U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69–749 CC WASHINGTON : 2001

S. HRG. 106–879

A REVIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AT THE

END OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

HEARING AND PUBLIC

MEETING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2000

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

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

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

ROD GRAMS, Minnesota

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BARBARA BOXER, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

STEPHEN E. BIEGUN, Staff Director

EDWIN K. HALL, Minority Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Albright, Hon. Madeleine K., Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Responses to additional questions submitted by Senator Jess Helms ......... 36

Responses to additional questions submitted by Senator Gordon Smith .... 44

(III)

(1)

A REVIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AT THE

END OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2000

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Helms, Lugar, Hagel, Grams, Brownback,

Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, and Wellstone.

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. At last we are able to begin this

meeting, and I understand that an objection has been filed by

someone, frivolously, on the Senate floor to object to our meeting

past 11:30, but we will see.

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, it is our pleasure to welcome

a great lady who is special to all of us, the distinguished Secretary

of State, Hon. Madeleine Albright, and that is the good news. The

bad news is this, Madam Secretary. This is your final official appearance as Secretary of State, unless we can get you reappointed.

I counted up over the weekend, Madam Secretary, and if I did

not miscount somewhere along the line this is your eighteenth appearance before this committee. It has always been a pleasure to

have you here. You have always been straight with us, and you

have always prompted the committee to participate in wide-ranging

discussions on crucial issues of U.S. foreign policy, and you have

never ducked a question.

Now, we have not always agreed, but when we have not, we have

agreed to disagree agreeably. In any event, I am going to repeat,

you are a great lady, and I believe the record will show that all together we have accomplished a very great deal.

We worked together for the expansion of NATO, to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, and in doing so the scars

of Yalta were erased, and that was followed by an assurance of

democratic futures for host nations. We reached agreement on

landmark legislation to reorganize and revitalize the State Department, abolishing two of those temporary Federal agencies that

were created back in the 1950’s and integrating any of their essential functions into the State Department, where they belong.

So Madam Secretary, together we have abolished two and we

may have something to propose about a third next year, and I am

going to ask that the balance of my statement be printed in the

record, and I call on the distinguished Ranking Member of the committee, Mr. Biden.

2

[The prepared statement of Senator Helms follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JESSE HELMS

Once again, it’s a pleasure to welcome a great lady who is special to all of us,

the distinguished Secretary of State, the Honorable Madeleine Albright. That’s the

good news.

The bad news is that this, Madam Secretary, will be your final official appearance

as Secretary of State. I counted up over the weekend, Madam Secretary, and if I

did not miscount somewhere along the way, this is your 18th appearance before the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

It has always been a pleasure to have you with us. You have always been straight

with us, and you have always prompted the Committee to participate in wide-ranging discussions on crucial issues of U.S. foreign policy.

We have not always agreed, but when we have not, we have agreed to disagree

agreeably. In any event, you are a great lady and I believe the record will show that

together we have accomplished a great deal.

• We worked together for the expansion of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and

the Czech Republic. In doing so, the scars of Yalta were erased and that was

followed by an assurance of democratic futures for those nations.

• We reached agreement on landmark legislation to reorganize and revitalize the

State Department, abolishing two of these ‘‘temporary’’ federal agencies that

were created in the 1950’s, and integrating any of their essential functions into

the State Department. So, Madam Secretary, together we abolished two, and I

may have something to propose about a third, AID, next year.

• We secured passage of landmark U.N. reform legislation so that a reasonable

part of our so-called UN ‘‘arrears’’ can be paid—in exchange for sweeping reforms at the U.N. I think it is fair to say that we have agreed at the outset

of Secretary General Kofi Annan’s tenure on conditions that—if the U.N. does

its part—will result in a renewed U.S. relationship with a reformed United Nations. But that’s up to the U.N. to achieve those reforms.

In short Madam Secretary, perhaps that’s not a bad few years’ work for a lady

who escaped from communism in Czechoslovakia who worked always agreeably with

a couple of Monroe boys, Bud Nance, and me. Admiral Nance thought highly of you,

and so do I and I believe both you and I miss our friend, the Admiral.

So, Madam Secretary, we welcome your testimony here today. And I am confident

that I speak the sentiments of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in assuring

you that it has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with you. Wherever your

career takes you in the coming months and years, you will always be remembered

with affection and admiration by all Senators of this Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin, Madam

Secretary, by saying as well as the chairman and I get along, and

we do, I am going to miss you, because I tell you what, when you

are around you make my life a lot easier with him. I am going to

miss you personally. I will not, I hope, miss your advice, which I

was always able to receive before you were in this position, and I

hope I will be able to receive it after you leave this position.

I would like to welcome you back for what probably is going to

be your last appearance before this committee as Secretary, but I

suspect that, as I said, I will not be the only one calling on your

wisdom many times in the future. I am not being presumptuous

about my tenure, but God willing and the crick not rising I have

2 more years.

Let me be straightforward in the very beginning. I think despite

the inevitable ups and downs of an incredibly complex international relations, the administration’s foreign policy, led by you,

has been highly successful. You would expect me to say this, I

guess, as a friend and as a Democrat, but I think you deserve a

great deal of credit.

Policy begins with policymakers, and the 1997 and 1998, on a bipartisan basis, and in close cooperation with you, Madam SecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:12 Mar 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69749 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
3

retary, this committee developed, and Congress approved, what

your predecessors were afraid to touch, and that is landmark legislation to reorganize and streamline the foreign policy agencies of

the U.S. Government, led by our chairman. He had been moving

and trying to get attention on that issue for, what, 6, 8, 10 years

before, but in earnest probably the previous 2 or 3 years.

By integrating the arms control and public diplomacy functions

into the State Department, and by giving the Secretary of State increased authority over foreign assistance, I think we have established a sound organizational framework for the challenges of the

new century, and your efforts Madam Secretary, and those of Ambassador Holbrooke, again with the great help of the chairman of

the committee, have led the committee and the Congress on a

much-needed change of attitude toward the United Nations.

If it was a perfect world, you and I would have written HelmsBiden slightly differently, but the fact of the matter is there is

progress, significant progress, and we are I think—as I said, the attitude—the attitude has changed.

Our relationship with Russia remains strategically, in my view,

our most important one. To whatever degree Russia’s current

weakness exists, it is still the only country with weaponry potentially available to annihilate the United States and imposes a mortal threat to us.

All of us continue to worry about the stability of that country, as

well as other countries in the region, and under your leadership,

Madam Secretary, the United States has worked to keep Russia’s

weapons technology—and the know-how of its scientists—from

being transferred to rogue states.

We have had some successes, particularly regarding Russia’s scientists, but preventing the transfer of technology of weapons of

mass destruction and their delivery systems presents a persistent

challenge of the highest priority there.

Perhaps no region in the world has been more senseless tragedy

and upheaval and ethnic hatred in the past decade than in the Balkans, and you have been, more than anyone else in the administration, instrumental and a persuasive voice within the administration in trying to resolve the region’s century-old and seemingly intractable problems, in the eyes of many Americans and Europeans.

Under your leadership, we have helped implement the Dayton

Accords, returning some measure of peace and stability to that

war-torn country of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we have also moved

to stop the brutal murder and forced expulsion of millions of

Kosovar Albanians. Perhaps better than anyone else, you understood Europe’s security and stability is vital to our own, and you

realized the Balkans, and convinced others in the administration

and out, that they were part of that security.

And I think you understood the moral imperative for the United

States and its NATO allies to reverse Slobodan Milosevic’s murderous ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and hopefully, Madam Secretary,

as we discussed privately earlier with the chairman, we may be

seeing the beginning of the end of Milosovic.

Much, of course, remains to be done, and I am eager to hear your

views, Madam Secretary, regarding Balkan policy and the direction

you think we need to take.

4

The Senate’s passage last week of legislation granting China permanent normal trade relations, even though the chairman and I

disagreed on that issue, I think has to be viewed as a significant

accomplishment.

As important as trade is, though, to our overall relationship with

China and to our aspirations for China, however, we must continue

to press China’s leaders for strict adherence to their commitments

regarding nonproliferation and to international human rights and

labor norms. Because we now have a trade agreement does not

mean that we should cease and desist from our criticism and our

attempts to change their policy.

The administration’s patient diplomacy in North Korea I think is

also beginning to bear some fruit. I do not want to overstate what

may be the outcome, but I think any reasonable observer, objective

observer would say things today are better than they were yesterday, a year ago, and 5 years ago, and I give you a good deal of credit for that.

But we are relying not only on deterrence, as we continue to do

in South Korea, but also on a careful reciprocal process of engagement between the United States and South Korea. We have reduced the chances of war and I think begun to lure North Korea

out of its shell into a more rational position.

Madam Secretary, the world remains endlessly complex, and our

country, for better or worse, is constructively engaged in nearly

every part and every facet of it, and in such a kaleidoscope no one

directing U.S. foreign policy can come close to batting one thousand, but I believe you have done a remarkably good job, and again

I thank the chairman for having called this hearing, for the way

you and he have gotten along, because it is one of the—I should

not say rare, but one of the welcome areas of bipartisan cooperation

that this country needs more of, and as I said, the past 4 years has

brought high hopes all round the world.

One place I did not mention was Israel and the agreement, potential agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. You and

your team have worked tirelessly on this matter and I am going

to ask you at an appropriate time, although I am supposed to be

at the funeral of Mrs. Mansfield, which I think I am now missing,

at this critical juncture I am going to ask you at some point whether or not Ambassador Indyk’s loss of his security clearance will

have a negative impact on that process.

But you will have time to answer that when it gets around to my

questioning, but again I thank you. You have added not only a

sense of dignity to the office, which has existed with other Secretaries of State, but you have made—by visiting most of our states

and the way in which you have taken foreign policy to the American people you have added a sense of reality. You have helped the

American people understand better what we are doing, and for that

we owe you a debt of gratitude.

The CHAIRMAN. Madam Secretary, you may begin at long last.

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY

OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman and Senators, good morning,

and I am delighted to have this opportunity to appear before you

5

this one last time before you head home and I apply for membership in what has heretofore been known as the fraternity of former

Secretaries of State.

You have my written presentation, which I know you will read

carefully and make part of the record, and I will keep my remarks

brief because time is short, and I want to be sure that every Senator has a chance to say how much he or she will miss me.

Mr. Chairman, over the past decade we have had to reevaluate

our entire approach to international affairs in light of the geopolitical and technological changes transforming our world, and together we have had to adapt our institutions, adjust our thinking,

and steer a course between isolation, which is not possible, and

overreaching, which is not sustainable. Our goal has been to keep

America secure and prosperous and free, and our means have included everything from military force to quiet diplomacy, with

strong statements from Chairman Helms and Senator Biden somewhere in between. Our strategy has been to build from the center

outward, strengthening core alliances, engaging Russia and China,

building peace, repelling threats, and supporting democratic transitions in key regions.

This committee has contributed mightily through its support for

NATO enlargement, the Nunn-Lugar program, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Freedom Support Act, the SEED program, the

Helms-Biden bill, Plan Colombia, China PNTR, and many other

initiatives. And, through your support for reorganization, I truly do

believe that you have helped shape the architecture of the State

Department for the 21st century. This committee also includes Senators who were right from the very beginning about the need to

stand up to ethnic cleansing and intolerance in the Balkans, and

on this point I would just like to comment briefly about Sunday’s

elections in Yugoslavia.

They provided a critical test of whether that country will remain

isolated and a prisoner of its own leadership or become a part of

Europe’s democratic mainstream. Despite threats from Milosevic’s

thugs, the opposition waged a courageous campaign for change, and

now they have won a sweeping endorsement at all levels from the

Serb people. The authorities in Belgrade used every trick in the

book to prevent a fair campaign, rig the election, and distort the

results. In so doing, they have fooled no one.

Milosevic has been repudiated, and claims by his regime to the

contrary are laughable. Clearly now Milosevic is a figure of the

past. For too long his lawlessness has weakened Yugoslavia, his

cronies have robbed Yugoslavia, and his mismanagement has all

but bankrupted Yugoslavia. Given this record of failure, it is no

wonder that the democratic forces have grown in unity and

strength. They have earned the encouragement of the international

community.

The road ahead will not be easy, and so our message now and

in the future must be unified and clear. Yugoslavia belongs in Europe as a free and independent state with a normal economy,

democratic institutions, and a government that neither fears nor is

feared by its people. Under Milosevic, there is nowhere Yugoslavia

can go. Under democratic leaders, there is no limit to what the

Yugoslav people may accomplish.

6

Mr. Chairman, whether one serves as a Cabinet Secretary or as

a Senator, we are all acutely aware that we only occupy temporarily the chairs of responsibility in American Government, but we

know as well that America’s responsibilities are permanent. Upon

taking office, we inherit from our predecessors a mixed bag of opportunities and dangers, unfinished business, and commitments

that must be kept. During our time, we devote all of our energies

to clearing the in-box and fixing the hardest problems, but we labor

every day knowing that when the time comes to leave, our successors will have plenty to do. The basic continuum does not change,

but most everything else does.

Twenty years ago, when American diplomats sat down with their

counterparts overseas, the agenda was dominated by cold war concerns, and America’s interests were measured primarily by the single yardstick of superpower rivalry. Today, our agendas are far

broader, and so are the demands we place on our diplomats and on

others. The United States is the most powerful nation in the world,

and yet when I sit down with the Foreign Ministers of even very

small countries, I often have more to ask than to give. Will they

change their behavior, will they support us in a number of policies?

This reflects the reality that American diplomacy in the 21st century ranges across almost the full spectrum of human activity. In

the past 4 years, I spent most of my time on big-ticket issues of

security, war, and peace, but I spent some of my time on everything, from the war against AIDS, to explaining our position on

biotechnology, to trying to crack down on the trafficking of human

beings. Our Nation’s interests and responsibilities and reach are

truly global, and that problems abroad, if left unaddressed, will all

too often come home to America.

