problem. 

Djibouti’s extreme poverty and popular frustration over unemployment, inadequate public services, and obstacles to political participation all contribute to corruption. However, Djibouti has recognized the opportunities provided by 

globalization, and in seeking to capitalize on its location and deep-water port, the 

government has privatized the port and facilitated significant private and international investment. This privatization has helped to reduce corruption. As investment grows and Djibouti’s port capacity and need for commercial efficiency increase, 

the government incentive for reducing corruption will also increase. Additionally, 

USAID assistance programs in Djibouti for improving governance seek to promote 

a more transparent and efficient government at the national, regional, and local levels; advance Djibouti’s decentralization; promote government accountability; and 

strengthen civil society. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $500,000 for 

democracy and governance programs, including an anticorruption component. 

Question. If confirmed as ambassador, how would you seek to balance the growing 

U.S. military presence and security interests in the country with other U.S. priorities? 

Answer. Camp Lemonier, our base in Djibouti and the only United States military 

base in sub-Saharan Africa, allows the United States Government to focus our efforts to deny safe haven, external support, and material assistance for terrorist activities in the Horn of Africa. The base is home to the Combined Joint Task ForceHorn of Africa (CJTF–HOA), which is present in the region to counter the reemergence of transnational terrorism by providing security assistance in support of civilmilitary operations (CMO) to enhance long-term stability in the region. 

Djibouti is a relatively stable country in a volatile region, and it provides a solid 

foundation from which to address several primary policy aims in Africa, including 

food security, regional stability and economic development. The Port of Djibouti is 

the primary conduit for United States food aid to Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. 

Djibouti is a country with a 96 percent Sunni Muslim population that is pro-western 

and pro-American. As a moderate Muslim state and a member of the Arab League, 

Djibouti is a valuable international partner. Djibouti has the potential to play an 

important role in the economic and political revitalization of its neighbors, and it 

has played a significant role in the regional peace processes in Sudan, Ethiopia and 

Eritrea, and Somalia. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that Djibouti continues to function not only as a base 

for CJTF–HOA and our peace and security interests, but also as a base from which 

to promote democratization, human rights, economic development, and effective humanitarian response. If confirmed, I will work to strengthen the partnership between CJTF–HOA and USAID; to ensure appropriate levels of United States assistance in support of democracy and governance, and health and education; and to ensure that all CJTF–HOA programming in Djibouti continues to fit within overarching United States Government priorities. 

RESPONSES OF ALAN W. EASTHAM, JR. TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in the Republic of the 

Congo? What are the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights and democracy in the Congo? What do you hope to accomplish 

though these actions? 

Answer. The most pressing human rights issues are the need for a credible electoral process and the prevalence of corruption. If confirmed, I would work to ensure 

that two goals are achieved: (1) That the country carries out free and fair presidential elections in 2009; and (2) the government makes progress in combating corruption. 

Democracy in the Republic of Congo faces an important test in the presidential 

elections that are slated for 2009. President Sassou-Nguesso has announced his decision to delay the elections for 6 months. Having recently signed a peace agreement 

in 2005 with the last remaining rebel group in the country, the Congolese Government can demonstrate the progress it has made with respect to reform of the country’s democratic institutions by holding free and fair elections. A failure to do so will 

exacerbate social and political tensions in the country, and harm our interests. If 

I am confirmed as ambassador, I will encourage Congolese authorities to work with 

the donor community to lay the groundwork for transparent elections. I will also 

recommend how the embassy and the State Department can best assist the CongoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00651 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
644 

lese in these efforts, including opportunities to incorporate IFES other United 

States-based NGO groups in our initiatives. 

The State Department Human Rights Report notes that government corruption is 

an infringement on human rights, recognizing that corruption deprives ordinary 

people of access to essential social services. Corruption also discourages foreign investment and hinders economic growth. American foreign investment can benefit 

from an environment that is free of the burden of government corruption. The embassy has done a great deal to highlight the concerns of corruption with its interlocutors. If confirmed, I will continue our dialog and advise Congo to implement the 

reforms necessary to address donor concerns about its commitment to transparency. 

The Republic of Congo must continue to make progress on fulfilling the validation 

process under the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and must take 

steps to cooperate with the IMF and World Bank to implement substantial economic 

reforms and programs to encourage poverty alleviation. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues that you have identified as most pressing? 

Answer. Still emerging from a post-conflict status, the Republic of Congo currently 

lacks the capacity to overcome its many human rights challenges. Congo must marshal its limited resources and overcome bureaucratic lethargy to train government 

personnel, improve government infrastructure, professionalize its security forces, 

and increase enforcement capacity. A professional bureaucracy and skilled security 

forces are necessary preconditions for maintaining internal stability and moving forward on long overdue legislative elections in the troubled southeastern Pool region. 

The Congolese Government sometimes has difficulty taking the specific steps 

needed to fully implement planned reforms. One example of this is the government 

and U.N.-supported disarmament and demobilization program. The goals of the program are lofty, but the government must implement further reforms to strengthen 

the program’s effectiveness. Similarly, while the Congolese have made some improvements on revenue transparency, additional actions, such as continuing to hire 

external auditors to review government records and independently assess Congo’s 

progress, are necessary to make significant progress. 

Question. In response to a question before your confirmation as Ambassador to 

Malawi, you described how you have worked to advance human rights in Central 

Africa and elsewhere. How has your experience as chief of mission further shaped 

your perspective on this issue? 

Answer. As chief of mission in Malawi since 2005, I have been fortunate to work 

with a government whose intentions on human rights are generally good. On occasion, however, lack of resources has led to some cases of abuse, particularly with 

respect to the underpaid and poorly trained police. I attempted to bring the problem 

to the attention of the authorities, and, along with other like-minded colleagues, direct resources to improve the professionalism of the police. In addition, as the next 

election draws near, there is a tendency on the part of the Malawi Government to 

use government instruments and power in support of the incumbent president’s reelection. I have attempted, through quiet conversations with both opposition and 

government, to defuse disputes and bridge differences, particularly in support of a 

recent mediation effort led by an ecumenical group of Malawi clergy. I have also 

sought out civil society and nongovernmental organizations to understand and attempt to put into action their suggestions for reducing the political temperature and 

therefore the possibility of politically-motivated human rights violations. My experience at chief of mission highlighted the important role a U.S. Ambassador can play 

in helping to transcend differences among political parties and incorporate civil society in the political process. 

Question. The past several elections held in Congo were considered to be highly 

disorganized by opposition members and outside observers. What specific measures 

has the government taken to improve the electoral process? Do you view the democratic process as improving? 

Answer. While the government has taken steps to consult with the opposition on 

the electoral process (including members of the opposition in the presidential cabinet), and while they have committed to supporting the country’s electoral commission, they haven’t done so. The government has the financial resources to develop 

a climate for free and fair elections in 2009 but has not shown the will to do so. 

I will be able to better characterize the status of the democratic process in the 

Congo when I go there, if I am confirmed. 

In confirmed, I will encourage the Congolese Government to support the country’s 

democratic institutions to ensure that the electoral process is free and fair. I will 

645 

also continue the embassy work in supporting initiatives to better inform members 

of the Congolese civil society on their role and responsibility in the electoral process. 

Question. Congo is endowed with natural resources, including abundant rain forests, large deposits of oil, natural gas, magnesium, diamonds, and gold. To what extent are natural resources being responsibly and transparently managed? If confirmed, what role would you envision playing in helping to promote transparent, responsible, and sustainable resource management? 

Answer. One of the chief concerns of the U.S. Embassy is conservation of the natural resources. I understand that the Congolese Government has expressed its commitment to transparently and responsibly manage natural resources. They are cooperating with initiatives by the Wildlife Conservation Society, Jane Goodall Institute, and Central African Regional Project on Environment (CARPE) representatives to promote sustainable resource management. In 2007, the Republic of Congo 

was permitted to reenter the Kimberly Process certification scheme after a 3-year 

suspension, which resulted from the government’s inability to reconcile discrepancies between rough diamond exports and known production capacity. They have 

also expressed an interest in working with the embassy to prepare a comprehensive 

report on the life span of the Congo’s resources. The report will focus on timber, iron 

ore, and bauxite. 

If confirmed, I will continue to consider environmental resource management as 

a significant priority for the United States in the Republic of Congo. I will continue 

to encourage the Congolese Government to cooperate with NGO groups to ensure 

that the country’s resources are managed properly. I will also encourage the Congo’s 

compliance with all aspects of the Kimberly Process. Finally, I will work with 

United States and foreign companies involved in the extraction of natural resources 

to ensure that they consider resource management as a top priority. This will include working with our Chinese counterparts operating in the region. 

(647) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008, AFTERNOON 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Gfoeller-Volkoff, Tatiana C., to be Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan 

Olson, Richard G., Jr., to be Ambassador to the United Arab 

Emirates 

Pearce, David D., to be Ambassador to the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria 

Sison, Hon. Michele J., to be U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:32 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry presiding. 

Present: Senators Kerry and Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. This hearing will come to order. 

Thank you all very much for taking the time to be here. I think 

Senator Coleman is going to be here, but I thought we would just 

start and get going anyway. 

Each of your testimonies will be submitted to the record in full 

as if delivered in full, and I assume you are prepared to deliver 

summary comments. 

We want to thank each of you for your willingness to serve, for 

your distinguished records in various parts of the world, not all of 

them which are all that glamorous. And we certainly are exceedingly pleased to have such a professional group of ambassador-designees before the committee. I think a lot of members of the committee, because we deal with these issues, have particular respect 

for the careers you have chosen and for the sacrifices that go with 

it, both your own personally and those of your families. So I think 

this is a particularly qualified group, and we are very grateful for 

your willingness to serve yet further at a difficult time. Service 

abroad nowadays is, in most places, not what it used to be and, in 

many places, can be both a risky and demanding undertaking. 

Let me just ask, if I can, do each of you have family members 

who are here? When you are called on, if you would introduce your 

support structure, we would appreciate it. That would be very nice. 

Yesterday Ambassador Sison and I had the opportunity to be 

able to chat a little bit. Our nominee to be Ambassador to LebVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00655 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
648 

anon—and we are fortunate to have someone who has already 

served in the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, India, Cote d’Ivoire, 

Cameroon, Benin, Togo, and Haiti. Ambassador Sison has already 

been serving as our Charge d’Affaires in Lebanon, and so comes to 

this posting with a real understanding of the situation there that 

will more than serve her well. 

Mr. Richard Olson, the nominee to be Ambassador to the United 

Arab Emirates, has also had a very impressive career, currently 

serving as the deputy chief of mission to the United States mission 

to NATO in Brussels. He has had previous postings to the UAE, 

as well as assignments in Mexico, Uganda, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, 

and Ethiopia. 

I will also note we had the pleasure of confirming Mr. Olson’s 

wife, Deborah Jones, as Ambassador to Kuwait in February. So the 

committee has confidence that you know where to go to get advice 

if needed. [Laughter.] 

Mr. David Pearce, the nominee to be Ambassador to Algeria, has 

received a number of commendations for his exemplary service over 

the past 25 years. He comes to us now from Iraq where he has 

been serving as senior advisor to the ambassador. He brings extensive previous experience in the Middle East, having also served in 

Israel, Syria, the UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. 

Ms. Tatiana Gfoeller-Volkoff, the nominee to be Ambassador to 

the Kyrgyz Republic, has also had a distinguished career of over 

20 years that includes postings in Russia, Poland, Bahrain, and 

NATO headquarters, and brings significant experience in the region, having served as the deputy chief of mission in 

Turkmenistan. Most recently she served as the consul general in 

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 

As she knows, I was in Jeddah a few weeks ago and had the 

pleasure of meeting Ms. Gfoeller-Volkoff’s husband, Michael, who is 

doing an outstanding job as the deputy chief of mission and who 

I learned is a legend in the region. And I enjoyed enormously my 

conversations with him, I might add. He is a very intelligent fellow. 

All of you have very challenging posts and challenging jobs ahead 

of you, needless to say. Our relationships with Lebanon, the UAE, 

Algeria, Kyrgyz Republic—all offer significant opportunities but 

also real challenges. 

In Lebanon, the mounting tensions and the political stalemate 

between Hezbollah and the March 14 coalition that began in December of 2006 exploded this May for all of us to see on television, 

and the violence left over 80 people dead and hundreds more 

wounded. A full-blown civil war was averted by a Qatari-mediated 

accord in May that resulted in the election of Michel Sleiman as 

a consensus choice for President, and, in effect, gave Hezbollah 

some of the political power that they had been seeking. 

On July 11, a new cabinet was finally announced, but this fragile 

coalition government will only last until the new elections are held 

early in 2009. 

By all accounts, Syria continues to interfere in Lebanon’s domestic affairs, supplying Hezbollah with weapons and support that 

have enabled it to act as a ‘‘state within a state.’’ I was recently 

there and met with many of the various factions, parties, with obviously the exception of Hezbollah, though I met with their straw 

649 

people in the parliament and elsewhere. It is safe to say that 

Hezbollah has become more powerful than ever and has shown a 

greater efficiency in many cases than the government itself in its 

ability to deliver services funded, of course, by Iran and Syria. 

Simply put, we need to do more to help the Siniora government 

to demonstrate it can deliver for the people, but obviously in a way 

that does not make it look like it is just doing so at our behest and 

sort of as our surrogate, which it is not. So there will be a requirement for significant economic assistance and continuing efforts to 

strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces and the civil society. And 

I was struck in traveling around Lebanon how palpable the danger 

is. It is felt by every leader and by all those who are visitors. And 

no society should live under such danger in conducting its daily affairs. 

There is much cause for concern about Hezbollah, but its continuing refusal to lay down its arms and recent developments may 

bring about new opportunities. The historic announcement that 

Syria and Lebanon intend to establish diplomatic relations may 

allow for meaningful movement on the vital issue of respect for 

Lebanon’s sovereignty. 

The Hariri Tribunal can also provide an opportunity to bring 

some closure to tragic political violence that has plagued Lebanon 

for generations now. 

And Israel’s offer to negotiate with Lebanon on all outstanding 

issues could be an opening for welcomed progress and improving 

relations after years of tensions. 

In the Gulf, the UAE has been a very important strategic ally, 

hosting a significant United States Air Force presence at Al Dhafra 

Air Base and allowing us to use naval facilities that support United 

States operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have strengthened 

this partnership through the sale of major weapons systems, with 

significant new arms sales currently developing. I look forward to 

hearing from Mr. Olson about how the United States is enhancing 

its security and cooperation with the UAE. 

At the same time, concerns remain, as they do in many parts of 

that region, on issues of human rights and human trafficking. And 

despite limited improvement on democratic reforms, including 

strictly controlled elections in 2006 by the Federal National Council, the State Department found that numerous restrictions remain 

on freedoms of speech and assembly. We’re aware that the State 

Department has upgraded UAE’s designation on human trafficking. 

We look forward to hearing how we can encourage continued improvement on this and other areas of concern. 

U.S. relations with Algeria have improved in recent years, and 

we now enjoy a significant level of cooperation on several counterterrorism and security efforts, including information-sharing and 

participation in the NATO Mediterranean dialog and the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership. This is especially important 

given the emergence of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic Maghreb which claimed responsibility for a string of horrific 

attacks in Algeria and a number of foreign fighters in Iraq, who regrettably come from Algeria. 

Human rights concerns are of concern in that area. Many people 

question the need for Algeria to maintain its decades-old state of 

650 

emergency, which has reportedly allowed for human rights abuses 

by state security forces. 

The challenge is to continue to strengthen our security cooperation while encouraging Algeria to take significant steps to improve 

its record on many issues, such as cracking down on human trafficking, easing restrictions on freedoms of speech, assembly, press, 

and association. 

The Kyrgyz Republic is an important United States ally in a very 

troubled part of the world. It provided essential assistance following 9/11 particularly in letting us use the Manas Air Base, and 

this base still serves as a vital logistics hub for our operations in 

Afghanistan. In fact, nearly 100 percent of our supplies to Afghanistan transit through it. 

While this partnership and United States efforts to assist 

Kyrgyzstan on security and economic improvements are key areas 

of our relationship, we also have a duty to stress the importance 

of fair governance in Kyrgyzstan. In particular, we are concerned 

that the 2007 constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections, which were not deemed to have met international standards, 

represented a missed opportunity to sustain democratic progress of 

the 2005 Presidential election. 

So I will ask each of you, if you would, to limit your comments 

to about 10 minutes opening, maybe less even, and then we will 

have an opportunity to have a dialog on these issues. Thank you. 

Ambassador Sison, do you want to start? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE JEANNE SISON, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO LEBANON 

Ambassador SISON. Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to appear 

before you today as President Bush’s nominee to be the United 

States Ambassador to Lebanon. I would like to introduce my sister, 

Vicki Sison Morimoto, just behind me with her husband, Miles, and 

daughters, Emiko and Michiko, who have come up from North 

Carolina today. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. Welcome. We are glad to have you 

here today. 

Ambassador SISON. I have served in Beirut as Charge d’Affaires 

ad interim since February of this year, and I would like to express 

my sincere appreciation for the extraordinary decision made by 

Chairman Biden to agree to Secretary Rice’s request that I be sent 

to Lebanon to serve as Charge in February, pending agreement 

and ahead of these Senate confirmation hearings. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working with this committee, interested Members 

of Congress, and other Americans to represent the American people 

and to continue to advance United States goals in Lebanon. 

I have served our country as a Foreign Service officer since 1982. 

Over the past 26 years, I have done my very best to represent the 

United States in a series of challenging assignments. As a firstgeneration American, I am especially proud to represent our country abroad. I am profoundly grateful for the opportunities and the 

many, many privileges that our great Nation offers its citizens. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States, indeed, has important interests in Lebanon. If confirmed, I will work hard to advance these 

interests. Lebanon is at the forefront of our efforts to promote deVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00658 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
651 

mocracy, promote human rights and freedoms, and to combat extremism in the Middle East. Lebanon, as you note, has undergone 

seismic changes over the past several years, from the assassination 

of former Prime Minister of Rafiq Hariri and subsequent Cedar 

Revolution of 2005, to the devastating July 2006 war and the ensuing political stalemate that ended only this May 2008 with the 

Doha Agreement and the election of President Michel Sleiman, and 

then the subsequent formation of a national unity government on 

July 11, headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. 

Now, we should remember that it was the Lebanese citizens 

themselves who took to the streets in 2005 to end Syria’s occupation and demanded a sovereign, democratic state free from foreign 

interference. The Lebanese people also called at that time on the 

international community to investigate Prime Minister Rafiq 

Hariri’s assassination and related crimes through the U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission and the Special 

Tribunal for Lebanon. 

One concrete measure of United States support for the Lebanese 

people’s aspirations for a democratic, sovereign, stable, and prosperous Lebanon is our robust United States bilateral assistance 

program. Since 2006, the United States has committed over $1 billion to help Lebanon strengthen its state institutions and to rebuild, reform, and realize its economic potential. With these funds, 

the United States is training and equipping the Lebanese Armed 

Forces and the Internal Security Forces, the police, to support their 

deployment throughout Lebanon to provide security for the Lebanese people. As we saw in May of this year, Hezbollah and other 

armed groups continue to threaten the peace and security of the 

Lebanese people and their neighbors in contravention of U.N. Security Council resolutions. If confirmed, I will work closely with the 

Lebanese Government to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces 

and the Internal Security Forces to ensure that Lebanon and thereby the region is more stable and more secure. 

U.S. bilateral assistance programs also include judicial reform, 

education, entrepreneurial skill-building, support for civil society, 

and electoral law reform initiatives. Such United States engagement can do much to help the Lebanese people realize their dreams 

of a sovereign, prosperous and democratic state. 

While the United States has a number of critical interests in 

Lebanon, my highest priority, if confirmed, will be the safety of the 

dedicated men and women serving under my leadership, both 

American and locally engaged Lebanese staff, as well as the safety 

of all Americans living, working, and traveling in Lebanon. Each 

day at Embassy Beirut, my staff and I pass the embassy’s memorial to the 337 American and Lebanese colleagues who have lost 

their lives serving the United States Government at United States 

Embassy Beirut. We all serve in their memory and in their honor. 

Mr. Chairman, I want once again to express my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to address you. I look forward, if confirmed, to seeing you and your staff in Beirut. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Sison follows:] 

652 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE J. SISON, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO LEBANON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before 

you today as President Bush’s nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Lebanon. I have served in Beirut as charge d’affaires ad interim since February of this 

year. 

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the extraordinary decision 

made by Chairman Biden to agree to Secretary Rice’s request that I be sent to Lebanon to serve as charge d’affaires pending agreement and ahead of these Senate 

confirmation hearings. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee, 

interested members of Congress, and other Americans to represent the American 

people and to continue to advance United States goals in Lebanon. 

I have served our country as a Foreign Service officer since 1982. Over the past 

26 years, I have done my very best to represent the United States in a series of 

challenging assignments in Haiti, Togo, Benin, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, India, Pakistan, and most recently, as the Untied States Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. 

As a first-generation American, I am especially proud to represent our country 

abroad. I am profoundly grateful for the opportunities and the many privileges that 

our great Nation offers its citizens. Also, I’m pleased today to introduce my sister, 

Vicki Sison Morimoto, and her family—Miles, Michiko, Andy, and Emiko—who 

drove up from North Carolina to be here this afternoon. I also want to recognize 

my two daughters, Alexandra and Jessica. The girls are college students and out 

in Flagstaff, AZ this summer, but are real Foreign Service troopers, having been 

raised in West Africa, India, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States has important interests in Lebanon—interests 

that I will work hard to advance, if confirmed. Lebanon is at the forefront of United 

States efforts to promote democracy, protect human rights and freedoms, and to 

combat extremism in the Middle East. Lebanon has undergone seismic changes over 

the past several years, from the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri 

and subsequent Cedar Revolution of 2005, to the devastating July 2006 war and the 

ensuing political stalemate that ended only this May 2008 with the Doha Agreement, election of President Michel Sleiman, and subsequent formation of a national 

unity government headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on July 11. 

We should remember that it was the Lebanese themselves who took to the streets 

in 2005 to end Syria’s occupation and demand a sovereign, democratic state free 

from foreign interference. The Lebanese people also called on the international community at that time to investigate Prime Minister Hariri’s assassination and related 

crimes through the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. 

One concrete measure of United States support for the Lebanese people’s aspirations for a democratic, sovereign, prosperous, and stable Lebanon is our robust 

United States bilateral assistance program. Since 2006, the United States has committed over $1 billion to help Lebanon strengthen its state institutions and to rebuild, reform, and realize its economic potential. With these funds, the United 

States is training and equipping the Lebanese Army and the Internal Security 

Forces to support their deployment throughout Lebanon to provide security for the 

Lebanese people. As we saw in May of this year, Hezbollah and other illegal armed 

groups continue to threaten the peace and security of the Lebanese people and their 

neighbors in contravention of U.N. Security Council resolutions. If confirmed, I will 

work closely with the Lebanese Government to strengthen the Lebanese Armed 

Forces and the Internal Security Forces to ensure that Lebanon, and thereby the 

region, is more stable and secure. 

The United States must continue to strengthen the forces of the Lebanese state— 

the Lebanese Army and the police (the Internal Security Forces)—so that Lebanese 

citizens may enjoy prosperity, peace, and security. Both of these institutions had 

languished under Syrian occupation, receiving very little in the way of training and 

equipment. When the Lebanese Government took the momentous decision in 2006 

to deploy its army to southern Lebanon for the first time in 40 years and displace 

Hezbollah from the Israeli border, troops traveled in civilian vehicles because they 

lacked trucks, communicated via cell phone because they lacked radios, and slept 

in tents because they lacked permanent shelter. When LAF troops battled Fatah alIslam militants in the Nahr al-Barid refugee camp in 2007, they faced the difficult 

challenge of modifying aging helicopters to drop bombs because they lacked proper 

close air support assets. Our assistance to the LAF is helping to address these needs 

for basic and more advanced equipment as well as training. Meanwhile, our assistance to the ISF is helping to create a credible police force capable of taking on new 

653 

missions including security inside Lebanon’s refugee camps. If confirmed, I will 

work closely with the Lebanese Government to further strengthen these institutions 

to ensure that Lebanon—and thereby the region—is more stable and secure. 

U.S. bilateral assistance also funds a variety of programs, ranging from judicial 

reform to education to entrepreneurial skill-building and support for civil society 

and electoral law reform. Such United States engagement can do much to help the 

Lebanese people realize their dreams of a sovereign, prosperous, and democratic 

state. While the United States has a number of critical interests in Lebanon, my 

highest priority, if confirmed, will be the safety of the dedicated men and women 

serving under my leadership, both American and locally engaged Lebanese staff, as 

well as the safety of all Americans living, working, or traveling in Lebanon. Each 

day at U.S. Embassy Beirut, my staff and I pass the embassy’s memorial to the 337 

American and Lebanese colleagues who have lost their lives working on behalf of 

the United States Government in Lebanon since 1976. We all serve in their memory 

and in their honor. 

If confirmed, I will do my best to be worthy of the trust placed in me by the President, Secretary Rice, and the U.S. Congress to advance American interests and to 

protect American citizens. I fully understand that I will be answerable to you and 

to the American people in this regard. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want once again to express my 

sincere appreciation for this opportunity to address you. If confirmed, I look forward 

to seeing you and your staff members in Beirut. I would welcome any questions you 

might have for me today. Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Mr. Pearce. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID D. PEARCE, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC 

REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am 

deeply honored to appear before you as President Bush’s nominee 

to be the Ambassador to the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. I appreciate the trust and confidence the President and the 

Secretary have shown in nominating me. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my family. My wife, 

Leyla, is my best friend, teacher, and instructor on the Middle 

East, born and raised in Lebanon, for over 30 years. She speaks 

fluent Arabic, English, an French. My daughter, Jenny, former 

Peace Corps volunteer, just received her masters degree in community and regional planning at the University of Oregon. And Joey 

has taught disadvantaged students in Beirut English and is now 

working on his masters in Arabic studies at Georgetown. I am very 

proud of them all and, frankly, Mr. Chairman, if it were not for 

their support and sacrifice through an awful lot of moves and separations over 26 years, I probably would not be sitting here today. 

Mr. Chairman, Algeria is the keystone of North Africa, the third 

most populous country in the Arab world. It is the largest producer 

of oil and gas on the African continent and an important supplier 

of energy to both Europe and the United States. In fact, I believe 

a good part of it goes to New England, sir. Our own two-way trade 

with Algeria is worth about $20 billion. But even if Algeria were 

not our second-largest trading partner in the Arab world, we would 

have a great stake in this relationship. Algeria’s stability and prosperity are important for the stability of both Africa and the Middle 

East. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, tens of thousands of Algerians died 

in the indiscriminate violence of the 1990s. While that internal violence has declined substantially from previous levels, as you noted, 

654 

the threat of extremism, nevertheless, remains. And Algeria has 

been an essential partner in fighting the instability created by the 

increasingly regional terrorist threat. 

Mr. Chairman, the Algerian Government has confronted the 

challenge of extremism squarely and courageously. It has taken a 

leading role in international cooperation on counterterrorism, especially in pursuing and breaking up al-Qaeda-based networks. And 

our bilateral cooperation, again as you noted in this area, is strong. 

Mr. Chairman, through the Middle East Partnership Initiative 

and other programs, we are also supporting Algeria’s reform agenda. If confirmed, I will do my best to encourage continued reform 

and development and further Algeria’s efforts to stabilize and modernize, consistent with the rule of law, transparency, and the importance we attach to human rights and other basic freedoms. 

Mr. Chairman, Algeria has long had a significant role in Middle 

Eastern and African affairs. It is a key player in conflict resolution 

throughout the wider region. It facilitated an end to the EthiopianEritrean border war in the late 1900s and more recently provided 

airlift support to peacekeepers going to Somalia and Darfur. Its 

mediating role in the Sahel has been vital to finding peaceful solutions there. The frozen conflict over Western Sahara cannot be resolved without Algerian participation. And Algeria is at the center 

of the Algerian is at the center of the Arab Maghreb Union, and 

here too, its willingness to lead is going to be a critical factor in 

greater regional integration. 

Mr. Chairman, regarding the embassy itself, we have now moved 

into a new, more secure facility, which I look forward to seeing, if 

confirmed. There are still significant security restrictions, and I assure you that, if confirmed, I will have no higher priority than the 

safety and security of our staff and all Americans in Algeria. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address you 

and Senator Coleman. If confirmed, I hope I will have many opportunities to host you, as I had the honor to do with both of you in 

Jerusalem when I was Consul General there, in Algiers. And I 

would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Pearce. 

[The prepared statement of David D. Pearce follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID D. PEARCE, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deeply honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to be Ambassador to the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. I appreciate the trust and confidence the President and 

Secretary Rice have shown in nominating me. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my wife, Leyla, 

my daughter, Jennifer, and my son, Joey. For over 30 years now, Leyla, who was 

born and raised in Lebanon and speaks fluent Arabic and French, has been my first 

and best teacher on the Middle East. Jenny recently received her master’s degree 

in community and regional planning at the University of Oregon. And Joey is working on his master’s in Arabic studies at Georgetown. I am immensely proud of them 

all, and grateful for their constant support and sacrifice through many moves and 

separations during our 26 years in the Foreign Service. 

Mr. Chairman, Algeria is the keystone of North Africa and the third-most populous country in the Arab world. It is the largest producer of oil and gas on the African continent, and an important supplier of energy to both Europe and the United 

States. Our own two-way trade with Algeria is worth about $20 billion. But even 

if Algeria were not our second-largest trading partner in the Arab world, we would 

have a great stake in this relationship. It is a country of real promise, where hunVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00662 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
655 

dreds of thousands of educated youth could drive a knowledge-based economy that 

would bring growth to the entire region. Its stability and prosperity are important 

for the stability of both Africa and the Middle East. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, tens of thousands of Algerians died in the indiscriminate violence of the 1990s. While that internal violence has declined substantially from previous levels, the threat of extremism nevertheless remains. And Algeria has been an essential partner in fighting the instability created by the increasingly regional terrorist threat. Nearly 2 years ago, a local Algerian extremist group 

sought a new lease on life by declaring a link to al-Qaeda. Since then, that group 

has carried out a number of atrocities against innocent men, women, and children 

in Algeria and elsewhere. It has attacked U.N. offices, engaged in kidnappings and 

bombings, and has extended its reach into surrounding countries. 

Mr. Chairman, the Algerian Government has confronted the challenge of extremism squarely and courageously. It has taken a leading role in international cooperation on counterterrorism, especially in pursuing and breaking up al-Qaedalinked terrorist networks. And our bilateral cooperation in this area is strong. We 

recognize that a comprehensive effort against terrorism must go beyond direct security assistance to incorporate cooperation in fields such as forensics, English-language instruction, and university training. So we are working to build our relationship in those areas. 

Mr. Chairman, through the Middle East Partnership Initiative and other programs we are also supporting Algeria’s reform agenda. Our programs promote the 

professional development of lawyers and judges. They assist Algeria’s press in building journalistic expertise and business acumen. They help the Ministry of Finance 

to improve tax administration and reduce corruption. They aim to assist the Bank 

of Algeria in updating its system of bank supervision—just to name a few areas. 

If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will look forward to joining this important work with 

the Algerian Government and people. I will do my best to encourage continued reform and development, and further Algeria’s efforts to stabilize and modernize, consistent with the rule of law, transparency, and the importance we attach to human 

rights and other basic freedoms. 

Mr. Chairman, Algeria has long had a significant role in Middle Eastern and African affairs. It is a key player in conflict resolution throughout the wider region. It 

is a leading member state of the Arab League, the African Union, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is a longstanding member of the Organization of 

Petroleum Exporting Countries and a founding member of the New Economic Partnership for African Development. It facilitated an end to the Ethiopian-Eritrean border war in the late 1990s and, more recently, provided airlift support to peacekeepers going to Somalia and Darfur. Its mediating role in conflicts in the Sahel 

has been and will remain vital to finding peaceful solutions there. The ‘‘frozen conflict’’ over Western Sahara cannot be resolved without Algerian participation. Not 

least, Algeria is literally at the center of the Arab Maghreb Union. It would gain 

from increasing trade within that grouping, and its willingness to lead in this area 

will be critical to realizing long-held dreams of regional integration. 

Mr. Chairman, regarding the embassy itself, we have now moved to a new, more 

secure facility, which I look forward to seeing. There are still significant security 

restrictions, and I assure you that if confirmed, I will have no higher priority than 

the safety and security of our staff and all Americans in Algeria. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address you. If confirmed, I 

hope I will have many occasions to host members of this committee in Algiers. For 

now, I would be pleased to address any questions that you may have. 

Let me welcome my ranking member, Senator Coleman, and ask 

at this point, if you will excuse us for interrupting the conversation’s flow, and if he has any opening. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, what I will do is just simply 

ask that my opening statement be placed in the record. I will listen 

to the nominees. These are highly strategic areas and of great importance. So I look forward to an opportunity to ask some questions 

and then work with these nominees. So with that, I would ask consent that my statement—— 

656 

Senator KERRY. Absolutely. Without objection, the full statement 

will be placed in the record. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coleman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Senator Kerry. Today we are considering a very important set of 

nominations, as these nominees are to represent the United States in countries located in some of the most critical regions in the world. The countries for which we 

are considering nominees today are located in a highly strategic region and play 

critical roles in achieving U.S. objectives for the region—including bringing peace 

between Israel and its neighbors, fighting terrorism, partnering on energy security, 

combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—among other important 

areas. I look forward to hearing from our guests on how their experience has prepared them for the important tasks that have been placed before them in being 

nominated to serve as our Ambassadors in Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, and Kyrgyzstan. 

One of the countries for which we are considering a nominee is Lebanon, which 

today stands at a critical juncture. I believe the complexity of the situation was 

highlighted dramatically last week when we observed a deeply saddening exchange 

of the bodies of two Israeli soldiers for the release of Hezbollah terrorists. In May 

of this year we watched as Lebanon faced a grave political crisis, which was overcome through the mediation of the Arab league. While the Doha Agreement that 

was agreed to in May prevented additional bloodshed at the time and restored some 

stability, it also gave Hezbollah a significant stronghold within the government. So 

it is unclear that this arrangement will serve as a stable basis on which Lebanon 

can advance its political process. Furthermore, the tentacles of both Syria and Iran 

continue to undermine the moderate elements in the country and to subject the future of the people of Lebanon to the whims of the theocrats in Tehran. Yet there 

are elements in Lebanon who are fighting for freedom and for democracy, and it is 

in the interests of the United States to ensure that these forces of moderation succeed. The situation therefore remains extremely complex and fragile, and the confirmation of a representative to represent the United States in Lebanon is vital at 

this time. I look forward to hearing the nominee’s perspective on her views of the 

situation in Lebanon and how she will work to pursue our key interests. 

Moving toward the Gulf region, we see that an unprecedented increase in the 

price of oil has allowed the Emirates of Dubai and Abu-Dabi to undergo a surge of 

acquisitions of United States properties and interests, orchestrated by their sovereign wealth funds. While some of these deals, such as the Dubai Ports World case, 

have raised concerns in this chamber, others received support since they brought 

a much needed life-line to some of our troubled financial institutions. What is certain is that we need to know more about these funds, about who is behind them, 

and especially about their objectives and implications. 

The UAE, as well as Algeria, enjoy vast reserves of natural gas and other energy 

resources. In light of these circumstances, and the fact that Algeria is currently 

chairing OPEC, it is important that our nominees work closely with both these 

countries as we seek to resolve the significant energy challenges facing the United 

States. I believe that U.S. representation in both of these countries is important in 

this work to pave the way for more stable sources of energy supply, as well as to 

arrive at a mutual understanding on the most productive forms of economic and security cooperation with our country. 

Kyrgyzstan also is a country with a very strategic geography, bordering with 

China and with the oil-rich Kazakhstan, and closely allied with Russia. It has also 

been of great support to coalition efforts in Afghanistan, allowing large forces to 

pass through its airports. For these reasons, the country embodies key U.S. security 

interests and should therefore be engaged in a close, cooperative, and mutually beneficial dialog, ensuring that this cooperation remains strong. 

I thank each of the nominees for offering themselves to represent their country 

at an important time and in very important countries. I look forward to hearing the 

testimonies from our nominees and discussing how the United States can best pursue its objectives through our relationships with the countries we will be discussing 

today. Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Olson. 

657 

Let me just say also to the families that just got introduced. We 

really appreciate your being here. As a Foreign Service brat I have 

a lot of respect for the journey, so to speak. Mr. Pearce, your wife, 

it appears, ought to be going to Lebanon with Ms. Sison. We will 

work that out later. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. OLSON, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman and Senator Coleman, it is a great 

honor to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to 

be the United States Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. I 

am deeply grateful to President Bush and Secretary Rice for their 

confidence in me. If confirmed, I look forward to representing the 

American people, to advancing United States goals in the United 

Arab Emirates, and to working with this committee and other interested Members of Congress to advance the United States agenda. 