This past week we named the State Department after President

Truman, one of our greatest international leaders, but we cannot

forget that half a century ago we backed our leadership with resources. Today, even if you exclude the Marshall Plan’s peak year,

we only invest about one-seventh as much of our budget on foreign

affairs as we did when Mr. Truman was President.

This fall, some in Congress want to cut our budget even further,

and I hope that you will stop them, because the 21st century is no

time for America to retreat. Congress should approve the President’s full request for international affairs. The entire amount is

equal to only about 1 penny of every dollar the Federal Government spends, but it will make an enormous difference to the ability

of the next President and Secretary of State to ensure the security

of our communities, the prosperity of our families, and the freedom

of the world.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, and Senators, I want to reiterate the

depth of my pride and the sense of honor I have had in representing the United States of America, first at the United Nations,

and now to the world. Our country, like any other, is composed of

humans and is, therefore, flawed. We are not always correct in our

actions or judgments, but I know from the experience of my own

life the importance and rightness of our country’s ideals. I have

seen first-hand the difference that our actions have made and continue to make in the lives of men, women, and children on every

continent, and I believe profoundly in the goodness of the American

7

people and in the goodness of American power, and my faith in the

future is grounded like a rock in my belief in America. This land

has given me so much, and I cannot hope to repay it, but I will

always be grateful to President Clinton and to this committee for

allowing me the opportunity these past 7 3/4 years to give it a try.

Senators, your friendship and support has been immeasurable,

and I salute you. For your hospitality today I truly thank you, and

for the opportunity to continue to work with you until the very last

minute I want to express in advance my heartfelt appreciation.

I will be happy to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Albright follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT

Mr. Chairman, Senators, good morning. I am pleased to have the opportunity to

see you all again.

This late in the session, I see little value in duplicating the rather encyclopedic

statement I presented earlier in the year. Instead, I would like to restrict myself

to three main points.

First, although there are only a few days left in this Congress, and only a few

months in this Administration, there remains considerable work to be done. The

world does not stand still, even for American elections. Between now and January,

we can expect significant developments in key regions, and we prepare constantly

to deal with the unforeseen.

During this time of transition, I ask your help in providing the kind of bipartisan

support for U.S. leadership that has characterized our nation at its best, and that

American interests constantly demand.

Second, I would like to highlight once more the importance of obtaining adequate

resources for our international operations and programs. The next President, of

whichever party, will be expected to provide strong leadership. But it takes money

to forge peace, prevent proliferation, dismantle nuclear weapons, defeat drug cartels,

counter terrorists, promote U.S. exports, spur development, strengthen democracy,

enhance the rule of law, fight pollution, combat AIDS and otherwise defend America’s interests and values around the world.

America’s capacity to lead is not a partisan issue; it’s a patriotic issue. At the moment, Congress is proposing to slash roughly $2 billion from the President’s budget

requests for international operations and programs. If these plans prevail, the next

President will take office with his foreign policy bank account depleted and his ability to respond to changing world events gravely impaired.

The 21st Century is no time for America to retreat. The cuts proposed in such

key areas as security for our diplomatic personnel, nonproliferation, counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, family planning and foreign military financing are not simply

disappointing; they are dangerous. Congress should approve the President’s full requests for international affairs. The entire amount is equal to only about one penny

for every dollar the Federal Government spends. But it makes an enormous difference to the security of our communities, the prosperity of our families and the

freedom of our world.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to review briefly some of the major foreign

policy accomplishments that resulted from this Administration, this Committee and

this Congress working together the past few years on behalf of America, and also

to take a look at where we are headed as the new century begins.

When President Clinton took office, our nation was beginning an historic re-evaluation of its entire approach to international affairs in light of the geopolitical and

technological changes that were transforming our world.

Our goal was to make the most of the opportunities opened up by the prospects

for East-West cooperation, while coping with the accompanying disruptions and preparing to meet emerging threats.

To succeed, we had to resist both the temptation to retreat from international affairs, and the compulsion to become involved in every crisis and conflict. We needed

to steer a steady course between isolation, which is not possible in our era, and

overreaching, which is not sustainable.

We had to replace the Cold War foreign policy framework with a new framework,

able to meet the demands of the new century, including effective public diplomacy,

and make full use of every available foreign policy tool.

8

Together, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I believe we have made

great progress.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP

Consider, for example, that eight years ago, America was viewed widely as a drag

on global economic growth, because our budget deficits were huge and our economy

sluggish. Today, those deficits are gone; our people are prosperous; our economy is

the world’s most competitive; and our international economic leadership has been

fully restored.

America’s strong economy and the Administration’s support for reform helped the

world navigate successfully through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We have worked to make the international financial system more effective

by placing greater emphasis on fighting corruption, creating transparency, and encouraging investments in people. We have tried to make the global economy more

inclusive through targeted debt relief, helping developing countries build the capacity to meet WTO commitments, and working with Congress to enhance trade opportunities for Africa, Central America and the Caribbean.

We have worked with American business, farming and labor representatives to

make world markets more equitable by negotiating beneficial trade and investment

agreements, supporting core worker standards, and striving to outlaw commercial

bribery and ensure the protection of intellectual property and other legal rights.

We have negotiated dozens of Open Skies and other civil aviation agreements that

have benefited American communities, businesses and travelers.

The result is a world economy that is strong and growing, with the United States

as its dynamic center; and an international economic agenda aimed at broadening

the benefits of growth both within and among societies.

LEADING FOR A SAFER WORLD

In 1993, our most urgent security objective was to ensure the control and safe

handling of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.

Since that time, with strong support from this Committee, the Administration has

gained the removal of nuclear arms from three former Soviet Republics; helped deactivate thousands of nuclear warheads; strengthened the security of nuclear weapons and materials at more than 100 sites; and purchased more than 60 tons of highly-enriched uranium that could have been used by terrorists or outlaw states to

build nuclear weapons.

We have also provided opportunities for tens of thousands of former Soviet weapons scientists—including chemical and biological weapons experts—to participate in

peaceful commercial and research ventures at home rather than take their expertise

to potentially hostile states.

Despite these steps, the job of preventing ‘‘loose nukes’’ and other proliferation

dangers is far from complete. Russia’s record on nuclear and missile exports remains mixed, whether for lack of capability or lack of will. That’s why nonproliferation remains among our highest priorities in dealing with Russia at every level from

the Presidential to the technical.

And it is why so much of our assistance to Russia is used for programs that reduce the chance that weapons of mass destruction or sensitive missile technology

will fall into the wrong hands.

For example, funds from our Science Center program helped develop a kidney dialysis capability that is being further developed and commercialized through an Energy Department program. By providing hundreds of jobs for former weapons scientists, this program is helping to downsize Russia’s closed nuclear cities and make

Americans safer. It is both disturbing and puzzling, therefore, that Congress is proposing to reduce funding for the Science Centers by fifty percent.

I urge Congress to support the President’s request for nonproliferation programs

in their entirety, including the Science Centers and the nuclear safeguards system

of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

TOWARDS A EUROPE ‘‘WHOLE AND FREE’’

In 1993, skeptics were saying that the Trans-Atlantic link would surely weaken

in the post-Cold War world, and that NATO would lose relevance in the absence

of its traditional unifying rationale.

Here again, with your help, we have proven those skeptics wrong. We have

worked steadily with the European Union to broaden our partnership, develop joint

responses to global challenges and fast-breaking crises, and support its plans for enlargement.

9

We have joined in strengthening the Organization for Security and Cooperation

in Europe, agreeing last November on a new Charter for European Security.

We have encouraged integration and cooperation through such measures as our

Northern Europe Initiative and our Southeast European Cooperative Initiative.

And we have joined other Alliance leaders in strengthening NATO through the

admission of three new members, and the adoption of a plan to help other aspiring

Allies prepare for possible entry, and have provided military assistance to aid these

countries in reaching their accession goals.

During the 1999 Washington Summit, President Clinton and his counterparts

adopted a revised Strategic Concept, vowed to develop the capabilities required to

respond to the full spectrum of threats NATO may face, deepened NATO’s partnerships with Europe’s other democracies, and agreed to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance in a way that bolsters both Alliance effectiveness and Trans-Atlantic ties. Now NATO and the EU are in the process of forging an historic partnership to just that end.

But NATO did more during the 1990’s than prepare. It also acted.

When President Clinton took office, war was raging in the Balkans, where a UN

peace operation was failing, and atrocities were being committed on a daily basis.

Many argued that America should look the other way and hope the fighting would

simply burn itself out.

But history warns us that in this region there is no natural firebreak to conflict.

So when diplomatic options were exhausted, the Administration and many Members

of this Committee called for NATO airstrikes to help end the war in Bosnia. And

when Slobodan Milosevic launched a campaign of terror in Kosovo, NATO launched

a campaign to stop him.

This was not simply a humanitarian intervention. President Clinton was making

good on a solemn pledge given by President Bush in 1992 that America would respond if Milosevic used force to repress the people of Kosovo.

NATO was proving it could act with unity and resolve to defend European stability.

And together, we were reinforcing the principle that massive violations of human

rights cannot be ignored; they must be opposed.

During the past fourteen months in Kosovo, a million refugees have returned,

schools and health services have reopened, a market economy has begun to function,

civilian police are being trained and the KLA has been demilitarized and disarmed.

The process of strengthening local autonomy will continue with the municipal elections scheduled for next month.

We did the right thing in Kosovo, but the job is far from finished. To talk about

leaving prematurely, as some now do, is to suggest weakness in a region where

weakness still attracts vultures. Our purpose in Kosovo is not simply to punch a

time clock and move on; it is to replace the rule of force with the rule of law. So

that when we do leave, order will be self-sustaining, democracy will have taken

hold, and our troops can not only come home, but stay home.

Kosovo is important, but it is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

After World War II, the Marshall Plan helped establish strong democracies in Europe’s west. After the Cold War, the SEED program helped democracy take hold in

Europe’s center. Now, after years of conflict in the Balkans, we have forged a Stability Pact with our EU and regional partners to encourage democracy in Europe’s

southeast.

And we are making progress throughout the area, including the former Yugoslavia.

In recent years, Bosnia has held fair, competitive elections at every level. Croatia

has made a national U-turn away from extremism and towards integration with the

West. Slovenia, Macedonia and Montenegro have elected democratic leaders.

Even in Yugoslavia, democratic forces are becoming stronger. Despite threats from

Milosevic’s thugs, they have waged a courageous campaign for change, kindled hope

among the Serb people, and brought closer the day we can welcome all of Yugoslavia

into the democratic community. As this is written, we awaiting the final results of

the September 24 elections.

SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Mr. Chairman, eight years ago, there were many doubts in Asia and the Pacific

about America’s willingness to continue playing a strong regional role in the aftermath of the Cold War. These doubts have been put to rest.

There can no longer be any question about the level of American commitment to,

or interest in, Asia. President Clinton has visited there more often than any other

President. I have visited more frequently than any previous Secretary of State.

10

With our allies and partners, we have weathered the financial crisis while encouraging financial reform. We have upgraded and modernized our security ties with our

ally Japan and developed a robust Common Agenda for action on global issues.

We have welcomed South Korean President Kim Dae-jung’s engagement policy

with North Korea, and will resume tomorrow our own discussions with Pyongyang

on issues of concern to the international community, including nuclear programs

and missiles.

Our relationship with China remains both important and complex. I want to congratulate Members of both Houses of Congress for supporting legislation to grant

Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to that country. This was the right vote

economically because it will enable American farmers, ranchers and businesspeople

to gain greater access to China’s market, and to do so under international rules

about what is fair. It was the right vote from a security perspective because it encourages China’s integration into the international system. And it was the right vote

for the future because it will help to open China up to new influences and ideas.

Although the PNTR issue has garnered much attention, the other aspects of our

relationship with China have not been neglected. We have continued to press Beijing to bring its policies and practices into line with international nonproliferation

norms. We have encouraged the resumption of its dialogue with Taipei. We consult

regularly regarding developments on the Korean Peninsula. And we have been firm

and persistent in raising our concerns about human rights, including religious and

press freedom, and respect for the unique religious, cultural and linguistic heritage

of Tibet.

In Southeast Asia, we have developed a bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam,

pressed hard for a democratic dialogue and respect for human rights in Burma, and

assisted the UN mission in East Timor. We have also been the largest bilateral

donor to the forces of civil society in Indonesia as that key nation struggles to build

stability and prosperity through its promising but extremely fragile democracy.

In South Asia, President Clinton’s historic trip last spring, and Prime Minister

Vajpayee’s recent return visit here, have helped open a promising new chapter in

our relations with India, the globe’s largest democracy. India can be an important

partner on issues ranging from world peace to global climate change, and from cooperation in exploring the new frontiers of science to combating humanity’s oldest

plagues, such as poverty and disease.

At the same time, we have not forgotten our other friends in South Asia, including Pakistan. We are keeping open channels of communication to Islamabad, most

recently in my meeting at UN General Assembly with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister

Sattar. We continue to urge Pakistan and India to observe the ‘‘four R’s’’ articulated

by President Clinton in both countries in March: restraint, respect for the Line of

Control in Kashmir, rejection of violence, and renewal of dialogue. We will keep

working, publicly and in private, to ease tensions and reduce the nuclear threat in

this vital part of the world.

THE COMMUNITY OF THE AMERICAS

In our own hemisphere, the Summit of the Americas process has generated unprecedented level of cooperation in support of democracy, development and law.

From Argentina to Alaska, we are now pursuing a common agenda towards more

open economies, fighting poverty, improving education, respecting human rights,

and strengthening the rule of law.

We have also given close attention to our key bilateral relationships.

For example, I was pleased last month to have the opportunity, along with President Clinton, to meet with Mexico’s President-elect Vincente Fox. The growth of

democratic pluralism in our southern neighbor is welcome, as is the President-elect’s

desire to explore fresh opportunities for cross-border cooperation.

Also in August, I had a chance to visit six countries in South America. I conveyed

a strong message of support for strengthening democratic institutions, broadening

economic opportunity, and enhancing regional cooperation in the fight against illegal drug trafficking.

In this connection, I want to thank Members of this Committee for supporting our

supplemental request to assist President Pastrana’s Plan Colombia. Every country,

not only in our hemisphere, has a stake in this Plan’s success. Obviously there are

no easy answers in Colombia.

Illegal armed groups from the left and right feed off the narcotics trade and run

roughshod over the rights of civilians. It will take more than talk to defeat the drug

thugs. But at the same time, there must be an economic plan, a peace program, a

commitment to human rights and an effort to prevent conflict from spreading across

national borders. President Clinton, Speaker Hastert, Senator Biden and I exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:12 Mar 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69749 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
11

pressed strong support for such a comprehensive approach during our visit to Colombia last month. I hope this kind of approach will continue to find bipartisan support in our country for years to come.

In Peru, President Fujimori’s announcement that he will call new elections and

deactivate the National Intelligence Service is welcome and provides an opportunity

to strengthen Peruvian democracy. The ways and means of achieving these goals,

including the appropriate date for elections, are for Peruvians to decide. The appropriate role for the international community is to urge parties to return to the OASsponsored dialogue on democratic reform and to cooperate in devising electoral procedures that are open, orderly, free and fair. It is vital that President Fujimori meet

the commitments he has made to his people. It is also important that other participants in the political process come together in support of democratic norms, and on

behalf of policies that will unite, rather than divide, the Peruvian people.

A NEW APPROACH TO AFRICA

The Clinton-Gore Administration has devoted more time and attention to Africa

than any of its predecessors.

Our approach has been based on two overriding goals. The first is to integrate

Africa more fully into the global economy, through the promotion of democratic reforms and the resolution of destabilizing conflicts.

The second is to work with African leaders to combat transnational security

threats including terrorism, illegal drugs, crime and disease.

On the economic side, we have supported debt relief for the most heavily-indebted

reforming countries, requested and obtained higher levels of development assistance, crafted an Africa. Food Security Initiative, responded rapidly to humanitarian

disasters such as the recent floods in Mozambique, and worked with Congress in

win approval of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

Diplomatically, we have lent support to regional and United Nations efforts to

conclude a comprehensive peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea; end fighting in the

Democratic Republic of Congo; achieve a viable internal settlement in Burundi, halt

the bloodshed and violations of basic human rights in Sudan, and restore stability

to Sierra Leone.

Through the Africa Crisis Response Initiative, we have sought to enhance the region’s indigenous peacekeeping capabilities. We have been the largest donor to both

ECOMOG and the OAU Conflict Management Center.

With strong support from Members of this Committee, and personal leadership

from the President and Vice-President, we have substantially increased our investment in what must be a multi-year, around-the-clock campaign not only in Africa,

but around the world to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

We have developed innovative counter-terrorism, counter-crime and counter-narcotics strategies for Africa, and signed an agreement this past summer to establish

a regional law enforcement academy in Botswana.

And as President Clinton’s recent trip indicates, we have placed special emphasis

on support for the fragile democratic transition in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous

country. Through our Joint Economic Partnership Committee, we are helping Nigeria deliver a ‘‘democracy dividend’’ to its people.

LEADING FOR PEACE

Mr. Chairman, I think Americans may be especially proud in recent years of our

role in trying to ease historic enmities and help one-time adversaries to settle differences peacefully.

Even when these initiatives do not succeed, they put pressure on recalcitrant parties to justify their actions, and give encouragement to those seeking a basis for

agreements in the future. Congress is a full partner in these efforts, both through

the counsel you give and the resources you provide.

President Clinton and former Senator George Mitchell deserve special credit for

the role they played in making possible the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, where centuries of bitterness have been supplanted by cooperation and hope.

And the President deserves praise, as well, for his indefatigable efforts on behalf

of a Middle East Peace.

As Members of this Committee are well aware, the prospects for achieving an

agreement between Israelis and Palestinians this year on permanent status issues

diminish with each passing day. But at Camp David, Prime Minister Barak and

Chairman Arafat made unprecedented progress on matters they had not before seriously discussed. Since then, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have explored ways

to build on these gains.

12

Like the last miles in a marathon, the final steps towards peace in the Middle

East are the hardest. But if we were to look back to the beginning of the last decade, we would realize how far the parties have come toward resolving some of the

most intractable, emotional and complex issues negotiators have ever had to untangle.

Together, Israelis and Palestinians have moved far down the road to a settlement

that would meet each other’s core needs, and open the door to a period of greater

security, prosperity and cooperation than the region has ever known. The stakes are

too high for them to turn back now, or for the United States to reduce in any way

its commitment to help the parties move further along that road.

PROMOTING DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Under President Clinton, the United States has led for prosperity, security and

peace. We have also led for democracy.

Today, the world is more free than at any prior period. For the first time in history, more than half its people live under elected governments. But many democratic regimes are fragile, and require both internal reinforcement and outside help.

That is why, this past summer in Poland, more than 100 nations came together

for the first time to reaffirm democratic principles and ensure that the democratic

tide remains a rising tide around the world.

Our purpose was to initiate a global dialogue on how democratic nations can best

help each other to strengthen their institutions, cooperate within international organizations and combat threats to democratic development.

We are now following up this Community of Democracies initiative through discussions with our co-convening partners, deliberations at the UN General Assembly,

conversations with nongovernmental groups, bilateral dialogues with Warsaw participants, and planning for a second conference in Seoul in 2002.

DIPLOMACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Mr. Chairman, we have been privileged during the past decade to witness and

help engineer a dramatic restructuring in our national security institutions to reflect dramatic changes in the world.

This Committee has contributed mightily through the FREEDOM Support Act,

the Nunn-Lugar program, the SEED Act, consent to NATO enlargement, the reorganization legislation, the Helms-Biden bill and many other initiatives.

You have also been participants in a process of shifting and expanding the focus

of American foreign policy.

Twenty years ago, when American diplomats sat down with our counterparts

overseas, the agenda was dominated by Cold War concerns. And America’s interests

were measured primarily by the single yardstick of the superpower rivalry.

Today, our agendas are far broader and so are the demands we place on our diplomats and on others. The United States is the most powerful nation in the world.

And yet, when I sit down with the Foreign Ministers of even very small countries,

I often have far more to ask than to give.

My interlocutor may seek a larger USAID program, debt relief or technical assistance to help respond to one problem or another. But I may ask for cooperation and

help on a long list of issues, from countering terror and interdicting drugs to economic reform and human rights.

This reflects the reality that, in our era, foreign policy is no longer comparable

to a game of chess. Now, it’s more like a game of pool, with each action setting off

a chain reaction that rearranges every ball on the table. We are more mobile, but

so are weapons, criminals, viruses and pollutants. In the West, populations are

older, but almost everywhere else they are younger, and pressures for migration will

accumulate if those in less-advantaged countries cannot build decent futures at

home. Today, everything is connected. A society weakened by disease will find it

harder to resist the predations of international criminals or to cope with environmental stress.

Because of our global interests, responsibilities and reach, no country has a greater stake than America in an international system of institutions and laws that

works to improve the lives of people everywhere.

That is why we have been right to devote so much energy to reforming and improving international organizations, including the United Nations. And why we

should come together now and in the future to support their vital work by meeting

our obligations and striving with others to strengthen their capabilities.

In this way, we can help to blaze new trails of cooperation on what are commonly

referred to as global issues. And thereby respond to opportunities and threats in a

manner essential to America’s long-term security and prosperity.

13

These challenges include protecting our planet by limiting greenhouse gas emissions; securing safe water supplies; halting desertification; promoting biodiversity;

and negotiating a ban on the world’s most persistent and toxic pollutants.

Equally vital is the challenge of protecting people by caring for refugees, advancing the status of women and girls, preventing the exploitation of children, saving

lives through family planning and reproductive health care services, and helping

law-abiding people everywhere to be more secure.

A good example of this last imperative is our strong backing for the International

Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and our support for special judicial mechanisms to achieve accountability for atrocities in places such as

Cambodia and Sierra Leone. We have also been working with others to collect all

the evidence we can to support a possible future prosecution of Saddam Hussein.

The world will be a better, safer and more just place if those who violate international humanitarian law are required to answer for their crimes.

The world will also benefit if nations close ranks against the threat posed by

international criminal organizations. To this end, the Convention against

Transnational Organized Crime was finalized last July with strong U.S. support.

The Convention would require participating countries to criminalize such activities

as money laundering, corruption of public officials and obstruction of justice.

Next month in Vienna, negotiators will meet to complete three protocols related

to this Convention, on migrant smuggling, trafficking in persons, and the illicit

manufacturing and sale of firearms. If adopted, these instruments can provide powerful new tools in the fight against organized crime.

We can also help by approving strong and smart domestic legislation, such as that

developed by Senators Brownback and Wellstone, against trafficking in human

beings.

On the surface, the many issues and accomplishments discussed above may appear to comprise a very disparate list. But in our era, democracy, prosperity and

security are intimately related. The connecting thread is our goal of encouraging nations everywhere to come together around basic principles of political freedom, economic opportunity and the rule of law.

In this process, there are no final victories. Most of our efforts remain works in

progress. Protecting America’s interests is a 24 hour/7 day a week/365 day a year

mission that has no completion date.

But our interests are served with every successful democratic transition, every

conflict resolved without violence, every advance toward a more open and transparent world economy, every example of justice served, and every increase in respect for basic human rights.

I cannot conclude without repeating a request I have made every time I have appeared before this Committee. Please approve the Convention to Eliminate All

Forms of Discrimination Against Women. If you’re thinking about a goodbye

present, Mr. Chairman, this would do fine.

The Senate also has before it two protocols negotiated earlier this year in Geneva,

one on child soldiers and the other on the sexual exploitation of children. I urge the

Senate to give its advice and consent to these treaties before going home for the

year.

I also want to make a plea for passage of legislation to re-authorize the Visa

Waiver program, which has been approved by the House and is now held up in the

Senate. This program is essential to literally millions of American and foreign travelers, to our transportation and tourist industries, and to our relations with key allies and friends.

PARTING THOUGHTS

Mr. Chairman, and Senators, it has been a great privilege and—more often than

not—a real pleasure to have worked with you these past seven and a half years.

I cannot tell what the future may hold. But I leave you with these thoughts.

First, I believe very genuinely in the importance of bipartisanship in foreign policy. This is not simply because, as I have said, that upon joining the State Department I had my own partisan instincts surgically removed. It is because our role in

the world is just too vital—to us, to our many allies and friends, and to our children—to be compromised for short-term political gain.

Second, there must be a true spirit of partnership between the Executive Branch

and Capitol Hill. It is a tribute to Members of this Committee that on most issues,

most of the time, we have had that. When we have disagreed, we have done so

agreeably. And when we have acted together, we have usually prevailed. The beneficial results of our partnership provide much of the substance of my testimony

today.

14

Third, I hope this Committee shares my pride in the people—Foreign Service Officers, Civil Service and Foreign Service Nationals—who work every day, often under

very difficult and dangerous conditions, to protect our interests and tell America’s story around the world. I have never been associated with a more talented, professional or dedicated group of people. We need a first-class military, and we have one.

We also need first-class diplomacy, and we should give those who represent our nation abroad all the support and respect they deserve.

This means that we simply must make a far greater commitment of resources to

our international operations and programs. At this point in the Administration, I

hope you recognize that this is not special pleading. There are only a few days left

in this Congress, and I recognize there are limits to what even the Members of this

prestigious Committee can accomplish.

But I urge you to use your influence and eloquence to help give this Administration and the next the kind of support they will need to exercise strong American

leadership around the globe.

Finally, I want to reiterate to you the depth of my pride and the sense of honor

I have had in representing America first to the United Nations and now to the

world.

Our country, like any other, is composed of humans and therefore flawed. We are

not always correct in our actions or judgments. But I know from the experience of

my own life the importance and rightness of our nation’s ideals. I have seen firsthand the difference that our actions have made and continue to make in the lives

of men, women and children on every continent. I believe profoundly in the goodness

of the American people. And my faith in the future is grounded like a rock in my

belief in America.

This country has given me so much; I cannot hope to repay it. But I will always

be grateful to President Clinton and to this Committee for allowing me the opportunity these past seven and a half years to try.

Senators, for your friendship and support, I salute you. For your hospitality today,

I thank you. And for the opportunity to continue working with you in the weeks

immediately to come, I want to express in advance my heartfelt appreciation.

And now, I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.

The CHAIRMAN. Fifteen minutes. We are going to do the best we

can. Five minutes per Senator, and I think we will just continue

to ask questions after 11:30, if it meets the approval of all the Senators. I do not like playing games with whether committees can

meet and how long they can meet.

Madam Secretary, since the Russian President Putin assumed

the top post in Russia, basic human rights and democracy have suffered there, the Kremlin’s indiscriminate and brutal war against

the Chechnyan people continues today, press freedoms have been

curtailed. Compounding matters, this month the Moscow Times

documented extensive fraud in the new President’s electoral victory, including the sudden and unexplained growth of 1.3 million

registered Russian voters in the 3 months prior to the March Presidential election.

In your view and that of your administration, did he win that

election fairly, or did he steal it?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that he won it fairly, because nearly 70 percent of eligible voters participated. The

election showed that basic democratic processes and institutions

are taking hold in Russia, and that the Russian citizens are comfortable making their voices heard at the ballot box. The OSCE,

which does a lot of monitoring, called the election—and I quote—

‘‘a massive expression of the will of the Russian people.’’ It did cite

some concerns, as we have also, about unbalanced media coverage

and pressure on the independent media. I do think that there is

question about the fact that President Putin talks about the importance of an independent media but in fact is putting a great deal

of pressure on the media.