I have been privileged to serve the American people as a Foreign 

Service officer since 1982, having represented them at a series of 

assignments mostly in the Middle East and Africa. I have been 

lucky to have shared my life in the Foreign Service with my wife, 

Deborah Jones, currently serving as the United States Ambassador 

to Kuwait, and with our two wonderful daughters, two Foreign 

Service brats, Ana and Isabella. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Coleman, I would also like to acknowledge the presence of representatives of the United Arab 

Emirates embassy who are with us here today at this hearing and 

thank them for coming. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Coleman, the United Arab Emirates 

plays an influential and growing role in the Middle East and is an 

important partner for the United States. The United States and 

the United Arab Emirates enjoy strong bilateral cooperation on a 

full range of issues, including defense, law enforcement, countering 

terrorist finance, and nonproliferation. Within the region, the UAE 

has shown leadership by its recent decision to send an ambassador 

to Baghdad and to cancel $7 billion worth of Iraqi debt. The UAE 

has also contributed generously to international efforts to rebuild 

Afghanistan and given substantial assistance to the people of Lebanon and to the Palestinian Authority. 

Our strategic partnership extends to cooperation on political-military issues. We conduct regular bilateral strategic security discussions through the Gulf Security Dialogue and continue to expand 

our robust military-to- military partnership. 

The UAE is committed to preventing the proliferation of weapons 

of mass destruction. It endorsed the Proliferation Security Initiative in early 2006. In August 2007, the UAE passed a comprehensive export control law empowering the federal authorities to take 

action against companies or shipments threatening UAE national 

security. The United States has actively engaged Emirati authorities via the bilateral Counter Proliferation Task Force. 

UAE remains one of the largest export markets for U.S. goods in 

the Middle East. A diverse array of American companies active in 

the petroleum, defense, services, education, and health care sectors 

have found the UAE not only an attractive place to work but also 

658 

an excellent location for regional hubs doing business across the 

Gulf. By investing heavily in its own infrastructure and in attractive opportunities overseas, the UAE is planning for a future in 

which hydrocarbons will not be the dominant source of wealth for 

its citizens. 

If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador, I plan to build on our already 

solid base of partnership, focusing on cooperation in the Middle 

East region and on security issues. I will work with Emirati authorities on our common goal of seeing that the UAE’s legitimate 

interest in trade with its neighbors is not put to inappropriate 

uses, especially with regard to Iran. I will be an active partner 

with the American private sector to encourage the further growth 

of our trade relationship. 

And I plan to devote personal attention to the overarching issue 

of America’s image in Emirati society. As a first step, I will listen 

to Emiratis’ concerns, because I do believe that when Americans 

engage with Emiratis on the things that matter to them—good jobs 

for their children, a peaceful future, sustainable economic growth, 

then our image improves. And I know from personal experience 

that Emiratis who come to the United States, especially to study, 

got back to the UAE with a greater appreciation for our society. We 

can make no sounder investment to advance our long-term relationship than in the area of educational and cultural exchanges. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in closing, if confirmed, I would welcome seeing you and your staff members in the 

UAE. I would also welcome any questions you might have today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. OLSON, JR., 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as President Bush’s nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the 

United Arab Emirates. I am deeply grateful to President Bush and to Secretary Rice 

for their confidence in me. If confirmed, I look forward to representing the American 

people, advancing United States goals in the United Arab Emirates, and to working 

with this committee and other interested Members of Congress to advance the 

United States agenda. 

I have been privileged to serve the American people as a Foreign Service officer 

since 1982, having represented them at a series of assignments mostly in the Middle 

East and Africa. I have been lucky to have shared my life in the Foreign Service 

with my wife, Deborah Jones, who is currently serving as the United States Ambassador to Kuwait, and with our two wonderful daughters, Ana and Isabella. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the United Arab Emirates plays 

an influential and growing role in the Middle East, and is an important partner for 

the United States. The United States and the UAE enjoy strong bilateral cooperation on a full range of issues including defense, law enforcement, countering terrorist finance, and nonproliferation. Within the region, the UAE has shown leadership by its recent decision to send an Ambassador to Baghdad, and to cancel $7 billion worth of Iraqi debt. The UAE has also contributed generously to international 

efforts to rebuild Afghanistan and given substantial assistance to the people of Lebanon and to the Palestinian Authority. 

Our strategic partnership extends to cooperation on political-military issues. We 

conduct regular bilateral strategic security discussions through the Gulf Security Dialog and continue to expand our robust military-to-military partnership. For example, the port of Jebel Ali in Dubai is the United States Navy’s busiest overseas portof-call. 

The UAE is committed to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; it endorsed the Proliferation Security Initiative in early 2006. In August 2007, 

the UAE passed a comprehensive export control law empowering the Federal auVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00666 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
659 

thorities to take action against companies or shipments threatening UAE national 

security. The United States has actively engaged Emirati authorities via the Export 

Control and Related Border Security program to provide training and discussed ongoing issues of bilateral concern via the bilateral Counter Proliferation Task Force. 

In April 2008, the UAE issued its white paper on nuclear energy. Noting that 

peaceful nuclear power is an environmentally promising and commercially competitive approach to meeting its future electricity needs, the paper announced a program to thoroughly evaluate a nuclear power option for the UAE. From a nonproliferation perspective, the paper included several important policy decisions by 

the UAE, including renouncing any intention to develop domestic enrichment or reprocessing capability in favor of long-term external fuel supply arrangements and 

meeting the highest international standards for nonproliferation, safety, and security. 

The United States has engaged the UAE with the goal of helping to develop the 

infrastructure necessary to meet the highest standards for nonproliferation, safety, 

and security in a nuclear energy program. On April 21, 2008, the United States 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on peaceful nuclear cooperation 

with the UAE. Simultaneously, the UAE endorsed the Global Initiative to Combat 

Nuclear Terrorism. 

The UAE remains one of the largest export markets for United States goods in 

the Middle East. A diverse array of American companies active in the petroleum, 

defense, services, education, and health care sectors have found the UAE not only 

an attractive place to work, but also an excellent location for regional hubs doing 

business across the gulf. By investing heavily in its own infrastructure and in attractive opportunities overseas, the UAE is planning for a future in which hydrocarbons will not be the dominant source of wealth for its citizens. 

Since 2006, the UAE has voluntarily submitted proposed investments to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States numerous times—in all cases 

with a successful resolution. Investors from the UAE have put billions of dollars into 

the American economy. Whether purchasing shares in well known institutions or 

making investments that garner less attention in the media but are equally important in generating new jobs for Americans, the UAE is a long-term strategic investor in the U.S. market. To ensure that the international community remains open 

to investment the UAE and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority have worked in 

cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the International Monetary Fund to establish a set of voluntary best practices for Sovereign Wealth Funds. 

If confirmed as U.S. ambassador, I plan to build on our already solid base of partnership, focusing on our cooperation in the Middle East region, and our partnership 

on security issues. I will work with Emirati authorities on our common goal of seeing that the UAE’s legitimate interest in trade with its neighbors is not put to inappropriate uses, especially with regard to Iran. I will be an active partner with the 

American private sector to encourage the further growth of our trade relationship. 

And I plan to devote personal attention to the overarching issue of America’s image 

in Emirati society. As a first step I will listen to Emiratis concerns, because I do 

believe that when Americans engage with Emiratis on the things that matter to 

them—good jobs for their children, a peaceful future, and a sustainable economic 

future—then our image improves. And I know from personal experience that 

Emiratis who come to the United States, especially to study, go back to the UAE 

with a greater appreciation for our society. We can make no sounder investment to 

advance our long-term relationship than in the area of educational and cultural exchanges. 

As head of the U.S. mission comprising employees of more than 12 different U.S. 

Government agencies and departments, my first priority will remain at all times the 

safety and security of the dedicated men and women, American and foreign nationals, at my mission as well as all Americans living and working or traveling to the 

United Arab Emirates. I will strive to be worthy of the confidence placed in me by 

the President, Secretary Rice, and the U.S. Congress because ultimately I will be 

answerable to you and to the American people. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in closing, if confirmed, I would 

welcome your insights and views on the UAE and the region, and would look forward to seeing you and your staff members in the UAE. I would also welcome any 

questions you might have for me today. Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Olson. 

Ms. Gfoeller-Volkoff. 

660 

STATEMENT OF TATIANA C. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC 

Ms. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF. Mr. Chairman and Senator Coleman, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am 

honored that President Bush and Secretary Rice have demonstrated the confidence in me to put forward my nomination as 

United States Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. 

During my almost quarter century in the Foreign Service, my 

family and I have been grateful for this opportunity to make a 

unique contribution to our country. Indeed, I would like to acknowledge here my family’s culture of service. A number of family 

members have served or are serving now in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

My husband, Michael, whom you were kind enough to mention, 

and son, Emmanuel, are unfortunately unable to be present here 

today with me because Michael, as you said, Mr. Chairman, is 

serving as our deputy chief of mission at our embassy in Riyadh, 

and Emmanuel is busy training fellow cadets at West Point. 

Kyrgyzstan is an important partner of the United States and a 

positive bilateral relationship is critical to United States interests 

in the region. Two months after September 11, Kyrgyzstan agreed 

to host the United States Air Force at Manas Air Base, a crucial 

supply link in our ongoing efforts to fight terrorism and to lay the 

foundations for a peaceful and prosperous future in Afghanistan 

and the entire Central Asia region. President Bakiyev publicly reaffirmed his country’s continued commitment to the base in December of last year. 

In March, we jointly reaffirmed our cooperation on a range of 

issues, from the fight against terrorism and other transnational 

threats like narcotics trafficking, to economic engagement, to democratic development, and promotion of the rule of law. If confirmed, 

I will be honored to do my part to deepen that cooperation. 

Since independence in 1991, Kyrgyzstan has made impressive 

progress toward the transition from an authoritarian regime to a 

democratic one and from a command structure to a market-based 

economy. Early on, Kyrgyzstan recognized the value of the free exchange of ideas, establishing an open environment that fostered a 

vibrant civil society. It became the first former Soviet state to join 

the World Trade Organization. 

Over the years, however, the momentum of reform stalled. The 

December 2007 parliamentary elections did not meet international 

standards, and the government has sought legislation that would 

restrict important freedoms, such as the freedom of the press and 

assembly. The United States, in close collaboration with other 

international partners, has made clear to the Kyrgyz Government 

that such steps do not reflect Kyrgyzstan’s international commitments. 

Through all this upheaval, however, Kyrgyzstan has maintained 

an active and vocal political culture, tolerating often contentious 

confrontations but avoiding serious political violence. Some say this 

country is learning about democracy by doing democracy. It has 

shown a capacity for reform. We can help the Kyrgyz foster that 

reform and, in so doing, demonstrate throughout the region the ultimate benefits of including all people in the political process. 

661 

One challenge that has beleaguered Kyrgyzstan throughout independence is corruption. All segments of society have sought our 

help in addressing this problem. If confirmed, I look forward to 

overseeing the implementation of a brand new threshold program 

focused on fighting corruption that the Millennium Challenge Corporation recently approved for Kyrgyzstan. 

Kyrgyzstan is keenly interested in American commercial engagement, but the challenges for United States companies are daunting. 

The economy has shown stability in recent years, but renewed inflationary pressures and other conditions make for a bleaker picture in 2008. If confirmed, I will look for ways to assist and encourage the Kyrgyz leadership to keep focused on improving the investment climate. 

One of the key lessons we have learned over the years of transition is the interconnectedness of reform efforts. Kyrgyzstan itself 

recognizes the importance of economic revitalization. One of the requirements for true economic reform is the rule of law. Ensuring 

the primacy of the rule of law requires a fully functioning democracy. We continue to emphasize this interconnectedness. 

If we consider where the country started 17 years ago, 

Kyrgyzstan has made remarkable progress, and the United States 

can take considerable pride in supporting that transformation. We 

can also take comfort in the contributions Kyrgyzstan makes to regional and global security. Our relationship still has room to grow, 

however. If confirmed, I will be honored to represent President 

Bush and work with Members of Congress to engage with the 

Kyrgyz Government and all elements of Kyrgyz society to facilitate 

that process. 

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gfoeller-Volkoff follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TATIANA C. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO KYRGYZSTAN

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored that President Bush and Secretary Rice have 

demonstrated the confidence in me to put forward my nomination as United States 

Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. 

During my almost quarter-century in the Foreign Service, my family and I have 

been grateful for this opportunity to make a unique contribution to our country. Indeed, I would like to acknowledge here my family’s culture of service. A number of 

family members have served or are serving now in Afghanistan and Iraq. My husband, Michael, and son, Emmanuel, are unfortunately unable to be present here 

today with me, because Michael is serving as our deputy chief of mission at our embassy in Riyadh, and Emmanuel is busy training fellow cadets at West Point. 

Kyrgyzstan is an important partner of the United States, and a positive bilateral 

relationship is critical to United States interests in the region. Two months after 

September 11, Kyrgyzstan agreed to host the United States Air Force at Manas Air 

Base, a crucial supply link in our ongoing efforts to fight terrorism and to lay the 

foundations for a peaceful and prosperous future in Afghanistan and the entire Central Asia region. President Bakiyev publicly reaffirmed his country’s continued commitment to the base in December of last year. 

In March, we jointly reaffirmed our cooperation on a range of issues, from the 

fight against terrorism and other transnational threats like narcotics trafficking to 

economic engagement to democratic development and promotion of the rule of law. 

If confirmed, I will be honored to do my part to deepen that cooperation and promote our own interests—which include the secure, prosperous, and democratic development of Kyrgyzstan. 

662 

Since independence in 1991, Kyrgyzstan has made impressive progress toward the 

transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one and from a command 

structure to a market-based economy. Its progress has been uneven, however, and 

it still faces considerable challenges. 

Early on, Kyrgyzstan recognized the value of the free exchange of ideas, establishing an open environment that fostered a vibrant civil society. It undertook necessary economic reforms, becoming the first former Soviet country to join the World 

Trade Organization. It is still the only WTO member in Central Asia. Over the 

years, however, the momentum of reform stalled. The government imposed new restrictions on the media, and political opponents found themselves in jail. 

Then, the people of Kyrgyzstan demanded change. A series of protests culminated 

in the fall of the Akayev government in March 2005. The so-called Tulip Revolution 

led to presidential elections in July of that year that were widely recognized by 

international observers as free and fair. President Bakiyev was elected on a platform of continued reform, and we had high hopes for his efforts. Since then, however, Kyrgyzstan has faced protracted political turmoil, and the December 2007 parliamentary elections did not meet international standards. 

Through all this upheaval, Kyrgyzstan has maintained an active and vocal political culture, tolerating often contentious confrontations across the political spectrum, but keeping them on the political level and avoiding serious political violence. 

Some say this country is learning about democracy by doing democracy. It has 

shown a capacity for reform. We can help the Kyrgyz foster that reform and, in so 

doing, demonstrate throughout the region the ultimate benefits of including all people in the political process and extending to them the freedom to build their own 

economic future. 

President Bakiyev has declared he is ready to proceed with needed economic reforms. While we hope that he will soon get the country back on the reform path, 

progress has been limited so far. 

One challenge that has beleaguered Kyrgyzstan throughout independence is corruption. Representatives of the government, the opposition, and civil society alike 

have all sought our help in addressing this problem. If confirmed, I look forward 

to overseeing the implementation of a brand new assistance program that the Millennium Challenge Corporation recently approved for Kyrgyzstan. 

This threshold program will focus on helping Kyrgyzstan confront the scourge of 

corruption by reforming the judicial and law enforcement sectors. It has the potential not only to land a solid blow against the corruption that impedes Kyrgyzstan’s 

progress toward prosperity, but to reassert the primacy of the rule of law and get 

the country back on the course of reform. 

Kyrgyzstan cooperates with us on a host of security issues. In addition to hosting 

Manas Air Base, the government has expressed interest in providing more direct assistance to our coalition efforts in Afghanistan. We helped establish the Drug Control Agency of Kyrgyzstan in 2003, and we are working together to improve its capacity to intercept and reduce the flow of narcotics through Kyrgyzstan. Our military and other officials collaborate with Kyrgyz officials here, at the Marshall Center in Europe, and in Kyrgyzstan on workshops to improve individual officers’ capacity to combat terrorism. 

Kyrgyzstan is keenly interested in American commercial engagement, but the 

challenges for United States companies of operating far away in a relatively small 

market with pervasive corruption are daunting. The economy has shown stability 

in recent years, with over 8 percent growth in 2007, inflation under reasonable limits, and an improving fiscal picture. Renewed inflationary pressures and other conditions make for a bleaker picture in 2008. The World Bank and IMF have both approved additional assistance to help Kyrgyzstan through these recent difficulties. If 

confirmed, I will look for ways the United States Government can assist in the short 

term, but will also encourage the Kyrgyz leadership to keep focused on the longerterm goal of improving the investment climate, to increase opportunities for both 

the local population and American firms. 

This past year has also seen disruptions in Kyrgyzstan’s progress toward a fully 

functioning democracy. Since December’s elections, the government has sought legislation that would restrict important freedoms, such as the freedom of the press and 

assembly. The United States, in close collaboration with other international partners, has made clear to the Kyrgyz Government that such steps do not reflect 

Kyrgyzstan’s international commitments. 

One of the key lessons we have learned over the years of transition is the interconnectedness of reform efforts. Kyrgyzstan itself recognizes the importance of economic revitalization and has committed to reform in that area. One of the requirements for true economic reform is the rule of law. Ensuring the primacy of the rule 

of law requires a fully functioning democracy, in which the population understands 

663 

and supports the system behind the law. Although Kyrgyzstan would prefer to focus 

its engagement with the United States on economic concerns, we continue to explain 

that our emphasis on the rule of law and good governance is as much about the 

economy as it is about democracy. 

If we consider where the country started 17 years ago, Kyrgyzstan has made remarkable progress, and the United States—in particular through the generosity of 

the American people—can take considerable pride in supporting that transformation. We also can take comfort in the contributions Kyrgyzstan makes to regional and global security. 

Our relationship still has room to grow, however. If confirmed, I will be honored 

to represent President Bush and work with members of Congress to engage with 

the Kyrgyz Government and all elements of Kyrgyz society to facilitate that process. 

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to answering any questions you 

may have. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much. Thank you, all of you. 

Since you were patient and waited till the end, Ms. GfoellerVolkoff, I will just start with you. I will pick up where you left off. 

You mentioned, appropriately, the slowdown in the reform effort. 

What do you attribute that to? 

Ms. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF. There has been a lot of instability. After 

the 2005 elections, which were free and fair, there was opposition 

to the President in the parliament. There were a lot of demonstrations. Unfortunately, the opposition is very fragmented. A lot of the 

parties—and there are many, many of them—are basically formed 

around one person as opposed to around an idea. 

And so I think the President began to feel very beleaguered and 

started thinking that maybe he needed to consolidate power in 

some way. We certainly keep urging him to keep on the road to reform and that actually stability comes from democracy. But I think 

that as a result of certain demonstrations, which never got really 

violent but were somewhat of concern to him, he started feeling 

that maybe he needs to look at stability ahead of it continuing on 

the road to democracy. 

Senator KERRY. How would you describe the competing forces on 

the ground particularly the play between China, Russia, and the 

United States presence? 

Ms. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF. Kyrgyzstan enjoys good relations with 

all three, Mr. Chairman. With Russia, of course, there are special 

ties that bind. Kyrgyzstan and Russia were part of the USSR, the 

same state. Many, especially of the elite, the educated people, 

speak excellent Russian. They have gone to Russian schools and 

universities. Many members of the government and even the opposition have been educated in Russia. So I expect that these ties will 

continue. 

Also, they are both members of the Shanghai Corporation Organization, and there is a lot of Russian investment. There is a lot 

of Russian trade with Kyrgyzstan going on, and something between 

half a million to a million Kyrgyz citizens—and that is out of a population of only 5 million—are presently working in Russia and 

sending remittances to Kyrgyzstan, which are a very important 

part of the Kyrgyz economy. So I consider that probably Russia will 

continue to be a very important partner for Kyrgyzstan for the 

foreseeable future. 

They are also both members of the CIS, the Commonwealth of 

Independent States. 

664 

China has recently become a more important partner for the 

Kyrgyz. Of course, when Kyrgyzstan was part of the USSR, 

Kyrgyzstan was a place of actual tension because the USSR and 

China sometimes did not have the best relations. So now the 

Kyrgyz are discovering kind of the opportunity of interacting with 

the Chinese and the Chinese discovering that they are able to 

interact with the Kyrgyz. 

The Chinese have also invested a lot of money in Kyrgyzstan. 

There is cross-border trade which is flourishing. They are also both 

members of the Shanghai Corporation Organization. Again, I think 

that their good relations will probably continue. 

We have no problems with the Kyrgyz having good relations with 

these two countries in the region. In fact, we welcome Kyrgyz good 

relations with the entire region. 

What we would like, however, to see is greater opportunities for 

the Kyrgyz to branch out, and we are particularly looking at the 

south. For example, Kyrgyzstan on a seasonal basis produces more 

hydroelectricity than it really needs, whereas countries to the 

south, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, are in desperate need of 

energy. So we are looking right now and providing some technical 

support to the Kyrgyz and possibly creating a regional electricity 

grid where the Kyrgyz could sell some of their surplus electricity 

to the Afghans and the Pakistanis. And my understanding is that 

the Afghans and Pakistanis would be willing to pay a much higher 

price for the electricity than Kyrgyzstan is able to get domestically. 

So that is something that we are urging the Kyrgyz to look into, 

again not to try to impede in any way their relations with Russia 

and China, but to provide them with more opportunities, more 

chances, and therefore more independence. 

Senator KERRY. How would you describe their relations with 

their neighbors? You mentioned the neighborhood. Besides, obviously, the relationships you just talked about with the larger powers, how would you describe them, particularly since the Tulip Revolution? 

Ms. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Kyrgyzstan has 

three other neighbors. Tajikistan to the south is actually very similar to Kyrgyzstan. It is a very poor country. It also, though, has 

some hydroelectricity surplus on a seasonal basis, again, and has 

some potential in that regard. Relations between Kyrgyzstan and 

Tajikistan are friendly and stable. There are a couple of issues 

about demarcation of borders, but basically things are going well. 

And we would be looking to have cooperation between Kyrgyzstan 

and Tajikistan in building this grid because Tajikistan is between 

Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan and would also benefit very much 

from selling its own electricity. So I think that here things are 

looking good. 

Kazakhstan to the north of Kyrgyzstan is a very important trading and investment partner. It has a muscular economy. It has invested a lot in Kyrgyzstan. There are some Kazakh banks in 

Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. It also produces wheat and is 

a very important supplier of wheat to Kyrgyzstan. On the other 

hand, Kyrgyzstan supplies Kazakhstan with water. I believe that 

relations with them will continue to be friendly and stable. 

665 

With Uzbekistan, the last of the neighbors of Kyrgyzstan, there 

are—it is a friendly relationship. There are a bit more tensions. 

There are some areas of the border regions that are not demarcated properly. One thing that is happening is that they are both 

in the same natural water system, and Kyrgyzstan supplies Uzbekistan with water but is not charging for it, whereas it buys energy, 

especially coal, from Uzbekistan and gas and is being charged for 

it. I believe there is a bit of tension over that imbalance. But still, 

overall relations are friendly. 

Senator KERRY. I will come back perhaps afterwards. 

Mr. Olson, there have been some concerns that Dubai has been 

a transit point for the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network. I 

wonder if you could share with us your perception of UAE’s and 

Dubai’s, in particular, efforts to try to curb the smuggling and your 

perception of it at this point or the administration’s description of 

it at this point. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that, indeed, for the Emiratis the revelations about the 

A.Q. Khan network were something of a wake-up call for them, and 

they recognized the importance of this issue. And the action that 

they have taken so far is to pass an export control law that was 

passed in 2007. Our assessment is that this is actually a good law 

and covers what is necessary to make sure that there is not reexport of dual-use or sensitive technologies to Iran. 

We have been working with the Emiratis, with the Emirati authorities, the federal authorities, since that time on the implementation. There is a domestic implementation aspect. There are some 

regulations that are required to bring about the implementation of 

the law. But there has been very good cooperation with the 

Emiratis on certain specific instances which we discuss with them 

in the context of the Counter Proliferation Task Force. This is a bilateral initiative that has been going for several years, meets frequently at a senior level, United States and Emirati. In the course 

of those discussions, we have raised our concerns, both general and 

also specific cases, and we have received, in our view, considerable 

cooperation from the Emirati authorities. 

This will continue to be a high priority. It will be a personal priority for me to make sure that Iran—there are interests in legitimate trade. They do have a very large volume of trade with Iran, 

and most of that is legitimate. But we want to make sure that 

Dubai is not a source of anything that can threaten what we both 

consider to be—I would say that both the Emirates and the United 

States share a strategic assessment about the danger that a nuclear-capable Iran would represent to the region. 

Senator KERRY. What is your understanding of what we, the 

United States, are doing or helping lead the UAE to in an effort 

to prevent the flow of weapons-capable technology going through 

the UAE? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, Senator, it would be difficult for me to answer 

in terms of specific cases in an open session. I would be happy to 

offer a briefing by myself or other persons on specific cases where 

we have had cooperation. 

666 

Senator KERRY. Let me frame the question this way for this session. Are you satisfied that we are doing enough, and if not, is your 

portfolio specifically designed to increase our efforts in that regard? 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I think there is work still to be done 

in this area. I think there needs to be further domestic implementation legislation and regulatory framework in the United Arab 

Emirates. And I will work closely with the Emirati authorities to 

see that that is put in place. But I also think that it is an issue 

that needs continual vigilance, and I can assure you that I will be 

doing that on the specific cases. And we will work not just with the 

federal government but also with the authorities in Dubai at the 

emirate level to make sure that they understand our concerns and 

that it is fully internalized on their side. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. 

Let me turn to Senator Coleman and then we will come back for 

another round. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will turn to Lebanon, Ms. Sison, if I can. 

Hezbollah and its allies have a veto in the Lebanese cabinet. Obviously of great concern. The March 14 movement offered some 

hope. And the question of whether they can even live and work in 

Lebanon, whether they are able to do that. Can you give me an assessment of where the March 14 movement is doing a better job 

of reaching out to the—I am trying to get your sense of where 

things are at. 

Ambassador SISON. The March 14 moderates came together in 

recent weeks, Senator, and with the other political parties, hammered together the 30-person cabinet on July 11. And I note that 

although, as you say, the opposition has a blocking third of the cabinet—it is 16 majority, 11 opposition, 3 cabinet members named by 

the president—Hezbollah only has one minister in the cabinet, 

which is interesting. The moderates, the March 14, put forward 

and appointed an independent Shia minister, Ibrahim 

Shamsudeen. This is interesting because it will make it more difficult, I think, for Hezbollah and their allies to assert that they are 

the sole voice of the Lebanese Shia in the government. 

The Doha Agreement in May, yes, designed this 16/11/3 split in 

the makeup of the cabinet. It is important to note that the president, Michel Sleiman, retained control for the nomination of the defense minister and the interior minister, two key ministries with 

which we, the United States, work as we seek to strengthen key 

institutions of the state, the Lebanese Armed Forces, and the Internal Security Forces, the police. Of course, the interior ministry will 

also have the key role in organizing free and fair parliamentary 

elections in the spring of 2009. The new interior minister is a constitutional lawyer who had served on the Boutros Commission looking at electoral law reform. 

On the blocking one-third on the so-called veto, I think, Senator, 

that this concession may actually have less significance on the 

ground since the Lebanese cabinet has typically operated on a consensus basis. 

Senator COLEMAN. My concern sitting here is the question of our 

ability to strengthen those institutions if you have the fox in the 

667 

chicken coop. Talk to me a little bit about where Hezbollah gets its 

support. How much support does Iran supply to Hezbollah? 

Ambassador SISON. As I have been in Washington over the last 

few days, Senator, I have consulted with several of my colleagues, 

and of course, our colleagues at the U.S. Department of the Treasury have been particularly active in bringing the interagency together to look at ways to approach the challenge of Hezbollah. As 

we saw last month, the U.S. Government—well, this month actually—this summer, the United States designated two Venezuelabased supporters of Hezbollah along with two travel agencies 

owned by one of the gentlemen. 

So the United States has actually targeted Hezbollah’s funding 

sources by taking action against Iran’s bank, Saderat, which had 

been used by the Government of Iran to channel funds to terrorist 

organizations, including Hezbollah, as well as the Iran-based 

Marchers Foundation, part of Hezbollah’s support network. So 

Hezbollah has received financial assistance through Iranian entities. The U.S. Government this year and in 2007 and in earlier 

years has targeted through designations and executive orders that 

process. 

Senator COLEMAN. This is not a question here, but the hope 

would be that you would have a moderate government. It would 

take the reins and enforce its sovereignty over territories and not 

get into a position where Hezbollah can drag a country into war 

with grave consequences for the entire region. So it is a very delicate situation there and one of great concern. 

Mr. Olson, if you can move over then in terms of the same issue 

with Iran and the UAE. Can you talk to me a little bit about the 

relationship between—when I was in Dubai, I think the language 

of commerce is Farsi. And Dubai, let me just say, is just one of the 

most incredible, vibrant centers in the world today. But talk to me 

a little bit about UAE’s policy toward Iran. How does that impact 

our relationships with the emirate? 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Senator Coleman. 

Yes, indeed, the UAE and especially Dubai have a long history 

of a relationship with Iran. It is estimated that up to 400,000 Iranians live in the emirates, mostly in Dubai, and many Emiratis 

trace their family roots back to Iran. And there is a considerable 

volume of trade. There always has been between Dubai and Iran. 

What I would say is that at the federal level, that is to say, at 

the level of the national government, it much shares our strategic 

assessment of the threat that Iran represents, and I think this is, 

in part, fundamentally a matter of demographics. The Emirates is 

composed of probably about 3 million people, of which fewer than 

a million are actually Emirati citizens, and they are looking 80 

miles across the water at a population of 80 million. So they have 

some fundamental concerns, and I think this is one of the reasons 

why we do have such a strong relationship in defense cooperation. 

It is one of the, I think, fundamental motivations from the Emirati 

side for the interest in purchasing defensive weapons systems. 

I think that we have made a lot of progress, as I already mentioned in response to the chairman’s question, about export controls. I think an area that will also be of increasing focus for myself, if confirmed, is in the area of finances. As Ambassador Sison 

668 

mentioned, in Lebanon I think we have similar situation. There are 

Iranian banks in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE has complied with Security Council resolutions, especially 1747 and 1803, 

but if confirmed, it will certainly be my intention to continue to 

press the Emiratis to maintain vigilance over the Iranian banks 

that are present in the UAE and, where possible, to close down 

their operations. 

Senator COLEMAN. The concern is—it appears to me when you 

look at the situation in Lebanon, when you look at the UAE, we 

have forces of stability, hopefully, moderation taking hold in Lebanon, that the battle or the concern is the forces of moderation and 

those forces that support extremism which are threat to forces of 

moderation. Obviously, it is their neighborhood, but we certainly 

have an interest there. 

I talked about the incredible wealth and vitality that you are seeing in Dubai, sovereign wealth funds, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, close to a trillion dollars. Talk to me a little bit about pros 

and cons of the authority investing in American companies, what 

our role is in facilitating that, and how that impacts the relationship between us and the UAE. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Senator Coleman. 

The sovereign wealth funds is an issue that we have had some 

intense engagement with the Government of the United Arab 

Emirates on. They have been working with us in the context of the 

IMF and also in the OECD to identify best practices for sovereign 

wealth funds. 

You mentioned the trillion dollar figure. One of the issues, I suppose, that surrounds sovereign wealth funds—I think your reference was probably to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, which 

is widely believed to be the largest sovereign wealth fund in the 

world. But no one really knows the answer, aside from people who 

work in ADIA and a few others as to what the actual size of the 

fund is. And I think that highlights one of the issues that we would 

probably want to work with the Emirati Government on in terms 

of best practices, working towards the idea of transparency, the 

idea that investments are made on a commercial basis and not on 

any other basis. 

As I say, I think the Emirati Government has been very cooperative on these matters. 

I also think it is worth pointing out that the sovereign wealth 

fund in the United States—the sovereign wealth funds in the 

States, especially the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, have been 

long-term investors and I think have made some significant investments that have been useful in terms of preserving American jobs 

here in the United States. 

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just a note of thanks 

to these nominees and to their families, the level of commitment 

and sacrifice that they will make in the Foreign Service. Certainly 

every time I visit an embassy and talk to the staff—I do not know 

if we can thank them enough for their service to this country. So 

I just want to take this opportunity to thank the nominees here for 

their continued commitment to service and to their families. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Senator Coleman. 

669 

Let me pick up, Mr. Olson, if I can on that. When I was out of 

the room, you mentioned the numbers of Iranians that are in the 

Emirates. You put it at how many hundreds of thousands? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, the number that we understand is about 

400,000. 

Senator KERRY. I’d like to have us speak for a moment with respect to Iran’s financial institutions. We seem to be rattling the 

saber and talking very openly and repeatedly about military options without a lot of intermediary steps, which I find puzzling. 

The sanctions that exist today are frankly pretty lame mostly because they are not truly multilateral, but even those that are are 

not that creative in my judgment. It seems to me that some Iranian’s have enormous sums of money that move across state lines 

and access the benefits of the western world’s wealth-creating machinery. 

It confounds me that when I go back to the debates we have had 

right here in this room on South Africa and then we did what we 

did partly because it was multilateral, that here we have leaders 

of countries proclaiming as a matter of policy that Iran cannot have 

a nuclear weapon, but leaping from point A to point Z without any 

of the intermediary steps. And I find that dangerous and even stupid in some cases. 

Are there not many tools available in your judgment that could 

really tighten the noose economically with respect to flights, visas, 

access to banking systems, freezing of assets, and other steps 

which would put a very serious financial crimp on Iran’s options? 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, in terms of overall United States policy, of course, I think 

our objective has been, as you know, to pursue a diplomatic option 

with regard to Iran while keeping all options on the table. But I 

think we actually, in the last few months, have been very successful in increasing the pressure on Iran, and I would cite two particular examples, first of all, on the Geneva talks that took place 

over the weekend in which, as you know, Under Secretary Burns 

participated for the first time. This was a tactical shift, not a policy 

shift for the United States. But the purpose that it served was to 

reinforce the unity of the P5 plus 1. And I think that that was a 

very solid outcome, and I think the ball is very squarely now in the 

Iranians’ court to respond within 2 weeks to the offer that was put 

on the table. 

The second area is one that has been in development over the 

longer term is the action at the U.N. Security Council and especially U.N. Security Council resolution 1747 and 1803, which have, 

indeed, tightened a bit the financial noose around the Iranians. 

And I think it is having an impact. 

Senator KERRY. It is voluntary. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. And we absolutely have to work with a 

number of allies, including the United Arab Emirates, to bring 

about that compliance. But for certain countries—for example, for 

the United Arab Emirates—and it is an important point because 

Dubai is in the process of establishing itself as an international financial center, with some degree of success. As the blue chip banks 

move away from dealings with Iran and increasingly do not want 

to deal in any way with Iranian assets, that makes it all the more 

670 

likely that the UAE will, in fact, adopt stronger measures for implementation of 1747 and 1803. 

So I think there is an incentive for our allies and partners 

around the world to take the steps that we want them to take. And 

I think that these steps do impose real costs on the Iranian economy just because of the simple costs of the transactions, but also 

because it forces them to work harder to do business in a variety 

of other ways. 

I would not want to speculate, Mr. Chairman, on what full range 

of options might be available otherwise, but I will certainly convey 

back your points on flights, on visas, on freezing assets to my 

betters at the State Department. 

Senator KERRY. Well, you do not need to leap across boundaries 

here except to the degree you feel it affects what you are doing 

with respect to the UAE. But we will certainly be in communication with the administration. I think the clock is ticking actually 

on what they may or may not have even time to do here. 

But it strikes me that the voluntariness of that situation and the 

laxity of it is such that it has not created the kind of consensus 

that I think is necessary to really have an impact. And I think to 

create a consensus, you cannot start with the most rigid targets, 

obviously. You have got to work up to them. China and Russia 

have their own attitudes about what that pace ought to be, but 

that is another topic. 

Let me just ask you quickly—within OPEC, what is the UAE’s 

attitude with respect to oil pricing and levels at this time? 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, the UAE, of course, is a longtime 

member, I believe, and a founding member of OPEC, but they have 

signaled that they are prepared to expand production to meet demand. I am afraid I do not have exact numbers with me here 

today, but I can certainly get back to you in a statement for the 

record. 

Senator KERRY. So you understand they are not pumping all the 

oil they could be at this point in time? 

Mr. OLSON. I understand that they are prepared to increase their 

pumping. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think that they have had some 

concerns about the long-term impact on their fields with increased 

production so that somewhat limits their surge capacity, but I 

think that they are looking at ways to increase the amount that 

they produce. 