15

Putin was the most popular candidate, and the reason for that,

and I think I have spoken about this here before, is that the Russian people had a sense that there was chaos, and they wanted

order. The Russian word, poriadok, was kind of the buzz word in

Moscow. I think that the ‘‘order’’ he offered was something appealing to the Russian people. As we observe what is going on in Russia, I think we have to watch carefully that it is order with a small

‘‘o,’’ and not order with a capital ‘‘O,’’ but I do believe that he was

elected fairly.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chechnyan Resistance wrote you a letter

sometime back asking you to endorse their five-point peace proposal for resolution of the conflict there. Should the United States

endorse this proposal?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, I think that what we have done, in

fact, is raised very many of the same points that they have. I have

said in any number of places that there has to be a political solution to the situation in Chechnya, that it cannot be solved militarily, that there needs to be access for the international agencies,

and I have spoken about this to my counterpart, Foreign Minister

Ivanov many times, and the President has spoken to President

Putin.

We have to make very clear that we think the kind of wanton

acts against the civilian population are unacceptable, and that basically they need to find an interlocutor with whom they can deal

on the Chechan issue. It is coming back in a way that I think

President Putin is going to have to deal with it politically, as the

military solution does not work.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the most courageous democratic activists

in the world today suffers under house arrest in Burma. Now, I

know that the United Nations and our allies and you have eloquently raised concerns regarding the fate of that wonderful lady.

On July 19, the Senate passed a resolution, and so forth.

It calls for the United States to seek multilateral support. Could

you please inform the committee of efforts made by the administration to gain concrete measures of support from our allies in Asia

and Europe, and what has been the response?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the

saddest cases, where 10 years after she and her party were elected

they are not allowed to take their rightful position, and there is no

dialog between her and the Burmese Government.

We have raised this issue consistently and systematically. President Clinton raised it in his opening address to the Millennium

Summit at the United Nations. I have made it a point in every single meeting that I attended to to try to get a joint statement out

of people in terms of support of Aung San Suu Kyi.

What happened was that they did release her temporarily after

they had her under virtual house arrest. They have gone back

again to denying her free movement. I can assure you that I will

not let this issue drop. We are trying to make the others move. It

is not easy.

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Senator Sarbanes.

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

Madam Secretary, welcome. I am pleased to see you before the

committee.

16

As you know, I strongly share your view that we are devoting inadequate resources to meeting our international responsibilities,

and I think it has severely handicapped the ability to carry out a

constructive American foreign policy in the international arena.

You obviously have spoken about that a number of times, and in

fact your statement here today again emphasizes it. I think it

might be helpful if you would give us some specific examples of

where a shortage of commitment of resources has handicapped our

ability to carry through a policy that would serve our national interests.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Yes. Thank you very much. Let me just

make clear that the budget we submitted in the first place is bare

bones in my view. We operate within an overall system, and when

we asked for $23 billion plus, it was a very careful assessment. I

personally have gone through the budget review in the State Department for each of the sections. We were then cut by over $2 billion, which is a reduction of nearly 11 percent of what we asked

for.

Now, since we are operating at something that already I think

is low, I have said, and you will appreciate this, that we are not

only robbing Peter to pay Paul, but we are robbing Paul also. I

think the problem here is that we have to keep shifting in order

to be able to achieve what we want. Let me just say that if the current cuts stand, it would, for example, mean reducing U.N. peacekeeping by more than a third and thus threaten the success of our

operations in Kosovo, East Timor, and Africa.

Now, I hope we have more chance to talk about peacekeeping,

but I happen to think that peacekeeping, well done, is a burdensharing operation and allows the United States, which is not involved in most peacekeeping operations, to deal with serious issues.

We cannot just be stuck with doing it ourselves or doing nothing

at all. Congress’ proposed budget would mean a one-third cut.

The cut would also jeopardizes essential security improvements

in U.S. diplomatic facilities. We have all been talking about the

horrors of the bombings a couple of years ago in Kenya and Tanzania. We have been systematically trying to upgrade our diplomatic facilities. It would also limits support for what is happening

in the Balkans, the Newly Independent States, and the key democracies. We can talk further about Nigeria and Indonesia, how much

we have had to cut. Congress’ budget would slash our funds for

nonproliferation and antiterrorism programs, cripple our debt relief

programs, reduces funding for international banks, and weaken our

programs to boost U.S. trade.

I could go on, but those are the major problems. You cannot cut

this much out of our budget, when you are already operating with

less—with only a penny out of every Federal dollar—I think it is

very bad. I happen to believe we need a strong defense budget. I

have never argued against that. But our diplomacy and our diplomats are the first line of defense, and I think we underfund at

our own jeopardy.

Senator SARBANES. Well now, a lot of people emphasize burdensharing, and they press the point that our allies ought to be making contributions in these various endeavors, but it is my understanding that the inability of the United States, as it were, to meet

17

its share in various international institutions or in various joint efforts is in effect resulting in other countries not coming forward

with their share, so to speak.

So, as a consequence, the international community ends up committing less resources than it might otherwise do, so that if the

United States were better able to act as a catalyst in those situations, we would be able to attract contributions from other countries as well and have an international effort that was much more

substantial in addressing some of these problems. Do you perceive

that problem?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Absolutely, Senator, because I have seen

this in various pledging conferences. We are like a magnet, and I

think they want to know how much we have given. I think there

is also a misapprehension here. We all know how important it is

to the American people and to you that we are not the sole bearer

of financial responsibility, and we are not. As far as Kosovo is concerned, for instance, or the Balkans, the Europeans are truly paying the lion’s share of it. We can give you some facts and figures

on it. I think they do not see that we are participating but we are,

in fact, providing the seed money for force multiplying in terms of

cash.

Let us take Plan Colombia as another example. We put money

up, but the Europeans are now pledging in donors conferences.

Spain itself has put up $100 million. We have international responsibilities, and I think our being a part of something creates a larger

fund of money, so I believe it is essential that we do our share in

order to get more from the others.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Albright, I join Chairman Helms and Senator Biden in

the comments they have made about your remarkable service and

the period of cooperation with the committee, and I appreciate that.

I have appreciated serving with you on the National Endowment

for Democracy board, and likewise applauding your work at the

United Nations.

I am struck by the questions that Senator Sarbanes has asked

and your responses. Let me just say that for a variety of reasons

the amounts of money that have been required for American diplomacy for the State Department, for international relations simply

have not been available.

I remember, as perhaps you do, after the re-election of President

Clinton there had been a proposal by the State Department for its

budget, obvious cuts that were publicly made by OMB. I visited

with the President and asked him personally to reverse OMB, to

go to bat for the State Department. Obviously you endorsed that

idea, and he did, and to some extent what had been almost a

straight-line secular decline of resources, when inflation was

factored in, was reversed, at least in that year.

Now, then it resumed, and you are describing today a situation

which is a dismal one. Perhaps at this point in your service, or in

the President’s service, you are really not prepared to answer this

question fully, but I would like for you at least to begin today.

Why was the President, or his group, including yourself, less effective than you needed to have been in alerting the American peoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:12 Mar 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69749 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
18

ple to what our responsibilities are, to what we should be doing,

or co-opting the Congress, persuading us?

Or, correspondingly, what failures have there been on the part

of the Congress in failing to understand America’s role in the

world, as you say, our defense budget combined with strong diplomacy, with embassies that really do have up to speed telecommunications and are equipped really to do the job of a competitive America for trade, quite apart from diplomacy.

This just clearly does not seem to me to be the picture, and it

is one in which there is a lot of responsibility to be shared, but for

the moment I perceive that the American public as a whole is not

alarmed about this debate over the State Department or international affairs budget, does not really share our particular grief

about these situations, although people around this table care and

so do you.

You know, what should we do about it, and maybe in your memoirs of the experience you will have more to say, but it just seems

to me that instructing for the next administration, whether it be

the Vice President of the United States or Governor Bush, that

they really start off on a different track if they are to make headway in what I think is essential.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. I think, Senator, you have asked a key

question about how we operate, and I will give you some thoughts,

but I will actually do more thinking about it and do something

about it after this.

First of all, I would like to say that the President is my best

friend on this. I have now made a Christmas Eve call a number

of times and it has brought forth more funds. I think his support

of the State Department budget has been really unbelievable, and

I am very grateful to him. The problem I think is that the American people got accustomed to a State Department budget when we

were fighting communism and its goal was very clear. Our assistance programs were designed to get countries to be our friends

versus our being their friends, so that when the world was divided

into red, and red, white, and blue it was easier.

I think the issues—and I know people get sick of hearing this— are complicated and do not seem as threatening to people at this

time, and we are dealing with a whole host of new issues. You, sir,

have understood the fact that threat reduction in the former Soviet

Union is essential to our security. That takes money, and the bulk

of the money that goes to Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan has

been for that.

I think our real problem is we have got to stop calling it foreign

aid. Those are two words that do not go together, and the American

people do not like them. This is not assistance to other countries.

This is the way that the United States maintains its prosperity.

Our prosperity today is dependent on other countries also rising

and having functional economic systems and functional governments. This is not foreign assistance. It is assistance to America,

and I think we need to see it that way, and not see what we do

as a give-away program or supporting people that we are not interested in. We have managed to keep America at peace and prosperous and it takes assistance to America to make that happen.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you.

19

The CHAIRMAN. I have just been advised by the majority leader

that the opposition to all committees continuing their hearings this

morning stands, so without objection, as chairman I am going to

suggest that we are now meeting as a public meeting, instead of

a hearing. I do not know what the distinction is, but one is legal

and one is not.

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator WELLSTONE. I understand what you are doing, but could

I make it clear to the Secretary that I am in—just to support—this

is Senator Levin’s request, I think, because he has not been able

to get judges through for years, and I am going to have to excuse

myself from the hearing out of respect for him, even though I understand what you are doing.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you. I apologize.

The CHAIRMAN. We will miss you.

Senator DODD. I gather there is no official record of this. Is that

what we are doing, that is the distinction?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, no. I intend that—and I think we would be

remiss if we do not have a record for everything that the Secretary

says. Now, if there is objection to that, we could just have a friendly get-together.

Senator DODD. No, I do not want to object to that. I am very interested in having the Secretary here, but there is a process and

procedure which we respect here, and I have been victimized by it

in the past, and I know that we respect each other’s right to do so,

and I do not want to undercut a process here that has been——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am not going to debate the Senator about

it. I think he knows and I know what is going on on the floor.

There is a concerted effort to confuse and delay and all the rest of

it.

What is the will of the remaining Senators? Shall we proceed on

a hearing?

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed, but I

think Senator Dodd makes the point. We attempted this the other

day in the Agriculture Committee. We had the Secretary present,

and we continued to have a very interesting dialog but without a

court reporter, so that there really was no inference that it was an

official thing, but we did have, as you say, a meeting and a continuing dialog.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, all right. The chair will make another suggestion, then. Provided that C–SPAN continues its coverage of

what was a hearing, we could transcribe from a tape from C–SPAN

the remainder of what is said and done here. So do you wish to ask

a question?

Senator DODD. Well, under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman,

obviously we do not have any control over C–SPAN. They can cover

any meeting they want to, but I just in terms of maintaining a purity of process that we have had for years and years here——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, C–SPAN has been very cooperative with

us, and I trust if they decide not to be I will have a secretary sitting by the TV set taking down every word that the Senator——

20

Senator DODD. I am sure she will be delighted, or he will be delighted to hear that.

The CHAIRMAN. Seriously, you may proceed, Senator.

Senator DODD. Fine, and you are—— The CHAIRMAN. Wait.

Senator DODD. Yes, but the court reporter would no longer transcribe it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll have a statement

for C–SPAN. I will deliver it to them and they can include it, but

let me just briefly say to you, Madam Secretary, that in so many

areas, but going back to the NAFTA issue I guess in 1993, it was

President Bush that negotiated the agreement, but it would not

have been passed had it not been for the effectiveness of this administration.

That was before your tenure, but nonetheless an example, I

guess, of some wise policy decisions, but certainly under your tenure the Middle East, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Korea, the

demonstration the other day in Sidney of the two Koreas marching

in together, while we certainly have not resolved the issue here, it

is certainly an indication of the direction that some of our very creative foreign policy has brought us to. It certainly did not go unnoticed by the world, so I think there is much to commend you and

the Clinton administration for during your tenure as Secretary of

State.

I do not know whether in 5 minutes I will have time to really

discuss all of these issues, but let me just raise a few of them if

I can with you. First of all, Colombia. You have raised it already

by inference to Plan Colombia. I was supportive of the plan. I have

great respect for what the Colombian people have been through

now for years and years, but I am worried a bit about this.

The reports are not good on the human rights front. There are

now a couple of battalions that have received some warning here,

two vetted units, 24th Brigade and the 12th, that have been suspended from receiving training and aid as a result apparently of

some human rights violations, the issue of how effective these dollars are in terms of dealing with the coca production.

If the Plan Colombia is going to work it has got to be a sustained

plan, in my view. It has got to be one that we are willing to stick

to for maybe as long as a decade or beyond if it is going to work.

At least it seems to me the narcotraffickers and others have to

have a clear understanding that we are committed to this over the

long haul. I am worried that some of the reports we are getting out

of this early on are going to undermine this effort, and the September vote in Latin America.

Now, some of that has been changed, I gather, but there is a lot

of hesitancy among our Latin American allies. I know there is some

hesitancy in Europe about this.

But I would like you to give me some idea of where you think

we ought to be going with Plan Colombia as a new administration

comes in next year. I would like to review to what extent we can

build stronger regional support for this than presently exists, particularly among the Andean nations, so that it is not just a U.S.-

Colombian effort here, but one that really does involve and enjoys

21

the support of our allies and friends throughout the hemisphere.

Short of that, I am very concerned that this plan will not be sustainable.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, I do think the following. I think we

have done the right thing in having a Plan Colombia that is based

on what the Colombians came up with. It is a plan by President

Pastrana which we are supporting.

I believe it has the right components, and your concerns about

human rights are our concerns and President Pastrana’s as well.

We have just been down there. President Clinton paid a visit and

I have gone a number of times. Under Secretary Pickering has

made it very clear that human rights are an essential aspect of the

plan, and the Colombians know it, and they will pursue this.

But to answer your larger question, I do believe that this has to

be sustained, because it is a complex issue, and let me focus on the

region a little bit, as you have. I took a regional trip. I know how

nervous they are about the fact that there will be spillover from it

and that those countries need to also have a plan for trying to deal

with the problem, and part of Plan Colombia does, in fact, give

money to some of the countries in theregion. Ecuador, for instance,

is very concerned about its northern border and spillover there, so

I think we have to see this as not only a way of working with Colombia but its neighboring countries.

I think there is some misunderstanding about how the region

feels about it. I think they are not eager to give money to Plan Colombia themselves, but are supportive of it. At the summit in Brasilia they actually came out in support of Plan Colombia, and I

think they need to see the value of it not only for Colombia but for

themselves.

The plan needs its component parts. It has to continue to have

a central anti-narcotrafficking aspect to it, a human rights aspect,

a peace process, and an alternative economic development plan to

it. I think it is a carefully constructed plan, but it cannot bring results immediately. If we give up on it and do not see it as a longer

term program, I think it will undermine the region. We have to

continue to see it as a regional issue.

Senator DODD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hagel.

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Madam Secretary,

welcome. I did not anticipate having coffee and Danish with you

this morning in our discussion format, but it is OK.

First, let me echo those who have gone before me in expressing

my thanks to you and your team, under the able leadership of Assistant Secretary Larkin, for their courtesies and good work over

the last few years. We are grateful. You have been an engaged,

competent, honest, and faithful public servant, and to me that is

the highest compliment, so thank you.

I know you would not want to be put in the position to give advice to your successor or to the next administration.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. It depends.

Senator HAGEL. Well then, that gives me considerable license

and flexibility with the question.

The world, as you know as well as anyone, is interconnected, and

you have expressed that thought succinctly this morning in your

22

statement regarding America’s role in the 21st century. We should

not abandon our leadership history, and future generations will

judge us harshly if we should do such a thing. You have talked a

little bit about budget inadequacies and a couple of other specific

areas.

But I would be very interested in your thoughts, understanding

that there is not one issue, I suspect, that is all overriding or allconsuming, but a number, if you could frame for this committee

what the next administration in your opinion should be focusing on

in this large, interconnected, overhanging big-picture world, that

would give this committee, or at least this Senator, some direction

as to where the next administration is going to have to focus some

resources, some leadership, and some attention.

Thank you.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, let me say I think we always have to

remember what foreign policy is about, and why we have a foreign

policy. It is to protect our territory, our people, and our way of life.

The reason that it is complex is that our territory is still between

two oceans, but we have porous borders to the north and south,

and must deal with issues that range from top and bottom, so to

speak. Therefore we have to be concerned about such matters as

terrorism, nuclear proliferation and the environment.

Americans travel everywhere now and they need to be protected

everywhere. We need to work on the rule of law in countries so

that they can invest properly and on a whole host of economic

issues that promote prosperity. The American people will benefit

from this as they travel abroad. Protecting our way of life is everything that our foreign policy is all about. So, we have to worry

about narcotrafficking, and HIV/AIDS and various things that

know no borders. Those are the larger issues that are the new global transnational issues that affect foreign policy as never before.

At the same time, the United States will never be able to not

focus on our relationships with Russia and China. We also have to

continue to keep our alliances strong. We have to deal with all

parts of the world. I think that is where the situation is different

today. There can be no forgotten continents.

The hardest part about being Secretary of State is to prioritize,

and I have tried to do that, not always successfully, because problems come in from various places. I do think that the next Secretary of State has to understand that the future is integration of

the global system. Our prosperity depends on that kind of integration, and our resources need to go to make sure that we can follow

through on programs, that we have the right people in the right

places, and that our diplomats are at secure facilities.

It is a very large agenda, but we are a very large and powerful

country, and the world depends on us. I know that. Every day that

I sit somewhere behind a sign that says, The United States, I do

it not only with pride, but with the realization that unless the

United States is involved there will not be a difference. We can

make that difference, and asking for funds for that is not too much.

A penny in every Federal dollar is not too much for the most powerful country in the world.

Senator HAGEL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Grams.

23

Senator GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam

Secretary, always a pleasure to see you. Thank you very much for

being here today.

A couple of questions. I will start out with one that has direct

ties to Minnesota, an incident in Kenya recently. Also I have some

questions on policy and then some housekeeping questions.

But first of all, dealing with Kenya, back on August 23 Father

John Kaiser was murdered in Kenya. He was a native of Minnesota

but he had spent 36 years serving a mission in Kenya, strongly advocating the human rights of Kenyans, and he was against government corruption.

Now, documents were found on Father Kaiser’s body that he had

intended to hand over to a commission investigating the 1992

through 1997 tribal clashes of the Great Rift Valley. Given the dismal record of the Kenyan security forces outlined in the State Department’s human rights record and report, I am concerned about

the integrity of the investigation by the Government of Kenya.

Do you believe that it is probable that a timely and thorough investigation of Father Kaiser’s murder will be completed by the Government of Kenya, or should an independent investigation be started as well?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. First, let me say that we were shocked and

saddened by this violent death. Father Kaiser, a courageous and

tireless advocate of human rights in Kenya, with be greatly missed.

Massive attendance at Father Kaiser’s memorial services and an

outpouring of public eulogies and letters demonstrate the high regard in which he was held.

Immediately after learning of Father Kaiser’s death, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, Johnnie Carson, met with high-level representatives of the government of Kenya, to demostrate our concern and

to urge the government to conduct a complete, transparent and

credible investigation.

Days later, three FBI agents arrived in Kenya, at the Kenyan

Government’s invitation, to assist the Kenyan authorities with the

investigation. The FBI continues to work on the investigation

today.

We are monitoring the case of Father Kaiser closely. To date, the

FBI reports that cooperation between the FBI and Kenyan officials

has been excellent, and the investigation is being conducted in a

professional manner. We will keep you appraised of the investigation’s outcome.

Senator GRAMS. OK. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

Dealing with a question on the Middle East and the peace process, there was a report in the September 22 Jerusalem Post that

the United States is going to propose ending Israel’s sovereignty of

the whole of Jerusalem by handing the Temple Mount over to the

U.N.

Now, the question I would have, Madam Secretary, is this true,

because as the Jerusalem Post article notes, this is a serious break

from the past U.S. position that the city’s status was to be determined through negotiations by the two sides, and not something,

I believe, that was to be imposed or suggested by the United

States, so do you have a comment?

24

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, first of all there is nothing that can

be imposed by the United States. We have spent years, months,

weeks, and hours trying to get the parties to deal with each other.

We assist in that way and do what we can to help move the process

forward.

The reason, we have been saying that there are gaps between the

positions and that the hard decisions have to be made by the leaders themselves, is because the United States cannot make existential decisions for either of these parties. So whatever is agreed to

will be agreed to by the parties. There cannot be an American imposition of an agreement. There can be American assistance, American suggestions, but I can assure you that the only way there will

be a comprehensive agreement is if both the parties agree to it.

Senator GRAMS. So, but are we talking formally or informally?

Could this be a U.S. idea that is informally put on the table, or are

we not involving ourselves in at least leading the debate?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. We are very much involved in helping. I can

tell you, from having spent more time on this than practically any

other issue, is that ideas come from a variety of places. They are

suggested by one of the parties or the other of the parties, or outsiders, or other countries. I have just spent a lot of time in New

York. There are lots of ideas out there.

We are, I have to say, the country that can make a difference on

this. We have been told that even by countries that would like to

have a leading role. We are the ones that have the ability, to bring

the parties together when they make the tough decisions.

Senator GRAMS. So is President Clinton prepared to do this informally, to make this suggestion specifically, of turning over the

Temple Mount? Is he prepared to make that proposal informally?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. The President is looking, with the parties,

for a variety of ways to resolve all the issues, and I think it is only

fair to say there are many ideas out there. At this stage there is

no American proposal on the table. We are looking at ways that we

can be of assistance.

Senator GRAMS. All right. I have another line of questioning but

my time is nearly up. I will wait for another round. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Brownback.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to

the committee. We are delighted to have you here again, and do a

superb job, as usual. It has been a pleasure to be here on the committee and working with you, Madam Secretary.

I want to turn your attention to Iraq, if I could, and some serious

violations of the sanctions regime that has taken place just in the

last 2 weeks. Russia has permitted three direct commercial flights

to Baghdad, and France has permitted one and is about to permit

a second. Jordan is reportedly contemplating a sanctions-busting

flight as well.

Although the United Nations was informed of the flights, only

one of the Russian flights had explicit permission to travel to Iraq.

The others had none. I would like to know a couple of things. First,

do you view these flights as sanction violations and then, under the

terms of the Foreign Operations Appropriation Act 2000, no assistVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:12 Mar 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69749 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
25

ance can be provided to countries not in compliance with the U.N.

sanctions on Iraq.

Obviously, France does not receive too much foreign aid from the

United States, but Russia and Jordan are another matter, and in

light of this section in the Foreign Operations Act, section 534, does

the Clinton administration intend to proceed, given these sanctions

violations?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. First of all, I do believe that we need to remember that the sanctions regime has been in effect longer than

any other. Having worked on it for a long time myself, I can assure

you that we will remain firm. But it is complicated because as you

have pointed out, there are a number of countries that disagree

with us on various parts of the sanctions regime. But interestingly

enough, all of them have said that they will abide by Resolution

1284, the most recent resolution on Iraq.

We are concerned about these flights that have taken place. I did

mention while I was in New York both to the French and the Russians that we did not think these flights should take place. There

is a dispute about whether flights that do not carry cargo are sanctions-busting or not. The U.N. has not ruled on this. But we have

made our point that these flights need approval, and we will continue to press the Russians and French on it. I think that absent

any new kind of consensus, the Sanction Committee will continue

to operate under the practices of the last 10 years that these flights

require approval, not just notification.

Now, to answer your larger question, we give assistance to Russia because it is in our national interest. That assistance is for

threat reduction—the Nunn-Lugar program—and various local government and nongovernmental organizations because we want to

promote democracy. So I think we always have to remember with

our assistance programs why we are doing them. In suggesting

that we remove assistance from x country or y country, we must

remember why we are providing it in the first place and that it is

in our national interest, otherwise we would not be doing it.

Senator BROWNBACK. Have you had discussions with Jordan on

their proposed flights to Baghdad?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. We have, yes.

Senator BROWNBACK. And what has been the outcome of those

discussions?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, those are ongoing. We are very concerned about them. We are concerned about the fact that people

cannot seem to get the facts straight on Iraq. I know that there is

a great deal of compassion for the Iraqi people. The administration

has compassion. Saddam Hussein does not have compassion for his

people, and there is a way that he can get out from under the sanctions—by following through on what the U.N. requirements are.

He is now selling more oil for food and medicine than ever before, and we allowed that because we wanted the Iraqi people to

have what they needed. But I find the misrepresentation of facts

about the sanctions regime—not by you, but generally—misplaced

in terms of saying that we are the ones keeping the Iraqi people

from having food and medicine. There never has been an embargo

on food and medicine. The only thing that has been lacking was the

26

money for Saddam Hussein to allow that, and the pumping of oil

has now allowed that.

Senator BROWNBACK. Madam Secretary, my time is almost up. I

would note to you that we are conferencing hopefully as Members

this afternoon on the sex trafficking bill that we have worked on,

and I talked to Under Secretary Loy about this, and I would be

happy to have the State Department’s support.

We really need to get at that dark side of the new globalization

of the trafficking in human beings, and I am very hopeful, with

strong administration support I hope we will have, we will be able

to get this though and to the President shortly.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. I think it is a very important issue. I raise

it whenever I can in bilateral meetings, and I am very proud of the

lead that we have all taken on this. It is a horrible crime, and we

need to deal with it.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that we have a quick 3-minute round,

and then I am going to throw it open to you at the end, and things

that you wanted to say that were not asked, I want you to have

this wind-up time.

I want to ask about NATO. In the couple of years, a little more

than, we added Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, we have

not only improved the security of those countries, we have revitalized NATO, I think, and we worked together on that very well.

Is there any reason why, in 2002, the next administration should

not extend invitations to other Central European democracies if

they are qualified?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, first of all, as I said in my remarks,

I think one of the best things we did together was NATO enlargement. I think that it revitalized the alliance, as you have said, and

showed its relevance for the 21st century. I know the benefits of

it already, because those countries are side-by-side with us in the

Balkans and have contributed in a variety of ways and have improved their own defense capabilities, and understand the responsibilities that come with membership.

I believe that enlargement should be an open, ongoing process if

the countries are ready. It is not a gift. NATO membership is not

a gift. It is a responsibility. We now have the membership action

plan which enables countries to get ready.

The CHAIRMAN. Last week, we had before this committee two

young Cuban doctors, one of them a lady, one of them a gentleman,

who defected in Zimbabwe back in May, and who had been kidnaped by Cuban officials who tried unsuccessfully to force them

back to Havana.

I was stunned to discover that before they were kidnaped they

had visited the U.S. Embassy in Zimbabwe on two separate occasions pleading for asylum, even telling the U.S. consular office that

they were being harassed by Cuban authorities. Both times, they

were turned away because the embassy refused to help them until

they were interviewed by the United Nations refugee office. Now,

these were not just another couple of refugees. They were defectors

from one of the world’s last Stalinist regimes.

Now, what I want to know, Madam Secretary, is, can the State

Department do anything to ensure that such people get the urgent

27

sanctuary they need and, when such defectors finally reach the

United States, what can the State Department do to help get visas

to their families so that they can join them in this country?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think you know that my

record on Cuba is clear, and I have utilized every option we have

to get the Government of Cuba to reunite families and to allow the

people to emigrate freely. The issue here, however, is that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the

host country has the responsibility to protect the people seeking

protected status around the world. We cannot provide protective

status to anyone outside our borders.