Senator KERRY. What do you understand the goals of the current 

arms sales with the UAE to be? What capacity will that give them 

in your judgment? 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, the basic approach that we take with 

regard to the UAE is, of course, the Gulf Security Dialog which the 

administration launched in 2006. It has got six pillars, which I do 

not need to probably review here today, but one of them includes 

defensive capabilities and cooperation. 

My understanding is that the weapons systems—and of course, 

we have a long history of weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates. We sold them 80 F–16 aircraft in the mid-1990s. I actually 

participated in that in my previous assignment there. 

They are currently looking at a series of defensive systems that 

would enhance their air defense capability, so in other words, the 

671 

threat from the air, that is to say, whether by air-breathing aircraft 

or by missiles. Again, I think the basic strategic assessment where 

they would come from—they see this very much in terms of the 

Iranian threat. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Pearce, how would you describe the current 

al-Qaeda presence in Algeria? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your own remarks, 

the violence—and the antiterrorism cooperation is important for us. 

What happened was the violence went down substantially after a 

12-year period. However, there were small groups of extremists 

that did not sign on to the idea of a ceasefire, and among them was 

one small extremist group which affiliated itself 2 years ago with 

al-Qaeda. This group is not small in numbers but they have been 

active in undertaking a number of attacks. They attacked and 

bombed the United Nations, as you recall, recently. And it is a serious threat that we take seriously. I do not think it is the strategic 

threat to the existence of the state that there was, say, 10 years 

ago. 

Senator KERRY. Do you know whether or not they are receiving 

operational guidance from al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan? 

Mr. PEARCE. I believe that the leader of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb 

recently gave an interview in which he stated that, yes. He stated 

that they were in touch with them. 

Senator KERRY. I have just been handed a note reminding me 

that we have another hearing that is going to start here at 3 

o’clock. Therefore, you all may be saved by the overscheduling here. 

So let me turn to Senator Coleman again for another round. 

Then we will come back and see where we are. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a question both to Mr. Pearce and Ms. Gfoeller-Volkoff regarding an investment climate. Ms. Gfoeller-Volkoff, in your statement, you talked about the interconnectedness of reform elements, 

primacy of rule of law, and I think the corruption piece is all tied 

into that. Companies are not going to invest if they do not believe 

that there is rule of law, if they are worried about corruption. 

Can you talk to me a little bit more about what we can do to assist developing a more stable rule of law and a better investment 

climate? 

Ms. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF. Thank you, Senator Coleman. 

Yes, you are absolutely right. And in fact, right now there is very 

little American investment in Kyrgyzstan. It is no accident that the 

main investors, as I mentioned, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, are 

from sort of the same region, have some of the same issues, for example, corruption. 

We are moving forward, though, as I mentioned with the MCC 

Threshold Program. I think that is a really extremely important 

program for Kyrgyzstan. What is particularly gratifying is that unlike many other countries in the region, the Kyrgyz actually openly 

admit that they have a problem with corruption. They are not trying to cover this up, and they openly say that they realize the negative impact corruption has, for example, on investment reform, a 

host of other issues. This is a belief held throughout Kyrgyz society. The president has said this openly, publicly. Opposition figures 

have said it. The man in the street, I understand, says it. So this, 

672 

I think, is encouraging. Once you know you have a problem, you 

are some way ahead of the game. 

The MCC program, the Threshold Program, is going to focus on 

3 areas of combating corruption—reform of the judicial system, reform of the criminal justice system, and reform of law enforcement. 

If, as I hope, this program is successful and the Kyrgyz are able 

to increase some of their indicators, particularly in the area of ruling justly, and if they are able to pass the corruption indicator, I 

believe that this will, in turn, bring about a much increased level 

of investment from the West, hopefully from the United States as 

well, because as you said, Senator Coleman, people will have confidence that if they invest, they will actually get their money back. 

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Pearce, in regard to Algeria, questions 

about what it takes to become part of the WTO. Are there issues 

there? Are they corruption? Is it bureaucratic? Can you talk to me 

a little bit about the investment climate there? 

Mr. PEARCE. Senator, I think that is a hugely important question. This is a country where more than half of the population is 

under the age of 30, and there is a great deal of underemployment 

and unemployment. So the ability to have a better investment climate to help create jobs and achieve development to my mind is 

the other side of the coin of counterterrorism cooperation. 

I think we have a lot of very good programs underway, and I will 

be looking hard, when I get there, to find more ways that we can 

help. Some of them include, for example, assistance in banking sector reform, judiciary reform, helping train young lawyers and 

judges. We have a very good program of English language instruction to disadvantaged youth. We have a new science and technology 

agreement, which I believe could be a vehicle for a lot of different 

things. 

So I believe that the Algerian Government wants to move forward on WTO accession. They have had a process in place for quite 

a long time. So we will be looking to see if we can help move that 

along because the investment climate and improving it I think is 

a very important thing. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Looking at Algeria as a whole, there are tensions, obviously, over oil production, tensions over al-Qaeda in the 

Maghreb. There are human rights issues, and then these other tensions—rights of press, assembly, democracy, and so forth. We found 

a modus operandi to have some cooperation, obviously, on the 

antiterrorism efforts. Partly it is existential to Algerians and they 

have an interest in doing that. 

How would you describe the relationship overall in terms of some 

of these other issues? Do we have any leverage? Is this just a way 

of getting along because there is neutral interest, or is there something more connective here that we can build on? 

Mr. PEARCE. Senator, I think there is. I will not pretend. We do 

not see eye to with Algeria on everything. There are a lot of things 

we do not agree on. However, I think the quality and extent of the 

engagement has improved a lot in a number of ways, whether it 

is more military-to-military exchanges or all of the programs that 

I just discussed on the development side. So I think that it is a 

673 

growing partnership, but not a particularly easy one. But I do 

think that there is a lot of opportunity there. 

And I would just say, to make my pitch to you, when you are trying to move ahead, as we saw in Jerusalem, hard, hard issues, it 

really does help to have high level visits. And these can often be 

the driver for access, for making a point. So I really hope that I 

will have a chance to see you in Algeria and other high level officials as well because these visits are pure gold in terms of having 

the kind of high quality discussion that can lead to a qualitative 

turn for the better in many, many ways. 

Senator KERRY. I appreciate that and I have seen firsthand, obviously, the difference that some of those interrogatories and those 

visits can make, and the effects of some of the dialogs. I know they 

can be productive, and I have seen it in a number of countries. We 

try to get the Majority Leader and the President and others to give 

us a schedule that lets us do that. If Senator McCain is elected, 

then I may be over there a lot. If Obama is elected, he may be over 

there a lot. We will see what happens. [Laughter.] 

Mr. PEARCE. We benefit either way. 

Senator KERRY. Ambassador Sison, let me sort of wrap up with 

you, if I may. Again, we are barely scratching the surface, and we 

all understand that. You do and we do up here. That is the nature 

of these hearings, particularly when you have four nominees, but 

it is an opportunity to at least lay down some markers of what we 

think is important. And I regret the time constraints, though I am 

sure you are delighted by them. [Laughter.] 

Ms. Sison, let me ask you. Was the Doha Agreement a victory 

for Hezbollah? And is the current structure and the Israeli agreement recently on the exchange a victory for Hezbollah? Does that 

complicate matters for Siniora? 

Ambassador SISON. Mr. Chairman, let us look at what the Lebanese people got out of Doha. The moderates retained control in the 

cabinet with the 16/11/3 makeup of the cabinet despite the socalled blocking third. Lebanon was able to inaugurate a consensus 

president, Michel Sleiman. The Lebanese people received an agreement for the issue of Hezbollah arms to be raised in the context 

of a renewed national dialog, but most importantly, as we discussed yesterday, the fighting stopped. The actions of Lebanese 

killing Lebanese during the month of May—that violence stopped. 

So the Lebanese people benefitted from the Doha Agreement. 

Now, Hezbollah lost something in May I believe. Hezbollah 

turned its weapons against the Lebanese people. That is remembered in many quarters. 

Now, I have to say that Hezbollah’s efforts to establish its own 

telecom network and its decision to conduct its own airport surveillance in Beirut, the two issues that triggered partially the violence 

in May, remain areas of concern. 

You noted the Hezbollah/Government of Israel agreement for the 

prisoner exchange, the recent prisoner exchange. I have to say that 

the return of Kuntar to Lebanon I found personally difficult to 

watch in the media, even though I was sitting here. He is not a 

hero. He killed a father, killed a 4-year-old, was responsible for the 

death of the 2-year-old sibling. Having said that, for the Lebanese 

people the issue of the Lebanese prisoners in the neighboring state 

674 

in Lebanon—this is also an issue in Syria because there are Lebanese detainees in Syria as well—is an issue that is of great interest, of great import to the Lebanese people, which is why you saw 

the welcome that Kuntar and the others received back in Lebanon. 

If confirmed, I will continue to make the point in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon that Kuntar is not a hero. I understand from the 

media that he may be looking to run for a seat in the parliament 

in 2009. 

Senator KERRY. Well, would it be your judgment that Lebanon’s 

sovereignty can gain a publicly and diplomatically arrived at agreement as to sovereignty without our resolution with respect to Iran 

and Syria’s resolution with respect to the Golan and the Shebaa 

Farms, or are they integrated, all three? 

Ambassador SISON. Mr. Chairman, Senator Coleman, Lebanon is 

a relatively small country in a very complex and complicated region. So these regional issues that you cite obviously have great impact on Lebanon. 

Senator KERRY. And the Hariri tribunal? 

Ambassador SISON. The special tribunal—of course, we at the 

embassy in Beirut and, of course, the Washington watchers as well 

were struck when President Sleiman on May 25 took his oath of 

office in the parliament the day he was elected President. He specifically mentioned his intention to pursue those investigations 

through the special tribunal on the assassination of former Prime 

Minister Rafiq Hariri and the others who had been assassinated 

because there is a long list, sadly, of those whose lives have been 

taken. 

During her June 16 visit to Beirut, Secretary Rice stated that the 

time had come to resolve the Shebaa Farms issue in the context 

of U.N. Security Council resolution 1701, which also calls, of 

course, for disarmament of the militias such as Hezbollah. So we 

do believe that a diplomatic resolution to the Shebaa dispute would 

have the effect of undermining Hezbollah’s so-called credentials, socalled resistance credentials and complicate Hezbollah’s efforts to 

maintain an armed state within a state. Ideally that Shebaa Farms 

dispute would be resolved by a bilateral border delineation between 

Syria and Lebanon. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I will wrap up here by saying to you that 

I have served now on this committee for 24 years, and this is the 

first administration that spent almost two-thirds of its administration with an arm’s distance policy with respect to the Middle East, 

and I think we have paid a very high price for it. 

I was in the West Bank the day that Mahmoud Abbas was elected President. I was the first person to meet with him the next 

morning, and I will never forget his question to me with a statement saying, I know what you expect of me. I have to disarm 

Hamas. Now, you tell me how I am supposed to do it. And he pointed to the absence of police, of radios, of cars, of capacity. And for 

years we have neglected to build capacity, and Hamas, as well as 

Hezbollah, practiced politics far more effectively than we have empowered our allies to do it. 

I think it has been a tragedy that we have been selectively choosing to spend $12 billion a month to develop a democracy where 

there was not one and, frankly, not doing more to help a democracy 

675 

where there is one, struggling to hold on, in Lebanon. So I think 

we really need to think seriously about how we apply these priorities in what we do. 

I am convinced that with the right attention and the right set 

of priorities and particularly putting the Mideast peace process on 

the table front and center, that we can begin to change our relationships in the region for the better. And I think the rest of those 

things can conceivably come together. 

And what is clear to me, in my discussions in Israel—the efforts 

by Prime Minister Ohlmert now to find some sort of a pathway and 

President Abbas, given the difficulties of Gaza, are seriously complicated by that absence of united States presence and engagement 

over a period of time. 

So we all hope we can move forward. It is in everybody’s interests to do so. And I wish each of you well in these endeavors which 

are, obviously, made very complicated by the macro policies that 

spill downward which affect the choices that you have as ambassadors. It really is important what you are able to do on the ground 

and the messages that you can convey. 

I do need to just ask a pro forma question of each of you, and 

it takes a yes or a no. Does anyone among you have any potential 

conflict of interest that would prevent you from doing your jobs? 

Ms. Sison. 

Ambassador SISON. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. No. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. No, but Mr. Chairman, for the record, I should say, 

as you kindly noted at the beginning, my wife is the United States 

Ambassador to Kuwait, but of course, we have completely separate 

chains of command and we share no responsibility for supervision 

of employees or resources. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. 

Ms. Gfoeller-Volkoff. 

Ms. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF. No, Mr. Chairman, but just like my colleague, I would like to say for the record my husband is deputy 

chief of mission in Riyadh, but we do not share a chain of command. 

Senator KERRY. What is going on here? We have got this 

nepotistic Foreign Service now. [Laughter.] 

Senator KERRY. A family-friendly Foreign Service. We like it. 

And the final question, does anybody have a conflict of interest 

that would require them to recuse themselves from any particular 

issue that might appear before you? Ms. Sison. 

Ambassador SISON. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. No. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. And Ms. Gfoeller-Volkoff. 

Ms. GFOELLER-VOLKOFF. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you all very much. We are going to leave 

the record open for a 48-hour period until Thursday. We want to 

move forward rapidly, and hopefully get all of you approved at the 

676 

first business meeting and by the Senate next week before we go 

away so you can all be on your way and get going with the future. 

So we thank you again for your service and thank you for being 

here today. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:57 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSE OF RICHARD G. OLSON, JR., TO QUESTION SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY

Question. Within OPEC what is the UAE attitude with respect to oil pricing? Do 

you understand that the UAE plans to expand production? 

Answer. UAE officials have said they are concerned about the impact of rising 

prices. The UAE currently does not export large volumes of oil to the United States; 

however United States firms are active in bringing Emirati oil to market. UAE officials have said they want to increase production capacity from the current level of 

2.48 million barrels per day (b/d) to about to 4 million b/d in the next 2–4 years. 

RESPONSES OF RICHARD OLSON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. In June 2007, the Senate confirmed J. Adam Ereli to be the Ambassador to Bahrain. After serving there less than a year, Ambassador Ereli is now in 

Baghdad, serving for a year as the Public Affairs Officer at the United States Embassy. He apparently intends to return to Bahrain to resume his post next summer. 

In the meantime, there is no United States Ambassador in Bahrain. 

When the committee acts on your nomination, it expects that you will serve the 

usual 3-year tour, unless there are personal or other compelling circumstances that 

require you to return to Washington. We don’t expect that ambassadors will abandon their jobs for a year to take another position. 

Recognizing that you serve at the pleasure of the President, will you commit to 

stay at your position, and not depart your post for any extended assignment, whether in Baghdad or elsewhere? If you do take such an assignment, will you resign your 

ambassadorial post? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, it is my intention to serve a 3-year tour at Embassy 

Abu Dhabi, subject to the pleasure of the President and at the discretion of the Secretary of State. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career, to 

date, to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. Support for human rights and democracy has been a strong element 

throughout my career. 

In 198586, I was the human rights officer at Embassy Kampala, and reported extensively on mass killings in the Luwero triangle during the Ugandan civil war. 

This reporting was instrumental in supporting the State Department’s criticism of 

the Obote regime for its human rights record. 

In 1992–94, as political-economic section chief at Embassy Addis Ababa, I worked 

intensively with the Transitional Government of Ethiopia, the opposition, and NGOs 

to promote civil society and a culture of democracy in the aftermath of the Mengistu 

regime. While not entirely successful, these efforts helped to create a space for the 

political opposition in Ethiopian politics. 

As political director of the Iraq office in 2004–2005, I provided Washington support for the first Iraqi national elections, a milestone in Iraq’s democratization. 

As director of the office of Iraq in 2006, I led the Near East Bureau’s support for 

the development of an Iraqi Constitution, a document that significantly advanced 

the rights of women and preserved the principle of religious freedom. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in the United Arab 

Emirates? What are the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to 

promote human rights and democracy in the UAE? What do you hope to accomplish 

through these actions? 

677 

Answer. The most pressing human rights issues in the United Arab Emirates involve constraints on civil liberties—including freedom of assembly and association— 

as well as limited public participation in decision-making. A limited group of electors participated in the 2006 elections for the Federal National Council. While the 

UAE has seen rapid social changes in the past decade, inequality in treatment of 

woman and noncitizens remains a concern. 

If confirmed, I will continue U.S. Government efforts to underscore the importance of human rights and democracy. For example, the recent decision of the UAE 

Prime Minister to forbid the imprisonment of legitimate journalists for what they 

write is a major step forward. If confirmed, I plan to encourage further domestic 

reform efforts such as the development of independent civil society organizations 

and the empowerment of the Federal National Council to take on a more responsive 

role in dealing with citizens and residents alike. In so doing, I hope to foster an environment in which a dialog on these issues can flourish. Through such collaborative 

efforts and engagement, I believe that we can strengthen our bilateral relationship, 

while improving the quality of life for all living in the UAE. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in the UAE in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. While the UAEG has welcomed constructive feedback and engagement 

from the United States on the significant human rights concern of trafficking in persons, the UAE has been slower in developing competitive elections and representational government. With no democratically elected legislative institutions or political 

parties, and no general elections, citizens do not have the right or ability to change 

their government via democratic means. In addition, the vast majority of UAE residents are not citizens, and thus remain largely outside the political process. 

Further progress on human rights and democracy must involve sincere backing 

by the UAE leadership. To ensure that the current Federal National Council (FNC), 

an advisory body, is more responsive to the needs of citizens, government ministries 

need to be charged with listening to and supporting the FNC, increasing its capabilities, and increasing public awareness of the importance of participation in decision making. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of post/bureau activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign Service officers who engage 

in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior 

service? 

Answer. In addition to robust annual reporting on important issues such as trafficking in persons, human rights, and religious freedom, I will also actively engage 

the Emirati leadership throughout the year. If confirmed, I will ensure that human 

rights reporting and advocacy have a prominent place in the Mission Strategic Plan 

and other planning documents. I will also encourage my locally employed staff, none 

of whom currently are Emirati citizens, to share openly with me any issues of concern. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that Foreign Service officers working on human rights 

issues, especially advocacy for human rights, receive appropriate credit for such activities in their annual evaluation reports and by special awards, as appropriate. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in the UAE who are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. Yes, I believe that in order to achieve progress on human rights issues, 

the U.S. Government must engage both government officials and nongovernmental 

organizations. If confirmed, I would seek to create dialog between the efforts of citizens groups and the Emirati government. I would also welcome to the embassy, 

groups from the UAE or abroad who have specific issues they want the U.S. Government to be aware of and to facilitate contact with Emirati institutions. 

RESPONSES OF DAVID PEARCE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Question. Over the past year the security situation in Algeria has deteriorated significantly with the emergence of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). If confirmed, how would you work with the Algerian Government to address this problem? 

What tools does the embassy have and what tools would you like to see strengthened? 

678 

Answer. The Algerian Government is committed to the struggle against terrorism, 

and we want to support them in that fight to the best of our ability. We maintain 

a strong and fruitful intelligence relationship, and the United States has significantly increased our capacity-building assistance to the Algerian Government on 

countering terrorism finance. We would like to see a wider relationship between 

United States and Algerian law enforcement, and we opened a legal attache office 

to that end in 2007. We would also like to see the relationship between our militaries continue to expand, as both the United States and Algerian militaries have 

hard-won counterinsurgency experience and could mutually benefit from sharing expertise. The United States and Algerian militaries are working together to build Algerian counterterrorism capabilities through training and education programs such 

as International Military Education and Training (IMET) and the Counterterrorism 

Fellowship Program (CTFP). We also support commercial and Foreign Military 

Sales (FMS) of equipment for border and coastal security initiatives. 

While these counterterrorism activities are important, the long-term struggle 

against terrorism must address the underlying issues of economic and political 

marginalization that feed extremism. It is in this area that I would most like to see 

a strengthening of the tools available to the United States mission in Algeria. 

Through the Middle East Partnership Initiative and other associated programs, we 

have in place promising programs building the capacity and independence of Algeria’s judicial system, increasing the skills and professionalism of Algeria’s media, 

fighting corruption, facilitating economic reforms, and, most promisingly, helping to 

transform Algeria’s education system into one geared to producing graduates with 

the skills needed to succeed in the modern world. The needs in this area are immense, and if confirmed, I hope to be able to secure resources adequate to the task. 

Question. Given the strategic location of Algeria—in North Africa but closely 

linked to the Sahel region—please describe the coordination on counterterrorism 

and security issues you’ll expect to have with your colleagues across both regions, 

if you are confirmed, and what format this coordination will take. If there is no formal mechanism for such coordination and communication, how will you go about developing one? 

Answer. Algeria is indeed in a strategic location vis-a-vis the rest of North and 

West Africa, and if confirmed, I will do my best to ensure that I maintain close contact with my colleagues across the region to ensure our coordination against an increasingly regional terrorist threat. The primary mechanism for such coordination 

is the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP), which allocates 

counterterrorism resources to the Maghreb and Sahel countries in a process that includes substantial interaction between United States missions in the TSCTP partner nations, along with relevant agencies in Washington and the United States Africa Command. There is constant interface within TSCTP using twice monthly secure 

video teleconferences, an annual TSCTP conference, and visits to the region and between Washington and Europe. The Trans Sahara Regional Security Initiative also 

hosts a semiannual strategic forum with United States ambassadors and Washington; these remain valuable opportunities to exchange views and formulate an 

overall counterterrorism strategy for the region. If confirmed, I also plan to maintain more informal contacts with my counterparts in our missions to the countries 

of the Maghreb and the Sahel, to ensure that we are on the same page on crosscutting issues with counterterrorism implications such as the Tuareg rebellions in 

northern Mali and Niger. 

Question. A recent New York Times article delineated the challenges young Algerians face from a weak educational system vulnerable to religious extremism. What 

steps is the Algerian Government taking to address this problem and what kind of 

support is the U.S. Embassy providing? 

Answer. While the Algerian educational system has been able to deliver a solid 

basic education to virtually all Algerian citizens, the demands of the modern world 

and especially of a modern economy make assistance particularly urgent. Under the 

Middle East Partnership Initiative and through other funding, we have been able 

to provide badly-needed assistance to Algeria’s primary and secondary education 

systems in competency based curriculum and teaching instruction, including 

English-language instruction, and in incorporating technology into the classroom. A 

promising area we would like to develop further is the partnering of United States 

and Algerian universities to target increased job-training and instructor-training assistance to Algerian university student populations at risk of radicalization. If confirmed, I hope to be able to secure funding to substantially expand this pilot program. 

679 

RESPONSES OF MICHELE SISON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. In light of recent attacks on United States personnel, what security improvements have been taken to ensure the safety of United States personnel and 

property in Lebanon? 

Answer. For many years, based on the critical threat environment in Beirut, the 

United States Embassy has operated in a heightened security posture. We have robust countermeasures and a proactive, integrated security program in place to protect our personnel and property. The Emergency Action Committee regularly meets 

to discuss and adjust our security posture to reflect current threat assessments. Two 

recent incidents reflect the need for this constant vigilance. On January 15, 2008, 

one of our embassy vehicles was attacked with a roadside bomb, resulting in injuries 

to two Foreign Service National employees and the death of three Lebanese bystanders. On June 18, 2008, an incident involving aggression directed toward my 

motorcade occurred in Nabatiyeh, which slightly injured two embassy bodyguards. 

Following these incidents, the security units at the embassy and the Emergency Action Committee assessed how to best adjust existing security practices—as we do 

frequently in the constantly evolving and volatile local security environment—to 

better protect our people while in vehicles. 

Based on our assessments, we determined that we could implement several procedures to augment vehicle security. These vehicle security policies compliment and 

reinforce the other existing security measures already in place at Embassy Beirut. 

We determined that the number of Americans allowed in each fully armored vehicle 

should be lowered from four to three, we diversified the embassy fleet by acquiring 

new sedans that are not as readily identifiable as being U.S. Embassy vehicles, and 

we increased manpower for chief of mission movements. We also contracted for rental vehicles that can serve as advance vehicles for motorcades, thus reducing the 

likelihood that our advance cars will be recognized and tip-off those that might be 

preparing attacks. In addition, we increased the number of routes in order to avoid 

using frequently used routes and implemented a ‘‘Zone System’’ in the Greater Beirut area in an effort to make our moves less predictable. The zones where Americans are permitted to travel for unofficial moves change weekly. 

Question. Please provide the committee with a brief status report on United 

States efforts to train and equip the Lebanese Army and Internal Security Forces, 

and United States reconstruction assistance for the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp (which was destroyed in fighting against the Fatah al-Islam terrorist 

group last year). 

Answer. Since 2006, the United States has committed over $400 million in assistance to the Lebanese security forces. The assistance includes equipping the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) with modern body armor, helmets, over 12 million rounds 

of ammunition of various calibers, front line weapons, spare parts for LAF vehicles 

and armor, and over 285 all terrain vehicles (HMWWVs). Three hundred more 

HMWWVs will arrive over the next year. 

U.S. military personnel have provided training in Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD) and, in fiscal year 2007, DOD also conducted three Joint Combined Exchange 

Training (JCET) courses for LAF Special Forces units. DOD will conduct an additional six JCET courses in fiscal year 2008. Also, starting in October 2008, the 

United States military will begin its Comprehensive Training Program (CTP) in 

Lebanon, designed to train the entire LAF. 

Through the U.S. Government partnership with DynCorp International, our Office 

of Defense Cooperation (ODC) has implemented a number of demining programs 

with the LAF. Since summer 2006, these humanitarian assistance programs have 

cleared 4,092,569 square meters to return productive land for safe use by the Lebanese people. An additional 789,803 square meters have been scheduled for clearance. 

Since 2006, the U.S. Government has committed over $60 million in security assistance to the Internal Security Forces (ISF). This assistance has equipped the ISF 

with 3,000 sets of civil disorder management equipment, 360 vehicles, 14 armored 

personnel carriers (APCs), duty gear for 4,000 cadets in various ISF units, and new 

academy classrooms, offices, and equipment with which to provide training. 

In addition to equipment, funding has supported ISF training, which consists of 

two components—basic cadet training and instructor training. Basic training is a 

10-week program taught by United States instructors with the assistance of Lebanese police and legal professionals that instructs recruits in the latest policing and 

law enforcement techniques, modern police practices, administration, democratic policing, human rights, criminal investigations, and other essential law enforcement 

680 

skills. Instructor training is a 1-week class that teaches ISF instructors the essential skills to teach law enforcement courses, which will prepare them to eventually 

take over the training program from the United States. 

To date, we have graduated 343 police cadets in two classes, with an additional 

190 cadets currently enrolled at the academy in Beirut. This third class is set to 

graduate September 12, with the next class starting training 1 week later. Between 

now and the start of the fourth class, we plan to complete sufficient academy upgrades that will allow us to double our training program from 200 to 400 cadets per 

class. This expansion will help us reach our goal of training to 8,000 cadets over 

a 5 year period. In addition, we have graduated two classes of instructors, or a total 

of 66 ISF instructors. The next class for 45 instructors is scheduled for October. 

Also, through the State Department’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) program, 

U.S. trainers are providing specialized ISF units with training in advanced driving 

tactics, SWAT tactics, and crises management training. This advanced training for 

the ISF will continue throughout 2008. 

The United States announced in June 2008 a $22 million pledge for the reconstruction of the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp to assist Palestinian refugees and Lebanese in surrounding communities. This pledge follows the U.S. Government’s $13.5 

million contribution in fiscal year 2007 to the United Nations Relief and Works 

Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to provide emergency assistance for the Palestinian refugees displaced by the fighting and a separate 

$100,000 contribution to nearby Lebanese communities also affected by the fighting. 

The $22 million aid package is divided into three components. First, $10 million 

will support UNRWA’s reconstruction of the camp, including housing, infrastructure, and utilities, in addition to restoring educational and health services. Second, 

$6 million will focus on revitalizing Lebanese communities surrounding the camp, 

including reconstruction, job creation, improved sanitation services, school rehabilitation, and business development. Third, $6 million in security assistance will bolster the ISF’s community policing program, construct an ISF police station and provide equipment such as patrol vehicles and duty gear. 

Question. In June 2007, the Senate confirmed J. Adam Ereli to be the Ambassador to Bahrain. After serving there less than a year, Ambassador Ereli is now in 

Baghdad, serving for a year as the Public Affairs officer at the United States Embassy. He apparently intends to return to Bahrain to resume his post next summer. 

In the meantime, there is no United States Ambassador in Bahrain. 

When the committee acts on your nomination, it expects that you will serve the 

usual 3-year tour, unless there are personal or other compelling circumstances that 

require you to return to Washington. We don’t expect that ambassadors will abandon their jobs for a year to take another position. 

Recognizing that you serve at the pleasure of the President, will you commit to 

stay at your position, and not depart your post for any extended assignment, whether in Baghdad or elsewhere? If you do take such an assignment, will you resign your 

ambassadorial post? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, it is my intention to serve a 3-year tour at Embassy 

Beirut, subject to the pleasure of the President and at the discretion of the Secretary of State. 

RESPONSES OF DAVID PEARCE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. In June 2007, the Senate confirmed J. Adam Ereli to be the Ambassador to Bahrain. After serving there less than a year, Ambassador Ereli is now in 

Baghdad, serving for a year as the public affairs officer at the United States Embassy. He apparently intends to return to Bahrain to resume his post next summer. 

In the meantime, there is no United States Ambassador in Bahrain. 

When the committee acts on your nomination, it expects that you will serve the 

usual 3-year tour, unless there are personal or other compelling circumstances that 

require you to return to Washington. We don’t expect that ambassadors will abandon their jobs for a year to take another position. 

Recognizing that you serve at the pleasure of the President, will you commit to 

stay at your position, and not depart your post for any extended assignment, whether in Baghdad or elsewhere? If you do take such an assignment, will you resign your 

ambassadorial post? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I am fully committed to serve a 3-year tour at Embassy 

Algiers, subject to the pleasure of the President and at the discretion of the Secretary of State. 

681 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career, to 

date, to promote human rights and democracy? What was the impact of your actions? 

Answer. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, I was head of the political section 

in Embassy Kuwait. I was caught out of the country with my family at the time 

of the invasion, and spent most of the war in Taif, Saudi Arabia working with Ambassador Skip Gnehm and the Kuwaiti Government in exile. We knew that there 

was a great deal of anger among Kuwaitis at the pro-Saddam position of Yasser 

Arafat and the PLO. Ambassador Gnehm and I repeatedly stressed in our daily 

interaction with Kuwaiti leaders in Taif the strong United States interest in restoring the rule of law and, in particular, protecting the Palestinian population after 

liberation. When we returned to Kuwait to reestablish the embassy, we found that 

there was indeed much anger directed against the remaining Palestinians. We reaffirmed our strong view to the Kuwaiti leadership on the need to protect these civilians repeatedly. To back this up, we also organized—in addition to patrols by U.S. 

Special Forces—multiple, daily trips by U.S. Embassy officers into neighborhoods 

and police stations all over the city. I believe this action, which did not get a great 

deal of attention at the time, was instrumental in saving Palestinian lives. 

As director of Northern Gulf Affairs 2003–2005, my office ran the Future of Iraq 

project, which had more than a dozen working groups. One important group was 

the Democratic Principles Working Group, which I chaired. Some of our Iraqi colleagues dubbed it the ‘‘mother of all working groups.’’ The work of this group 

brought together about 30 Iraqis from all strands of society and their discussions 

foreshadowed many of the important issues that the Iraqi people are still dealing 

with today. What I particularly valued about this process was that a very heterogeneous group of Iraqis came together, identified and discussed fundamental issues 

about the future of their country, and put forward their ideas about how best to 

grapple with those issues. I remember telling them that perfect consensus was not 

necessary in a democratic process—there was not a Congress or a parliament in the 

world that agreed on everything all the time. What was important was that there 

be a representative and accepted process, and that they all recognize each other’s 

rights in that process. I believe the Iraqis we worked with then demonstrated that, 

despite their considerable differences, they had the will to work through those differences and find their way to a national political accommodation. That process is 

now under way in earnest in Iraq and I believe it will ultimately succeed. Many 

of the people who took part in that initial Democratic Principles Working Group are 

now serving in the Iraqi Government and parliament and are deeply involved in the 

political process. 

I was consul general in Jerusalem when Yasser Arafat died. There was some inclination among the Palestinian leadership at the time to throw the election for President into the parliament—which Fatah controlled—in order to guarantee the outcome that the Palestinian authority leadership preferred. Some Palestinians, including in leadership positions, thought that both Israel and the United States were also 

against elections. I countered this strongly, advocating with the Palestinian leadership against any move for a simple parliamentary vote and for a general election 

that would confer proper legitimacy to any outcome. In the end, this view prevailed, 

and Abbas was elected President in a vote that was seen as providing legitimacy 

not only to him but to a negotiated solution to the conflict with Israel. Abbas’ principal rival for the presidency, Mustafa Barghouti, and others in the PA, made a 

point of thanking me personally for my advocacy on behalf of free and fair elections. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Algeria? What are 

the most important steps you expect to take, if confirmed, to promote human rights 

and democracy in Algeria? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that human rights issues continue to be an 

important part of our dialog with Algeria. Key outstanding issues include the lack 

of accounting for many persons who disappeared during the 1990s; restrictions on 

freedom of assembly and association; a criminal sanction on defamation that leads 

to self-censorship in the press; and recent limitations on freedom of worship for religious minorities that mar the Algerian tradition of religious tolerance. If confirmed, 

I will work for progress in these areas, both in our engagements with the government and with other stakeholders in Algeria. I would hope these engagements, together with other embassy programs and training, would not only contribute to 

progress on specific issues, but also to the public discourse, thereby making clear 

the importance that the U.S. Government and people attach to fundamental freedoms. 

682 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Algeria in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The primary obstacle that I believe that I will face in addressing all of 

the primary human rights concerns that I noted in my previous response is that the 

experience of Algeria’s 1990s civil war has made the Government of Algeria considerably more cautious about attempting to open its political system and loosen its 

restrictions on the activities of society, as it attempted to do in the late 1980s. This 

sensitivity is understandable, but I believe it is misdirected. If confirmed, I will 

work to convince my interlocutors that Algeria can best fight extremism and the 

threat it poses to return Algeria to the violence of its ‘‘black decade’’ by laying a 

foundation for the kind of open, pluralistic society that can give its citizens a stake 

in the health of the state and hope for the future. 

Question. In your new position, what steps will you take to ensure that promotion 

of human rights objectives will be an integral part of post/bureau activities? If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Foreign Service officers who engage 

in human rights activities are encouraged and professionally rewarded for superior 

service? 

Answer. The dialog with Algeria on human rights issues has been and will continue to be an integral part of our mission. This will be reflected in mission contacts, 

reporting, and programming, including by our continued support for the Middle East 

Partnership Initiative and other programs. Officers providing superior service in 

these areas will be recognized the same way superior service in other areas is rewarded—through awards, performance evaluations, and challenging onward assignments. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with nongovernmental organizations in the United States and in Algeria who are working to promote human 

rights? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I anticipate that meetings with nongovernmental organizations will be a regular feature of the mission’s engagement on human rights 

issues. 

RESPONSES OF TATIANA GFOELLER-VOLKOFF TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Question. Have you read the cable reference: 04 STATE 258893–Peace CorpsState Department Relations? 

Answer. Yes. I have carefully reviewed this cable. 

Question. Do you understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in this 

cable? 

Answer. Yes. I understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth in 04 

State 258893 regarding Peace Corps-State Department relations. 

Question. Specifically, do you understand and accept that ‘‘the Peace Corps must 

remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy’’ and the ‘‘the Peace Corps’s role and its need for separation from the 

day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other government 

agencies’’? 

Answer. Yes. I understand the need to keep the Peace Corps substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct of our foreign policy and, if confirmed, will strongly 

support this policy. 

Question. Do you pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise 

your chief of mission ‘‘authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much 

autonomy and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does 

not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies’’? 

Answer. I pledge, as Secretary Rice requests in 3.B of the cable, to exercise my 

chief of mission authorities so as to provide the Peace Corps with as much autonomy 

and flexibility in its day-to-day operations as possible, so long as this does not conflict with U.S. objectives and policies. 

(683) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Kim, Sung, to be Special Envoy for the Six Party Talks 

McGann, Steven, to be Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of 

Nauru, the Kingdoms of Tonga and Tuvalu, and the Republic 

of Kiribati 

Rodley, Carol Ann, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer and Murkowski. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. We will come to order. 

Senator Murkowski and I are on a very fast time frame, which 

is very good for all of you because it means that we are very happy 

that you are moving forward. We do not have a lot of questions. 

So I will ask unanimous consent and grant it, that my statement 

be put in the record. 

I will just say we are meeting to consider three distinguished 

nominees for ambassadorial posts. 