In the case of these Cuban doctors, after they had approached

both the Canadian and U.S. Embassies, according to standard procedure, they were, as you said, referred to the U.N. High Commissioner. Once it was determined that they were in need of third

country resettlement, officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Services traveled to Zimbabwe and interviewed these two people. They were, however, placed in detention by the Government of

Zimbabwe, and we pressed the Government of Zimbabwe for their

release, both publicly and privately.

Now, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner continued to

work with the Government of Zimbabwe to authorize their release

from detention and departure from Zimbabwe. The Government of

Zimbabwe, insisted as a condition of their departure that they not

be resettled directly in the United States. The Government of Sweden agreed to receive the two of them and, once in Sweden, the two

approached the U.S. Embassy and their processing for resettlement

in the United States was completed.

Now, a complicating factor is that, as it turns out, publicity on

these two cases proved to be counterproductive, and so we generally are declining comment in the interest of those who are seeking asylum. These situations end up being highly complicated, and

I think that the problem here is that it ultimately got resolved. I

think, nonetheless, that we need to be very careful in how we discuss this.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the embassy personnel in

Zimbabwe handled it right?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Excuse me?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the embassy personnel handled it

properly?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. I do believe so, because it was their responsibility to turn it over to the U.N. High Commissioner.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, fine.

Senator.

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 3 minutes is not a lot of time, so I am going to run down a couple of

quick issues, and if you do not get a chance to respond to them in

the time left, maybe at the end of the——

[Due to technical difficulties, a portion of the taped record was

lost at this point. The Committee regrets the omission.]

The report is a compromise report, and it is working its way

through parliament. On this issue, obviously, we have great respect

28

for our ally, Great Britain, and what they are trying to do here, but

it is very, very important, it seems, to many people who are closely

watching the events in Northern Ireland that there be full implementation if we are going to be successful in attracting both communities to the policing forces in Northern Ireland, and the present

arrangement, the reason for the Patton report, was to try and figure out ways to break down those barriers, and so I would be very

interested in whether or not there is something more the administration can be doing, or what it is doing with regard to that.

On Peru, Madam Secretary, back in 1996 Senator Leahy and I

wrote a letter to the Central Intelligence Agency about our concerns over Mr. Montessino, and what our relationship was with

him 5 years ago. We obviously supported, along with the Organization of American States, putting some pressure on Panama to accept him, and I wonder if you might, if time permits here, to go

into that a little bit, and then whether or not you think there is

going to be successful negotiations between Mr. Fujimori and the

opposition parties about a new round of elections.

Last, with regard to Mexico, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and

I have introduced legislation to postpone for 1 year the certification

process on the drug issue to allow for President-elect Vincente Fox

and our government to try and work on a better relationship here

in terms of dealing with the drug issue.

As you know, I have for years thought we ought to come up with

a new process here. The certification process has been counterproductive, in my view, on the drug issue, but I would be interested

to know, No. 1, whether or not the administration would support

the legislation Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and I have introduced, and some broader thoughts possibly on the certification

process for the incoming administration.

I apologize for racing here, but we are only going to have a few

minutes left, so it is sort of a shopping center. You have got a little

bit of time if you want to respond to a couple of these, and I will

wait around for your response to the others.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Yes. Definitely a warning to Colombia, and

we made that very clear.

On the Northern Ireland issue, I think we continue to think that

the Good Friday agreement really offers the best chance for some

solution to this. We also believe that there are realistic prospects

for putting all the paramilitary weapons beyond use within the

context of that, and the Patton Commission offers the possibilities.

We have been talking about this, and we urge the parties to engage

with the de Chastelain Commission and agree with each other on

a variety of these important goals. I can tell you that when we

were in New York we did talk to the parties involved, and I can

assure you that we continue to work on that.

On Peru, I think the Montessino case is one in which it was very

important from talking to our Latin American friends that he not

be involved in the Peruvian situation at the moment. It is very

fragile and there were genuine risks that greater instability might

be created. We supported his going to Panama, but we are not supporting impunity, so that he is not free of the charges against him.

I do believe that it is important to support the next round of elections. We will do everything we can through the OAS mechanism,

29

which I think, in fact, had a role in moving Fujimori forward to

take this decision. I think our best hope here is to work with our

OAS friends—and the Canadians have taken a role in this. They

have a representative now in Lima, and we should continue to

work through them.

I hope very much that we can ultimately move to some kind of

an international mechanism on certification. I think that is the

way to go, and I hope that this is not overreaching, but I think that

such a mechanism should be named after Senator Coverdell.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, ma’am.

Senator Biden has returned. He went to express the sympathy

of all of us to former Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who lost his

wife. We thank you for doing that, and we are in the midst of a

second round, but we had one round of 5 minutes, and this one

is——

Senator BIDEN. I will not take 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this is a second round of 3 minutes. You

go ahead.

Senator BIDEN. I will just ask one question, if I may. With regard

to the Middle East, can you please let me know, let us know,

Madam Secretary, the status of where we are right now, and the

consequence, if any, of Ambassador Indyk no longer being a part

of that process.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. First of all, let me indicate where we are—

we are clearly in the end stretch here. I do believe, and this goes

back to a question that Senator Grams asked, that President Clinton has a unique role in terms of having the confidence of the

Israelis and the Palestinians, and the ability to bring the parties

together as best we can through a variety of methods. These include getting them to understand where the gaps are and where

and how they can come together. As was evident from the papers,

Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak had dinner together

last night. Negotiators are coming here in order for us to continue

our work. We are giving it the full court press, and I hope very

much that we succeed. But as I said before, unless the leaders

themselves make the hard decisions, we cannot do that for them.

You asked previously about Ambassador Indyk, and let me say

that I have found this a very difficult situation. The professionals

within the Department of State made a recommendation that Ambassador Indyk’s security clearance be suspended pending the outcome of an investigation of suspected violations of the Department

of State’s security procedures.

I would just like to say for the record that there has been no indication that any intelligence information was compromised at this

time. This is a question of security procedures that have not been

followed. Ambassador Indyk is cooperating fully with the diplomatic security and FBI investigators, and has stated that he will

continue to do so. I have asked the Diplomatic Security Bureau to

conduct this investigation in an expedited manner.

Now, I did have the opportunity to overturn this and it was very

difficult. Ambassador Indyk is a good friend, and I respect his work

very highly. I also believe, however, that it is essential that government-wide security procedures, which we are following in the State

30

Department, need to be abided by. I also believe that it is important to get this investigation concluded quickly.

Obviously, he will be missed within the peace process. He was

a very important player, but there are others involved as well. Ambassador Ross I think is well-known to you and has everybody’s respect, and has been the lead in this and will continue to be. Nonetheless, I hope very much that this is resolved quickly, and let me

just say that, contrary to some newspaper headlines, the Ambassador’s security clearance has been suspended, but his title and position have not. However, as this deals with the Privacy Act I think

that that is as far as I should go.

Senator BIDEN. Well, at 4:30 today, as I understand, Mr. Chairman, we are—if my schedule is correct. I was not sure if it was

today or tomorrow, but 4:30 today I think we are receiving a briefing on this matter——

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Correct, yes.

Senator BIDEN [continuing]. In a secure setting.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Correct.

Senator BIDEN. So I look forward to hearing that at the time. I

appreciate your response, Madam Secretary, and I thank the chairman for his time.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Put very simply, Senator, I think that you

know what is already a difficult task has not been made any easier

as a result of this.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Albright,

as you touched upon this in your statement, just scarcely over a

year ago American Armed Forces and NATO allies were involved

in substantial military action in Yugoslavia.

Now, just a year later, what seems to have been totally unexpected then has happened. Namely, an election has occurred in the

country, although the official returns, unless something has occurred while we have been here, have not been made known.

It is reported that President Milosevic’s wife, his supporters have

been in conference for a long time, that the count has been suspended, or at least announcements of it, and it has all the elements

that would seem obvious of a regime trying to decide what to do,

given an election that had an unexpected turnout, perhaps an unexpected result.

Now, while they are conferring, what I would hope you might describe to us, if it is not confidential, is what we are doing in terms

of conference. Are we in touch with our major NATO allies, and in

addition, neighboring states, Hungary, for example, the Bulgarians,

the Romanians, who will have a fall-out from a situation that can

become volatile.

You and others have described this as a fateful moment, when

you finally come to the end of a regime which may not want to go,

and the violence that could occur could affect other states, including our Armed Forces who are in Kosovo, so I believe this is a very,

very tense moment.

It is on the front pages of the paper, but I do not think the American people have the sense of urgency about this that they may

need to have, given steps that you may need to take. Can you give

us any indication of what you are doing?

31

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, first of all, I do think that there have

been a lot of nay-sayers about the importance of the Balkans to the

United States, about what we have been doing, was this worth it,

et cetera, et cetera.

Now, the story is not over, as I said in my remarks, but I have

believed that the Balkans and their integration into a free Europe

is essential for American peace and prosperity. It is the missing

piece of a Europe that is whole and free. Therefore, while it may

have taken a little longer than some people would have liked, I

think we have done the right thing. Of the various things I am

very proud of—having taken a little bit of flack on this subject— I do think that our role in the Balkans is a very important step

forward.

Believe me, we have been in very close consultation. All along— and at some stage I will write about this—the consultations with

our major allies, within the stability pact, and with the neighboring

states on the Balkans have been the closest that I think have ever

existed on a real-time basis.

We have and are continuing to be concerned about Montenegro

and have made quite clear that that is of concern to us. I cannot

go into detail, but I can honestly tell you that we have looked at

this very, very carefully and in very close consultation. We are just

hoping very much that the will of the Serbian people, who have

come out in record numbers, is respected by Milosevic, and that we

will be in a position to welcome a free Serbia, Yugoslavia, into the

community of nations, and be able to render them assistance once

Milosevic is gone, and sanctions are lifted.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Amen.

All right, Mr. Hagel.

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Madam Secretary, I know national missile defense is not in your

portfolio exactly, but I would be very interested in getting your perspective on national missile defense, from the perspective of viewing it through your lens on our geopolitical strategic relationships

in the world. What yet needs to be done in order to implement a

national missile defense system? What worked with our allies?

Within your portfolio, your general assignment responsibilities,

and your grasp of the world, we would be interested in hearing

your thoughts.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. When President Clinton made his decision,

he did say that it was a system that needed to continue to be

looked at, and that it was something that was worth having for

American defense but that it was not technically ready, and I think

that is the basis.

From the work that the State Department did, I think we have

to look at our defense. We obviously have to do everything we can

to protect the United States within an overall framework of what

does not undermine what we already have. I believe that the ABM

treaty is important, that there is a way that it can be adjusted that

would allow for a national missile defense program to go forward.

Our allies were not persuaded, and the Russians were not persuaded, and I think that what needs to happen is that the next administration should work very closely with our allies, based on the

32

work that we have already done. They should explain our position

to the Russians and the Chinese and the others. I think that the

groundwork laid by this administration has been very important

and very useful. I hope that the next administration looks into all

of this in an appropriate way. We cannot do this completely alone.

Senator HAGEL. You mentioned you believe that the ABM treaty

could be adjusted in order to implement a national missile defense

treaty. Could you explain that?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. I think in the past there have been amendments to the ABM treaty. It can be done, so that the ABM treaty

is vibrant and useful, and the Russians and the United States have

to work on that.

Senator HAGEL. Any specific thought you have on that adjustment?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. I would prefer not to go into that.

Senator HAGEL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Grams.

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

Madam Secretary, to followup on Senator Biden’s concerns about

Ambassador Indyk, during my ongoing dialog with the State Department officials over the Department’s security procedures over

the last several months, the Ambassador’s situation was never

brought to the committee’s attention. It required an anonymous

caller to a committee staffer to alert us to this case.

Now, understanding all the confidentiality surrounding this, I believe it would be better for the Department to alert the committee

to such sensitive ongoing investigations so that we are not caught

by surprise, as I was over the weekend, so should we not reach

some kind of an agreement by which you would provide periodic

updates to the committee on these types of sensitive but important

matters?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, let me first of all say that I believe we

have been handling this in a most responsible way. We have obligations to the Intelligence Committee. They were briefed, I believe,

at the appropriate time. Your staffers were there. I think that we

also have to consider the Privacy Act and due process aspect of

this. I feel comfortable that we handled this in an appropriate way

that protects the security of the United States as well as the rights

of the individual involved.

Senator GRAMS. So your feeling is you will not share this information, then, in the future under certain——

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, I think that we have to do this on a

case-by-case basis and understand when something is ready to be

briefed. We have to think in this atmosphere a little bit about how

to protect due process.

I stand down to no one in my determination to get things right

at the State Department on security issues, and I have worked

very hard on this. The Department over many, many, many years

had a different approach to this. I have zero tolerance for security

breaches, and I have made that very clear. As I said, this was a

very hard decision, but I think that we have to be careful as we

look at this not to begin to impinge on people’s privacy and rights.

We will share information as quickly as we possibly can, and I

33

frankly do not believe that it took an anonymous caller. We were

making decisions to do this.

Senator GRAMS. Well, there appears to have been a 9-day period

between the time when the diplomatic security recommendation

that the Ambassador’s security clearance would be suspended, and

when that suspension occurred, and the briefing to the Intelligence

Committee and my staff did not occur until after the anonymous

call, so would there have been a briefing if that call had not been

made?

Secretary ALBRIGHT. There would have been a briefing when we

believed that we had all the facts in place. I believe that the Secretary of State has the right to look at issues carefully and be able

to make sure that things are done right. Let me just say, in terms

of the way this was done, once the recommendation to suspend his

clearance was made, it was expeditiously reviewed within the Department because we wanted to do the right thing once this was

completed, we took the appropriate action to suspend and to brief.

I honestly think that we have done the right thing in this, in

terms of protecting security, recognizing the appropriate role that

Congress needs to play in this and protecting the privacy and the

rights of the individual involved in this.

Senator GRAMS. I take you at your word, but the timing does—

it leaves some questions. So thank you very much, Madam Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. Now then, I said before your return that I made

a hundred speeches, good speeches, after the speech was delivered

and I was driving home.

Senator BIDEN. As a matter of fact, I have withdrawn a number

of my comments I made on my way home.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I suggested to the distinguished Secretary

of State that at the conclusion of questioning she must have a

dozen things on her mind that maybe she would like to discuss,

and we would be glad to hear from you.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is characteristic of your kindness that you would allow

this.

I believe that we have accomplished a lot in these years, and at

a time that is so transitional and changing that it has given us

huge opportunities and challenges. I believe that together we have

gotten the world ready for 21st century foreign policy, but it is not

there yet. The issues are quite different than they ever have been,

and obviously take a much greater breadth of knowledge than either people on our side of the table or yours have had to confront

previously.

I did not ever think that I would be in a position of discussing

genetically modified corn with the Foreign Minister of France or

Italy, for instance, or that I would have to know as much as I do

about the spread of HIV/AIDS and what kinds of medicines it

takes, or about every detail of what happens in a country in Africa

that did not exist when I graduated from college. So I think we

need to widen our scope about what we know and what we care

about.

While you and I, I think, have had a remarkable relationship

and I hope that it is noted, I honestly wish we had more bipartiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:12 Mar 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69749 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
34

sanship, or nonpartisanship. I think that it would make a big difference, and I truly do believe that when somebody represents

America, as we do, that we should try to be as unified as we can,

and that we represent the greatest country in the world, so I would

really like to see more bipartisanship.

I agree with what Senator Lugar was saying about the necessity

to explain our foreign policy better to the American public. It is a

little hard to do, given the way the media operates these days, and

how one must get complicated issues out very quickly. When I

leave, because I am a teacher, I am going to try very hard to make

American foreign policy even more understandable to the American

people, because a democracy cannot operate without the American

people understanding. I fully believe that the American people are

the most generous people in the world, and they do the right thing

when they understand it. We just dedicated our building to Harry

Truman, and he had ultimate faith in the American people, and I

know you do, too.

I also have the greatest faith in the people who help us represent

America. They are fine people who work very hard within a very,

very difficult context. They do not have the money that we need to

carry out our programs. Our buildings are not as secure as they

should be. As I have said, there is a great deal of compassion for

the American military, and I have it for them also. I have the highest respect for the American military, but I want our diplomats to

be seen in the same way. They serve America in very dangerous

places, and they sacrifice their lives and they are very, very good

people. I need your help in getting our nominees out to their posts

so we are properly represented around the world.

And to say finally, I am very grateful to you and Senator Biden

for all the time we have spent on the phone and here in various

meetings. You have been great partners, and I hope it is not all

over yet. We have a lot more to do, and I am not going too far

away. I will be always very pleased to appear before this committee

in whatever role I am in.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask Senator Biden, is it in order if all of

us give her a hand?

[Applause.]

Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thanks a lot. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe that has ever been done before.

Secretary ALBRIGHT. I believe not.

Senator BIDEN. Surely no Secretary of State has ever curtsied before.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it has been our pleasure, and we have got

some weeks ahead, and we will be on the telephone and so forth.

But thank you for being a great friend, and a great servant of the

American people.

If there be no further business to come before the committee, we

stand in recess.

[Whereupon, the committee recessed.]

35

STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and to thank Secretary

Albright for being here today.

I regret that I am unable to stay at the hearing in order to ask questions today.

An objection has been made to committee meetings past 11:30 a.m., and I respect

the right of my colleagues to use all procedural tools at their disposal. I respect the

rules of the Senate, but I also respect the motive for this particular objection—the

need to respond to the refusal of the majority to allow action on the nominations

of several excellent judicial nominees who have been denied a vote and an opportunity to be confirmed.

Secretary Albright, your tenure as Ambassador to the United Nations, and then

as Secretary of State, has coincided exactly with my tenure as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Both of your confirmation hearings, your subsequent excellent performance, and the strong relationship that you have forged with the committee are among my fondest and most satisfying memories of this committee’s work.

This hearing is an ambitious one. The committee intends to examine an eight-year

record of policy toward the entire world. No doubt members’ questions will take us

into the weeds of specific decisions relating to individual countries. But I would like

to take this opportunity to make a few general remarks about the big picture—the

course of American foreign policy since I joined the Senate in 1993.

America has borne, and will continue to bear, great responsibility as the world’s sole superpower. This country, more than any other, can affect the course of this

new century, and already has affected the shape the ‘‘post-Cold War era’’ that we

examine today.

History teaches us that great powers often become the enemies of progress, because they perceive their interests to lie in maintaining the status quo. Great powers tend to enforce and maintain the international order from which they profit and

draw strength. I believe that the challenge before this Administration, and before

American foreign policy in general, is one of balancing this imperative for order and

stability with another imperative, drawn from our national character and national

values, to seek justice and respect for the basic rights of men and women around

the world. History has also taught us that order without justice will eventually rot

from within. In our own lifetimes, we have seen empires and orders crumble—from

the independence movements of the 1960s to the collapse of the Soviet Union—because they could not contain the pressure within for greater justice, for human

rights, and for liberty. When this country has supported corrupt orders and turned

a blind eye to injustice, we have only undermined our own interests, and betrayed

our own values, in the end.

The pursuit of a balance between justice and order, then, has been the fundamental task before this Administration. I fear that the Administration has sometimes been distracted from this pursuit. For example, I have been distressed by a

tendency to segregate human rights issues from other items on the foreign policy

agenda. I believe that we must not ‘‘de-link’’ human rights from trade or security

issues. We must raise human rights consistently at the highest levels, in bilateral

talks and in multilateral fora. I believe that that the Administration’s critics are

right when they insist that labor rights should be raised in the context of global

trade negotiations. I fear that our China policy will suffer from the recent push to

end the annual Congressional review of China’s human rights record. And I believe

that the influence of money in politics goes a long way toward explaining some of

this deviation from our core foreign policy goal.

That said, this Administration has shown remarkable vigor in embracing new democracies around the globe. State accountability to citizens and the rule of law are

two of the strongest bulwarks against oppression, and this Administration has admirably worked to increase the number of genuine democracies in the international

community. The Administration has made progress in the Middle East, forged important new relationships in Europe, and has engaged the countries of Africa at

higher levels than ever before. Most recently, the Administration has devoted significant resources and high-level attention to the terrible the HIV/AIDS epidemic

and the crippling debt crisis, recognizing the impossibility of maintaining order or

justice in a world in which poverty is a death sentence.

There is much to applaud, and much more to be done. If I had been able to stay

and ask questions, I would have touched on a number of these unresolved and critically important issues. For example, this past weekend, the Indonesian army has

begun to confiscate weapons from militia groups in West Timor. How credible that

36

effort is remains to be seen. I would have liked an opportunity to explore what the

Administration plans to do if the latest Indonesian effort does not prove to be significant, and particularly to learn whether the Administration willing to delay the

October’s international donors’ meeting for Indonesia if there is no progress on this

issue.

Turning to Africa, where so many urgent needs go unmet and so many critically

important issues remain unresolved, I would have explored the Administration’s plans for monitoring the West African troops that the U.S. is currently training for

participation in UNAMSIL. Certainly some these troops are likely to see very ugly

combat; the RUF has proven its willingness to test international forces time and

again. However, there are lines that should not be crossed, even in serious combat

situations. I hope that the Administration plans to monitor the human rights performance of the troops we train, and to monitor the involvement of U.S.-trained

troops in illicit diamond smuggling, an accusation recently leveled at Nigerian

troops in Sierra Leone.

In addition, the war in DRC continues to exact a terrible human cost, and the

status of the Lusaka agreement remains uncertain. The DRC conflict is very much

the outcome of central Africa’s recent history, and is inextricably linked to the crises

in Rwanda and Burundi, crises which this Administration has seen unfold over its

tenure. Many observers believe that the conflict cannot be resolved as long as there

is no accountability for crimes against humanity in the region—and therefore no imperative to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate activities. I hope that the

Administration is working to address the need for accountability in Congo and Burundi.

Finally, turning to a major, unresolved issue to which this Administration admirably devoted a great deal of time and energy, I am interested in the status of the

Middle East peace process, and in the status of Syria’s position towards Israel.

My own questions and interests bear out the Secretary’s opening remarks. There

is much yet to be done, and the world does not stand still for American elections.

I hope that the Administration will continue to work toward peace and justice in

the months ahead, and I trust that Secretary Albright will continue to insist that

U.S. foreign policy reflects U.S. values throughout the remaining days of the Administration.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO SECRETARY ALBRIGHT SUBMITTED FOR

THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE

RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JESSE HELMS

EMBASSY TEMPORARY SANCTUARY

Question. In your remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concerning the two Cuban defectors in Zimbabwe, you indicated that American Embassies cannot provide emergency protection for citizens of allied or enslaved states

who, like the two Cuban doctors, come to our embassies in hostile third states to

seek temporary sanctuary owing to an imminent danger of some kind.

There are well known instances in the recent past of Western embassies providing

sanctuary or other assistance to American officials or travelers during emergencies

in third countries. One such instance reportedly occurred in 1978 when Iranian revolutionaries attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran, and the Canadian Embassy assisted a number of our citizens in their efforts to escape from Iran.

Your answer to the Committee sent a clear message to friendly nations and peoples around the world, namely, that they may no longer count on the American embassy for such extraordinary temporary assistance when their officials or citizens

are in distress. Logically, American officials and travelers could pay a corresponding

price.

Is this the message which you intended to convey?

Answer. That is not the message I intended to convey. Our diplomatic and consular posts throughout the world have been instructed that, subject to the paramount importance of the safety and security of the mission and its personnel, temporary refuge may be provided to individuals of any nationality in extraordinary circumstances of imminent physical danger or imminent danger of involuntary repatriation to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution. As discussed

in response to the second part of your question, it was the correct judgment of our

embassy in Zimbabwe (as well as the Canadian Embassy), based on the evidence

and information available at the time, that such extraordinary circumstances were

37

not present when the two Cuban doctors initially approached the embassy and were

properly referred to the local Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees (UNHCR). In any case where asylum seekers or those claiming refugee

status walk into a U.S. diplomatic or consular post, the assistance that can be provided is constrained by many practical realities, including the general need to respect host country law and the ultimate dependence of the mission and its personnel

on host government authorities for safety and security. In the Department’s experience, such cases are normally best handled by local authorities and/or UNHCR.

Moreover, publicity can be counterproductive, as was the case in Zimbabwe. With

regard to the assertion that friendly nations and Peoples around the world might

no longer be able to ‘‘count on’’ the local American embassy, I would note that the

record shows just the opposite has been true for many years. In case after case

where noncombatant evacuations have been necessary, it has been the American

embassy that has organized the friendly diplomatic and civilian communities so that

the evacuation can be carried out (normally by the U.S. military).

Question. It is our understanding that two Cuban doctors were turned away from

our embassy in Harare recently because the State Department did not consider

them to be in imminent danger which turned out to be a gravely mistaken judgement. In light of the extraordinary efforts of the Castro regime to recapture these

doctors, as well as Castro’s predictable response to the spate of defections by Cubans

on other humanitarian missions, what steps will you take to alert American embassies to take special care in ensuring the security of Cubans seeking asylum?

Finally, please provide the Legal Adviser’s explanation of the premise that the

United States embassy in Harare was completely powerless to provide any assistance whatsoever to these defectors, and had no alternative to approaching the

UNHCR.

Answer. As indicated in response to the first question, the guidance received by

our diplomatic and consular posts concerning the handling of such cases is not based

on nationality but is the same for all individuals without regard to nationality. And

the test for temporary refuge is the same for all: are they in imminent physical danger or in imminent danger of involuntary repatriation to a country where they have

a well-founded fear of persecution? Whether or not temporary refuge is given, an

eventual status determination by the host government (if appropriate or in imminent danger of involuntary repatriation to a country where they have a well-founded

fear of persecution? Whether or not temporary refuge is given, an eventual status

determination by the host government (if appropriate refugee screening procedures

are in place), or otherwise by UNHCR, is the way to determine if the individuals

concerned are in fact refugees.

My statement was not intended to leave the impression that our embassy in

Harare was ‘‘completely powerless’’ to provide assistance to the two Cubans or that

there was ‘‘no alternative’’ to approaching UNHCR. There are substantial practical

limitations on the nature and extent of the assistance we can give, particularly in

a difficult environment such as Zimbabwe in this case. Moreover, in the absence of

imminent danger to the two Cubans, there was no good alternative to approaching

UNHCR (or referring the Cubans to UNHCR) and that doing so was fully consistent

with the standing instructions given Embassy Harare and all other U.S. diplomatic

and consular Posts. We are pleased that UNHCR’s intervention with the Government of Zimbabwe was ultimately successful and that the two Cuban doctors were

allowed to depart safely for Sweden. As you know, they were subsequently approved

by INS for admission to the United States.

STATE DEPARTMENT RETIREES

Question. Why has the State Department decided to bar Foreign Service and Civil

Service retirees from Main State and the Annexes unless they obtain escorts? Please

list all security incidents involving retirees. Does the State Department issue renewable identification cards to its Foreign Service and Civil Service retirees? How does

the State Department’s new policy on escorts for retirees compare with Department

of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency policies for their retirees? May former

Presidents or Secretaries of State enter Main State or the Annexes at will, and

without an escort?

Answer. In response to several well-publicized and unacceptable security incidents

at the Department including the bugging of a seventh floor conference room and a

missing lap-top possessing highly classified material, a top down review of security

procedures in place at the Main State Department building was conducted. Following this review, a stricter visitor policy to the building was put in place wherein

all visitors must be escorted while in the building. On September 1, 2000, this policy

was extended to include State Department retirees.