Ms. Rodley, the President’s nominee to be the Ambassador to the 

Kingdom of Cambodia, has served her country as a career member 

of the Foreign Service for 28 years, most recently serving as the 

consultant for Afghanistan and Iraq, training at the Foreign Service Institute. Prior to that, she served as the Counselor for Political 

and Military Affairs at the United States embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Ms. Rodley has experience in Asia, having served as the 

Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Cambodia. She 

speaks Khmer, the native language of Cambodia. 

Mr. Steven McGann, a career Foreign Service member since 

1992, is the President’s nominee to be Ambassador to the Fiji Islands. If confirmed, he will also serve concurrently as Ambassador 

to the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, Tuvalu, and the 

Republic of Kiribati. Mr. McGann previously served as the Director 

of Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Island Affairs in the Bureau 

of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and as a senior advisor to Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill. 

684 

And we are considering the nomination of Mr. Sung Kim, a native of my home State of California, currently the President’s Special Envoy for the Six Party talks. In other words, he is Assistant 

Secretary of State, Christopher Hill’s, right-hand man on the issue 

of negotiating an end to North Korea’s nuclear program. What an 

important assignment. And the President has nominated Mr. Kim 

for the same position, but this time he will carry the rank of Ambassador. Prior to working on North Korean nuclear disarmament, 

he served in a variety of posts throughout Asia. 

Thank you all so much for service to country. 

And at this time, I will put my statement in the record and turn 

it over to Senator Murkowski. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Today, the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets to consider three distinguished nominees for ambassadorial posts. As chair of the Subcommittee on East 

Asian and Pacific Affairs, I am extremely pleased to welcome our nominees, Ms. 

Carol Ann Rodley, Mr. Steven McGann, and Mr. Sung Kim. 

Ms. Rodley, the President’s nominee to be the Ambassador to the Kingdom of 

Cambodia, has served her country as a career member of the Foreign Service for 

28 years, most recently serving as a consultant for Afghanistan and Iraq training 

at the Foreign Service Institute. Prior to that, she served as the Counselor for Political and Military Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Ms. Rodley 

also has experience in Asia, having served as the deputy chief of mission at the 

United States Embassy in Cambodia between 1997 and 2000. She also speaks 

Khmer—the native language of Cambodia. 

Mr. Steven McGann, a career Foreign Service member since 1992, is the President’s nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of the Fiji Islands. If confirmed, he will also serve concurrently as Ambassador to the Republic 

of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga Tuvalu, and the Republic of Kiribati. 

Mr. McGann previously served as the Director for Australia, New Zealand, and 

Pacific Island Affairs in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs and as a senior 

advisor to Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. 

And finally, we are considering the nomination of Mr. Sung Kim, a native of my 

home State of California. Mr. Kim is currently the President’s Special Envoy for the 

Six Party Talks. In other words, he is Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill’s 

right-hand man on the issue of negotiating an end to North Korea’s nuclear program. 

The President has nominated Mr. Kim for the same position, but this time he will 

carry the rank of Ambassador. Prior to working on North Korean nuclear disarmament, Mr. Kim served in a variety of posts throughout Asia. 

Thank you all for your service to our country. 

I would like to touch on the issues that each of you will face in your respective 

regions and countries, because I think they clearly illustrate the range of challenges 

that must be addressed in Asia, including poverty, weapons proliferation, political 

instability, corruption, lack of adequate foreign investment, and climate change. 

These challenges affect America’s interests and our values. 

Cambodia, despite notable economic growth over the past decade, remains one of 

the poorest countries in Asia, with over 80 percent of the population engaged in subsistence agriculture. Corruption remains pervasive, and the government, whose 

human rights record was recently rated as ‘‘poor’’ by the United States State Department, too often uses a heavy hand in its dealings with Cambodian citizens. 

Even Cambodia’s attempt to atone for one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century, the massacre of more than 1.7 million Cambodian citizens by Pol Pot’s Khmer 

Rouge regime, has been plagued by corruption. The Khmer Rouge trials set for this 

fall are currently at risk as international donors have threatened to withdraw funding over allegations of corruption. 

Fiji, a relative success story in the Pacific, was rocked by a military coup in 2006 

and has yet to see democracy restored. Kiribati and Tuvalu are facing threats to 

their very existence from global warming. One day in the not too distant future, islands that are home to tens of thousands may simply be swallowed up by the ocean. 

And finally—North Korea. 

685 

I was very critical of the Bush administration’s initial approach to North Korea, 

one that favored tough talk and little action over meaningful engagement. 

I think the administration learned a harsh lesson with respect to North Korea, 

one that demonstrated that problems in Asia cannot be simply ignored or wished 

away. 

Unfortunately, this administration woke up one day to learn that North Korea’s 

nuclear weapons program had been significantly expanded. It was only after that 

realization that the administration initiated the diplomacy we needed through the 

Six Party Talks. 

While the process has been marred by difficulty in recent weeks, I am hopeful 

that through sustained effort, our end goal can be achieved, the complete and 

verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. 

But reports about Kim Jong-il’s health raise the possibility that North Korea’s future could be uncertain, with the potential for a jarring and unpredictable transition. 

So, as I have said to many ambassadorial nominees heading to Asia before you, 

it looks like you all have your work cut out for you. 

I look forward to hearing your prepared remarks, which I ask that you limit to 

3 minutes. Longer statements can be submitted for the record. 

But before you give your statements, I would like to turn to the distinguished 

ranking member of the committee, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for any comments she may 

have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chair. I too will keep 

my comments brief, but want to extend my welcome to the three 

of you and my appreciation for your willingness to serve. 

Mr. Kim, certainly the issue of the Six Party Talks is one that 

has garnered a tremendous amount of attention lately. Mr. Kim, 

we followed your travels to North Korea with great interest. I 

thank you for your willingness to be gone from home for such long 

periods of time as you work to verify North Korea’s compliance in 

disabling and hopefully the future dismantlement of its nuclear 

program. 

Mr. McGann, welcome. Now, while you may have a small population to pay attention to in your new post, you certainly make up 

for it in the distance that you will have to travel in order to serve. 

It kind of reminds me of my home State. But again, thank you for 

your service. 

And Ms. Rodley, Cambodia is certainly making some progress in 

its political reforms, but we acknowledge that it still has a ways 

to go. I will be interested to hear your assessment of whether their 

new-found oil and gas reserves will either help or hinder that 

progress. 

With that, Madam Chairman, I look forward to the statements 

of each of these respected individuals and to our questions later. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Sung Y. Kim, for the rank of Ambassador, 

we would be thrilled to hear from you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF SUNG Y. KIM, NOMINEE FOR THE RANK OF 

AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE AS SPECIAL ENVOY FOR 

THE SIX PARTY TALKS 

Mr. KIM. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. It is an honor and a privilege to be here today as President Bush’s and Secretary Rice’s nominee to be Special Envoy for 

the Six Party Talks and, with your consent, to receive the rank of 

686 

Ambassador during my tenure. Few Asian-Americans have had the 

opportunity to serve the United States as an ambassador, and I am 

deeply moved and grateful to be considered for this opportunity. If 

confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working with this distinguished committee and other Members of Congress to advance 

United States interests with regard to North Korea and the Six 

Party Talks. 

I would like to take a moment to introduce my family because 

without their support I would not be here today. My mother and 

my brother traveled from California, my home State of California, 

to be here today, and my wife, Jae. 

Senator BOXER. Would you stand? Hello. 

Mr. KIM. And my wife and our daughters, Erin and Erica, are 

here today, as well. 

Senator BOXER. Stand up. We are so happy to see you all here. 

Mr. KIM. I think Erin and Erica are mostly happy to be missing 

school today. [Laughter.] 

May I also introduce some of my distinguished colleagues from 

the State Department and the NSC, some of the most dedicated 

and talented young officers in the United States Government. They 

also took time to be here today. 

Madam Chairman, I have had a lifelong interest in Asian affairs. 

In fact, as a Foreign Service officer, I have spent much of my time 

advancing United States interests in Asia. Although my direct involvement in the Six Party process started just with my tenure as 

Director for Korean Affairs, in some ways during my 19 years of 

diplomatic service, the challenge posed by North Korea’s nuclear 

program has figured prominently and I believe has prepared me 

well for the important tasks I had. In fact, in some ways, even my 

pre-State Department career as a prosecutor in Los Angeles I believe has been useful to my work in the Six Party negotiations. 

As deputy of our Six Party delegation, I have had the opportunity to lead several interagency delegations to North Korea to try 

to advance implementation of all Six Party commitments. During 

this time, I have had the privilege of working closely with Assistant Secretary Hill who, as you know, has energetically led the Six 

Party process, and I thank him for his support, guidance, and 

trust. I am also grateful to Secretary Rice for her leadership and 

support. 

Madam Chairman, during the past 2 years, we have taken significant steps in the Six Party process. Working together with our 

Six Party partners, we have shut down North Korea’s nuclear complex in Yongbyon and, in fact, have moved into disabling those facilities in Yongbyon. And our nuclear experts have been on the 

ground continuously since November of 2007. 

North Korea has temporarily halted disablement activities and, 

in fact, appears to be reversing some steps, but we remain committed to the Six Party process and are working closely with our 

partners to make sure that the disablement process is put back on 

track. 

On June 26, North Korea submitted a declaration of its nuclear 

programs. The Six Parties have agreed to a set of principles to 

guide verification of this declaration, and we are now focused on 

687 

developing a strong, robust verification protocol to move the 

verification process forward. 

Madam Chairman, we remain concerned about North Korea’s 

possible activities with uranium enrichment and proliferation activities. North Korea has stated categorically that it is not now and 

will not in the future engage in any uranium enrichment or proliferation activities. North Korea has also agreed to cooperate with 

verification with regard to those two issues. 

The Six Parties have also established a monitoring mechanism to 

ensure full implementation of all Six Party commitments, and we 

believe that would be an important vehicle to check North Korea’s 

fulfillment of its obligations. 

Madam Chairman, there is still much work left. We anticipate 

many challenges and ups and downs as we seek the verifiable 

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, the Six Party 

process is working and a denuclearized North Korea remains essential to peace and stability in the region. With your consent, I 

hope to continue to serve my country in the pursuit of this vital 

national interest. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kim follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUNG Y. KIM, NOMINEE TO HAVE THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE SIX-PARTY

TALKS

Madame Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is an honor and a privilege 

to be here as President Bush’s and Secretary Rice’s nominee to serve as Special 

Envoy for the six-party talks and, with your consent, to receive the rank of ambassador for the duration of my tenure. Few Asian-Americans have had the opportunity 

to serve the United States as an ambassador, and I am deeply moved and grateful 

to be considered for this privilege. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to 

working closely with this distinguished committee and with other Members of Congress to advance United States policy with regard to North Korea and the six-party 

process. 

I would like to take a moment to recognize my family because without their support I would not be here today. I am joined by my mother and brother who flew 

in from my home State of California, and my wife, Jae, and our two daughters, Erin 

and Erica. I am also pleased that my friends and colleagues from the Department 

of State, some of the most dedicated and talented young officers in the U.S. Government, are able to join me today. 

I have had a life-long interest in Asia, and as a Foreign Service officer, I have 

had the opportunity to spend much of my time working to advance United States 

interests in Asia. My direct involvement in the six-party talks began with my tenure 

as Director for the Office of Korean Affairs, but in looking back at my 19 years of 

diplomatic service, I realize that my experience has prepared me well for this important assignment. As Political-Military Affairs Chief in Seoul, I worked closely with 

our military colleagues to strengthen our alliance with the Republic of Korea; as a 

political officer in Tokyo, I covered Japan’s relations with China, as well as North 

Korea; and as a desk officer in Washington a decade ago, I focused on a key aspect 

of our relations with China. The challenge posed by North Korea’s nuclear program 

figured prominently in all of these assignments. Even my pre-State Department experience as a prosecutor in Los Angeles in some ways has been useful to my work 

in six-party negotiations. 

As Director for Korean Affairs and as deputy of our six-party delegation for the 

past year, I have had the honor of leading several interagency delegations to North 

Korea to advance the implementation of various six-party commitments. These efforts included negotiating a robust package of disablement measures for core North 

Korean nuclear facilities and securing critical information on North Korea’s nuclear 

program. During this time, I have had the privilege of working closely with Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who has energetically led the six-party neVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00695 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
688 

gotiations, and I thank him for the trust, support, and the guidance he has given 

me. I am also grateful to Secretary Rice for her leadership and support. 

Madame Chairman, during the past 2 years, we have taken significant steps in 

the six-party process. Working with our six-party partners, we have shut down 

North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex. We have also moved into disabling the 

core facilities at Yongbyon, and since November 2007 United States personnel have 

maintained a presence on the ground in Yongbyon. North Korea temporarily has 

halted the disablement activities and appears to be 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUNG Y. KIM, NOMINEE TO HAVE THE RANK OF AMBAS- SADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE SIX-PARTY

TALKS

Madame Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is an honor and a privilege 

to be here as President Bush’s and Secretary Rice’s nominee to serve as Special 

Envoy for the six-party talks and, with your consent, to receive the rank of ambassador for the duration of my tenure. Few Asian-Americans have had the opportunity 

to serve the United States as an ambassador, and I am deeply moved and grateful 

to be considered for this privilege. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to 

working closely with this distinguished committee and with other Members of Congress to advance United States policy with regard to North Korea and the six-party 

process. 

I would like to take a moment to recognize my family because without their support I would not be here today. I am joined by my mother and brother who flew 

in from my home State of California, and my wife, Jae, and our two daughters, Erin 

and Erica. I am also pleased that my friends and colleagues from the Department 

of State, some of the most dedicated and talented young officers in the U.S. Government, are able to join me today. 

I have had a life-long interest in Asia, and as a Foreign Service officer, I have 

had the opportunity to spend much of my time working to advance United States 

interests in Asia. My direct involvement in the six-party talks began with my tenure 

as Director for the Office of Korean Affairs, but in looking back at my 19 years of 

diplomatic service, I realize that my experience has prepared me well for this important assignment. As Political-Military Affairs Chief in Seoul, I worked closely with 

our military colleagues to strengthen our alliance with the Republic of Korea; as a 

political officer in Tokyo, I covered Japan’s relations with China, as well as North 

Korea; and as a desk officer in Washington a decade ago, I focused on a key aspect 

of our relations with China. The challenge posed by North Korea’s nuclear program 

figured prominently in all of these assignments. Even my pre-State Department experience as a prosecutor in Los Angeles in some ways has been useful to my work 

in six-party negotiations. 

As Director for Korean Affairs and as deputy of our six-party delegation for the 

past year, I have had the honor of leading several interagency delegations to North 

Korea to advance the implementation of various six-party commitments. These efforts included negotiating a robust package of disablement measures for core North 

Korean nuclear facilities and securing critical information on North Korea’s nuclear 

program. During this time, I have had the privilege of working closely with Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who has energetically led the six-party negotiations, and I thank him for the trust, support, and the guidance he has given 

me. I am also grateful to Secretary Rice for her leadership and support. 

Madame Chairman, during the past 2 years, we have taken significant steps in 

the six-party process. Working with our six-party partners, we have shut down 

North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex. We have also moved into disabling the 

core facilities at Yongbyon, and since November 2007 United States personnel have 

maintained a presence on the ground in Yongbyon. North Korea temporarily has 

halted the disablement activities and appears to be taking steps to reverse some 

measures, but we remain committed to the six-party process and are working closely 

with our six-party partners to ensure the disablement process is put back on track. 

On June 26, North Korea provided a declaration of its nuclear programs. The six 

parties have agreed to guiding principles for verification of this declaration, and we 

are now working with our partners and the North Koreans to develop a strong 

verification protocol to move the verification process forward. 

We still have concerns with North Korea regarding uranium enrichment and proliferation activities. North Korea has stated that it is not now and will not in the 

future engage in any uranium enrichment or proliferation activities. North Korea 

also has committed to cooperate with verification activities related to these two 

issues. The six parties have established a monitoring mechanism intended to ensure 

689 

implementation of all six-party commitments, including nonproliferation. We believe 

this will be an important vehicle to pursue any questions regarding North Korea’s 

follow through on its promises. 

Madame Chairman, there is much work left to be done. We anticipate many challenges and ups and downs as we pursue the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, the six-party talks process is working, and a 

denuclearized North Korea remains essential to peace and security for all the members of the six-party talks. With your consent, I hope to continue to serve my country in pursuit of this vital national interest. Thank you, and I am happy to respond 

to any questions you have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUNG Y. KIM, NOMINEE TO HAVE THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE SIX-PARTY

TALKS

Madame Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is an honor and a privilege 

to be here as President Bush’s and Secretary Rice’s nominee to serve as Special 

Envoy for the six-party talks and, with your consent, to receive the rank of ambassador for the duration of my tenure. Few Asian-Americans have had the opportunity 

to serve the United States as an ambassador, and I am deeply moved and grateful 

to be considered for this privilege. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to 

working closely with this distinguished committee and with other Members of Congress to advance United States policy with regard to North Korea and the six-party 

process. 

I would like to take a moment to recognize my family because without their support I would not be here today. I am joined by my mother and brother who flew 

in from my home State of California, and my wife, Jae, and our two daughters, Erin 

and Erica. I am also pleased that my friends and colleagues from the Department 

of State, some of the most dedicated and talented young officers in the U.S. Government, are able to join me today. 

I have had a life-long interest in Asia, and as a Foreign Service officer, I have 

had the opportunity to spend much of my time working to advance United States 

interests in Asia. My direct involvement in the six-party talks began with my tenure 

as Director for the Office of Korean Affairs, but in looking back at my 19 years of 

diplomatic service, I realize that my experience has prepared me well for this important assignment. As Political-Military Affairs Chief in Seoul, I worked closely with 

our military colleagues to strengthen our alliance with the Republic of Korea; as a 

political officer in Tokyo, I covered Japan’s relations with China, as well as North 

Korea; and as a desk officer in Washington a decade ago, I focused on a key aspect 

of our relations with China. The challenge posed by North Korea’s nuclear program 

figured prominently in all of these assignments. Even my pre-State Department experience as a prosecutor in Los Angeles in some ways has been useful to my work 

in six-party negotiations. 

As Director for Korean Affairs and as deputy of our six-party delegation for the 

past year, I have had the honor of leading several interagency delegations to North 

Korea to advance the implementation of various six-party commitments. These efforts included negotiating a robust package of disablement measures for core North 

Korean nuclear facilities and securing critical information on North Korea’s nuclear 

program. During this time, I have had the privilege of working closely with Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who has energetically led the six-party negotiations, and I thank him for the trust, support, and the guidance he has given 

me. I am also grateful to Secretary Rice for her leadership and support. 

Madame Chairman, during the past 2 years, we have taken significant steps in 

the six-party process. Working with our six-party partners, we have shut down 

North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex. We have also moved into disabling the 

core facilities at Yongbyon, and since November 2007 United States personnel have 

maintained a presence on the ground in Yongbyon. North Korea temporarily has 

halted the disablement activities and appears to be taking steps to reverse some 

measures, but we remain committed to the six-party process and are working closely 

with our six-party partners to ensure the disablement process is put back on track. 

On June 26, North Korea provided a declaration of its nuclear programs. The six 

parties have agreed to guiding principles for verification of this declaration, and we 

are now working with our partners and the North Koreans to develop a strong 

verification protocol to move the verification process forward. 

We still have concerns with North Korea regarding uranium enrichment and proliferation activities. North Korea has stated that it is not now and will not in the 

future engage in any uranium enrichment or proliferation activities. North Korea 

690 

also has committed to cooperate with verification activities related to these two 

issues. The six parties have established a monitoring mechanism intended to ensure 

implementation of all six-party commitments, including nonproliferation. We believe 

this will be an important vehicle to pursue any questions regarding North Korea’s 

follow through on its promises. 

Madame Chairman, there is much work left to be done. We anticipate many challenges and ups and downs as we pursue the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, the six-party talks process is working, and a 

denuclearized North Korea remains essential to peace and security for all the members of the six-party talks. With your consent, I hope to continue to serve my country in pursuit of this vital national interest. Thank you, and I am happy to respond 

to any questions you have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUNG Y. KIM, NOMINEE TO HAVE THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE SIX-PARTY

TALKS

Madame Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is an honor and a privilege 

to be here as President Bush’s and Secretary Rice’s nominee to serve as Special 

Envoy for the six-party talks and, with your consent, to receive the rank of ambassador for the duration of my tenure. Few Asian-Americans have had the opportunity 

to serve the United States as an ambassador, and I am deeply moved and grateful 

to be considered for this privilege. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to 

working closely with this distinguished committee and with other Members of Congress to advance United States policy with regard to North Korea and the six-party 

process. 

I would like to take a moment to recognize my family because without their support I would not be here today. I am joined by my mother and brother who flew 

in from my home State of California, and my wife, Jae, and our two daughters, Erin 

and Erica. I am also pleased that my friends and colleagues from the Department 

of State, some of the most dedicated and talented young officers in the U.S. Government, are able to join me today. 

I have had a life-long interest in Asia, and as a Foreign Service officer, I have 

had the opportunity to spend much of my time working to advance United States 

interests in Asia. My direct involvement in the six-party talks began with my tenure 

as Director for the Office of Korean Affairs, but in looking back at my 19 years of 

diplomatic service, I realize that my experience has prepared me well for this important assignment. As Political-Military Affairs Chief in Seoul, I worked closely with 

our military colleagues to strengthen our alliance with the Republic of Korea; as a 

political officer in Tokyo, I covered Japan’s relations with China, as well as North 

Korea; and as a desk officer in Washington a decade ago, I focused on a key aspect 

of our relations with China. The challenge posed by North Korea’s nuclear program 

figured prominently in all of these assignments. Even my pre-State Department experience as a prosecutor in Los Angeles in some ways has been useful to my work 

in six-party negotiations. 

As Director for Korean Affairs and as deputy of our six-party delegation for the 

past year, I have had the honor of leading several interagency delegations to North 

Korea to advance the implementation of various six-party commitments. These efforts included negotiating a robust package of disablement measures for core North 

Korean nuclear facilities and securing critical information on North Korea’s nuclear 

program. During this time, I have had the privilege of working closely with Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who has energetically led the six-party negotiations, and I thank him for the trust, support, and the guidance he has given 

me. I am also grateful to Secretary Rice for her leadership and support. 

Madame Chairman, during the past 2 years, we have taken significant steps in 

the six-party process. Working with our six-party partners, we have shut down 

North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex. We have also moved into disabling the 

core facilities at Yongbyon, and since November 2007 United States personnel have 

maintained a presence on the ground in Yongbyon. North Korea temporarily has 

halted the disablement activities and appears to be taking steps to reverse some 

measures, but we remain committed to the six-party process and are working closely 

with our six-party partners to ensure the disablement process is put back on track. 

On June 26, North Korea provided a declaration of its nuclear programs. The six 

parties have agreed to guiding principles for verification of this declaration, and we 

are now working with our partners and the North Koreans to develop a strong 

verification protocol to move the verification process forward. 

691 

We still have concerns with North Korea regarding uranium enrichment and proliferation activities. North Korea has stated that it is not now and will not in the 

future engage in any uranium enrichment or proliferation activities. North Korea 

also has committed to cooperate with verification activities related to these two 

issues. The six parties have established a monitoring mechanism intended to ensure 

implementation of all six-party commitments, including nonproliferation. We believe 

this will be an important vehicle to pursue any questions regarding North Korea’s 

follow through on its promises. 

Madame Chairman, there is much work left to be done. We anticipate many challenges and ups and downs as we pursue the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, the six-party talks process is working, and a 

denuclearized North Korea remains essential to peace and security for all the members of the six-party talks. With your consent, I hope to continue to serve my country in pursuit of this vital national interest. Thank you, and I am happy to respond 

to any questions you have.taking steps to reverse some measures, but we remain 

committed to the six-party process and are working closely with our six-party partners to ensure the disablement process is put back on track. 

On June 26, North Korea provided a declaration of its nuclear programs. The six 

parties have agreed to guiding principles for verification of this declaration, and we 

are now working with our partners and the North Koreans to develop a strong 

verification protocol to move the verification process forward. 

We still have concerns with North Korea regarding uranium enrichment and proliferation activities. North Korea has stated that it is not now and will not in the 

future engage in any uranium enrichment or proliferation activities. North Korea 

also has committed to cooperate with verification activities related to these two 

issues. The six parties have established a monitoring mechanism intended to ensure 

implementation of all six-party commitments, including nonproliferation. We believe 

this will be an important vehicle to pursue any questions regarding North Korea’s 

follow through on its promises. 

Madame Chairman, there is much work left to be done. We anticipate many challenges and ups and downs as we pursue the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, the six-party talks process is working, and a 

denuclearized North Korea remains essential to peace and security for all the members of the six-party talks. With your consent, I hope to continue to serve my country in pursuit of this vital national interest. Thank you, and I am happy to respond 

to any questions you have. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Kim. 

Senator Boxer has had to excuse herself for just a moment. She 

does anticipate being back, but we will proceed. Mr. McGann, if 

you would like to give your statement. 

STATEMENT OF C. STEVEN McGANN, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS, AND TO 

SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU, 

THE KINGDOM OF TONGA, TUVALU, AND THE REPUBLIC OF 

KIRIBATI 

Mr. MCGANN. Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, members 

of the committee, I am deeply honored that President Bush has 

nominated me to be United States Ambassador to the Republic of 

the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, 

and the Kingdoms of Tonga and Tuvalu. I want to thank President 

Bush and Secretary Rice for their trust in nominating me for this 

position. 

Madam Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of this 

committee for your efforts to address a burgeoning array of challenges confronting these countries and for giving me this opportunity to appear before you today. If confirmed, I will work closely 

with the Members of Congress to maintain strong bipartisan support for United States goals and priorities in the Pacific. 

692 

Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, I would like to acknowledge the support of my wife, Bertra McGann, the dedication of my 

mother, Evangeline Hutson, who hopefully is watching in Los Angeles today, and the enthusiasm of my children, Leyland, Steven, 

Bethany, Bradford, and Benjamin, my family, friends, and colleagues, particularly Barbara Benson, my secretary, that led to my 

being before the committee today. 

If confirmed, I plan to build upon my work over the past 2 years 

leading the Office of Australian, New Zealand, and Pacific Island 

Affairs to build United States relationships in the Pacific. During 

my tenure, I will focus on four important areas: promoting democracy, increasing economic growth, strengthening environmental 

stewardship, and enhancing maritime security. 

The Pacific’s balmy weather, welcoming people, and natural wonders attract over 150,000 Americans to Embassy Suva’s consular 

district each year. My responsibility is to provide services to these 

Americans will remain a high priority of our embassy. 

Addressing environmental issues will be an essential part of my 

portfolio. Environmental degradation poses an especially critical 

challenge for these countries. Many are low-lying atolls that are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Over-fishing 

threatens marine sources and hits hard in the Pacific because these 

island states depend on fish stocks not only for sustenance but as 

a major source of government revenue. We will continue our work 

with Pacific countries to help save coral reefs and protect the marine environment from invasive species. If confirmed, I will work 

with Pacific nations to help make them green economies based on 

environmentally sustainable policies and adopting renewable energies, including solar, wind, and wave, to advance our common interests. 

I would like to take a few moments to address a number of pressing bilateral issues the United States faces in the Pacific, beginning with Fiji. 

In December 2006, the Fiji military, led by Commodore Voreqe 

Bainimarama, overthrew the country’s lawfully elected government. This was Fiji’s fourth coup in 19 years. In accordance with 

the Foreign Operations Assistance Act, the United States suspended military and some foreign assistance programs in Fiji because of the coup, and those restrictions will not be relaxed until 

Fiji returns to democracy. We have also imposed visa sanctions and 

taken other measures directed against coup leaders and their supporters. We have taken these steps in close coordination with our 

allies and partners in the region to underline the urgency to restore democracy and to bolster the efforts of the Pacific Islands 

Forum. If confirmed, I will work with all elements of Fijian society 

and regional partners to quickly restore the rule of law, strengthen 

civil society, and rebuild democratic institutions in Fiji. 

Nauru’s once bountiful phosphate mines are almost exhausted. 

Per capita income in that country has plummeted from among the 

world’s highest to near subsistence levels. Tuvalu has expressed 

concern that any rise in seal level may completely engulf Tuvalu’s 

nine atolls, precipitating the relocation of its entire population. 

Kiribati generally manages its affairs responsibly but has severely 

limited prospects for economic development. This year’s legislative 

693 

elections showed that Tongans have a strong desire for democratic 

reform, and Tongan King George Tupou V has agreed that democratic reforms are needed in the country. If confirmed as ambassador, I would work closely with our longstanding friends to address these economic, political, and social issues. 

Finally, I will do my best to promote excellent relations between 

the United States and each of these five countries and the territories within my consular district. Working together, we can 

achieve our common goals for a more peaceful and prosperous Pacific region. 

Again, I applaud the committee’s efforts to address challenges 

confronting the Pacific region, and at this time I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGann follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. STEPHEN MCGANN, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS, THE REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI, THE

REPUBLIC OF NAURU, THE KINGDOM OF TONGA, AND TUVALU

Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, members of the committee, I am deeply 

honored that President Bush has nominated me to be United States Ambassador 

to the Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, 

the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu. I want to thank President Bush and Secretary 

Rice for their trust in nominating me for this position. Madam Chairman, I want 

to thank you and the members of this committee for your efforts to address a burgeoning array of challenges confronting these countries and for giving me this opportunity to appear before you today. If confirmed, I will work closely with Members 

of Congress to maintain strong bipartisan support for U.S. goals and priorities in 

the Pacific. 

Madame Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the support of my wife, Bertra 

McGann, the dedication of my mother, Evangeline Hutson, and the enthusiasm of 

my children, Leyland, Steven, Bethany, Bradford, and Benjamin, my family, friends, 

and colleagues that led to my being before the committee today. 

Prior to being nominated, I served as in the State Department’s Bureau of East 

Asian and Pacific Affairs as the Director of the Office of Australia, New Zealand, 

and Pacific Island Affairs, as well as the Maritime Security Coordinator. I also 

served as the Director for Asia and Near East in the Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration, as well as in other positions during my 29 year career in the 

U.S. Foreign Service. 

If confirmed, I plan to build upon my work over the past 2 years leading the Office of Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Island Affairs to build United States relationships in the Pacific. During my tenure, I focused on four important areas— 

promoting democracy, increasing economic growth, strengthening environmental 

stewardship, and enhancing maritime security. As ambassador, I will be building 

upon the United States historically friendly relations with Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, 

Tonga, and Tuvalu. Those relations began with 19th century mariners and missionaries and grew stronger during the Second World War. Some of the bloodiest fighting in the Pacific theater took place on Tarawa atoll in Kiribati, and United States 

forces set up bases at several locations in Fiji, Tonga, and Tuvalu. 

If confirmed as the United States Ambassador, resident in Suva, Fiji, I would be 

responsible for our bilateral relationships with five independent nations. Suva also 

is the headquarters of the Pacific Islands Forum, the preeminent multilateral organization in the region and home to offices of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, which manages technical and development assistance programs in the region. 

Fiji’s place in the Pacific, as host to numerous diplomatic missions and international 

organizations, including the United Nations, and as a transportation center, makes 

it a key focal point for our larger regional engagement. 

Embassy Suva is a busy hub of American activity in the Pacific. If confirmed, I 

will lead an embassy team of professional, highly dedicated public servants. They 

manage relations with five sovereign countries and collaborate with multilateral organizations. The embassy serves as a center for regional public diplomacy activities, 

environmental programs and policies, and defense-related relationships. The embassy also has consular and commercial responsibilities for French Polynesia, New 

694 

Caledonia, and Wallis and Futuna, making it the largest geographic consular district in the world. The Pacific’s balmy weather, welcoming people, and natural wonders attract over 150,000 American visitors to Embassy Suva’s consular district annually. Provide services to these Americans would remain a high priority of our embassy during my tenure. 

If confirmed as ambassador, fostering regional stability and eliciting support for 

the war on terror would remain priorities of the embassy. Tonga and Tuvalu became 

early members of the coalition to liberate Iraq. Tongan troops currently provide security for coalition forces at Camp Victory. Fiji’s troops are doing the same for the 

United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq in Baghdad. 

Pacific Island nations face many of the same ‘‘global issues’’ threats and challenges that the United States and other countries face—but in the case of the Pacific Islands the repercussions can be more acute. 

Protecting the environment, fighting HIV/AIDS, stemming the flow of illicit drugs, 

and combating human trafficking are growing concerns in the region. Environmental degradation poses an especially critical challenge for these countries. Many 

are low-lying atolls that are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels. Overfishing threatens marine resources and hits hard in the Pacific, because 

these island states depend on fish stocks not only for the sustenance, but as a major 

source of government revenue. We are also working with Pacific countries to help 

save coral reefs and protect the marine environment from invasive species. If confirmed, I will work with Pacific nations to help make them green economies based 

on environmentally sustainable policies and adopting renewable energies, including 

solar, wind, and wave, to advance our common interests. 

A key partner in this effort is the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). 

I have had the pleasure of working with several SPC leaders, and if confirmed, I 

would look forward to our continued collaboration in such areas as maritime security; the fight against diabetes and other public-health concerns; women’s issues; 

biosecurity; natural resource conservation; and economic development. In addition, 

if confirmed, I will implement initiatives to spread to the Pacific community the economic and employment opportunities related to the multibillion dollar relocation of 

United States forces from Okinawa to Guam. 

As in other parts of the world, Peace Corps volunteers in the Pacific make a tremendous difference in so many lives. Simply put, they are among America’s most 

effective ambassadors. The Peace Corps plays an essential role in enhancing our 

people-to-people relations in the region. I have worked closely with Peace Corps staff 

and volunteers during the past 2 years and in my previous posts. If confirmed, I 

will build on these close relationships to ensure the health and safety of volunteers, 

and consult with key stakeholders on the possibility of expanding the Peace Corps’ 

presence in the region. 

I would like to take a few moments to address a number of pressing bilateral 

issues the United States faces in the region, beginning with Fiji. This list is by no 

means exhaustive. In December 2006 the Fiji military, led by Commodore Voreqe 

Bainimarama, overthrew the country’s lawfully elected government. This was the 

Fiji’s fourth coup in 19 years. The coup has created a prolonged political and economic crisis in Fiji. In accordance with the Foreign Operations Assistance Act, the 

United States suspended military and some foreign assistance programs in Fiji because of the coup, and those restrictions will not be relaxed until Fiji returns to democracy. We have also imposed visa sanctions and taken other measures directed 

against coup leaders and their supporters. We have taken these steps in close coordination with our allies and partners in the region to underline the urgency to 

restore democracy and to bolster the efforts of the Pacific Islands Forum. Recently, 

Fiji’s interim government withdrew its pledge to Pacific leaders to hold free and fair 

elections no later than March 2009. If confirmed, I will work with all elements of 

Fijian society and regional partners to quickly restore the rule of law, strengthen 

civil society, and rebuild democratic institutions in Fiji. 

Nauru’s once bountiful phosphate mines are almost exhausted. Per capita income 

in that country has plummeted from among the world’s highest to near subsistence 

levels. Tuvalu, one of the world’s smallest nations, has 9 atolls only a few feet above 

sea level. The Government of Tuvalu has expressed concern that any rise in sea 

level associated with climate change may completely engulf Tuvalu and necessitate 

the relocation of its entire population. Kiribati generally manages its affairs responsibly but has severely limited prospects for economic development. This year’s legislative elections showed that Tongans have a strong desire for democratic reform, 

and Tongan King George Tupou V has agreed that democratic reforms are needed 

in the country. If confirmed as ambassador, I would work closely with our longstanding friends of the United States to address these economic, political, and social 

issues. 

695 

Many nations have significant interests in the South Pacific. Australia and New 

Zealand have strong cultural, political, historical, and security ties with the region, 

and the United States works most closely with these two countries in coordinating 

policies and programs throughout the area of Embassy Suva’s responsibility. If confirmed, I will work with my counterparts in Australia and New Zealand to achieve 

our common objectives. 

China is rapidly expanding ties throughout the Pacific in its pursuit of seeking 

resources and commercial opportunities. China’s competition with Taiwan for diplomatic recognition and influence plays out directly in Embassy Suva’s area of responsibility: Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu recognize Taiwan, while Fiji and Tonga recognize China. If confirmed, I will engage with both China and Taiwan to press for responsibility, accountability, and transparency in development programs to ensure 

that their assistance supports good governance and the rule of law. 

Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, and Tuvalu occupy a strategically important place in 

the Pacific. As our partners in addressing critical global and regional issues, it is 

in the United States interest to remain fully engaged with these countries. If confirmed, I will do my best to promote excellent relations between the United States 

and each of these five countries and the territories within my consular district. 

Working together we can achieve our common goals for a more peaceful and prosperous Pacific region. 

Again, I applaud the committee’s efforts to address challenges confronting the Pacific region. At this time I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may 

have. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. McGann. 

And finally, we will turn to Carol Rodley for your statement. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL ANN RODLEY, NOMINEE TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA 

Ms. RODLEY. Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, members of 

the committee, I am honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to be the Ambassador of the United States to 

the Kingdom of Cambodia, and am grateful to the President and 

to Secretary of State Rice for their trust and confidence in sending 

my name forward for your consideration. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and other interested Members of 

Congress to advance United States interests in Cambodia. 

I would like to introduce my husband, David Newhall, and my 

son, Niles Lashway, who are in the audience. Two other children 

of mine are tied up with the demands of law school and organic 

chemistry and are unable to join us today, but are rooting for me 

from afar. The career I have had in public service has been a great 

privilege, but it has demanded sacrifices of my family and I would 

like to acknowledge their great partnership and unfailing support 

and thank them for that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We thank them. 

Ms. RODLEY. The United States reestablished relations with 

Cambodia in 1993, following one of the largest U.N. peacekeeping 

operations ever mounted. Although the effects of Khmer Rouge rule 

still linger and Cambodia’s road to democracy has been a difficult 

one, today the country is at peace. Its economy is growing rapidly, 

and Cambodians express more confidence in their future than they 

have in the past. Throughout this transition, the United States has 

been a proud beacon of support for democracy and human rights 

in Cambodia. A vibrant Cambodian NGO community today flourishes with our moral and financial support and has taken the lead 

in advancing the causes of political freedom, democratic governance, justice, and respect for human rights. This year, the Khmer 

696 

Rouge Tribunal is scheduled to hold its first trial for crimes against 

humanity, a significant milestone on the path to justice and reconciliation. Cambodia, once the beneficiary of U.N. peacekeeping, 

today has troops deployed in southern Sudan and its demining experts have served honorably in Afghanistan. 

While much work remains to be done to strengthen the rule of 

law, democratic institutions, and respect for human rights, Cambodia and Cambodians have come a very long way from the dark 

days of Pol Pot’s evil reign. If confirmed, I look forward to advancing United States interests in Cambodia by promoting freedom and 

greater openness, pressing for justice, standing up for and speaking 

out for human rights and the rule of law whenever possible, safeguarding United States citizens, 150,000 of whom live in or travel 

to Cambodia every year, advocating for United States business interests, and working hard to achieve the fullest possible accounting 

for United States personnel still missing from the Vietnam War. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski. I am happy 

to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rodley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL ANN RODLEY, NOMINEE

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA

Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, members of the committee, I am honored 

to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to be the Ambassador of 

the United States to Cambodia. I am grateful to President Bush and Secretary of 

State Rice for their confidence and trust in sending my name to the Senate for your 

consideration. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee and other 

interested Members of Congress to advance United States interests in Cambodia. 

I would like to introduce my husband, David Newhall, and two of my children, 

Alice and Steven, who are in the audience. Another son, Niles, is away at school 

in West Virginia. The career I have had in public service has been an enormous 

privilege, but it has demanded sacrifices from my family and I want them to know 

how much I appreciate their partnership and unfailing support. 

In my 28 years in the Foreign Service, I have served in a number of countries, 

including Cambodia and Afghanistan, which have suffered from political strife, ethnic conflict, post-conflict challenges, and insurgencies. It has been an honor and a 

privilege to serve and represent my country and I have always sought challenging 

assignments, both abroad and at home, where I believed I could make a difference. 

I am recently back from a year in Afghanistan, where I worked on coordination of 

civilian and military counterinsurgency efforts and reform of Afghan security forces. 

That experience reinforced for me the importance of an integrated approach to the 

complex problems that face us and our foreign partners. 

The United States reestablished relations with Cambodia in 1993, following one 

of the largest U.N. peacekeeping operations ever. Although the effects of Khmer 

Rouge rule still linger and Cambodia’s road to democracy has been a difficult one, 

the country is at peace and its economy is growing. National Assembly elections in 

July took place peacefully and with a significant voter turnout, and Cambodians 

themselves are more confident of their future than they have been in the past. 

Throughout this time, the United States has been a beacon of support for democratic development and protection of human rights in Cambodia. A vibrant Cambodian NGO community flourishes with our financial and moral support and has 

taken the lead in advancing the causes of political freedom, democratic governance, 

justice, and respect for human dignity. This year, the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, established to bring the senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge to justice, and which I worked 

to establish during my previous service in Cambodia, is scheduled to hold its first 

trial—a significant milestone on the path to reconciliation and justice. Cambodia, 

once the beneficiary of a U.N. peacekeeping operation, today has deminers deployed 

in southern Sudan, and other Cambodian demining experts have shared their expertise on mine action coordination and victim assistance in Afghanistan. 

While much work still needs to be done to strengthen rule of law, democratic institutions and respect for human rights, Cambodia and Cambodians have come a 

long way from the dark days of Pol Pot’s evil reign. If confirmed, I would continue 

697 

to emphasize that support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law remain 

cornerstones of United States policy in Cambodia. 

The United States and Cambodia share many common interests and our bilateral 

relationship is also growing closer. Cambodia has cooperated with us for years in 

helping achieve the fullest possible accounting of Americans missing from the Vietnam War. More recently, law enforcement and counterterrorism cooperation between our two nations has increased, as has our military-to-military engagement. 

Cambodia has also made significant progress in combating trafficking in persons 

and deserves praise for its support of religious freedom. Cambodia continues to improve its business and foreign investment climate, and its economy is growing. However it remains one of the poorest countries in Asia and is wracked with corruption 

that both inhibits development and threatens much of the progress that has been 

made. As I alluded to earlier, Cambodia’s democratic institutions are still fragile 

and need our support. 

If confirmed, I look forward to advancing our interests in Cambodia, promoting 

freedom, pressing for justice, standing up for human rights and the rule of law, safeguarding the 150,000 Americans who live in or travel to that country each year, and 

advocating for American business interests. 

I would like to mention the progress Cambodia has made in the area of child welfare, which I know is of interest to many members of this committee. Intercountry 

adoption from Cambodia has been suspended since 2001, when widespread corruption and trafficking in children was discovered. Since then, Cambodia has ratified 

the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption and is working to establish the capability to meet its Convention obligations. If confirmed, I will work closely with 

Cambodian counterparts to develop a system that respects both Cambodian and 

United States law and provides safeguards for vulnerable children, birth parents, 

and adoptive parents. 

I believe my 28 years in the Foreign Service, including my recent service in Afghanistan as Counselor for Political/Military Affairs, my years as Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, and my previous service 

as Deputy Chief of Mission in Cambodia have prepared me well for this assignment. 

I would certainly draw on this experience to ensure that our embassy uses its resources wisely, that we intensify our engagement on important issues that affect 

U.S. national security, and that the safety and security of American citizens remains a top priority. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. Thanks. I have asked Senator Murkowski to run the hearing, and I am going to ask my questions 

first. I just have three things happening all at the same moment 

in my life, which is what happens in the Senate. 

I wanted to talk to you, Mr. Kim, about where we are today. I 

do not want to assume anything and I do not want to ask you some 

question that you really cannot answer, given the instability there. 

Do you feel that the Six Party Talks process will move forward regardless of who is at the helm in North Korea? 

Mr. KIM. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

We, of course, have no information to confirm the press reports. 

Senator BOXER.. Yes. 

Mr. KIM. But we are continuing to monitor the situation very 

closely. We are also in close contact with all of our Six Party partners about the situation in Pyongyang. 

It is difficult to speculate, but in terms of the Six Party process, 

we of course remain fully committed to the Six Party process, and 

we hope that whatever the leadership situation is in North Korea, 

that the North Koreans also realize that it is in their interest to 

continue to work with us toward the goal of the denuclearized Korean Peninsula and the Six Party process. 

Senator BOXER. It is so key. 

I have some other questions, but I am going to ask you to answer 

them in the next few days. There is nothing tricky for the others. 

698 

Mr. KIM. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. So we will leave open the record. 

I am just very pleased at these nominations. I just want to make 

sure that Senator Murkowski knew that. She has graciously agreed 

to chair the rest of the hearing and ask the questions. And I wish 

you every good wish, and I am so happy that some of the families 

are here to give you the support that you deserve. And we thank 

you for everything you have given to your country and will continue to give into the future. 

Senator, thank you so much for taking the chair for me. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Mr. Kim, let me just continue in the same line that Senator 

Boxer has mentioned. We are not quite certain the status of Kim 

Jong Il. We can do a lot of speculation here in terms of how the 

talks will proceed, but moving from that, we recognize that some 

of the other countries in the Six Party Talks are also looking at 

some changes. How will the resignation of Japan’s Prime Minister 

impact the Six Party Talks, or will it? 

Mr. KIM. The Japanese Government has been a very good partner in the Six Party process, and we fully expect that their participation in the process will continue through the transition. 

They, of course, as you know, Senator have had serious concerns 

about the abductions issue, and we have pressed the North Koreans repeatedly to address Japan’s concerns. And in fact, we were 

cautiously encouraged when the North Koreans and the Japanese 

reached an agreement on a set of modalities for resumption of investigations into that issue. I understand that investigation has 

been put on hold pending the transition in Tokyo, and I would urge 

the North Koreans to proceed with the resumption of investigations 

as soon as possible. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We recognize from Japan’s perspective and 

from our perspective as a friend and ally of Japan that that aspect 

is something that we know needs to be addressed. 

What do you make about North Korea’s statement that it would 

consider steps to restore the operations at Yongbyon? 

Mr. KIM. North Korea is known to issue unhelpful statements, 

and I am afraid that is one example. Any move to restore 

Yongbyon, I think, would be a serious mistake. We have noticed 

that they have begun to take some steps that would indicate restoration of Yongbyon, but these are relatively—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Such as what? 

Mr. KIM. Such as they removed some disabled equipment that 

had been placed in storage. They took them out and brought them 

into operational areas. But at the moment, we have not detected 

any serious step to restore the operation of the Yongbyon facilities. 

In fact, we have been talking to all of our Six Party partners about 

the current situation, and I think all of our partners share our 

deep concern that any move to reverse disablement at Yongbyon 

would be a serious mistake. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So you think at this point in time that it 

is just talk by North Korea and that they do not intend—or you 

have indicated that there may be some signals out there that they 

could be serious about restoring the operations. 

699 

Mr. KIM. Yes, Senator. It is always difficult to figure the North 

Koreans out. It remains one of the most opaque societies and government. 

What we have, of course, noticed is the statements, as you have 

cited, and some movement in Yongbyon that might indicate that 

they would move toward restoring Yongbyon, but these steps have 

been limited. And what we would like them to do is focus on getting a verification protocol done so that the verification of their declaration can move forward. I think that is the most urgent task. 

Any move to reverse disablement I think detracts from the work 

of the Six Party process, and I think it is something that they 

should not consider. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Are you seeing good cooperation then by 

our partners in the Six Party Talks on the issue of verification? 

Mr. KIM. Yes, Senator, we have. We have continued to work very 

closely with the Chinese and all of our other Six Party partners in 

developing a strong and robust verification protocol that would help 

guide the verification activities on the ground in North Korea. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. Well, I thank you for your responses. 

Again, for all the efforts and your good work with regard to the Six 

Party Talks and all that you are doing, we appreciate it greatly. 

Mr. McGann, you had mentioned the economic issues and associated matters and made reference to the coup in Fiji. With the coup 

and the subsequent pledge by China for continued foreign assistance and then the riot in Tonga in relation to China’s economic infrastructure there, are there any other hot spots that we should be 

looking at in the Pacific islands as the China and Taiwan economic 

diplomacy plays out? Anything else you might be aware of that you 

could share? 

Mr. MCGANN. Senator Murkowski, I believe that we have to 

work closely with China to make sure that China’s approach toward development and assistance in the Pacific does not undermine 

our own efforts to promote good governance and rule of law. In the 

past few years, we have been engaged with China to try and move 

them away from what we call these white elephant projects, you 

know, building stadiums, building residences, and move in a direction that we are trying to move and that is focusing on capacity 

building, training, and technical assistance to the Pacific islands. 

We think we are hearing a responsive chord in China in that they 

are willing to listen to us. In that regard, while we are mindful 

that China has not altered its assistance to Fiji, again we are constantly talking with them about making sure that their efforts do 

not stray from our principal goal in Fiji which is the quick restoration of democracy and the legitimate government based on the existing constitution. 

I would also like to add that we have often spoken with Taiwan 

officials about their responsibility as a donor in the Pacific region 

and that Taiwan should not focus on diplomatic recognition but, in 

fact, continue to focus on building friends in the Pacific. I might 

add that Taiwan has collaborated with the United States in the Pacific on very good issues such as polio eradication. Taiwan has also 

donated portable solar-powered generators to some Pacific islands. 

We think this is the right direction for Taiwan to take and that if 

we can continue to keep the focus on the real assistance needs of 

700 

the Pacific region and move it away from this unnecessary competition over diplomatic recognition between Beijing and Taipei, then 

we can eliminate the concern about their provoking or contributing 

inadvertently to creating hot spots in the Pacific. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Now, in the past or traditionally, Australia 

and New Zealand have been the very close partners certainly to 

Fiji. Is that still the case, or have China and India overtaken them 

in terms of those partnerships? 

Mr. MCGANN. No, they have not. Australia and New Zealand are 

members of the Pacific Island Forum. Both Australia and New Zealand give substantial assistance to the Pacific region, not just Fiji 

alone. And we work very closely with both Canberra and Wellington to make sure that our policies in the region are complementary. 

Although the United States is not a member of the Pacific Island 

Forum’s group, which Australia and New Zealand and other Pacific 

island countries participate in, we are a Pacific nation, and we 

have increased our engagement over the past few years simply because we understand that there is an urgency in the Pacific, an urgency for us to address issues such as how to deal with noncommunicable diseases such as diabetes, how to address the food and energy concerns of the Pacific, which is why we are focusing on trying 

to direct the Pacific countries toward renewable energies. We believe that by continuing our engagement, the United States can 

work in a complementary fashion as a Pacific nation with all of our 

partners in the region to move toward our common goals which, as 

I said, are good governance, sustainable development, maritime security, and reaffirming the rule of law. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Very good. Well, thank you. We appreciate 

your statements here. 

Ms. Rodley, I had mentioned in my very brief remarks about 

Cambodia’s recently discovered oil and gas reserves. Can you tell 

me how far along they are in their development and whether or not 

you believe that the opportunity for increased revenues impact the 

government and whether or not they have already spent the money 

before it has come to them? Just give me a status on what is going 

on there, please. 

Ms. RODLEY. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and I especially 

appreciate the heads-up at the beginning that that question was 

coming. 

There are two points that I would like to make about the oil and 

gas reserves. 

The first one is that the most promising offshore tracts are in the 

area where the territorial claims of Cambodia and Thailand overlap, and Cambodia and Thailand have made very little progress to 

date in resolving those overlapping claims so that they can be exploited for the benefits of both countries. That is something that 

needs to be paid attention to and to be really stepped up. 

The second concern that I have is that Cambodia has a lot of 

work to do still to reduce corruption, official corruption and all 

kinds of corruption, so that when those resources come on line 

eventually, it will benefit all of the people of Cambodia, that all of 

the people will benefit from those resources rather than just a few 

elites. 

701 

Senator MURKOWSKI. How about an update on adoptions? Are we 

any closer to seeing adoptions from Cambodia resumed? 

Ms. RODLEY. The Cambodian Government has become a signatory to the Hague Convention which is a major step in that direction. Right now they are in the process of drafting domestic legislation to implement the Hague Convention. Once that legislation is 

passed, the next step and perhaps the hardest will be to establish 

the domestic institutions that will discharge their Hague responsibilities. And if I am confirmed as ambassador, the U.S. embassy 

will stand ready to assist them with that task. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We appreciate that. 

And then one final question just about the latest election. What 

should we take away from that? 

Ms. RODLEY. The election was the freest election that Cambodia 

has ever had. We believe the results of the election express the will 

of the Cambodian people. The U.S. embassy sent monitors freely 

throughout the country observing the polling and followed carefully 

the proceedings of the national election committee in resolving 

complaints and allegations of fraud after the election. While there 

were some isolated incidents of fraud and there may have been 

pockets of more systematic fraud, we believe that the election reflects the will of the Cambodian people. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I thank you for that. 

That concludes the questions that I had of the three of you. I appreciate your statements, and I echo Senator Boxer’s comments in 

recognizing the caliber and the quality of individuals that we have 

before us. Your names submitted by the President for these respective positions—truly I think you will do great service to our country 

as you clearly have in the past. And we wish you well as you move 

through the process. 

I too want to thank and recognize your families, whether they 

are here with you in person and missing school or whether they are 

viewing this on TV. We truly do appreciate the support that the 

families allow our public servants as they represent our country in 

various capacities, and it is so very fitting that we give them a little special thank you here this afternoon. So with that, I thank you 

so very much and best wishes to you all. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(703) 

NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Hook, Brian, to be Assistant Secretary of State for International 

Organization Affairs 

Lebedev, Gregori, to be Representative of the United States to the 

United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, and to be 

Alternate Representative of the United States to the Sessions 

of the General Assembly of the United Nations 

Reynolds, Matthew, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson presiding. 

Present: Senators Nelson and Corker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Good morning, everybody. If the officer at the 

door would close the door for a moment, we are going to observe 

a moment of silence in recognition of those who lost their lives 

when we were attacked on September 11. 

[A moment of silence was observed.] 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

We are going to, as the committee, consider the nomination of 

three individuals for key leadership positions at the Department. 

We are also joined by several distinguished colleagues who will introduce our nominees, Senator Grassley, Senator Robb, Congressman Dreier. I want to welcome you all. 

Mr. Brian Hook has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of 

State for International Organization Affairs.Mr. Gregori Lebedev 

has been nominated to be representative of the United States to 

the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, and that is 

with the rank of Ambassador, and to be Alternate Representative 

of the United States to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the 

U.N. And I will be seeing you up there because I am going to be 

representing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Mr. Matthew Reynolds has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. 

704 

And so what I would like to do now—you all have been told 

ahead of time that I am not going to have you read your statements. Your written statement is going to be entered in the record 

and we will just get right into questions. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Hook, Mr. Lebedev, and Mr. 

Reynolds follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN H. HOOK, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS

Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. I am grateful to President 

Bush for nominating me to this position, Secretary Rice for her support, and I thank 

Chairman Nelson and Senator Vitter for convening this hearing during a very busy 

time. 

If confirmed, I look forward to continuing the good work of my predecessor in advancing U.S. interests before the United Nations, its affiliated bodies, and other 

international organizations to which the United States is a party. United States 

leadership in multilateral organizations has never been more important. Many of 

the challenges we face today are international in scope and require action on a multilateral level. These challenges include international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the protection of human rights, promotion of democracy and good governance, 

poverty eradication, disease prevention and treatment, and food security. Working 

constructively within the United Nations, through the U.N. Security Council, the 

U.N. General Assembly, and the many U.N. agencies, we are better able to address 

constructively many of these challenges. Of course, any such success requires not 

only the shared commitment of our international partners, but also rigorous oversight of the agencies in question to ensure effective, efficient, transparent, and accountable outcomes. 

If confirmed, I will apply what I learned while serving at the U.S. mission to the 

United Nations for 2 years. During that time, I was the ambassador’s lead negotiator on Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran, Sudan, al-Qaeda, 

and the Taliban. I also helped to negotiate the resolution authorizing deployment 

of the U.N./AU peacekeeping mission in Darfur. 

I believe it is necessary to further strengthen U.S. leadership in the United Nations and to facilitate the necessary reforms to the organization. 

Of course we face many challenges throughout the world, but we should also recognize progress in a number of key areas, including: 

• In March we adopted Security Council Resolution 1803, which imposed legally 

binding Chapter VII sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply with its prior 

U.N. Security Council obligations. This is the third time that the council acted 

to impose Chapter VII sanctions on Iran since the IAEA reported Iran’s noncompliance to the council in February 2006, and Secretary Rice has expressed 

her commitment to a fourth resolution should Iran continue to act in defiance 

of council’s directives. 

• Last fall the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution on the elimination of 

rape and other forms of sexual violence in conflict situations, as well as a resolution on women, peace, and security during our Council Presidency in June. 

Both these resolutions call attention to states that condone the use of rape by 

their own forces or surrogate militias as a weapon of war. 

• The last General Assembly also adopted United States cosponsored resolutions 

condemning the human rights records of Iran, Belarus, the DPRK, and Burma, 

communicating to these regimes and to their victims that the international community will not countenance such blatant disregard for the fundamental rights 

and freedoms of their people. 

• The World Food Program delivered 3.3 million metric tons of food aid to more 

than 86.1 million people in 80 countries last year. The United States provided 

approximately $1 billion, or roughly 40 percent of the resources needed to accomplish this. The World Food Program continues to reach those in need quickly and effectively, despite physical and political obstacles. A recent example of 

this was its response to Cyclone Nargis in Burma. 

• U.N. peacekeeping operations continue to successfully facilitate the difficult 

transitions to stability and democratic governance underway in Haiti, Liberia, 

the Congo, and Timor-Leste. 

705 

While we can point to such notable achievements, we must be frank in acknowledging failures and the continuing challenges the U.N. faces. 

Russia’s recent military actions in Georgia and recognition of the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states are inconsistent with 

previous Security Council resolutions reaffirming Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are closely engaged with our colleagues to promote a constructive role for the council in addressing this crisis, but that will ultimately depend 

on Russia’s willingness to play a constructive role in any council decisions. 

At times, the U.N. has neglected to act with the moral clarity that defined its establishment. The U.N. Human Rights Council, for example, was established in 2006 

as a replacement for the discredited former Commission on Human Rights. The 

council was intended to promote universal respect for and observance of human 

rights and fundamental freedoms. Unfortunately, it has consistently failed to address grave and ongoing human rights violations in countries such as Zimbabwe and 

Iran, and has protected notorious human rights abusers from scrutiny. In its first 

year the council eliminated the special rapporteurs on the situations of human 

rights in Cuba and Belarus. Furthermore, it has taken only weak and ineffective 

action on Sudan, while a political agenda has led to the passage of 20 unbalanced 

resolutions and other actions against a single country—Israel. Regrettably, in its 

first 2 years the Human Rights Council has proved to be even worse that its predecessor, and we are now focused on ways to correct the council’s deficiencies, including its membership structure, when its mandate and functions are renewed by the 

UNGA no later than 2011. 

We are also disappointed that the U.N. plans to hold a second World Conference 

against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance in Geneva in April 2009. The United States withdrew from the first antiracism conference 

in Durban, South Africa, in 2001 due to the pervasive anti-Semitism that characterized the conference itself, as well as the inclusion of anti-Israeli language in the 

Draft Declaration and the Program of Action. We have no confidence that the second 

conference will avoid the anti-Semitic undertones that plagued the conference in 

Durban. Accordingly, and in compliance with section 695 of the 2008 Foreign Operations Act, we will withhold from our regular U.N. budget assessment an amount 

equivalent to the U.S. share of funding for the Human Rights Council and the Durban review conference. 

The work of the U.N. has also been hampered in some cases by systemic weaknesses in the organization. Many U.N. programs are outdated, irrelevant, or ineffective. As we have pressed the U.N. for greater oversight, accountability, and transparency, serious problems have come to light that need greater attention by U.N. 

management, including cases of sexual misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers and management failures in the United Nations Development Program. 

Such failures underscore the need for continued efforts to reform the U.N. to ensure the organization is prepared to confront directly and effectively the great problems of our time. There is widespread recognition that the U.N. is not living up to 

its full potential. 

If confirmed, my central focus will be to advance reform and facilitate substantive 

progress in the following areas: 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

We will continue to work for a United Nations that meets the highest standards 

of integrity. The United States has launched the U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI) to encourage action to improve oversight, transparency, 

and accountability at the U.N. specialized agencies, funds, and programs. We will 

continue to reinforce this initiative. Within the U.N. Secretariat, we are working to 

strengthen the independence of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and 

will continue to demand responsible and effective stewardship of limited U.N. resources. 

HUMAN RIGHTS

Due to the regrettable record of the U.N. Human Rights Council and in light of 

the United States longstanding commitment to the promotion and protection of 

human rights, the United States has decided that it can no longer participate as 

an active observer in the council. We will further intensify our efforts in the U.N. 

General Assembly’s Third Committee, which has jurisdiction over human rights and 

related issues, and will continue to pursue constructive interaction with the Office 

of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the U.N. Special 

Rapporteurs on country-specific and thematic human rights questions. 

706 

PEACEKEEPING

We will work to achieve full troop deployment of the joint United Nations-African 

Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) and continue to call on all U.N. member states 

to provide full support for the peacekeepers. Simultaneously, we will support the 

U.N. Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) peacekeeping operation in its efforts to facilitate 

the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South Sudan, as a means 

to promote long-term reconciliation and an end to Sudan’s suffering. We will continue to rally international diplomatic support for U.N. operations that are rebuilding peace and stability in transitioning countries such as Liberia, Haiti, and the 

Democratic Republic of Congo. 

NONPROLIFERATION

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains the preeminent threat 

to U.S. national security. We will work within the U.N. Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and other international organizations to 

strengthen the barriers against access to WMD, associated technology, and their 

means of delivery. 

DEMOCRACY FUND

We believe the U.N. should take a more active role in promoting democracy 

around the world through such mechanisms as the U.N. Democracy Fund. The Fund 

is the U.N.’s only entity devoted solely to democracy promotion primarily by supporting civil society. While other U.N. organizations such as UNDP typically regard 

host governments as their primary development partners, the Democracy Fund supports civil society directly—making it possible for the U.N. to fund democracy promotion regardless of whether it is a priority for the host government. In only 2 years 

of programming, the fund has already made important contributions in countries 

around the world, particularly for those most in need. We anticipate that the fund 

will take action on its second round of grants during the month of September. This 

will include funding for projects in China, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela, among others. 

DEVELOPMENT

We will work with the U.N. to help developing countries eradicate poverty and 

hunger. This goal, along with the other Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), can 

only be achieved and sustained through a strategy of economic growth. The United 

States is proud to be the world’s largest contributor of development assistance, but 

our focus and that of the U.N. must be more on the quality and effectiveness of our 

efforts than on the quantity of our contributions. Development requires national responsibility, good governance, openness to trade and investment, and a free and robust private sector. 

TERRORISM

The U.N. provides a unique venue for member states to take collective action 

against terrorism, particularly those that may be reluctant to cooperate openly with 

the United States bilaterally. We will work with our allies to ensure that U.N. 

counterterrorism bodies and programs are streamlined and that they engage with 

each other and with other international bodies to ensure maximum efficiency and 

systemic coherence. We will also continue to work toward ensuring that the Global 

Counterterrorism Strategy and Plan of Action, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in September 2006 to enhance national, regional, and international efforts to 

counter terrorism, is implemented effectively. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to be here today, and I hope that I have the 

privilege of working with you and your colleagues in the future. I would be happy 

to respond to the committee’s questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORI LEBEDEV, NOMINEE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE UNITED STATES TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR U.N. MANAGEMENT AND REFORM, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, AND TO BE ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE

UNITED NATIONS, DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Vitter, and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today as the President’s nominee 

to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations for Management and Reform. 

707 

I am grateful to President Bush and to Secretary Rice for their confidence and support. 

For nearly 30 years, I have worked in the foreign affairs community—as State Department Assistant Inspector General for Foreign Assistance, as Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of State for Security and Consular Affairs, as Executive Vice President for 

International Policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce, as a senior partner 

in a global consulting firm whose clients included multilateral organizations, and 

currently as chairman of the Center for International Private Enterprise, one of the 

four institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy. 

During that same period, I also acquired considerable experience in management 

and finance, having served as a CEO, a COO, and a CFO of industry associations; 

provided consulting advice to public and private as well as foreign and domestic organizations about management, financial structures, and human resources; evaluated economic and military assistance programs as a State Department Assistant 

Inspector General; and have spoken frequently about public corruption and its corrosive effects upon private enterprise. I believe these experiences have provided me 

with uniquely relevant insights which will permit me to effectively address the challenges of the position for which I have been nominated. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will focus on our shared interest in improving the 

management and governance structures of the United Nations, and thereby heighten the efficiency and effectiveness of this important institution. The time I will 

spend at the U.S. mission will measurably contribute to the continuity of attention 

on governance and management reform—the linchpin to any broader institutional 

initiatives that may be pursued. To be sure, without the requisite measure of accountability, transparency, and fiscal discipline the U.N. will forever be unable to 

meet the high expectations that we, and other member states have for this critically 

important multilateral organization. 

Filling the currently vacant position of U.S. Representative to the United Nations 

for Management and Reform is key to meeting America’s commitment to U.N. reform and fiscal stewardship. Placing a seasoned policy and management professional in this role sends a very clear signal to the international community that the 

United States, as the U.N.’s largest contributor, has not turned away from its fiduciary duty to advance the changes that are needed. To be sure, to leave this post 

vacant—and thus dim the spotlight on reform—would weaken the ability of the administration to continue to achieve much-needed improvements in the U.N. system. 

In his 2007 speech to the General Assembly, the President spoke to the critical 

mission of the United Nations and its role in the liberation of people from four universal enemies: tyranny and violence; hunger and disease; the chains of illiteracy 

and ignorance; and poverty and despair. Progress can be made toward the realization of these long-term objectives, but only if the U.N. and its affiliated bodies are 

effective, transparent, and accountable. Our belief in the importance and value of 

the United Nations is enduring, but our commitment is not unconditional. Reports 

of scandal, mismanagement, and dishonesty shake the confidence of donors and cast 

doubt on the organization’s ability to deliver results to those in need. Consequently, 

if confirmed, I intend to devote much of my attention and energy to the following 

areas: 

Transparency and Accountability Initiative—In 2007, the United States launched 

a U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI) to apply common governance standards throughout the U.N. system, including independent internal 

oversight, disclosure of internal audits, ethics protocols, whistle-blower protections, 

and financial disclosures by staff. This initiative came about in the wake of abuses 

by the North Korean Government while a beneficiary of U.N. humanitarian and development activities. UNTAI draws upon existing practices within the U.N. Secretariat, and seeks to have them implemented in the U.N. Funds and Programs—in 

particular UNDP and UNICEF in New York, as well as all the other programs and 

specialized agencies throughout the U.N. system. If confirmed, I will work to continue our progress on this important program of work. 

UNDP Accountability—There have been serious concerns about U.N. Development 

Program (UNDP) operations and the lack of internal controls in several countries, 

most recently in North Korea where U.N. auditors discovered that UNDP had violated U.N. rules. We have similar concerns about UNDP as an implementing agent 

for the Global Fund to Combat HIV, Malaria, and Tuberculosis in Burma. 

The Department of State has been working with senior UNDP officials in an effort 

to help that organization meet the standards of the U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative, and to begin to more aggressively disclose audit and programmatic 

information, promote ethical behavior, and protect whistle-blowers. If confirmed, I 

will be forceful but fair in working with UNDP to improve the quality of the oversight of its programs. 

708 

Budget Issues—If confirmed, I will also be a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility within the U.N. The General Assembly approved an initial budget for 2008– 

2009 of $4.2 billion; however, this did not include approximately $1.1 billion in 

budgetary add-ons identified last fall but about which U.N. members decided to 

defer action rather than face tough decisions. The United States rightly objected to 

the adoption of this budget because this piecemeal approach clearly undercuts any 

rational process for fiscal planning. If confirmed, I will be actively involved in negotiations this fall to limit any increases to only those that are most vital to U.S. goals 

and interests. 

While there have been a number of positive achievements in the U.N. reform 

arena, we are not yet satisfied with the progress that has been made throughout 

the U.N. system. Certainly, more work remains to be done. Although, I would not 

suggest that the tasks that remain could be completed over the next few months, 

I believe we must continue to advance our initiatives without interruption in order 

to bridge the gap between this and the next administration. I look forward to this 

opportunity and challenge. 

In summary, the diversity of my experience is uniquely relevant to the challenges 

presented by the U.S. agenda for U.N. management and reform, and if confirmed, 

I look forward to working with you, the members of this committee and all those 

who are committed to making the U.N. a more effective and efficient organization. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may 

have at this time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW A. REYNOLDS

TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you today in regard to my nomination as Assistant Secretary of State 

for Legislative Affairs. I would like to thank President Bush and Secretary of State 

Rice for the confidence placed in me. I am honored by this opportunity to serve. 

I would also like to thank my former chairman, mentor, and friend, Representative David Dreier, for introducing me before the committee today. While the U.S. 

Senate is solely responsible for confirmations—and I hope to achieve the Senate’s 

approval through this hearing—the Bureau of Legislative Affairs serves both chambers of Congress and I value Mr. Dreier’s endorsement as a representative from the 

House. 

I have spent most of my professional career directly serving U.S. Senators and 

Representatives. Over my 18 years working in Congress, I gained a wide range of 

experience managing both Members’ personal offices and standing committees of 

Congress. One of my most rewarding assignments was serving as a professional 

staff member of this committee. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is good to be back, though 

it is a bit more intimidating now sitting at the witness table than it was enjoying 

the relative anonymity of the staff bench behind you. 

For the past 5 years, I have been at the State Department in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs gaining knowledge and appreciation of the responsibilities and capabilities of the agency. With this firsthand understanding of both Congress and the 

Department, if confirmed, it will be my highest priority to further strengthen the 

already solid relationships between the State Department and the Congress and 

with this committee, in particular. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs 

has three major responsibilities: 

• First, is to be responsive to your concerns and to requests for information from 

you and your staff, as well as to assist your constituents on consular and other 

matters. This is a customer service bureau and this Congress is its customer. 

• Second, is to consult with you—as well as with other committees that have 

oversight responsibilities for foreign affairs—to ensure that your views are considered in the State Department’s policy formulation process. 

• Third and finally, is the responsibility to articulate, to explain, and to defend 

the positions, policies, and financial requests of the Department of State. 

As this is the end of an administration, I also recognize that the position of Assistant Secretary has another important responsibility that arises only periodically, and 

this is one of those times. Namely, the task of facilitating a smooth and seamless 

transition with the new, incoming administration. If confirmed, I plan to carry out 

this mission to the highest level of success and professionalism possible to ensure 

the continuity of quality service. 

709 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

be here today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. 

Senator NELSON. But as a courtesy I want to get to Senator 

Grassley, Senator Robb, and Congressman Dreier. We will let the 

three of you go first and then you can excuse yourselves, if you 

would so desire, and then we can get on with the hearing. 

Okay. Senator Grassley? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES GRASSLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Nelson. I 

am very pleased to have an opportunity to introduce a friend and 

also a fellow Iowan to this Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Of 

course, I congratulate all the witnesses on their nominations, and 

I thank you, Chairman Nelson, this late in the session, for taking 

time to hold this hearing. 

I have known Brian Hook for many years, and I strongly support 

his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for International 

Organizations. I had the opportunity to first meet Brian way back 

in 1991 when, obviously—he is still young, but very young then 

when he was an advisor to former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach. 

When he returned to Washington in 2000, after attending law 

school at the University of Iowa, I became better acquainted with 

him as he became a weekly jogging partner of mine. We would always have breakfast afterwards, and my wife Barbara and I have 

come to know Brian and his wife Amy very well. 

Brian comes from an Iowa family with a tradition of public service that goes back generations. His great, great grandfather was a 

Member of Congress who represented the 3rd District of Iowa during Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency. One of Brian’s grandfathers was 

mayor of DeWitt in Clinton County. His other grandfather was a 

civic leader in the Quad Cities, and Brian’s father was President 

of the Bettendorf School board. So it is no surprise that Brian continues this tradition of public service. 

During his career, Brian has served as an advisor to a Member 

of Congress, an advisor to a Governor of Iowa, an advisor to an assistant attorney general, advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to the 

United Nations, the Secretary of State, and the President. 

Brian has extensive foreign policy experience, negotiated difficult 

Security Council resolutions on a range of issues at the top of our 

foreign policy agenda relating to Iran, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, North 

Korea, Darfur, Zimbabwe, and Georgia. He has also worked to advance U.N. reforms, human rights, and humanitarian relief. 

The President has placed great trust in Brian by nominating him 

to this position, and I know that his trust is well placed. Brian 

brings great energy to his work. He has a strong work ethic and 

he believes in getting results. I know that Brian believes in building up a stronger, more effective U.N. to help advance our foreign 

policy goals and the ideals of the U.N. Charter. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to introduce 

Brian to the committee. I support his nomination, obviously, and 

ask that it move as quickly as possible and will look forward then 

to endorsing his confirmation to the full Senate. Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

710 

Senator Robb, welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES ‘‘CHUCK’’ ROBB, FORMER 

MEMBER, UNITED STATES SENATE 

Senator ROBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be 

able to join you and your members in absentia this morning to introduce Mr. Greg Lebedev to be the U.S. Representative to the 

United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform. 

I had a little trouble finding out what exactly the job description 

was for this particular post. As I understand it, if confirmed, Ambassador Lebedev would be the lead U.S. diplomat on U.N. management, finance, and reform. He would represent all U.S. interests 

surrounding the $4.2 billion regular U.N. budget, as well as the $7 

billion for peacekeeping missions. He would address the various integrity lapses such as Oil for Food, and he would advance the U.S.- 

initiated reform agenda, i.e., work to persuade a reluctant U.N. to 

embrace a series of government principles and procedures involved 

in transparency, ethics standards, whistle-blower protections, and 

the like. 

I have known Greg Lebedev for about 3 years, and I believe he 

is about as qualified as anyone possibly could be to undertake some 

of these often thankless tasks. I first got to know him in his capacity as senior advisor to the Robertson Foundation, a fund which is 

dedicated to supporting talented men and women wishing to pursue government careers in national security and in national affairs. 

He has a very impressive background in the areas covered in this 

appointment: senior advisor to Adelphi Capital; Chairman of CIPE, 

the publicly funded Center for International Private Enterprise 

that promotes free market institutions and emerging economies 

throughout the world. He has been the President and CEO of the 

American Chemistry Council, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President for International Policy and National Security 

Affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; President of the Center 

for Corporate Citizenship; Senior Vice President for Management 

and Finance at the ATA; Senior Vice President of IPAC where he 

helped direct projects in the reconstruction of Kuwait following the 

first gulf war. Until 1990, he was the senior partner of the Hay 

Group where he directed all business and international sector consulting contracts with major work in South Africa and the Middle 

East. President Ford appointed him Assistant IG of Foreign Assistance at the Department of State. He served on the White House 

staff. President Bush 41 nominated him to be IG of the DOD right 

at the end of his term, which did not continue, so he did not have 

a chance to serve in that particular post. 

He is a seasoned internationalist. He has spent almost 30 years 

in and around the international community. He has highly relevant 

experience in management, finance, and government. And he is 

also a respected lawyer and an engaging conversationalist. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope it will be the pleasure of this committee 

to approve his nomination quickly and get him to work as soon as 

possible. Anyone who thinks the U.N. could not use a little help in 

sorting through some of their daunting challenges probably has not 

spent much time at the institution. 

711 

With that, Mr. Chairman, unless you have any questions for me, 

in keeping with established tradition, I will asked to be excused 

and leave Mr. Lebedev to the tender mercies of this distinguished 

committee. And I thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator Robb. 

Congressman Dreier, welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

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

Corker. I appreciate the warmup that my friends, Chuck Robb and 

Chuck Grassley, have provided, and I hope you will be equally as 

kind. 

I want to say that Senator Corker will some day learn what it 

is like to see very, very young, diligent, hardworking staff members 

emerge to prominent positions. I have heard the fact that people 

have known the individuals they are introducing for periods of 

time. Actually I have known Matt Reynolds for 20 years. I was just 

recalling that in 1988, when he was working as a staff member for 

my former California colleague, Bob Lagomarsino, who at that time 

was the Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy’s 

International Republican Institute. We had the chance to engage in 

some very, very interesting and important travel. In fact, I recall 

our being the first congressional delegation following the liberation 

of Kuwait in 1991 to go to that country. And Matt Reynolds was 

a very, very important part of that. 

When our colleague, Congressman Lagomarsino, left the Congress, Matt continued to work on Capitol Hill, and I was very 

pleased that he came to work when I had the privilege to serve as 

Chairman of the House Rules Committee. And he just reminded me 

that 7 years ago at this moment, we were all together in the House 

Rules Committee, and what a challenging time that was for us. 

And I cannot help but think as we have all of these potential 

public service individuals before you, Mr. Chairman, how important the efforts in dealing with diplomacy are. A very important 

part of that diplomacy, of course, exists between the Department 

of State and the first branch of Government, that being us. The job 

that Matt Reynolds is actually serving—acting in right now and 

did in 2005 is such an important one because we all know what 

that separation of powers consists of. And while Matt works for the 

executive branch, he has had such a distinguished career working 

in the legislative branch. 

And I will say that while he will continue to work for the executive branch, after you do what I certainly hope you will do, Matt 

is one who does understand—and please do not tell everyone this— 

that Article I happens to be the first among equals. And so his experience here, I think, will lead him to do the very important 

things that his job consists of. 

His name is Matt Reynolds, but we often refer to him as Map, 

M-a-p, Reynolds because of the tremendous knowledge that he has 

of circumstances that exist throughout the world. And I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that he is going to continue to do the superb 

job that he has in this very important work as we deal with the 

many challenges that exist around the world and within the United 

712 

States Congress. Just as my colleagues have, I encourage you to 

proceed as expeditiously as possible with his confirmation. 

And thank you very much for including me. 

Senator NELSON. And we are going to proceed expeditiously. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

The ranking member’s opening statement will be entered in the 

record, as are your written testimonies. So let us get right to the 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Before we begin, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the significance 

of this day, September 11. I propose that we observe a moment of silent reflection 

to commemorate the lives we lost on that tragic day 7 years ago, as well as remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our great Nation. 

Today, the committee meets to consider the nominations of three individuals for 

key leadership positions at the Department of State. 

Mr. Brian H. Hook has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State for 

International Organization Affairs. 

Mr. Gregori Lebedev has been nominated to be Representative of the United 

States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with 

the rank of Ambassador, and to be Alternate Representative of the United States 

of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. 

Mr. Matthew A. Reynolds has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State 

for Legislative Affairs. 

I would like to recognize and welcome the nominees’ family and friends who are 

with them today. We are also joined by several distinguished colleagues who will 

introduce our nominees—Senator Charles Grassley, former Senator Chuck Robb, 

and former Congressman David Dreier. Welcome, gentlemen. 

Mr. Hook, you are currently serving as the acting Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs and recently testified as the administration witness 

at the subcommittee hearing I held on U.N. peacekeeping. Since you have had a few 

months to settle into your role as head of the bureau and to manage our complex 

relationship with the U.N. you already know the challenges you face. 

The United Nations is an imperfect body, but over 60 years after its founding, it 

is still the only multilateral body in the world in which all 192 countries can consult 

over the most important issues of our time—war and peace, poverty and development issues, HIV/AIDS and malaria, and climate change among other topics. Next 

week the United Nations General Assembly will begin in New York. I look forward 

to hearing the administration’s priorities for this important session. 

Mr. Reynolds, you are currently serving as acting Assistant Secretary of State for 

Legislative Affairs. You too are well-acquainted with your duties—to serve as the 

principal advisor to the Secretary of State on legislative matters and as the Department’s principal liaison with Congress. 

If confirmed, your long service as a professional staff member in the U.S. Congress will serve you well as you manage this important relationship. 

Mr. Lebedev, you have been nominated to serve as Representative of the United 

States to the U.N. for Management and Reform as well as to serve as Alternate 

Representative to the General Assembly. If confirmed you would become the point 

person in trying to achieve an important, but thus far elusive, United States priority: reform at the U.N. 

Thanks to all three of you for testifying today and for your willingness to serve 

our country in these important positions within the Department of State. 

Mr. Hook, we have got this coming session that is going to open 

up in another week. Senator Corker and I will be representatives 

of this committee up there in New York. What do you think are the 

top priorities for the United States at this session? 

Mr. HOOK. We are very pleased that you are going to be representing the United States as delegates for the 63rd General Assembly. This will be President Bush’s last opportunity at the GA. 

It will also be Secretary Rice’s last opportunity. 

713 

So it is going to be a little bit of an opportunity to take stock in 

terms of all the progress that I think we have made at the United 

Nations in a range of issues. When you look at advancing freedom 

and democracy, curbing nonproliferation, humanitarian assistance, 

addressing threats to international peace and security, protecting 

human rights, these are all categories I think where we have made 

a lot of progress over the last 7 or 8 years. 

And for the 63rd General Assembly, we will be certainly working 

on a number of resolutions in the General Assembly that would 

speak to human rights abuses that are taking place around the 

world. Some of them will be introduced by the United States. Some 

will be introduced by other countries. We did do an Iran resolution 

last year to shine a spotlight on the human rights abuses that are 

taking place there. That only passed out of the third committee by 

one vote. 

One of the things that I have been working on—and I am making it a priority for this General Assembly—is changing the rate of 

voting coincidence among countries with respect to the United 

States. In 2002, it was around 30 percent, and now it is around 18. 

I just made a trip down to Central America and met with a number 

of foreign ministers. These are countries where we have very 

strong bilateral ties, and yet when we go into the United Nations, 

somehow there are more disagreements than there are agreements 

on some of these General Assembly votes which, when I read it, did 

not make a lot of sense to me because we agree in so many areas, 

the areas that I just talked about. 

And so I am going to be making a focused effort on trying to 

change some of the voting outcomes in the General Assembly. It is 

not acceptable to me, I think, for us to have—at the United Nations 

where we play a leadership role, in overall voting in the GA, we 

are only at 18 percent voting coincidence with the United States. 

I think that number needs to improve. And that is something 

which I will looking at across the board if we are doing resolutions 

on Iran or Zimbabwe. I am sure there will be thematic resolutions. 

I would like to see our voting improve in the General Assembly. 

I do know that during the time that you are up there, Burkina 

Faso will be doing a Security Council meeting, a thematic debate 

on mediation and settlement of conflicts. That will be on Tuesday 

when the President addresses the General Assembly. It is sort of 

helpful for Burkina Faso because they happen to be presiding over 

the Security Council at the time when all the heads of state are 

in town. And so I think there will be some focus on that issue. 

But that is broadly what I am hoping to focus on in the 63rd. 

Senator NELSON. Have you thought about what you ought to do 

with the U.N. peacekeeping force in Haiti, given the fact that Haiti 

has been racked by these recent hurricanes? 

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Chairman, after we had our hearing in July, I 

went and visited Haiti. I was there 2 weeks ago and I met with 

the head of MINUSTAH, Heddi Annabi, whom I knew when I 

served up in New York at the U.S. mission. I think MINUSTAH 

is doing a very good job. In the last 2 years, it had very good leadership under Mullet, and now under Heddi Annabi who was the 

number two official in DPKO, he is now heading up MINUSTAH. 

And I met at length with Heddi, and he briefed me on sort of some 

714 

of the strengths and weaknesses of MINUSTAH. But I think on 

balance, I think we are seeing more strengths than weaknesses. 

There is no doubt in my mind, in light of the devastation of three 

hurricanes and a tropical storm, that they are stretched. I did ask 

them, because we have a mandate renewal coming up for 

MINUSTAH, if they would like to see any change in their mandate, 

and they do not want to see any change. 

Now, in light of these hurricanes, which have really been devastating, I will be getting back in touch with him. I do not want 

to sort of get in the way of him doing his job, but I think when 

things settle down a little bit, I will be in touch with Mr. Annabi 

to ask him, in light of the hurricanes, do we need to enhance the 

mandate to help it accomplish its duties a little more effectively. 

When I was in Haiti—actually I was there the day that Hurricane Gustav hit and had to be evacuated through the Dominican 

Republic. But I had said before leaving that I thought MINUSTAH 

was expanding the space for political progress and economic development. Safety in the hierarchy of human needs is first, and it also 

happens to be the prerequisite for economic development. And I 

think MINUSTAH is doing a good job of that. It is then important 

for the government to take advantage of this space that I think 

MINUSTAH is helping to expand so that we can make some 

progress, I think, on economic development. 

Senator NELSON. Were you able to travel freely throughout Cite 

Soleil? 

Mr. HOOK. Cite Soleil I was planning on visiting on Tuesday, and 

that is when the hurricane hit, and so it was on my schedule but 

we ended up having to cancel it. There was not going to be any 

problem with traveling freely through the city. There were no security concerns raised. 

Senator NELSON. What about the vetting of the national police? 

That started about 2 years ago trying to expel the corrupt. What 

do you observe there? 

Mr. HOOK. Well, I think they are doing, I think, good work on— 

you have corruption issues and you have human rights abuses. And 

I believe that MINUSTAH is doing a good job of changing both categories. And they are graduating more police from their training 

programs. I saw a number of the police while I was in Haiti. I met 

with the U.N. police chief, who I think is doing a very good job. I 

think the head of the police operation and then the general I met 

with, the general of MINUSTAH—I was astonished at how well 

they worked together. They are a great team. And I left feeling 

fairly inspired about the work they are doing. 

But you have been to Haiti and it just breaks your heart to see 

the kind of poverty and challenges they face, but I think we have 

the right people in place and I think they are doing a good job on 

policing. There is a lot more to do. We are trying to get to a goal 

of 14,000. That is the goal, to get to 14,000 police. You know, it is 

interesting in Haiti you have got a population about the size of 

New York City, and New York City has about 35,000 police. I think 

Haiti is somewhere around 9,000 or less. They are trying to get to 

a goal of about 14,000 under the U.N. training program. So I 

strongly encourage that because, again, it gets to this issue of creVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00722 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
715 

ating more sort of safety and security so that then we can make 

progress in other places. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. I will follow on and welcome both of you. Thank 

you for your service. 

And I would agree with you. The general who is heading up 

MINUSTAH in Haiti is most impressive. So we are speaking of 

something that I think in that particular specific regard is going 

well from the standpoint of the United Nations. 

In general, though, as you look—and I realize I have no idea how 

long you guys will be in these positions, you know, 4 months, 5 

months, maybe a long, long time. Who knows? So some of these 

questions may be fair and some unfair. 

But as you look at what the U.N. does well and you look at what 

the U.N. does not so well, give me sort of an outline of those areas 

that you think they do an exceptionally good job and those that you 

think really are gross failings or need improvement. 

Mr. HOOK. Thanks for your question, Senator. 

I would probably break it down by agency. We often refer to it 

as ‘‘the U.N.,’’ this monolith, but it is, in fact, this organization. 

The org chart is really something to behold for the United Nations. 

But I think in some programs, especially the ones where our funding is voluntary, you see, I think, pretty effective work being done. 

The World Food Program. We are the biggest donor to the World 

Food Program. They do a fantastic job of getting aid out the door 

and into the hands of people who need it. 

The Food and Agriculture Organization does not have—I think 

they have had a lot of management problems. We think this food 

security—the crisis we are going through is a real chance for them 

to reform. We have been leading reform in the Food and Agriculture Organization. 

On human rights, the Human Rights Council, deeply disappointing. We certainly did everything we could to create a body 

that would be worthy of its name. Now we have a body that is, in 

fact, curtailing I think its focus on a lot of human rights abuses 

that are occurring around the world, particularly in Cuba and 

Belarus. 

The U.N. Security Council. I think the end of the cold war allowed for a great deal more cooperation on peacekeeping operations. We now have 20 around the world. At the end of the cold 

war, we did not have nearly that number. There is a 75 percent 

coupon people talk about when we have U.N. peacekeeping operations go out because we are able to do it—you know, if we send 

the military out, it is 75 percent sort of more expensive than if you 

would send a U.N. peacekeeping—because you are sharing the burden. And I think some peacekeeping operations have been successful. Others, as the chairman knows from our hearing, talking about 

the 60th anniversary of peacekeeping operations, some have been 

there for a very long time. But I think there have been successes 

in peacekeeping. 

Today we have challenges in the Security Council. We think it 

is very important for the credibility of the Security Council to effectively address threats to peace and security. And I think that has 

been a mixed record. 

716 

Senator CORKER. I get the feeling in dealings with the United 

Nations, either being there or being in front of testimony here, that 

it is a really—it is more than a feeling. I think a fact. I mean, it 

is a place where change is very difficult to occur. I mean, the issues 

of transparency, of ethics. 

I know that you have been there for a while in an assistant position. But what are the real obstacles there to causing the organization to handle itself in a way that is appropriate for all the donors 

and for those involved in the organization? 

Mr. HOOK. We certainly use our contribution—we are the leading 

funder of the U.N., as you know. We try to leverage our financial 

support to effect the reforms that are necessary. I remember at the 

end of Oil for Food, Chairman Volcker’s report talked in the U.N. 

about a culture of inaction, which is what you just sort of were referencing in the beginning of your remarks. It is a body of 192 member states, and progress can be grindingly slow. 

I think the U.N., because of our leadership over the last 7 or 8 

years, is improving on transparency and accountability. Our 

UNTAI initiative, which we launched just a couple of years ago, I 

think is helping. On a lot of these funds and programs, especially 

with UNDP, we need to see internal audit reports. There ought to 

be whistle-blower protection. There ought to be accounting standards which hew to sort of the highest possible standard. 

Senator CORKER. So you ought to. And there are probably not 

many people who would disagree. So why is that not the case? Why 

is that not just the case tomorrow? 

Mr. HOOK. Well, I have often said to some folks I have been discussing at the U.N. that we should not be having an argument 

about transparency and accountability. But the U.N. is a system 

that is very resistant to change, and we certainly do everything we 

can. I raise it at every opportunity in my meetings with U.N. officials. 

But as I said, we are one member of 192. We are its leading 

funder. We leverage that as best we can, but much of it depends 

on the will of the body to change itself. And we cannot make it 

change itself. We can only sort of make the best arguments why 

it should, and when there is corruption in violation of U.N. rules, 

we shine a spotlight on it. 

Senator CORKER. Is there any sense with this resistance to 

change? Let me go back and say that certainly we as an institution, 

just the way we operate here in Congress and just in our Federal 

Government, have not changed with the times enough to meet the 

needs. And I think we all realize that. But the U.N. seems to me 

to be continually, because of that lack of change, in many ways losing relevance as it relates to solving some of the major issues that 

we have. I wonder if you could give any editorial comment. 

Mr. HOOK. Well, I have made exactly that point in my conversations, that in order for the United Nations to be credible and relevant in terms of meeting the very high obligations that the U.N. 

Charter imposes on it, it needs to be accountable and transparent 

to its member states. And some of the problems we have are with 

member states themselves who do not share our vision for reform. 

717 

I think Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon has got a commitment 

to reform. I think he is doing the very best he can. It is a very hard 

job pleasing 192 different member states. 

Senator CORKER. Does the Secretary-General really have a position of power, or is it more of an anarchical kind of organization? 

Mr. HOOK. Well, the funds and programs do report to the Secretary-General, but they have a certain independence which they 

protect robustly. And some of the challenges that we face are that 

the Secretary-General can agree with us, but then we also had to 

have that same conversation with funds and programs who may be 

in a different place than the Secretary-General. And in some cases, 

like I said, like the World Food Program, UNICEF, they are I think 

doing a very good job. 

We have other organizations which we think have had enough of 

a history in terms of either not following the kinds of ethical standards that are necessary to maintain its credibility. It is very hard 

to get it to move. It is like sometimes it feels like turning a battleship, but I am committed to it. 

Senator CORKER. I will let the chairman resume and I may resume after, or he may adjourn. I do not know what he is planning. 

Senator NELSON. China and Russia are fueling the arms going 

into the Sudan, and I am getting ready to introduce a resolution 

to strengthen that arms embargo. What is going to be the action 

that the United States is going to take in the U.N. Security Council 

on the Sudan? 

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Chairman, we are willing to pursue additional 

sanctions against Sudan not just sort of against the government, 

but against all the parties to the conflict. 

When I was in New York advising a U.S. Ambassador, I had negotiated the Security Council resolution that imposed targeted 

sanctions against some individuals who are responsible for committing genocide or promoting hostilities. 

The arms embargo is something which—you know, expanding 

the arms embargo could be a very effective tool. We also face a circumstance where some on the P5 engage in robust military trade 

with Sudan. So we need nine votes and no vetoes to pass a resolution that would impose an arms embargo. 

We have an arms embargo on Sudan but it is not complete. It 

is partial. We all know that arms are getting into Darfur, so the 

U.N. arms embargo, the existing one, could very well be strengthened. Doing it in the Security Council I think will be a challenge 

in light of the military trade that some members of the council are 

engaging in. 

Senator NELSON. Some of that P5 you are talking about is Russia 

and China. 

Mr. HOOK. Yes. 

Senator NELSON. What has been the impact of the International 

Criminal Court deciding to charge Bashir? 

Mr. HOOK. The indictment referral, or at least the referral from 

Ocampo to the ICC, has actually had a very positive effect in terms 

of improving President Bashir’s behavior. Right after the referral 

was made to the judges, suggesting an indictment, we saw enhanced cooperation in a number of areas. 

718 

We are not a party to the ICC, but many members of the council 

are. We think that from what I have heard from folks on the 

ground, that it is having a salutary effect. The indictments, if they 

are issued by the ICC judges—it may be some time before we see 

them. Ocampo made the referral. He made the recommendation, 

but we seen any indictments yet, only the recommendation that he 

be indicted for war crimes and genocide. But it has had a positive 

effect on the ground so far. 

Senator NELSON. Well, that is good to hear. 

The 2009 administration budget request underfunds the U.S. 

contribution to the U.N. by about $600 million. So I know you are 

not the head of Office of Management and Budget, but I would like 

to know your opinion on how do we justify continuing to short 

change the peacekeeping budget while continuing to vote for additional peacekeeping missions in the U.N.? 

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Chairman, we want to continue to work with 

Congress to pay our bills in full and to meet our assessed contributions. You know, at this time last year, I do not think we could 

have predicted that UNMIH would cease to exist, nor could we 

have predicted that the operation in Georgia, UNOMIG, would be 

in the kind of limbo that we are experiencing in terms of the conflict in Georgia. It is a very dynamic set of circumstances that we 

have to assess. We look at it. Obviously, as you know, it is considered in the context of the overall budget, and we do the best we 

can without the benefit of a crystal ball and also trying to do this 

in the context of the larger budget. But I certainly recognize the 

concern and we do want to pay our bills in full, do what we can 

to meet our obligations. 

Senator NELSON. Well, I want to continue to work with you on 

that because basically the next President is going to have to 

straighten out this inconsistency. 

Senator CORKER. Because you brought it up and the currency of 

the issue, I was just in Georgia a couple weekends ago looking at 

what had happened in Gori and some of the other places that talk 

about the status of what we are doing in Abkhazia and with the 

U.N. and how you see that evolving with the present conflict. 

Mr. HOOK. The U.N.’s role on this has been fairly limited so far. 

In Georgia, we have about 130 or so monitors that are part of the 

U.N. We have some police who are there, as well. They are there 

to monitor the cease-fire in Abkhazia. There are no U.N. officials 

in South Ossetia. And so to date the U.N.’s role has been limited. 

I know that we have been working with the OSCE. We have 28 

monitors who are in Georgia. Eight of them have been able to get 

into South Ossetia. We are looking to have a total of 100 OSCE 

monitors. The EU looks like it is going to be deploying 200 monitors into Georgia. 

The real key is going to get Russia to permit the kind of access 

that is necessary into South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And Russia 

needs to meet its obligation to withdraw its forces prior to their deployment on August 7, and once the Russian forces withdraw, you 

then, I think, can have an opportunity for monitors or observers or 

peacekeepers to be in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But for the 

time being, we actually have not even reached that issue because 

719 

of the difficulty of getting these monitors into South Ossetia and 

Abkhazia. 

The 130 U.N. observers that I spoke of in Abkhazia are going to 

be up for renewal on October 15, and that will be, I think, an important vote because Russia has voted in favor of all of the 

UNOMIG resolutions, and all of those resolutions affirm the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. And it is something 

that we will insist on. 

And so we are in discussions up in New York looking ahead to 

the October 15 renewal to see whether it is possible to renew it, 

to see if Russia is going to vote in favor of it. We certainly hope 

they do. We would like to see, I think for now anyway—I know circumstances are changing daily, but we would like to see the U.N. 

stay in Abkhazia. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I can tell by the body language 

we may be coming to a close in this hearing. I wondered if Mr. 

Lebedev or Mr. Reynolds wanted to say something since there is 

a microphone in front of them, and I just feel like there may be 

some family members who might have joined—— 

Senator NELSON. Senator Corker, I have not gotten to them. 

Senator CORKER. Okay. [Laughter.] 

I may have sensed incorrectly. 

Senator NELSON. You have. 

Senator CORKER. All right. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Reynolds, you are the acting Assistant Secretary now. One of the things that you ought to be preparing for 

is a swift confirmation process for the upcoming high-level appointees in the Department of State for the next President. So tell 

me what you are doing to set that in motion. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the key objectives that we are looking at, particularly in 

the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, is a very smooth and successful 

and professional transition, very akin to perhaps—we have all 

watched the Olympics recently. It is a relay race, and if confirmed, 

I hope to be the runner behind that is passing a baton to a new 

runner who will run very strong, as well. And part of that is winning that race and getting a lot of new high-level nominees confirmed, for example. 

We have already started the process in the Bureau of Legislative 

Affairs on a couple of grounds. Number one, if confirmed, we will 

have a new Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary who is actually 

here today, Ambassador Mike Polt, who has served in the bureau 

before and has actually done quite a few transitions, moved the 

embassy in Bonn to Berlin, so is quite familiar with change and 

working that, as well. So we have started that process and are part 

of a team in the building at the Department as a whole that is 

working to make sure that there is a smooth transition as some individuals leave and new ones come in. 

Within the bureau itself, we are also in the process of upgrading 

all of our databases, both hardware and software, to take us from 

the 20th century into the 21st century, which will very much help 

in that process in terms of doing not only research for the new 

nominees, but also perhaps answering the inquiries and the questions from the committee a bit faster as well. 

720 

Senator NELSON. Are you past this nonsense of partisanship so 

that no matter who the next administration is, that you are going 

to try to see a smooth hand-off? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Sir, our objective is to have a very smooth, successful, and professional hand-off of the baton. From my own personal experience, I have done two transitions myself here on the 

Hill with Members who are not returning, and it was their opponent who actually won. And I am proud to say that in both cases 

I was publicly acknowledged for having done a good job of making 

sure the constituents of those offices were not left behind and that 

projects and so on for those districts were handed over in a way 

that kept that success going, and if confirmed, I would intend to 

do the very same here at the Department. 

Senator NELSON. Well, generally State and Defense are pretty 

good in the hand-off. It has been the nonsense in the White House 

that we have seen in going from one administration to the next 

that needs to stop. And that is why I asked the question. 

Tell me, as you look back on lessons learned from the passport 

debacle in 2007, particularly with regard to the lack of communication between the Congress and the State Department—and that 

lack of information was coming from the State Department to the 

Congress because we were here crying for action in this debacle— 

what are the lessons learned? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of internal lessons learned by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, and I 

would have to defer to my colleagues there to describe to you some 

of the technical parts of—— 

Senator NELSON. I am talking about the congressional relations, 

your bailiwick. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. But in terms of communications, we learned very 

quickly, sir, being at the front lines of the interaction with Congress to try and get more information to the Hill much faster and 

in a much more comprehensive way. While the bureau is small, we 

could have deployed and should and will in the future deploy more 

individuals in that process. 

One of the things that would be very helpful that helped us very 

much in the House of Representatives and we would like to have 

here in the Senate is a liaison office right here. A lot of the work 

that is done, particularly with passports and consular issues, is 

done by our liaison office for the Hill which resides presently in the 

Rayburn Building. While the workload has gone up considerably— 

and I think that has really helped the communications—unfortunately, we have seen the percentages of Senate inquiries go way 

down. So 80 percent of the workload is now with the House. 

We have already engaged in some very positive discussions with 

the Senate Rules Committee about trying to get space here. We appreciate that it is a cyclical process, so we kind of have to wait 

until the end of the Senate when you have the movements happening to be able to get a facility here in the Dirksen or in the Russell Building or in the Hart Building. But we think that would also 

be a very, very, very helpful way to keep in touch, not only with 

the Senators but with your staff, on a daily—hourly basis. 

Senator NELSON. Why has there been one in the House and not 

in the Senate in the past? 

721 

Mr. REYNOLDS. When it was originally established, if I recall 

from my predecessors, both chambers were approached. At the 

time, there just physically was not space available in the Senate. 

In the House, the House Administration Committee actually carved 

out and put some new walls in part what was the VA liaison office. 

So we have a very small space in the Rayburn Building that was 

literally carved out of a liaison office. 

Since that time, we have been approaching the Senate and, as 

I said, I personally had very good conversations with Chairwoman 

Feinstein’s staff director about the need and the importance of having an office space here. And they have agreed with that need, and 

we hope when the Senate does its changes of office space and so 

on, that we will be accommodated. 

Senator NELSON. When Congressman Dreier introduced you, he 

was talking about your role in the past where you served as part 

of the staff to the Congress. Is that correct? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Correct, sir. I spent 18 years here in the House 

and the Senate. 

Senator NELSON. And what was that last position that you 

served in? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The last position was staff director of the House 

Committee on Rules. 

Senator NELSON. Well, then you understand. You ought to be 

sensitive to the fact that we need to have this communication, and 

one of you all mentioned—I think it was Dreier—about what is Article I of the Constitution. At times, I do not think we have had 

that in the past. And we need to change that. So it sounds like that 

you are someone very suitable by your background to understand 

the sensitivities for keeping the communication going between 

these two branches of Government. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If confirmed, I would 

intend to very much do that. Having been one of the back-benchers, 

actually right behind you, sir, at times with this committee, firing 

some of those same questions from the Article I perspective, I certainly appreciate that need and would like to strengthen it and 

build a better relationship. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. I will ask one last question, and my body language may indicate I am leaving. 

Senator NELSON. I see that you are trying to hurry this hearing 

up. 

Senator CORKER. I think we have three very, very qualified people that we are fortunate to have going into these positions. 

Mr. Lebedev, some of the management reforms we were talking 

about earlier with Mr. Hook—I understand there is sort of a dynamic that exists between the developed countries and the undeveloped countries as it relates to those reforms and creates the sort 

of paralysis that exists regarding those. Could you enlighten us a 

little bit as it relates to those? 

Mr. LEBEDEV. Well, Senator, I think going back to your earlier 

conversation with Mr. Hook on why is there inertia within the institution, what is the reluctance to change, to use Senator Robb’s 

expression, I think you have hit upon it. There is a different set 

of perspectives that are held by a community of developing counVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00729 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
722 

tries, of whom there are many, and a community of the industrialized states, of whom there are few. 

The developing world tends to see the United Nations as a 

unique opportunity for them to exert influence, to have a voice that 

they do not normally have on a bilateral basis. Many are small, 

poor countries who, rightly or wrongly, perceive that they do not 

have standing in many courts. This is a large court that was, in 

fact, designed to give them a voice. And in exercising that voice, 

they see or perceive, rightly or wrongly, any number of the initiatives under the rubric of reform, as we call them, as steps taken 

by that industrialized community to limit their influence, to possibly silence their voice, to take away their ability to do the things 

that they believe they can only do within the United Nations. So 

at the root of much of this is that dynamic and is that perception 

or that misperception, but regardless, it is one that, to your earlier 

point, creates a context in which change is greeted cautiously. 

Senator CORKER. And are there ways to bridge that so that the 

voices are still heard and yet the organization itself evolves to 

where it is far more relevant and being effective in some of the 

issues that it deals with? 

Mr. LEBEDEV. Well, I would argue, as I suspect this committee 

would argue and has argued in the past, that the reforms that the 

United States has put forward over the last several years in the 

transparency area, with respect to accountability, all of the things 

that we regard as relatively conventional mechanisms of good governance, whether you are in the public or the private sector, we believe that, if instituted, these concepts make the institution more 

effective and efficient. Very simply. And we would hope that with 

our own nudging, our own promotion, the energies that we put into 

bring these into a state of activity within the U.N. will ultimately 

be seen as not impeding those voices, but as ultimately strengthening the institution in which they have so much faith. 

So we believe that these are not just U.S. ideas that give us some 

advantage. We are the largest single shareholder in this company, 

and we have, in effect, a fiduciary duty, like any sizable shareholder, to make it the most efficient, the most effective enterprise 

around. When we do that, when we accomplish that set of objectives, I think these other nations who might be skeptical right now 

will also see that the enterprise at large is a far more effective institution for their interests as well as ours. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. What kind of reform do you want to see in the 

U.N. before inauguration day, January 20? 

Mr. LEBEDEV. Senator, I will borrow from Mr. Reynolds’ metaphor of the relay race. Things move slowly at the U.N., but 

progress can be made in increments. And what I would certainly 

hope to address in the fall and for whatever period of time we have 

beyond that—several initiatives to move them down that path. 

We have got a couple of things that are of serious concern in the 

reform arena. OIOS, which is their inspector general, terribly important in any institution where you are going to have valid and 

credible oversight. OIOS has been in existence since about 1994. It 

has, over that period of time, grown in stature and accomplishment. It is doing pretty good work. However, for whatever set of 

723 

reasons, it is not financially independent. It has never been given 

enough resources to give it the latitude to explore every area that 

needs exploration, to kick every tire that needs to be kicked, to the 

point that when they will identify a target investigation, in many 

instances they do not have the funding to permit them to do it, and 

they must go to the institution that, in fact, they wish to investigate to see if they will help fund this initiative. And you and I 

can well imagine that on many instances, the target of the investigation just is going to come up a little short on that funding. We 

need to continue to focus on that deficiency and see if we can create 

that financial independence within that enterprise. 

Also in the OIOS arena, which is in my view as an old IG, if you 

will, a centerpiece of any sort of reform initiative in any institution, 

is the fact that the Secretary-General last year made a very curious 

proposition, and that proposition was that the investigations function, now housed in OIOS, should be removed and it should be decentralized so that everybody in the various funds and programs 

that Mr. Hook was referring to should have their own IG, so to 

speak. They do not, however, have any of the expertise. They do 

not have any of the separational procedures to maintain an integrity on a decentralized basis. 

We worry that if you take the ability to investigate away from 

investigators, you have not got much left. And rather than building 

the stature and credibility and effectiveness of OIOS, those two 

conditions alone, the absence of an independent financial base and 

the potential loss of its investigation function, can do severe damage to its credibility and set back, very frankly, the ability of the 

institution to usefully oversee its own initiatives. So OIOS, Mr. 

Chairman, is one area where we think we can incrementally move 

that ball down the field. 

I will also take some time to address the matter of ethics reform. 

As this committee knows, the U.N. Ethics Committee has been— 

the ethics initiatives have been decentralized so that there are ethics offices throughout the U.N., throughout the funds and programs. One of the things that is going on right now is the initiative 

by the U.N. Ethics Committee or the Ethics Office to create a set 

of uniform standards for all of these ethics operations. I think it 

is in our interest to continue to promote a very, very rigorous set 

of standards that should be commonly applied throughout the institution. Again, I see this as a short-term initiative. I see it as something that we can accomplish during the fall session. 

Those are three things that are top of mind, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. You said that the Secretary-General wants to 

decentralize. Do I understand your answer that you do not think 

that that would be a good move? 

Mr. LEBEDEV. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. So what do we need to do to get the SecretaryGeneral to support the increased funding, which was your first suggestion? 

Mr. LEBEDEV. I think we have to continue to build those coalitions of like-minded member states to bring the point home that 

the world watches this institution every day, and over recent years, 

they have had some bad moments in terms of public standing and 

credibility by the events that this committee is well aware. 

724 

To take steps like this, sends a very bad signal to the other members and to the public and to large investors like us that we are 

not taking this institution in the right direction. And that is of concern to us because we value the institution. This is an institution 

in which we place great faith and great hope, and we ask it to do 

many, many things. And we know that because we fund it at a 

very severe level. So we think that we will continue to rally a community of interested parties to make the point that this is not in 

the long-term interests of this institution. 

Senator NELSON. Do you plan personally to go talk to the staff 

of the Secretary-General about this? 

Mr. LEBEDEV. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. 

Senator NELSON. I want to visit with you up there. 

Tell me what you think about transparency in the peacekeeping 

operations. 

Mr. LEBEDEV. Well, I think we have made, over the last couple 

of years since Secretary-General Annan in, I think, 2003 brought 

into the open the issues of the sexual abuse and exploitation problems that have plagued the peacekeeping apparatus—I think over 

time that, followed by Prince Zaid’s call for reform, and the fact 

that the members, in fact, embraced many, many reforms, I think 

those sets of steps that have brought us down to today have created a transparency within and around the peacekeeping operations. As this committee knows, we have now a number of action 

steps that are open and are well known with respect to the training 

of peacekeepers, whether it is things called conduct and discipline 

teams and also train peacekeepers once in country and do a very 

good job of informing local populations of the rules and the expectations with respect to those peacekeepers. 

So I think at some level, we can say that there is clearly greater 

transparency, and we are pleased with the progress to date under 

the rubric of prevention of that continuing problem of sexual abuse 

and exploitation. I think it is a longer conversation, Mr. Chairman, 

that we might have about the open question of punishment and 

what happens when you do have an event and what are the appropriate follow-ons that occur. 

Senator NELSON. Are you a chemist? 

Mr. LEBEDEV. I am not. My father was a chemist, and when I 

assumed the position to lead the Chemistry Council, he was both 

pleased and appalled. [Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. And what had you done before that? 

Mr. LEBEDEV. Early in my career when I came to Washington, 

I worked at AID. I worked at the White House. Then I had the 

good fortune to be the youngest Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

State under Dr. Kissinger. I also served as the Assistant Inspector 

General for Foreign Assistance at the State Department, a post 

that no longer exists but had an oversight function of foreign military assistance, aid, that sort of thing. And I went into the private 

sector for 10 years, Senator, was a senior partner in a management 

consulting firm, but had a very large international portfolio and 

worked with a variety of multilateral institutions and the State Department as well, and then went into the trade association world 

where I was a COO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also headed 

up international policy in that institution, CFO as the chief finanVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00732 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
725 

cial officer at the American Trucking Association, and the CEO at 

the American Chemistry Council. I currently am the chairman of 

the Center for International Private Enterprise, which is one of the 

four institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. I think we have had a great hearing, and I 

think we have some folks that I look forward to working with when 

both of you and I begin our work at the United Nations this year. 

I hope that not only will you continue to focus on the things that 

you have talked about today in these hearings, and I hope that 

that is for a long enough time for you all to have the kind of impact 

you want to have. At the same time, I ask you that as we come 

and as we become more involved in the United Nations, that you 

also help us in ways that you see fit and help us to have the kind 

of impact I think each us want to have. 

But we thank you and we thank your families. I do not know, 

Mr. Chairman, if they would like to introduce their families, if they 

are here. It typically occurs. If not, I want to thank you for your 

service, for offering yourself, and certainly look forward to working 

with you. 

Senator NELSON. The record will duly note that the family members that I have already met are here. 

And if there are no other questions, the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(727) 

NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Cretz, Gene A., to be Ambassador to Libya 

Jeffrey, James F., to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m. in Room SD419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Kerry, presiding. 

Present: Senators Kerry [presiding] and Menendez. 

Also Present: Senator Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. Good afternoon. I apologize for being a few moments late. Welcome to this hearing on two very important nominations. We’re delighted always to welcome a senior and unfortunately departing colleague, Senator Warner. Let me just make a 

few statements if I can and then, since there are only two of us 

here, I’ll turn to Senator Menendez, and then we’ll invite our colleague to make his introductory comments. 

We particularly join in welcoming any family members who are 

here. We are grateful that you can join us, and particularly so in 

the case of two distinguished career foreign service officers. Ambassador James Jeffrey, the nominee to be Ambassador to Turkey, I’m 

pleased to say is a native of Melrose, Massachusetts, a graduate of 

Northeastern and Boston University. So we’re happy to welcome a 

fellow Bay Stater here. You start way ahead of the game. In fact, 

let’s just pass you out right now. [Laughter.] 

Senator KERRY. You’ve had a very distinguished career in the 

foreign service, currently serving as Assistant to the President and 

Deputy National Security Adviser, with previous postings in Iraq, 

Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany, Bulgaria, Tunisia, as well as serving as 

our ambassador to Albania. He’s also served previously in Turkey 

three times, most recently as the chief of mission from 1999 to 

2002. So he obviously brings a great deal of experience which 

would serve very well in this important post. 

Gene Cretz, the nominee to be our Ambassador to Libya, has also 

had an equally impressive career, spanning over 25 years in the 

foreign service. Mr. Cretz knows the Middle East well, currently 

serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, and has previously served as the deputy chief of misVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00735 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
728 

sion in Israel, the charge d’affaires and deputy chief of mission to 

Syria, and minister-counselor in Egypt. 

One important note that I am compelled to address right up 

front with respect to Ambassador-nominee Cretz—and he’s well 

aware of this—we’re holding this hearing despite the fact that as 

of now Libya has yet to make full payment to the Humanitarian 

Settlement Fund which was set up under the recent bilateral 

agreement to resolve terrorism-related claims, legal claims. 

It’s essential that Libya ensure that these payments are made 

right away. The committee cannot discharge Mr. Cretz, as much as 

we might like to on his credentials, and the Senate will not be confirming him, as much as it would on his credentials, until those 

payments have been made in full. 

Mr. Cretz, I know you know this has absolutely nothing to do 

with you personally and we look forward to Libya fulfilling that 

component of the agreement so that your qualifications can be put 

to use and we can move forward with this important shift in our 

relationship. 

At this point I need to read a brief portion of a statement of Senator Lautenberg, who particularly wanted this brought to ours and 

your attention. He has long fought for the rights of American terrorism victims and been particularly active on this issue. The balance of his remarks will be placed in the record, but this much I 

would like to quote from his record: ‘‘Libya has not yet satisfied its 

obligations to U.S. victims of its terrorist acts and I’’—Senator Lautenberg—‘‘will object to this nomination moving forward until those 

victims receive justice. I know many of these families and I know 

the long journey they have taken to find answers and closure. 

While I welcome the recent progress on settling these claims, process is not complete. We cannot let Libya off the hook and leave 

U.S. victims with no assurance that they will achieve justice. 

‘‘I hope that today’s hearing will be an opportunity to seek answers on when we can expect Libya to live up to its responsibilities 

under the settlement agreement.’’ 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for the opportunity to present my statement before this 

Committee. I would like to express my strong opposition to the President’s nomination of a U.S. Ambassador to Libya. But I want to make clear that my opposition 

is not personal or based on this particular nominee’s qualifications. Rather, it is 

based on my deeply held belief that we cannot legitimize our future with nations 

that have committed terrorist acts against Americans until and unless they fulfill 

their obligations to our citizens. Libya has not yet satisfied its obligations to U.S. 

victims of its terrorist acts and I will object to this nomination’s moving forward 

until those victims receive justice. 

In 1988, 270 people perished in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, 

Scotland. Thirty-eight New Jersey families lost a loved one that day. I know many 

of these families and I know the long journey they have taken to find answers and 

closure. They weren’t the only ones. In 1986, the bombing of the Labelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany killed two American service members and left many 

more injured. These heinous attacks and others like them, which were sponsored 

by the Libyan government exemplify why Libya was forced into a two-decade long 

isolation by the international community. 

In 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am bombing, renounced terrorism and agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction. This put the country on the path to normalizing its relationship with the U.S. Unfortunately, alVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00736 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
729 

though the U.S. lived up to its end of the bargain in 2006 by removing Libya from 

the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, Libya failed to complete 

the payments it owes to the families of the Pan Am victims. Libya also went back 

on its word with the Labelle Discotheque victims, backing out of a negotiated settlement. It was up to Congress to hold up the normalization process and hold Libya 

accountable. 

For the past two years, we have been pressing for these cases to be resolved in 

order to provide justice for U.S. victims and families. Earlier this year, my legislation for victims of terrorism was signed into law as part of the Fiscal Year 2008 

National Defense Authorization Act. This law reaffirmed the rights of plaintiffs to 

sue state sponsors of terrorism; allowed the seizure of hidden commercial assets belonging to terrorist states; and limited the number of appeals that a terrorist state 

can pursue in U.S. courts, among other provisions. Congress also prohibited U.S. 

government assistance to Libya, and the Senate has continued to delay the confirmation of a U.S. Ambassador to Libya. 

Over the past few months there have been significant developments on our effort 

to bring the justice victims have been seeking for decades. The first was passage 

of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act. This legislation contributed to the creation of 

a comprehensive claims settlement agreement for Libya to compensate U.S. victims 

of Libyan terrorism, including the victims of the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing, victims 

of the 1986 bombing of the Labelle discothe`que, and other cases involving U.S. victims of Libyan-sponsored acts of terrorism. The next development was the signing 

of the U.S. Libyan claims agreement on August 14th in Tripoli and the establishment of a compensation fund that suggested that Libya is serious about moving 

ahead with the U.S.-Libya relationship. 

While I welcome the recent progress on settling these claims, the process is not 

complete. The compensation fund must now be paid in full by the Libyans. We cannot let Libya off the hook and leave U.S. victims with no assurance that they will 

achieve justice. I hope that today’s hearing will be an opportunity to seek answers 

on when we can expect Libya to live up to its responsibilities under the settlement 

agreement. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently traveled to Libya. She was the first 

high-level diplomat to visit Libya in 50 years. I was disappointed that this visit 

came before the Libyans paid the full settlement amount they owe, and accordingly 

Senator Carl Levin and I sent Secretary Rice a letter urging her to make the victims’ compensation a priority of her discussions. 

No U.S. ambassador will make that same trip to Tripoli until these claims are 

settled. For this reason, I will continue to block consideration of this nomination in 

the full Senate and I would ask this committee to withhold any further action as 

well. Our bilateral relationship can truly move ahead only when U.S. victims of Libyan terrorism are fully compensated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Cretz, if we’re able to confirm you, you will 

be the first U.S. ambassador to serve in Tripoli in over 35 years. 

This would represent a very important milestone in the gradual 

process of normalizing U.S.-Libyan diplomatic relations that has 

been taking place since 2003. The Libyan government then renounced its weapons of mass destruction and agreed to stop supporting terrorist groups, and we all hope that Libya can serve as 

a model for a potential rapprochement with other states with similar histories. 

The recent visit of Secretary Rice to Tripoli seems to have 

brought us to the bring of a long-awaited new era in our relationship, in which we could realize the potential for greater cooperation 

and counterterrorism, military, and economic matters. It’s my expectation that Libya will soon make these payments so that we can 

truly move ahead with this new chapter. 

At the same time, we must note that Libya’s human rights practices remain an area of deep concern. Libya’s political system remains authoritarian and undemocratic. Opposition groups are 

marginalized or in exile and the regime is generally suspicious of 

dissidents. Torture and arbitrary arrest reportedly rank among 

continuing abuses. Freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and assoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00737 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
730 

ciation are curtailed, and several prominent political prisoners, including Fathi El-Jahmi, have yet to be freed by the government of 

Muammar Qadhafi. These are important issues that must be addressed as we go forward. 

Turkey is, we all know, a key NATO ally, playing an increasingly 

important role in attempting to resolve some of the world’s most 

critical issues. I was recently in Turkey this February at meetings 

with President Gul, Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister 

Babajan and I was deeply impressed with Turkey’s commitment to 

advancing our mutual interests. One couldn’t help but be impressed by the level of activity, economic and otherwise, and outreach that Turkey is making within the region. They’ve taken the 

lead in efforts to improve relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. They’ve served as host to an international summit on Iraq 

and most recently mediated dialogue between Israel and Syria. 

They’re also playing a critical role as our partner in Afghanistan, 

where they’ve been a very significant contributor to NATO efforts, 

and in supporting our troops in Iraq, where Turkey serves as the 

conduit for some 70 percent of the air cargo supplying our forces. 

I was in Turkey the day they sent troops across the border into 

Iraq to deal with the PKK and I believe strongly that we need to 

continue to work closely with Turkey to address this threat in an 

appropriate manner. 

Turkey also does have some important issues that still need to 

be resolved, starting with Armenia. I was a co-sponsor along with 

many of my colleagues and with Senator Bob Dole of legislation introduced over 20 years ago that recognized the events of 1915 as 

genocide. I know this remains a sensitive and very difficult issue. 

It is an emotional issue as well. 

But almost a century later, it’s in the best interests of the modern states of Turkey and Armenia to resolve this issue as part of 

a process of normalizing diplomatic relations. It’s encouraging that 

both sides recently took important steps toward improving relations when Armenian President Serzh Sargsian and Turkish President Gul attended a soccer match together in Armenia. In addition, 

there are currently bilateral meetings between Turkey and Armenia and trilateral talks with Azerbaijan going on in New York. The 

United States should be prepared to do whatever we can to help 

move these important efforts at reconciliation forward. 

We also hope to see further progress in the coming months in resolving the dispute with Greece over Cyprus. The leaders of the 

Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities in Cyprus are currently 

engaged in direct talks, with a goal of ending the division and reunifying the island and its people. I understand it’s the policy of 

the United States to support the current process under the auspices of the United Nations to find a Cyprus settlement that would 

lead to a bizonal, bicommunal federation. I’d be interested to hear 

from Mr. Jeffrey about the role the United States could play in 

moving that forward. 

So with that, let me turn to Senator Menendez for any opening 

comments he has, and then I’d turn to Senator Warner. 

731 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief because I’d like to have a little flexibility on the questions. So I’ll 

keep this time very short. 

Let me congratulate both of you on your nominations and thank 

you for the service you have provided to our country to date. I want 

to echo the chairman’s comments, Mr. Cretz, about our position on 

Libya. My colleague from New Jersey Senator Lautenberg has been 

at the forefront of this issue and neither he nor I will yield on it 

until Libya does the right thing and meets its obligations to Americans who were victims of the Pan Am bombing. 

That has nothing to do with your background, but it is a reality 

of the process. It’s our only way to get the Libyans to pay final attention and make the payments that they need to make under the 

agreement that we agreed to in fact and expedited with an understanding. Yet that understanding remains void. 

Secondly, with reference to Ambassador Jeffrey, I have a series 

of questions about our U.S. relations with Turkey. It is a very important NATO ally, but I don’t believe that gives us carte 

blanche—or I should say, gives Turkey carte blanche. That means 

I have serious questions about Armenia-Turkey relations. I have 

serious questions about issues of genocide. I have serious questions 

about religious freedom, and of course the continued occupation of 

northern Cyprus, to mention a few. And I look forward to hearing 

your answers to those questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Senator Warner, thank you, sir. You honor us 

and the nominees by being here and we appreciate your presence 

enormously. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Chairman Kerry, Senator Menendez, I thank 

you very much for this opportunity. It’s one I looked forward to. I 

have been in this room many, many times over my 30 years and 

this represents my last appearance. I just calculated that, probably 

100 times. 

But it ends with the nomination of someone I’ve come to know 

through the years and have enormous admiration for and think the 

President has chosen very wisely, this eminent public servant and 

career diplomat to take responsibilities representing the United 

States in Turkey. As was mentioned by you, Senator Menendez, it’s 

a NATO country, both of you. And I enjoyed your dissertation and 

your historic background on the region, Senator. 

I too have visited Turkey a number of times, and particularly in 

the context that we have our NATO air headquarters in that nation. You’re fully aware of that, and that’s pivotal to our operations. 

I wonder if it’s time that the nominee could be invited by the 

chair to introduce his family. 

Senator KERRY. Absolutely, it’s a great time for that. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Senator, I’d like to introduce my wife 

Gudrun, daughter Julia, son Jahn, and daughter-in-law Darbana 

Kruka. 

732 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. We welcome you all. I was a foreign 

service brat for about 10 years, so I’m always admiring what the 

families put up with in the process, and we thank you. 

Senator WARNER. I thank the chair. 

You have given a very important observation here with regard to 

his distinguished career of some 31 years as a public servant. I 

first met him while he was deputy chief of mission and charge d’affaires to Iraq in trips that I made there during 2004 and 2005. 

That was my first impression of this distinguished gentleman. 

During our CODEL visit I remember to Baghdad on one occasion, we had the opportunity to discuss the situation in Iraq and 

the U.S. role there in great detail, and you briefed the delegation 

that I was heading at that time. I was indeed deeply impressed, 

as I am today, with your professional grasp of knowledge. 

You’ve covered a good deal of his background, having spent time 

in Turkey as deputy chief of mission ’83-’87 and 1999 to 2002. Currently, however, he is serving in a very key position with the National Security Council and working closely with Steve Hadley, the 

Assistant to the President. As a matter of fact, in Mr. Hadley’s absence he is often the stand-in acting chief of that section. 

He served in the Army from 1969 to ’76, with posts in Germany 

and Vietnam, and his academic credentials are equally impressive. 

You have covered those. 

I mentioned the importance of Turkey as a NATO ally and an 

ally in many other ways in that region. I’d like to thank Ambassador Ross Wilson, whom I’ve also known, the current U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, and his family for their service and we wish them 

well as he continues his legacy of public service. Following in the 

footsteps of Ross Wilson, I can think of no one better qualified or 

suited than Jim Jeffrey. 

I’m pleased to be the one who’s given him whatever value a Senator contributes. Each of the times that I’ve been here I’ve said the 

same thing as I conclude: You’re on your own. 

Senator KERRY. Well, Senator, before you get up and leave, 

which we know you have to do, and respect the schedules around 

here, if Senator Biden were here I know he would want this committee to be on record and I’m going to take the liberty of just putting it on the record how unbelievably grateful we are for your 

service. You have been just an extraordinary colleague. We have a 

bad habit sometimes around here of blowing smoke at each other, 

but I’ll tell you, our relationship goes way back to 1970-whatever, 

but here in the Senate since ’85. And there is nobody whose word 

is more reliable, nobody who more calmly and thoughtfully reaches 

out across the aisle, nobody who consistently puts country’s interests ahead of party’s interests and works to secure our Nation. 

It’s been just an extraordinary pleasure to have you as a colleague. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just want to join you in 

those sentiments. I am privileged that I got to the Senate in time 

to serve with John Warner. I really do not believe that this will be 

the last time that we will see you in this hearing room. You may 

be a nominee, and we will be judging on whether or not—I think 

it will be an easy confirmation. But nonetheless, I have no doubt 

that somehow your service to this country is not just finished. 

733 

But we are honored by the time we have had here to serve with 

you. 

Senator WARNER. Well, I thank you. Give my very best to Senator Lautenberg. He’s an old crony. There are five of us left in the 

Senate who served in World War II. He served with far greater distinction. But the chairman is too remiss—not remiss, but too modest to say that we served together during the Vietnam period. He 

was on the front line serving with distinction with the Navy and 

I was back as Secretary in my swivel chair. But I did visit your 

region on a number of occasions. 

I wish you both well. And I’d like to thank the staff of this committee, particularly that gentleman in the back room whose hair is 

about the same color as mine. He has always greeted me, as well 

as other members of the staff of this committee. This committee 

has served the Senate magnificently, and really the eyes of the 

world have focused here so often on the issues that come before 

this committee to be resolved. 

I thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you so much, Senator Warner. We appreciate it. Thank you. 

Senator WARNER. Oh, by the way, by pure coincidence, I brought 

my wife with me today and I’m glad she heard what you had to 

say. [Laughter.] 

Senator KERRY. There you go. 

Gentlemen, thanks so much. Ambassador Cretz, why don’t you 

begin. Do you want to lead off, and then we’ll go to Ambassador 

Jeffrey. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF GENE A. CRETZ, NOMINATED TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA 

Mr. CRETZ. Mr. Chairman and Senator Menendez: I am deeply 

honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to 

be Ambassador to Libya, the first in 36 years. I want to express 

my profound gratitude to the President and Secretary of State Rice 

for the trust and confidence they have shown in nominating me for 

this challenging position. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce 

my wife Annette, a registered nurse from Union City, New Jersey, 

Senator, who has helped manage the health care of several of our 

embassy communities overseas. My daughter Gabrielle is a graduate of James Madison University and works in the private sector. 

My son Jeffrey, a captain in the United States Air Force Reserves 

who has honorably served his country in two combat deployments 

to Afghanistan. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much for that. 

Mr. CRETZ. Without my family’s love, support, sacrifice, and spirit of adventure, shown through our 27 years in foreign service, I 

would not be here today. 

Mr. Chairman, Secretary Rice’s just completed historic visit to 

Libya marks a milestone in our relationship. She is the first sitting 

Secretary of State to visit Libya since 1953. Most importantly, her 

visit included the most senior and only cabinet-level meeting with 

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Qadhafi since he took power in 

1969. 

734 

Libya is in the midst of an historic process of reengaging with 

the broader world after nearly 30 years of isolation. It is in our national interest to do all we can to help Libya and its people transition back into the international community. Over the past 5 years 

our bilateral relationship, as well as Libya’s place in the international community, has drastically changed. Libya is now a vital 

partner in the common effort against terrorism. It is a leader on 

the African continent and a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. 

We had an extremely contentious relationship with Libya for several decades owing to its past acts, namely its involvement in acts 

of terrorism that took the lives of hundreds of Americans and others, which led to the imposition of U.S. and UN sanctions and its 

designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. As Libya has turned 

away from terrorism and the pursuit of WMD, we have worked 

hard over the past 5 years to turn a new page in our bilateral relationship. 

The comprehensive claims agreement provides a process through 

which outstanding claims pending against Libya for past acts of 

terror can be resolved and bring a measure of justice for the many 

American families who have been waiting for this outcome for over 

20 years. It will constitute a milestone event in our relationship 

and will provide a clear signal of this administration’s commitment 

to fulfill its pledge to our citizens. 

Together, the Secretary’s visit, the claims settlement, and Libya’s 

historic 2003 decisions to voluntarily rid itself of its WMD program 

and foreswear terrorism facilitated the country’s reintegration into 

the international community and have opened the door to broader 

and deeper engagement with Libya and its people. 

All of these efforts were taken to advance Libya’s interests. We 

continue our important and significant cooperation on counterterrorism, further strengthening regional efforts to combat al Qaeda’s 

presence in North Africa. We are beginning a defense relationship 

so that we can work toward a more stable and peaceful African 

continent. We will continue to work closely with the international 

community to ensure that Libya complies with its WMD obligations 

and are providing technical assistance to help it do so. 

In Libya today there are calls for political reform. We will closely 

observe how calls for the opening of further political space and 

greater respect for human rights will be implemented and how they 

will affect the Libyan people. We believe a strong civil society and 

greater political space would also contribute to these efforts to 

strengthen Libya. 

As we do with all nations, the United States will maintain an 

open and honest dialogue with Libya to discuss human rights and 

good governance. This dialogue will be a necessary element of our 

future relations with Libya. We continue to call for the immediate 

release of all political prisoners, including the unconditional release 

of Fathi El-Jahmi and the group of self-described regime critics led 

by Dr. Idriss Boufayed, as it constituted an important part of the 

Secretary’s visit. 

Libya is in the midst of a major infrastructure development initiative and has undertaken economic reforms. We have begun technical assistance programs in the banking sector and are committed 

735 

to helping Libya grow its economy for the wellbeing of its people 

and the region. 

Our commercial ties are growing and the majority of U.S. exports 

to Libya are outside the hydrocarbon sector. U.S. companies have 

won sizeable contracts for infrastructure and construction projects 

and are competing for contracts in other sectors, such as communications and aviation. 

As our relationship deteriorated in the 1980s, our ties with the 

Libyan people were all but severed. Rebuilding these links is an integral part of our re-engagement with Libya, whether through 

USG-sponsored public diplomacy program or promoting private initiatives between our two peoples. 

Since 2003, the breadth and depth of our bilateral relationship 

with Libya have expanded greatly, but the resources we have committed to support those efforts have, frankly, not kept pace. I commend the women and men serving at Embassy Tripoli. One of my 

key priorities as ambassador if confirmed will be to oversee efforts 

to build a new and secure embassy and to identify the appropriate 

human and material resources to meet our critical mission goals. 

Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way in this relationship 

with a former adversary. Acting in accordance with its own national interests, Libya has in fact said yes to the United States on 

the critical issues of abandoning its WMD aspirations, renouncing 

terrorism, and implementing the claims agreement. In that regard, 

Libya affords a potentially positive model for other countries that 

might make similar choices. If confirmed as ambassador, I look forward to the challenge of setting a firm foundation for future relations with this important country. We have a Libyan government 

and populace that are eager to engage with the United States and 

we should immediately seize on that opportunity. It is in the interest of both sides to do so. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cretz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENE A. CRETZ, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am deeply honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to be Ambassador to Libya, the first 

in 36 years. I want to express my profound gratitude to the President and Secretary 

of State Rice for the trust and confidence they have shown in nominating me for 

this challenging position. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my wife, Annette, 

a registered nurse, who has helped manage the health care of several of our embassy communities overseas. My daughter, Gabrielle, is a graduate of James Madison University and works in the private sector. My son, Jeffrey, a captain in the 

United States Air Force Reserves, has honorably served his country in two combat 

deployments to Afghanistan. Without my family’s love, support, sacrifice, and spirit 

of adventure shown throughout 27 years in the Foreign Service, I would not be here 

today. 

Secretary Rice’s just-concluded historic visit to Libya marks a milestone in our relationship. She is the first sitting Secretary of State to visit Libya since 1953. Most 

importantly, her visit included the most senior and only cabinet-level meeting with 

Libyan Leader Colonel Muammar Qadhafi since he took power in 1969. 

Mr. Chairman, Libya is in the midst of a historic process of reengaging with the 

broader world after nearly 30 years of isolation. It is in our national interest to do 

all we can to help Libya and its people transition back into the international community. 

Over the past 5 years, our bilateral relationship, as well as Libya’s place in the 

international community, has drastically changed. We started with no relationship, 

736 

and now we are well on the way to normal diplomatic relations. We had no presence 

in Libya, and now we have an embassy that is creating new ties with the Libyan 

Government and its people while advancing critical American interests. Libya is 

now a vital partner in the common effort against terrorism. It is a leader on the 

African continent and a nonpermanent member of the U.N. Security Council. 

We had an extremely contentious relationship with Libya for several decades 

owing to its past acts—namely, its involvement in acts of terrorism that took the 

lives of hundreds of Americans and others—which led to the imposition of United 

States and U.N. sanctions and its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. As 

Libya has turned away from terrorism, and the pursuit of WMD, we have worked 

hard over the past 5 years to turn a new page in our bilateral relationship. The 

comprehensive claims agreement provides a process through which outstanding 

claims pending against Libya for past acts of terror can be resolved and bring a 

measure of justice for the many American families who have been waiting for this 

outcome for over 20 years. It will constitute a milestone event in our relationship 

and will provide a clear signal of this administration’s commitment to fulfill its 

pledge to our citizens. Together, the Secretary’s visit, the claims settlement and 

Libya’s historic 2003 decisions to voluntarily rid itself of its WMD program and forswear terrorism facilitated the country’s reintegration into the international community and have opened the door to broader and deeper engagement with Libya and 

its people. 

All of these efforts were taken to advance United States interests, and they have 

cemented Libya’s important and significant cooperation on counterterrorism, further 

strengthening regional efforts to combat al-Qaida’s presence in North Africa. We 

also anticipate beginning to develop military-military lines of communication and 

expect to conclude a Defense Contacts and Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding for that purpose soon so that we can discuss how to work toward a more 

stable and peaceful African continent. 

We will continue to work closely with the international community to ensure that 

Libya complies with its WMD obligations, and are providing technical assistance to 

help it do so. We are cooperating with Libya to engage its former WMD scientists 

into peaceful and economically viable pursuits such as water management and desalination, to convert its former chemical weapons factory into a pharmaceutical 

plant and to transform nuclear reactor facilities previously fueled with weaponsgrade uranium into centers for scientific research with no such proliferation risk. 

Additionally, we are partnering with Libya to establish a regional nuclear medical 

center. The center is a tangible example of the type of cooperation that would not 

have been possible before Libya’s historic 2003 decision. 

In Libya today, there are calls for political reform. We will closely observe how 

calls for the opening of further political space and greater respect for human rights 

will be implemented and how they will affect the Libyan people. We note that Libya 

has identified prison reform and relaxing of press restrictions as focus areas for political reform. We will work cooperatively with the Libyan Government and people 

to support these initiatives. We believe a strong civil society and greater political 

space would also contribute to these efforts to strengthen Libya. As we do with all 

nations, the United States will maintain an open and honest dialog with Libya to 

discuss human rights and good governance. This dialog will be a necessary element 

of our future relations with Libya. We continue to call for the immediate release 

of all political prisoners, including the unconditional release of Fathi El-Jahmi and 

the group of self-described regime critics led by Dr. Idriss Boufayed, as it constituted an important part of the Secretary’s visit. 

Libya is in the midst of a major infrastructure development initiative and has undertaken economic reforms. We have begun technical assistance programs in the 

banking sector, and are committed to helping Libya grow its economy for the wellbeing of its people and the region. 

Our commercial ties are growing, including those outside the hydrocarbon sector. 

United States-Libyan trade in 2007 grew over 17 percent from the previous year 

and the majority of United States exports to Libya are outside the hydrocarbon sector. U.S. companies have won sizable contracts for infrastructure and construction 

projects, and are competing for contracts in other sectors, such as communications 

and aviation. With respect to the oil sector, Libya, which has the largest proven oil 

reserves on the continent of Africa, hopes to increase its daily production from 1.7 

million barrels per day to 3 million barrels per day with the help of United States 

expertise. 

Our relationship with Libya is as old as our republic. With the Barbary States, 

during Italian colonization, through the travails of World War II, the subsequent 

period of cooperation and in the cold war era we engaged with Libya on important 

issues of security and commerce while building bridges of understanding with the 

737 

Libyan people. At one time during the 1970s, there were over 4,000 Libyan students 

studying at American universities, many of whom are now senior Libyan Government officials and business leaders. However, as our relationship deteriorated in the 

1980s, these ties were all but severed. Rebuilding these links is an integral part of 

our reengagement with Libya whether through USG-sponsored public diplomacy 

programming or promoting private initiatives between our two peoples. Today, over 

1,000 Libyan students are studying at United States universities, and that number 

continues to grow. To promote greater engagement between the American and Libyan people, our two countries have been working on a Protocol on Educational and 

Cultural Cooperating to facilitate the exchange of individuals and ideas. This is one 

way we are reconnecting with the Libyan people after a 24-year hiatus that was 

previously characterized by animosity, mistrust, and misinformation. 

Since 2003, the breadth and depth of our bilateral relations with Libya have expanded greatly, but the resources we have committed to support those efforts have 

frankly not kept pace. I commend the men and women serving at Embassy Tripoli. 

Their hard work, dedication, and sacrifice have made our relationship what it is 

today and they have done so in trying circumstances. The embassy, initially established in a hotel, has only recently moved into a collection of houses that serves as 

an interim embassy site. One of my key priorities as ambassador, if confirmed, will 

be to oversee efforts to build a new and secure embassy and to identify the appropriate human and material resources to meet our critical mission goals. 

Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way in this relationship with a former adversary. Acting in accordance with its own national interests, Libya has in fact said 

‘‘yes’’ to the United States on the critical issues of abandoning its WMD aspirations, 

renouncing terrorism, and implementing the claims agreement. In that regard, 

Libya affords a potentially positive model for other countries that might make similar choices. If confirmed as ambassador, I look forward to the challenge of setting 

a firm foundation for future relations with this important country. We have a Libyan Government and populace that are eager to engage with the United States, and 

we should immediately seize on that opportunity—it is in the interests of both sides 

to do so. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Cretz. 

Mr. Jeffrey? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. JEFFREY, NOMINATED TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

Senator. I am honored to appear before you today as President 

Bush’s nominee to serve as ambassador to the Republic of Turkey. 

I am grateful to both President Bush and Secretary Rice for their 

trust and confidence in me. I have submitted a statement for the 

record and what I would like to do with your permission now is to 

summarize briefly my points. 

Sir, let me begin with Turkey’s role in relation to our foreign policy priorities. Turkey was very quick to respond to the crisis in 

Georgia, for example, and was vocal in its support for Georgia’s territorial integrity. As was mentioned, Turkey is our close partner in 

working for success in Iraq. Turkey understands that success or 

failure there will have an immediate impact on its security. 

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Turkey along with Iraq and 

the United States are engaged in joint efforts against the PKK terrorist organization, which has cost the lives of some 30,000 Turks 

since the 1984 outbreak. 

Our military ties with NATO ally Turkey, as was mentioned, remain very strong and very important. I want to thank the Turkish 

people for the hospitality that they have shown entire generations 

of American military men and women. 

In Afghanistan, Turkey has sent large contingents from the very 

beginning of the International Security Assistance Force and has 

738 

been a leader in both the civilian and the military side of that mission, and has also been a major assistance contributor. 

Turkey is concerned as well as we are with the situation in Iran, 

particularly Iran’s pursuit of nuclear enrichment, and it supports 

the IAEA’s efforts to investigate this nuclear program. We support 

Turkey’s efforts to normalize its relations with its neighbors and 

thus have been encouraged new developments in Cyprus and Armenia. As you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we were very, very 

pleased to see the courageous invitation by President Sargsian of 

Armenia to President Gul to travel to Armenia and we were very 

pleased with his courageous decision to accept that. 

The election of a new president in Cyprus has given a new impetus to the discussions between the two sides there and we are 

hopeful to contribute to that. You asked what we’re doing. We’re 

working with both sides, and this would be one of my most important priorities, sir, were I confirmed. 

We strongly urge Turkey to work with Armenia to establish diplomatic relations, to open the border, and to have an open and honest dialogue concerning the tragic events at the end of the Ottoman 

Empire. 

The United States also supports Turkey’s aspirations to join the 

European Union. We think this is very important also for our own 

relations, although it’s a decision for the two in the end to take 

themselves. To its great credit, the current ruling Justice and Development Party is implementing the reforms necessary for eventual EU membership. We encourage Turkey, in doing so, to protect 

the civil rights of all religious and ethnic groups, such as by opening the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Halki Seminary. 

Our economic cooperation with Turkey would be a key priority 

were I confirmed, Mr. Chairman. In particular, the United States 

and Turkey are working closely together on oil and gas pipeline 

projects that will help both Europe and Turkey respond to the very 

significant energy shortages and energy dependency that we see in 

the future if we don’t develop new sources. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator, many Americans, including my family 

and me, have had wonderful experiences living and working in 

Turkey, and in the case of our daughter graduating from a Turkish 

high school. It would be an honor to return to Ankara to represent 

our Nation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jeffrey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES JEFFREY, NOMINEE TO BE

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

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

today as President Bush’s nominee to serve as ambassador to the Republic of Turkey. I am grateful to Secretary Rice and President Bush for their trust and confidence in me. With me today are my wife, Gudrun, daughter, Julia, son, Jahn, and 

daughter-in-law, Dardana Rruka. During my 31-year career in the Foreign Service, 

my family and I have had the pleasure of serving in Turkey three times previously, 

most recently as the deputy chief of mission from 1999 to 2002. I have seen firsthand the remarkable transformations in Turkey over the last few decades as it has 

become more democratic, more open, and more economically vibrant. If confirmed, 

I look forward to working with you and your colleagues on how best to advance the 

many shared interests of the United States and Turkey in the years ahead. In doing 

739 

so, I would keep constantly in mind the heavy responsibility I would assume as ambassador responsible for this critically important and very complex relationship. 

Throughout my career, during the times I was not working in Turkey, I was often 

working with Turkey—on Iraq, Iran, Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania. Turkey is a key 

friend and strategic partner of the United States in the Middle East, the Caucasus, 

the Balkans, Central Asia, and beyond, and a crucially important member of our 

NATO alliance. For decades, Turkey has worked with the United States on issues 

such as regional stability, trade, democracy promotion, energy security, and counterterrorism cooperation. The events over the past 2 months in Georgia underscore 

Turkey’s importance as a democratic bulwark, a military partner, and a strategic 

ally in a dynamic and challenging region. 

Even among close allies, however, there are occasional differences. While Turkey 

and the United States have shared values and goals, our tactics and methods are 

not always the same and have caused some misunderstandings. Our diplomatic and 

military exchanges were strained when the Turkish parliament failed to approve, 

in March 2003, the United States request to use Turkey to launch operations into 

Iraq. Starting in 2004, after several years of a cease-fire, the Kurdistan Workers 

Party (PKK) terrorists once again began attacking Turkish soldiers and civilians, 

both from its safe haven in northern Iraq and from inside Turkey. Turkey was frustrated by what it perceived as American hesitation concerning its plight in a struggle that has cost more than 30,000 Turkish lives over the last few decades. The unfortunate result of these differences was that the Turkish public, according to the 

2007 and 2008 Pew Global Attitudes Surveys, had the lowest favorable opinion of 

the United States out of all the countries that were surveyed. 

Thankfully, we started to see important improvements in our bilateral relations 

in 2007. First, Turkey’s democracy was tested when challenges to its Presidential 

election led to early parliamentary elections. These elections ultimately led to a 

strengthened mandate for Prime Minister Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party. Second, the United States responded to the growing PKK threat to the 

region when President Bush pledged last November to provide assistance to help 

Turkey defend itself against this terrorist organization, a common enemy of Turkey, 

Iraq, and the United States. Now Turkey, Iraq, and the United States are working 

together more closely than ever before to root out the PKK. Turkish public opinion 

of the United States is also now improving. If I am confirmed as ambassador, I will 

do everything possible to maintain and enhance this momentum and build stronger 

ties with this strategic partner. 

Let me describe Turkey’s role in relation to our foreign policy priorities. Turkey 

has been quick to respond to the crisis in Georgia and vocal in its support for Georgia’s territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty. Prime Minister Erdogan 

carried that message to both Moscow and Tbilisi and has been working to garner 

regional support for Georgia. The Turkish Red Crescent provided needed humanitarian assistance with tents, food, and water, and the Turkish Government has assisted the United States in approving the transit of our naval vessels that have delivered assistance to alleviate the suffering of the Georgian people. We are looking 

to Ankara for its thoughts on how its Caucasus stability initiative can integrate 

with efforts by the Euro-Atlantic community to advance peace, prosperity, and freedom in Georgia. 

Turkey recognizes that our success or failure in Iraq will directly impact Turkey’s 

domestic and economic security. Turkey is helping to ensure Iraq’s progress, including by hosting the second Enlarged Ministerial Neighboring Countries Meeting in 

Istanbul November 2–3, 2007. Turkey, in fact, was instrumental in starting the 

Neighbors Process. Turkey also provides political party and military training, assists with reconstruction, and is helping to develop Iraqi oil and electricity infrastructure. We have seen increasing dialog between leaders in Ankara and Baghdad, 

including critically important visits of PM Erdogan to Baghdad and Iraqi President 

Talibani to Turkey in 2008, opening the way to further regional contacts with Iraqi 

democratic leaders. We are seeing, as well, growing contacts between Ankara and 

officials in the Kurdistan Regional Government. Finally, over 70 percent of the air 

cargo for our mission in Iraq transits Incirlik Air Base, which is also the primary 

refueling stop for flights to Afghanistan. Our military ties with Turkey remain vital 

to both countries, and I thank Turkey for its long tradition of hospitality to our military men and women. In short, Turkey is setting an example for the region. 

Turkey’s soldiers have been in Afghanistan since the beginning of the International Security Assistance Force. Turkey currently retains about 800 troops there, 

has a provincial reconstruction team in Wardak, and just upped its original $100 

million humanitarian assistance during the Paris Conference, for a total now of 

$200 million in aid. Turkish firms have invested $1.5 billion in projects in Afghanistan since 2002, including schools and mosques, hospitals and health clinics, bridges 

740 

and water wells. Turkey has also worked to facilitate talks between the leaders of 

Afghanistan and Pakistan and to press for greater cooperation in rooting out terrorism emanating from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. 

Turkey has been a partner in the search for a comprehensive peace in the Middle 

East. Ankara hosted Israeli President Peres and Palestinian Authority President 

Abbas for an historic joint address to the Turkish Parliament just before the Annapolis Conference, which Turkey also attended and actively supports. Turkey followed 

up at the Paris Conference with a $150 million pledge for Palestinian institution 

building to be used in 2008–2010. Most recently, Turkey began facilitating peace 

talks between Israel and Syria. We welcome Turkey’s constructive engagement and 

hope the talks bear fruit. 

Turkey is concerned, as well, about Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear enrichment 

capabilities in direct violation of Iran’s obligations in three Chapter VII U.N. Security Council resolutions, and Turkey supports the IAEA’s ongoing investigation of 

Iran’s nuclear program. While we understand Turkey’s desire to maintain good relations with its neighbor, we work with Turkey to ensure full enforcement of all of 

U.N. Security Council resolutions, and to pressure Tehran to comply with international obligations. Turkey implements all relevant UNSCRs (1737, 1747, and 

1803), which help stem Iran’s nuclear and missile proliferation efforts. One concern 

I will emphasize in Ankara, if I am confirmed, is Iran’s hydrocarbon sector, and our 

legislative obligations to oppose foreign investment of over $20 million in it. 

The United States strongly supports Turkey’s aspirations to join the European 

Union. To its great credit, the ruling Justice and Development Party is implementing political and economic reforms necessary for EU membership, and we hope 

that process continues. We, like the EU, want to see Ankara expand further its 

democratic and human rights reforms. We welcomed recent changes to Article 301, 

the provision of the Turkish penal code that criminalized ‘‘insulting Turkishness,’’ 

and amendments to expand non-Turkish broadcasting, including in Kurdish. We encourage Turkey to protect civil rights of all religious and ethnic groups, such as by 

reopening the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Halki Seminary as a vocational school. 

Turkey and the United States share the values of democracy and the rights of individuals, and we continue to see that reflected in the reforms that Turkey is undertaking. 

We support Turkey’s efforts to normalize relations with its neighbors and have 

been encouraged by new developments concerning both Cyprus and Armenia. The 

election of the new Cypriot President has led to talks between the two sides and 

a willingness to renew efforts with the U.N. on a bizonal, bicommunal federation. 

Turkish leaders welcomed their new counterparts after the Armenian elections, and 

President Gul just made a historic visit to Yerevan at Armenian President 

Sargsian’s invitation. We strongly urge Turkey to work with Armenia to reestablish 

diplomatic relations and to have an open and honest dialog about the tragic events 

at the end of the Ottoman Empire. 

Our economic cooperation with Turkey would be a key priority, were I confirmed, 

with emphasis on supporting United States firms and investment. The United 

States recently ratified a Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy agreement with Turkey, 

which should provide new opportunities for United States businesses to invest in 

Turkey. The United States and Turkey are also working together on oil and natural 

gas pipelines, including the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Turkey-Greece-Italy Interconnector, and the Nabucco pipelines, to develop a new generation of infrastructure 

that will help both Turkey and Europe secure and diversify their energy supplies. 

One of my proudest accomplishments on my last tour in Turkey was to help move 

the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline forward, paving the way for these further efforts benefiting both Turkey and global consumers. 

Many Americans, including my family and me, have had wonderful experiences 

living and working in Turkey and, in the case of our daughter, graduating from a 

Turkish high school. It would be an honor to return to Ankara to represent our Nation, promote U.S. interests, and ensure that we are providing needed services for 

American citizens in Turkey. If confirmed for this post, I will ensure all members 

of United States mission Turkey work effectively to advance United States goals in 

Turkey and the region, do our utmost to support our private American community, 

and remain safe in the face of terrorist threats. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed as ambassador, these are only a few of the many 

items that would be on my agenda in Turkey. If confirmed, I hope I can count on 

the help and advice of you and your colleagues. I look forward to working with you 

and urge you to travel to this beautiful and fascinating country. 

Thank you. 

741 

Senator KERRY. Well, thank you, both of you, very, very much. 

I appreciate it. 

We’ll just run—Bob, is 10 minutes okay? We’ll do 10-minute 

rounds and sort of bounce back and forth here. 

Let me begin by asking just a couple pro forma questions. Do either of you have any conflicts of interest which have required you 

to divest of anything that we should be aware of in the performance of the responsibilities in either of your assigned countries? 

Ambassador Cretz? 

Mr. CRETZ. No, I don’t, sir. 

Senator KERRY. Ambassador Jeffrey? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. No, sir. 

Senator KERRY. Is there any issue on which either of you would 

have to recuse yourself because of any potential conflict of interest? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. No. 

Mr. CRETZ. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. Thank you both. 

Mr. Jeffrey, with respect to the PKK, what would you—how 

would you characterize the current state of relations between Turkey and the Kurdish regional government? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. The Kurdish regional government and the 

Iraqi government both acknowledge the PKK is a terrorist organization and they’re working with both us and the Turks to deal with 

that. There have been some strains and tensions, as you mentioned, at the beginning of the cross-border operation. There were 

some concerns from the Iraqi side, including from the side of the 

Kurdistan regional government. The Turks have been working both 

with the folks in Irbil in the Kurdistan regional government and 

in Baghdad to smooth over these concerns and I think that they 

have made considerable progress, particularly with Prime Minister 

Erdogan’s recent visit to Baghdad and President Talabani’s visit 

earlier this year to Ankara. 

It requires constant exchanges, but we are seeing progress, sir, 

and I think that the two sides understand better now what the 

purpose of these operations are and the limits of these operations. 

Senator KERRY. Where do you understand the Turkish government’s influence and position with respect to any Kurdish independence issues? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. The Turkish government, sir, like we and 

like the Iraqi government, supports the territorial integrity of Iraq 

as laid out in UN Resolution 1546 and subsequent ones. We’re very 

strong on this, as are the Turks. 

Senator KERRY. So you would see the problem as really one of 

self-defense and legitimate national security concern with respect 

to the PKK trans-boundary initiatives? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Yes, sir, very much so. President Bush met 

with Prime Minister Erdogan in November of last year and agreed 

to provide a variety of intelligence and other support for the Turkish operations and we do so fully cognizant that this is a self-defense operation, it is not designed for anything else, and the Turks 

have lived up to that, sir. 

Senator KERRY. Fair enough. 

With respect to the Turkish initiative regarding Syria and Israel, 

there have been no direct talks yet between Syria and Israel. PresiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00749 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
742 

dent Assad is pushing those off pending, needless to say, U.S. engagement in some more direct way. How would you characterize 

the state, sort of what the accomplishment to date would be of that 

initiative, and where do you see it playing out? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. First of all, sir, the United States, this administration, supports this effort. We encourage Turkey to continue 

what it’s doing. The talks, as you said, have been at some distance, 

with the Turks functioning as an intermediary. The subjects are 

borders, security, water, and overall political-diplomatic relations 

between the two. 

We think that this is a very important step in an overall comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and we hope that 

this effort continues. We are encouraging both the Israelis and the 

Turks to continue. 

Senator KERRY. Do you see a role that we could play more 

proactively? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. We review this from time to time, Senator. 

We are—at this point we’re comfortable where we are in terms of 

reaching out to Syria. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I’m not going to push you on that because 

I know that’s a policy being made at a higher level, but one that 

the committee has had some concerns about, as I think you know. 

Many of us on this committee are deeply concerned about how 

we move Turkey and Armenia to resolve the outstanding issues, including the opening of the border, the Nagorno-Karabakh, obviously the events of 1915, and so forth. How would you assess the 

progress made in the recent diplomatic initiatives, beyond the soccer initiative? How would you assess that? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Sir, looking back at where I was I was last 

in Turkey from 1999 to 2002, we’ve seen considerable, albeit not 

yet sufficient, progress. For example, a few years ago the Turks 

began issuing essentially immediate 90-day visas for Armenians 

traveling to Turkey. There are some 70,000 Armenians living and 

working in Turkey today. There are weekly commercial flights between Erevan and Istanbul. There are contract flights between 

Erevan and Antalya during the summer. During the Georgian crisis the Turks opened up the air space between the two countries, 

and there’s about 60 to $120 million in annual trade between the 

two. 

There are also, beyond the fairly dramatic events of last month, 

sir, with President Gul’s trip, there are also diplomatic exchanges 

at various levels. The Armenians have a diplomat in the Black Sea 

Cooperation Council in Istanbul and there have been a variety of 

talks at other levels. However, we have not achieved yet what we 

need, which is, as I said, the establishment of diplomatic relations 

and the opening of the border. 

Senator KERRY. Let me go to one of the sort of tricky questions 

here. I’m not trying to, literally not trying to trip you up or anything. I’m just trying to get the record as clear as we can going forward. At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on June 18, 

2008, Assistant Secretary of State Dan Freid stated, quote, that the 

brutality against the Armenians starting in 1915 was, quote, ‘‘extraordinarily well documented,’’ and that the assessment of former 

Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau, who docuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Apr 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00750 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\48281.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
743 

mented the Armenian genocide, was, quote, ’’accurate, that is there 

is no question the intent was not to remove people in a peaceful 

way.‘‘ 

In a letter dated this year, July 29, Assistant Secretary of Leg 

Affairs Matt Reynolds wrote to Chairman Biden saying, quote: 

‘‘Our goal in bringing archivists from Turkey and Armenia to the 

United States for training is not to open a debate on whether the 

Ottomans committed these horrendous acts. It’s to help preserve 

the documentation that supports the truth of those events.’’ 

Reynolds further added, quote: ‘‘The administration recognizes 

that the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportation of 

over 1.5 million Armenians were conducted by the Ottoman Empire. We indeed hold Ottoman officials responsible for those 

crimes.’’ 

That is the administration’s position. Based on those statement— 

I’m not going to go into the historical details, but based on those 

statements can you assure the committee that the administration 

is not supporting rhetorically, financially, or otherwise an effort to 

convene a commission to settle an historical debate that in effect 

is not a debate? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Mr. Chairman, as you’ve indicated, the administration recognizes and mourns and is very, very, very concerned about the historical facts, which include, as you said, the 

mass killing and the forced exile of up to 1.5 million Armenians at 

the end of the Ottoman Empire. We support, as President Bush 

made clear in his recent statement on March 24, the open effort by 

both sides to get to the bottom of the historical facts and to move 

forward as part of a reconciliation process both to establish closer 

and eventually full relations and to work out these dark chapters 

in the past. 

Senator KERRY. So do I interpret that as, are you in fact going 

farther than Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Reynolds 

did? Are you in effect saying that we are supportive of the historical commission itself and its goal, or are we supportive of simply 

maintaining the historical record? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. We are supportive of anything that the 

two sides mutually agree on, sir. And as part of any process, we 

think that there should be a full and open review of the events of 

that time. 

Senator KERRY. Providing its mutually agreed on? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Providing its mutually agreed on. 

Senator KERRY. Senator Menendez? 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first say to Mr. Cretz, now that I know your wife is a 

Union City native and as a Union City native, we’ve just got to get 

the Libyans to put their money up really quick so you can go there. 

I mentioned the Pan Am bombing victims, of course. There’s the 

LaBelle victims and others as well. So we look forward to the Libyans meeting their responsibility and hopefully your opportunity 

once you’re there after they meet their responsibility to continue to 

engage in that respect. 

Ambassador Jeffrey, I’m dismayed as I heard your answer to 

Senator Kerry because that puts us before where we were when we 

had the ambassador-designee to Armenia being interviewed, and 

744 

the statements that Senator Kerry read to you are the response to 

this committee and to Chairman Biden from the State Department 

because of great angst that was created as a result of her testimony. Now you’ve taken us back to where we were before, when 

you say we support whatever the commission does to get to the bottom of the historical facts. 

Well, that’s not what the administration has said to us. The administration in their letter—unless we’re not to believe letters sent 

to this committee now. The administration in their letter said: ’’Our 

goal is not to open a debate on whether the Ottomans committed 

these horrendous acts. It is to help preserve the documentation 

that supports the truth of those events.‘‘ 

That letter by Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs Mr. Reynolds further went on: ‘‘The administration recognizes that the 

mass killings, ethnic cleansing, forced deportation of over 1.5 million Armenians were conducted by the Ottoman Empire. We indeed 

hold Ottoman officials responsible for those crimes.’’ 

Now, what I heard you respond to the question is quite different. 

So do you want to clear it up for me or are you sticking with your 

statement that we support whatever it is to get to the bottom of 

the facts? The historical facts as I see it have now been admitted 

to by the State Department and clearly stated as such. And I don’t 

get a sense that’s what you’re telling us, so that puts a complication in this process. Maybe you can help us. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. I’ll try, Senator. Certainly everything that 

Assistant Secretary Reynolds wrote is U.S. Government policy and 

we stand by it. What I was trying to communicate was it’s also important for Turks and Armenians to move forward on a joint effort 

to work on these issues and to come to some kind of, to the extent 

they can, common view of the historical facts. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, if in fact we already have come to the 

conclusion that the historical facts as outlined by Mr. Reynolds on 

behalf of the State Department in July of this year are that we indeed hold Ottoman officials responsible for those crimes, why 

would we support an initiative that ultimately doubts whether 

those are the historical facts? If the Turks seek to do it that’s one 

thing, but why would we be supportive of an effort that ultimately 

undermines the very position that our State Department has? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. In conflicts such as this, Senator, we believe that as a general rule—and we apply this across the board 

in the many conflicts that I’ve been involved in—we have—and it’s 

our obligation to our own citizens and to the historical record to 

have—our own views, but it’s also important to try to encourage 

the various sides on a dispute, be it this one, be it others, to try 

to come to some sort of joint understanding of the past and a joint 

way forward for the future. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask you one last question on this. 

Would you then as the ambassador be someone who would advocate rhetorically, financially, or otherwise that the commission 

should be constituted and move forward? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Senator, every effort that can be taken for 

people to review openly the facts of that period would be supported 

by me. 

745 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask you, do you believe that—despite 

some painful legacy of the Armenian genocide, continued illegal 

Turkish blockade, Armenia has repeatedly offered to open diplomatic relationships with Turkey without preconditions. Do you believe that Turkey should accept Armenia’s offer to establish full 

diplomatic and economic relations without any precondition? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. We believe that Turkey should establish 

relations with Armenia, sir, that is correct. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Without any preconditions? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Without any preconditions. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. Let me ask you with reference 

to the State Department’s international religious freedom report. 

One of my concerns reading from the report is minority religious 

groups, particularly the Greek and the Armenian Orthodox communities, have lost numerous properties to the state in the past and 

continued ongoing efforts from the state to expropriate properties. 

Most particularly, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the spiritual 

leader of 6 million Christians here in the United States and 300 

million in the world, finds themselves constrained, having his 

church’s properties confiscated—you mentioned the Halki school— 

not being able to have new ordinations of priests at that location, 

and most recently U.S. citizens who are affiliated with the church, 

the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of America Demetrius, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, Metropolitan Nikitas from San Francisco, 

and others who attended the holy synod in Istanbul, were ultimately treated in a way in which we would want no United States 

citizen to be treated. 

What is it that you would intend to do as our ambassador to Turkey to get Turkey to understand the importance of religious freedom and the respect of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which represents the spiritual leader of millions of Americans here at home? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Senator, we would continue the progress 

and continue the pressing that we have done in the past. This was 

one of the biggest issues when I was there last time. It’s something 

that I know that Ambassador Wilson and his predecessors have put 

a lot of time and effort into. We have seen some success. In 2002 

the Turks changed the property law to allow the foundations for 

the Greeks, the Armenians, and the Jewish groups in Turkey to 

purchase property. That was a step forward, but not an adequate 

one. They changed the law again in 2006. Unfortunately, it was 

found unconstitutional and it is back being reviewed. 

We need to move forward on that law consistent with the Turkish constitutional system and we need to take further steps. This 

is something that I will, if confirmed, put a great deal of effort into 

because I believe that it is absolutely essential for the kind of relationship that we want to continue to have. 

In the case of the synod, we were pleased that non-Greek members of the synod were appointed in 2004 and we hope that they 

can exercise their full rights as members of the synod. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Are you aware of the European Court of Justice’s unanimous determination last July—— 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Menendez:—which condemns Turkey’s confiscation of the 

orphanage of the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Are you aware of that? 

746 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Yes, sir. This is the Kachuk Adaf Orphanage. It is another of the lines of operation, if I will, if I can, that 

we are pursuing. One of the reasons that we urge Turkey to establish closer relations with the European Union is to help folks resolve these sorts of problems that complicate both our relationship, 

as you pointed out, with Turkey, but also the European Union’s. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask you this. On Cyprus there are 

currently more than 40,000 Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus occupying that part of the country. Since 2003 when I was one of the 

first people to cross from the Greek Cypriot side into the occupied 

side, there have been more than 13 million free crossings from the 

occupied area to the Cypriot government and vice versa. 

Is that not a clear repudiation of the Turkish position that you 

need to have 40,000, the most militarily—in terms of square footage, the most militarily occupied part of any part of the world? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. We would be delighted to see any step towards reconciliation, any step to further defuse that situation, Senator, including withdrawals of troops. The previous effort in 2004 

had a very significant withdrawal of foreign troops from the island 

as part of the Annan plan. We fully support a comprehensive solution and we think that any comprehensive solution would deal successfully and effectively with the troop issue. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Senator Menendez. 

Mr. Cretz, what’s your understanding at the moment of the Libyan contributions to the fund? 

Mr. CRETZ. Currently, Mr. Chairman—first I would point out 

that the agreement was signed on August 15 between the United 

States and the government of Libya. On September 3 the fund that 

will receive the contributions was established. 

Right now my understanding is that contributions to the fund 

are being solicited and that we expect that the fund will be capitalized in the near future. 

Senator KERRY. Do you have any expectation on the time frame? 

Mr. CRETZ. I can’t give you a definite date, Mr. Chairman, but 

we believe that it will be in the very near future. 

Senator KERRY. When you say funds are being solicited, do you 

know where they’re being solicited from 

Mr. CRETZ. This is a humanitarian fund which is open to anyone 

who wants to contribute. I do not know myself what the actual 

sources of the funds will be. 

Senator KERRY. Do you—is there any expectation that American 

businesses anxious to secure contracts or do business may contribute to the fund? 

Mr. CRETZ. Mr. Chairman, we have had three clear red lines 

with respect to the solicitation or the capitalization of the fund: 

number one, that there will be no United States taxpayer dollars 

involved; number two, that we will not pressure U.S. companies to 

contribute to the fund; and number three, that we will not tolerate 

any pressure being brought to bear on any U.S. companies to contribute to the fund. 

Senator KERRY. Pressure is to be distinguished from an invitation? 

Mr. CRETZ. Since the fund is—— 

747 

Senator KERRY. Or request? 

Mr. CRETZ. Yes, I would say that it is. If U.S. companies wish 

to make a contribution, just as any other companies, Libyan companies, European companies wish to make a contribution to that, 

it’s certainly up to them. We have offered that, if asked, we would 

facilitate any contact with them about contribution with the Department of Justice with respect to any regulations and laws that 

might apply. 

Senator KERRY. Have you been briefed on or do you have any 

concerns yourself as an incipient ambassador with respect to the 

arms sales and potential nuclear agreements between France and 

Libya? 

Mr. CRETZ. I have not, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. And you have no opinion with respect to them? 

You don’t have to. I’m just curious. 

Mr. CRETZ. I don’t have an opinion on that. 

Senator KERRY. What abut potential natural gas cooperation between Libya and Russia? 

Mr. CRETZ. I think as we—if we are able in fact to expand our 

relationship with the Libyans, we would hope that as part of that 

there would be more investment in the exploitation of Libyan oil 

as well as Libyan natural gas, not only for the benefit of the United 

States Government and people at some point, because it offers perhaps more stability in the oil markets, but also because it would— 

as we look at the situation with respect to Europe and the need to 

diversify sources of oil and gas, I think we would look on that as— 

we would look on the contacts between the Europeans and Libya 

as positive, as a way to diversify from any one source of oil and 

gas which they have now, and perhaps the Russians is a good example of that. 

Senator KERRY. Do you expect the United States to try to—is 

there any discussion that you’re aware of of our offering similar 

kinds of deal opportunities or engaging in discussions, regarding either arms sales or energy production? 

Mr. CRETZ. With respect to energy production, we know that our 

companies are involved in that. We know that several American 

companies would like to gain further business with Libya, especially with respect to oil recovery techniques. We know that the 

Libyans would welcome further American investment in this area. 

With respect to arms, with respect to our own potential arms 

sales to Libya, I would say that we hope that once we overcome— 

once the problem with respect to the claims is overcome fully and 

satisfactorily, that we will be able to begin a defense relationship 

with Libya at some point. This would be a relationship that would 

be based on—as we begin to see the prospects of whether or not 

we would be able to sell arms to Libya, it would be done on a case 

by case basis and in response to positive Libyan behavior, as we 

have seen in the past in what it’s done with respect to WMD, renunciation of terrorism, and we hope with the fulfillment of the 

claims agreement. 

Senator KERRY. To what degree does Libya’s opposition to the 

presence of non-African military forces, i.e., AFRICOM, presence 

complicate that? And how do we anticipate their being cooperative 

in those efforts that we obviously face on the continent with respect 

748 

to counterterrorism, and yet they’re opposed to the AFRICOM presence? 

Mr. CRETZ. When the Secretary was in Libya for her historic visit 

a few weeks ago, she actually did engage in a discussion with the 

Libyans with respect to AFRICOM. I think that we discovered in 

that discussion that what they thought our intent was with respect 

to AFRICOM was really quite mistaken. I think the Secretary told 

the Libyans that we needed to do more work with respect to explaining to them that this was not only a security-based United 

States effort in Africa, but in fact it was an effort to help Africans 

help themselves, especially with respect to countering terrorism on 

the continent, and also to helping Africans help themselves with respect to maintaining and fostering political stability. 

So we have work to do in that area, but I think the Secretary’s 

visit went at least some measure in terms of dispelling what we 

thought—what appears to be a misconception on the Libyans on 

the part of AFRICOM. 

Senator KERRY. Does that play out in some positive way with respect to conflicts in Chad or Darfur, Niger, and-or the other regional sort of concerns that we have? 

Mr. CRETZ. Mr. Chairman, I think that we in the past, where we 

might have seen elements of adventurism with respect to Libya’s 

actions in Africa, I think we’ve had a pretty good indication over 

the past few years of a willingness by the Libyan government to 

play a very favorable and positive role in the conflicts in Africa, 

specifically in Darfur and most recently as a participant, Libya’s 

participant as a member of the Dakar Accords with respect to the 

conflict between Sudan and Chad. 

While we may have had a difference of opinion at times with 

Libya with respect to tactics in bringing these conflicts to resolution, I think that the overall goal that we share with the Libyans 

is similar in those cases. So I think that Libya—one of the reasons 

I think that we want to settle the claims agreement fully and satisfactorily is that we see a lot of areas of potential cooperation with 

Libya in the future, specifically with respect to counterterrorism 

and certainly with respect to conflicts on the continent. 

I would note also that Libya has been helpful in establishing a 

humanitarian corridor to allow goods to Darfur, and my understanding is that they have also opened up routes to help refugees 

in the Sahel as well. 

Senator KERRY. Those efforts, obviously we appreciate them and 

they’re important, but how do you square those—what leverage do 

we have to address some of the internal abuses that I cited, the 

human rights issues internally? Obviously, we always have to try 

to prioritize some of these things, but we never turn away from 

that no matter what our priorities. How do we leverage that? 

Mr. CRETZ. Mr. Chairman, I think that first of all we recognize, 

we should recognize, that we have not had a high level dialogue or 

any dialogue basically with the Libyans for almost 25 years. So I 

think that we need to—as we move forward with the Libyans, I 

think we have made it clear that the—and they have in fact expressed a willingness to engage in a human rights dialogue with 

us. 

749 

When the Secretary was in Tripoli she specifically raised the case 

of Fathi El-Jahmi and she also told the Libyans that we would be 

eager to engage on a human rights dialogue on the basis of mutual 

respect. I think that if confirmed as ambassador I certainly would 

take a lead from what the Secretary did. I think that we have an 

opportunity to start a human rights dialogue on a high level. 

Also I would note that Colonel Qadhafi’s son himself, Seif alIslam, has also publicly spoken about the need to reform parts of 

Libyan society. I think it will be an evolutionary process, but I 

think that it’s one that could yield fruit in the future if we engage 

at with the proper means, the proper attitude, and the proper time. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Cretz. 

Senator Menendez? 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Jeffrey, I focused on—you have a big charge. It’s a 

big country. It’s very important to us, and there’s a whole host of 

issues. So that’s why I’m focused on getting a good sense of what 

your thinking is on some of these. 

If Turkey were to recognize the Armenian genocide, would the 

United States be willing to do so? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. We would have to see at that time, Senator. I can’t commit the administration to any future action. 

Senator MENENDEZ. No, I realize you can’t. But would you as the 

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey say to the administration, whoever 

that is in the next administration, that in fact we should recognize 

it as well? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. We constantly review. We constantly review many things in our foreign policy processes. This one, because 

of the great interest in the American public and Congress, is one 

that gets reviewed all of the time. That would certainly be a very 

major factor in any review if the two sides could come to an agreement on that particular term or other issues related to the past, 

sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, if Turkey on its own came to the evolution that in fact it made a decision that, yes, a previous, not even 

Turkey as we know it today but the Ottoman Empire, did what the 

State Department says it has and said, yes, there was a genocide, 

would it not be in the interests of the United States to recognize 

what Turkey itself has recognized? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. It would be, as I said, Senator, a very important factor. But aside from being concerned about committing 

this or the future administration to a specific course of action or 

predicting it, there would be other factors that would have to be 

weighed, such as our general approach to other conflicts and taking 

positions. 

The relationship between Turkey and Armenia is a major factor 

in the policies we take, the words we use. But there are other factors as well, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. When you take the oath, should you be confirmed by the Senate as the Ambassador of the United States to 

Turkey, do you know what that oath says? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Does that oath speak to an administration 

or does it speak to the country? 

750 

Ambassador JEFFREY. It speaks to the country, Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. In that respect, one of the things that I look 

when we have nominees here is that when we have our—understanding fully that the State Department to a large degree is going 

to, and whatever administration you work for is going to, define 

your parameters. But when I have an ambassador here I want to 

be able to get straight talk so that in fact I know and can make 

judgments as one member of the United States Senate and of this 

committee, and I can’t get that straight talk if I hear a constant 

constrainment of what is the truth or the realities and the opinions 

you might have in a country as it relates to questions being posed 

to you by members of this committee. 

So I hope that we recognize that the oath is to the country and 

this is an institution of the country at the end of the day. 

So let me ask you this question. There are a series of media accounts—I won’t take them all here—that reported that Under Secretary of State Edelman and Assistant Secretary of State Dan 

Fried traveled to Turkey in October of 2007 to, quote, ‘‘express regret’’ over the adoption of the Armenian genocide resolution by the 

U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, one that I sat in at one 

time. 

Is it your view, should you ultimately be approved by the Senate 

as an ambassador, to express regret of what an institution of the 

United States Congress does? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Senator, I never have and I never will express regret. This is an independent and equal organ of the United 

States Government. It deserves the respect of everyone in the 

world. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I appreciate that answer. 

Let me ask you one last, two last questions, and I may submit 

some for the record, but not to belabor your appearance here today. 

You know, I have spent a lot of time on the question of Cyprus and 

Turkey and reunification of the island. Many New Jerseyans are of 

descent from that country, American citizens now. 

Overwhelmingly in the years that I have spent focused on this, 

probably the better part of 16 years in the Congress, there is a very 

deep belief that the solution is not between Greek and Turkish 

Cypriots, although that’s what we would desire it to be, but that 

a lot of this has to do with what goes on in Ankara, and particularly the military in Ankara. How do you see your role as the 

United States Ambassador in trying to help what is clearly an interest of the United States to have a country that is now part of 

the European Union, the unoccupied part, but also that accepted 

our citizens when we were finding the difficulties that were taking 

place when our citizens had to be evacuated from Beirut in Lebanon, and accepted them with open arms and helped us—how do 

you see playing a role to try to move that in the right direction? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Certainly, sir. As one who was working 

that evacuation, I do want for the record to thank again the people 

of Cyprus for taking on thousands of Americans. It was a magnificent and immediately crucial effort. 

Sir, on the issue of Turkey, Turkey is a major player obviously 

in this. Both Turkey and Greece are technically guarantor powers 

under the 1960 set of accords. But far more importantly, they’re 

751 

both political players in this. In the case of Turkey, which is where 

if confirmed I would focus my efforts, it would be my job, as it has 

been the job of my predecessors in various positions there, to convince the Turks that it is in their own interest to find a solution 

to that, that their own relations, not just with us, importantly with 

us, but also with Greece, not with Cyprus, of course, but with the 

European Union, and with the region would be helped. 

The more the Turks move closer to their neighbors, the better 

their relations, the better their trade. We see this with Greece, 

where, while there are still some issues, they’ve recently had very 

high-level exchanges. They have now a gas pipeline between Turkey and Greece. They have possibilities of joint military units. This 

is exactly what we want to see happening with Cyprus, with Armenia as well, Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. A final question if I may. I read your statement, your full statement, and your 5-page statement, 14 paragraphs, has 2 that talk about all these challenges combined together, particularly in the context of Turkey’s desire to enter the 

European Union and how there are obstacles to that. 

If you were to receive the support of the Senate and be confirmed, can you give me a sense, within the myriad of issues that 

you will be facing, as to what type of import, attention of your time 

and calibration will you give to the issues that I’ve raised with you 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Senator, in my last job in Turkey the 

issues you raised occupied a very large part of my, if you will, policy time, the time we spend into diplomatic contacts with the 

Turks, certainly on the order of 20, 30, 40 percent. The crisis of the 

day—as you pointed out, it’s a large country; it borders on a lot of 

problem areas—sometimes push the press of business to the side. 

But this has been and if confirmed it will be very important elements of our policy, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you for a set of important, good questions, 

Senator. 

Just a couple more if I can. How would you characterize, Mr. Jeffrey, the relationship right now between the AK Party and the 

military establishment that’s so important in Turkey? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Senator, I know enough about Turkey to 

say that a question of that detail requires on-the-ground talking 

with all of the people. If confirmed, that would be one of my priorities, and I wouldn’t want to go into it in detail now. I would simply 

like to sketch out a few guideposts, if you will. 

First of all, there was the recent constitutional court decision 

concerning the AK Party and the concerns that many in Turkey 

had about whether it was going too far in challenging the secular 

basis of the Turkish constitution and state. The outcome was to 

fine the party but not challenge the party’s rule. I think that that 

is—the European Union has greeted that decision and, while we 

don’t get into constitutional decisions in any real detail, I think 

that that portends well for stable relations between the various key 

elements of Turkish society, including between the military and 

this party. 

752 

Senator KERRY. Do you think that that relation—is that relationship tricky with respect to the ability of the Cyprus issue to be resolved? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Senator, my bias is almost everything involving Turkey is tricky to one or another degree. But I would have 

to say that it is a—that has always been in the past when I was 

involved in this an issue of some concern. As in many other cases 

of countries with important national security demands, challenges, 

and issues, the Turkish military has a say in political decisions, 

and that’s something that we have to work with all of the actors. 

Senator KERRY. Is it your judgment that Turkey would accept 

the withdrawal of its forces in exchange for the unification of the 

island? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Turkey supported in—— 

Senator KERRY. In a bizonal, bicommunal, federated concept? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Turkey accepted in 2004, sir, the Annan 

plan, which called for the withdrawal of most of the forces. I think 

they would go down to roughly 6,000 on each side. I think that if 

you could find a, as you said, bizonal, bicommunal federal solution 

that both sides could agree to, I think that Turkey as a whole 

would go along with it, as it was ready to do in 2004. 

Senator KERRY. And UE accession? What’s your sense of the status of that? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Sir, I didn’t catch the beginning? 

Senator KERRY. The EU accession. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Right now—there are 35 chapters that a 

country has to work its way through, and it often takes 10 or 15 

years. Turkey has eight chapters opened. They have eight chapters 

closed. Again, as in many other cases, because of the Cyprus situation the Turks do not open their ports to Cypriot trade. They have 

their own arguments on why, based upon what they have explained 

is EU commitments before the Annan referendum on the island in 

2004 concerning the Turkish Cypriots. 

But in any case, the EU has decided to freeze those eight chapters. The EU is also very concerned about the constitutional court 

case. Because of the way that that case came out, I think, and because of the new movement on Cyprus, we would hope and expect 

that there would be a new impetus to moving forward on the EU. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Cretz, are you satisfied with the current 

state of the consular relationship between us and Libya, both the 

rate of travel, rate of visas, etcetera? 

Mr. CRETZ. Mr. Chairman, I think there needs to be an improvement on both sides with respect to the consular issues. Because of 

lack of facilities, we’ve only been able to offer official visas in Libya, 

and in fact Libyans have to travel to Tunis to get their U.S. visas 

adjudicated. We hope that as our facility is able to that we can 

offer that at some point to the Libyans. 

At the same time, I would hope, and certainly if confirmed as 

ambassador, to convince the Libyans to open up with respect to the 

issuance of visas for Americans and to facilitate certainly in a more 

productive way our official people who are going there to do certain 

kinds of work, and also with respect to tourism. 

Senator KERRY. Are there any—have there been any closings 

with respect to any deals, either cultural or science or otherwise? 

753 

Mr. CRETZ. Mr. Chairman, in February I believe we signed a 

science and technology agreement. But as of right now we have 

several agreements pending, including cultural exchange agreement, a defense relationship framework agreement, a potential 

trade and investment framework agreement. So all these agreements in effect are in certain stages of being resolved, and I expect 

that if confirmed as ambassador I would hopefully oversee the conclusion of these agreements in the next several months, pending of 

course the—— 

Senator KERRY. We want you obviously to do that, and I think 

that progress in those areas could be awfully important. So that 

could be helpful to the rest of the process. 

Let me just take one minute on process here. I want to check on 

something. [Pause.] 

Senator KERRY. I’m just trying to work through, because obviously there’s a good chance we’re going to finish this deal on the 

economic deal and be out of here in a few days. Obviously, we’re 

concerned with the notion of being able to try to move the nominations, though yours, Mr. Cretz, depends on Libya, if Libya can 

move rapidly. 

If we’re in a pro forma session here, which we may well be, then 

it would be possible to try to do this in an expedited fashion. I 

think, Mr. Jeffrey, our plan is to try to discharge you almost immediately, and then see how we can pull the pieces together in the 

following days. 

Therefore, what I will do is I think I’ll leave the record open for 

24 hours only and we’ll close the record out tomorrow. If there are 

any additional questions in writing, it’ll have to be done in that 

time. Then I hope Libya is listening and can write a big check 

quickly and transfer money by wire and get an ambassador. 

But we’re very grateful, we’re very grateful to both of you. Again, 

I regret, Mr. Cretz, but obviously it’s beyond our control. 

Let me thank you both again and your families. This is a tough 

time to be abroad for anyone in the foreign service at any level, 

may I add. This committee is particularly sensitive to that and has 

a lot of respect for everything that people have to put up with in 

that effort. We are trying—yesterday we passed out of the committee an effort to try to equalize the pay for foreign service officers, particularly in those areas where families don’t follow them 

because their families are back here and they’re paying Washington prices at lower scale. We need to address those kinds of inequities of we’re going to continue to ask people to serve in these 

kinds of complicated places and times. 

But the committee is deeply grateful to you and obviously I think 

the committee, both bipartisanly, has expressed deep concerns 

about a number of policies that have made life more complicated 

for the members of our foreign service and we’re very hopeful that 

over the course of the next months, either way, that that’s going 

to change. We look forward to continuing to work at that. 

So we thank you for your presence. We thank you for your willingness to serve, and I am confident in the willingness of the Senate to confirm both of you. It’s really a matter of scheduling. 

We stand adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

754 

Æ