38

The purpose of this policy was never to prohibit retirees from entering the building but was instituted in an effort to only allow unescorted access inside the building to individuals who have active employment status or activities within the Department. Retirees are welcome to visit the State Department albeit with an escort

from the office they are visiting.

The Department’s records of security incidents involving the possible compromise

of classified information do not reflect the employment status of the violator. Therefore we cannot conduct such a search of our records. However, by definition retirees

are no longer employees of the U.S. Government and the Department would not

issue a security incident to retirees as it would to active employees. Retirees fall

into the same category as uncleared Americans visiting our facilities. Although retirees may have held security clearances in the past upon separation with the U.S.

Government any security clearances they may have once held are withdrawn. Allow

me to reiterate that the recent tightening of our visitor policy was not focused on

any incidents involving retirees but rather it was an attempt to adopt a stricter,

more uniform access control policy.

The Department continues to issue renewable photo retirement cards, which identify the holder as a former Foreign Service Officer or Civil Service employee. Before

September 1, 2000, this card allowed the bearer unescorted access inside the building. Although this identification card continues to be issued by the Bureau of

Human Resources Office of Retirement, the card may no longer be utilized for

unescorted access within the Department’s facilities.

All intelligence community agencies have retiree escort requirements. The Department of Defense’s policy for the Pentagon is similar to the Department’s policy as

it requires retirees to be escorted. Limiting unescorted access to individuals who

have an active employment status or activities with the Department is a reasonable

measure in line with access control policies in most similar institutions.

Former Presidents or Secretaries of State would not be allowed access to Department facilities without an escort, but the issue is a moot one as these individuals

would receive an escort as a matter of protocol.

CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS

Question. Now that both houses of Congress have voted for PNTR for China, how

will the Administration exert effective pressure for human rights improvements?

Answer. We believe principled, purposeful engagement with China on human

rights is the most effective way to influence China’s human rights practices over the

long term.

Our long-standing policy combines vigorous external focus on the human rights

situation in China with support for internal reform trends and continued economic

development. Our strategy will not change post-PNTR. We will continue to tell it

as it is.

Our annual Human Rights Report in February documented the marked deterioration of the human rights situation in China throughout 1999, highlighting the sharp

limits the government sets on how much freedom it will tolerate and its failure to

protect freedom of association, assembly, expression, religion and conscience.

Our second annual Report on International Religious Freedom this September

spotlighted persecution of persons in China for peacefully practicing religious or

spiritual beliefs. The report was the basis for the decision to continue the designation of China as a country of particular concern for violations of religious freedom.

We also press this issue multilaterally. Last spring, we sponsored a UN Commission on Human Rights resolution on human rights abuses in China. Although China’s ‘‘no-action’’ motion blocked passage of our resolution, we focused international

attention on this important issue.

In our bilateral contacts with Chinese leaders, we have urged repeatedly, led by

the President’s personal initiatives, that China live up to its international commitments to respect fundamental freedoms.

We are committed to continuing to press the Chinese government to meet its

international obligations to respect fundamental human rights.

CHINA EXECUTIVE-CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION

Question. Would you favor beefing up the role of the new Executive-Congressional

Commission on China by posting staff for commission in Beijing and Lhasa, and seeing a debate each year in Congress on the commission’s report and recommendations?

Answer. The Executive-Congressional Commission on China provides a valuable

forum for research, discussion, and analysis of the human rights situation in China.

We look forward to cooperating with the Commission.

39

We do not believe it is appropriate for the Commission to post its personnel in

China.

As the Commission conducts its review function, it will have access to the reporting from our Embassy and Consulates in China. We look forward to working with

the Commission to ensure we provide the information the Commission needs.

Of course, we always welcome a constructive debate in Congress, but believe that

pursuing such a debate is a question for the Congress to decide.

CHINA: U.S.-CHINA LABOR DIALOGUE

Question. Will Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman go to China this fall to press

for respect for workers’ rights? She was invited by the Chinese to visit last year,

and though USTR and Commerce have sent high level delegations on trade issues,

Labor has yet to engage Beijing on serious violations of worker rights.

Answer. The Administration remains deeply concerned about violations of worker

rights in China. Pursuant to a 1998 agreement that established a bilateral labor

dialogue with China, Secretary Herman hosted Zhang Zuoji, China’s Minister of

Labor and Social Security, for meetings in Washington in March 1999. As part of

those meetings, the issues of worker rights and compliance with fundamental principles of the International Labor Organization were discussed at length. Secretary

Herman asked that Minister Zhang take steps to comply with findings of the ILO’s

Committee on Freedom of Association, including the release of prisoners that the

ILO has determined appear to be incarcerated in China for legitimate trade union

activities.

In addition, the Deputy Under Secretary of Labor, the head of the U.S. delegation

to the ILO Governing Body meetings, has repeatedly spoken in support of the adoption of the findings and recommendations in ILO cases that relate to incarcerations

of labor leaders and the inconsistency in the law and practice in China with regard

to ILO norms on basic labor rights. The Deputy Under Secretary also visited China

last year to continue discussions on the labor dialogue on issues related to core labor

standards.

The originally scheduled dates for Secretary Herman’s visit to China were postponed by the Chinese. Secretary Herman continues to have under consideration the

current invitation from the Chinese for such a visit, and she continues to give high

priority to such a visit, particularly in light of the new labor elements contained in

the PNTR legislation approved by the Congress.

BURMA

Question. On July 19 the U.S. Senate passed a resolution, which calls for sustaining current economic and political sanctions against Burma. It also calls for the

U.S. to seek multilateral support of the U.S. sanctions policy. Please inform the

committee of efforts made by the State Department to garner concrete measures

from our allies in Asia and Europe to help the Burmese people.

Answer. We have worked hard to garner strong multilateral support for our sanctions policy. The European Union has joined us in implementing a variety of sanctions on the Burmese military government including suspending the Generalized

System of Preferences (GSP), instituting an arms embargo, limiting official government-to-government assistance to humanitarian aid only, and banning the issuance

of visas to high-level military officers and government officials. Switzerland recently

moved to freeze the assets of Burmese military officers. Japan has suspended the

bulk of its Official Development Assistance (ODA) program. We are also working

with key allies and like-minded countries in the ILO to secure the unprecedented

application of Article 33 sanctions against the Burmese regime in response to its

forced labor practices. Application of Article 33 entails an ILO recommendation that

all ILO members review their political and economic relationship with Burma and

pursue relevant sanctions as appropriate.

WEST TIMOR AND INDONESIA

Question 1. This past weekend, the Indonesian army has begun to confiscate

weapons from militia groups on the West Timor/East Timor border, but has the effort been significant or mainly for public relations effect?

Answer. We have made clear to the Indonesian government that failure to take

decisive action to disarm the militias could harm Jakarta’s relations with the U.S.

and the rest of the International Community. The militias remain a threat to peace

and security in the East Timor/West Timor border region and they must be disarmed to eliminate the threat to public order and safety.

40

Indonesia has invited the UN Security Council to send a delegation to Indonesia

to review progress in the implementation of UNSCR 1272 (1999) and 1319 (2000).

Indonesia’s plan for dealing with the militias called for a period of voluntary arms

surrender to be followed by weapons seizures. We note that after the short period

of voluntary surrender of arms, the government has moved to an interim phase it

calls ‘‘persuasion,’’ and it is conducting sweeps to look for weapons. The Indonesian

government has indicated that 81 standard automatic weapons, 1,140 homemade

weapons, 69 grenades and 8,111 rounds of ammunition have been surrendered. Estimates of the number of weapons still in militia possession vary, but it is clear the

process of confiscating weapons is far from complete. We have repeatedly urged the

government to continue and intensify their activity until the militias are effectively

disarmed and arrest militia leaders suspected of crimes and human rights abuses.

We also expect the government will take steps to disband the militias, as called for

by the Security Council. To date, the government has taken few steps to meet this

requirement.

Question 2. Has there been any serious effort made by the Indonesian authorities

to arrest Eurico Guterres and other militia leaders, either for their role in East

Timor last year or on illegal weapons charges?

Answer. The Indonesian police arrested Eurico Guterres on October 4 on charges

of illegal weapons possession and for inciting his followers to reclaim weapons handed over to the Indonesian authorities in West Timor on September 24. We welcome

his arrest as a first step in ending militia violence in East and West Timor and hope

the Indonesian authorities will conduct a thorough investigation into his activities.

This investigation must include his possible involvement in the Atambua attack on

September 6 in which three UNHCR workers—including a U.S. citizen—were brutally murdered. This investigation must also include his alleged involvement in

atrocities committed in East Timor following the independence referendum in August 1999, for which the Indonesian Attorney General’s office has named him as a

suspect. We will closely follow the Indonesian investigation of Eurico Guterres, and

we look for additional investigations of militia leaders.

Question 3. What arrangement, if any, has been made for the repatriation of refugees wishing to return to East Timor? What needs to be done to create the necessary safe conditions for the return of UNHCR and other relief workers?

Answer. Spontaneous, small-scale repatriation to East Timor of refugees continues

despite the evacuation of almost all expatriate relief workers. Returnees make their

own way to the border where they are received and assisted by the UN. More organized, larger-scale repatriation will require security in West Timor so that refugees

are free to choose to go to East Timor and so that relief agencies can be present

to assist with the movements.

The Government of Indonesia has initiated an effort to confiscate weapons belonging to militias operating in West Timor but to date the effort has been insufficient

to ensure security and the GOI has not established a deadline for this task to be

completed. It is crucial that disarmament and disbanding of militia succeed in order

to allow refugees in West Timor the opportunity to decide in peace where they wish

to settle, and to bring peace to the citizens of West Timor. In addition, UNHCR

workers will not be able to return to assist until their security is assured.

The United States government has contributed over $75 million in humanitarian

assistance for victims of the conflict, including refugees in West Timor, since the crisis in the territory began in September 1999. An additional $25 million has been

provided by the United States government for employment generation and economic

support efforts in East Timor over the last fiscal year.

Question 4. Does the U.S. support the formation of an independent fact finding

team to investigate who was responsible for the murder of UN workers, local villagers and a militia leader on September 5th and 6th as the Indonesian Human

Rights Commission has recommended?

Answer. We place great importance on a thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the terrible murders of UNHCR workers and Timorese

residents in Atambua on September 5th and 6th. We strongly support UN Security

Council Resolution 1319, which calls for the Indonesian government to bring the

perpetrators of these crimes to justice. The Indonesian government has pledged to

comply with the terms of Resolution 1319. We have repeatedly urged Indonesia’s

leaders to fulfill this commitment and pursue their investigation in a vigorous, expeditious, and credible fashion—emphasizing the need for concrete results rather than

rhetoric. We welcome the planned Security Council mission to Indonesian—including West Timor—scheduled for November, which will review Indonesian progress in

complying with Resolution 1319. We will continue to follow closely the progress of

41

the Indonesian investigation, which has led to the arrest of seven suspects to date.

While we support a credible Indonesian investigation as the best way of proceeding,

we will have to consider an international mechanism if the Indonesian-led process

does not prove to be credible.

Question 5. Is the Administration engaged in discussions with other donors and

the World Bank on how best to use the international donor meeting for Indonesia

in Tokyo, Oct. 18-19, to press for concrete progress to end human rights abuses in

West Timor, Aceh, the Moluccas, and elsewhere? Will the U.S., along with the EU.

and others, try to delay the meeting if the crisis on the West Timor border is not

satisfactorily resolved?

Answer. The USG has led efforts among major donors to discuss ways in which

the Consultative Group for Indonesia (CGI) can be used as a forum to express the

grave concerns of the international community regarding the need for Indonesia to

make real progress in implementing USCR 1319 and resolving the problems in West

Timor. We have been successful in coordinating our CGI statements with those of

most other major donors to emphasize that continued economic support for Indonesia will depend in part on progress in resolving the country’s problems in its provinces. The USG determined that this coordinated action at the CGI was more practicable and acceptable to other donors than attempting to delay the CGI.

CAMBODIA: KHMER ROUGE TRIBUNAL

Question. The negotiations between the UN and Cambodia over creating a tribunal to bring Khmer Rouge leaders to justice appear to be at a standstill. What

can the U.S. do to help jumpstart the process, while not compromising on the highest possible international standards for conducting such trials? Do you expect the

UN and the Cambodian government to sign an MOU this year?

Answer. In April of this year, the UN and the Royal Government of Cambodia

(RGC) agreed in principle on the conditions necessary to create Extraordinary

Chambers of the Cambodian Court to try former senior Khmer Rouge leaders for

crimes committed during their regime (1975–1979). In July, both sides reaffirmed

their intention to create and conduct such Extraordinary Chambers.

The next step will be for the Cambodian National Assembly to debate and pass

a law implementing the Extraordinary Chambers and permitting international participation in the Cambodian Court for the purpose of bringing former senior Khmer

Rouge leaders to justice. We understand that the legislative committee of the National Assembly has begun the necessary first step of reviewing the articles of the

draft law with representatives of the Royal Government of Cambodia. The committee must finish reviewing the legislation, then present it to the National Assembly at large. Once the legislation has been passed, the UN and the RGC will be able

to sign a formal MOU.

Our Ambassador in Phnom Penh has been discussing the timetable for possible

presentation of the legislation to the National Assembly with the highest levels of

the Cambodian government. The RGC has assured us that consideration of the draft

legislation will resume as soon as possible, given delays caused by recent massive

flooding in Cambodia. We have consistently urged the RGC to move forward as

quickly as possible on this matter, and will continue to do so at every opportunity.

CAMBODIA: DEMOBILIZATION OF MILITARY

Question. Reintegration of factional armies into the Royal Cambodian Armed

forces, and demobilization of Cambodia’s bloated military, is now a priority. The

U.S. is one of the funders of Cambodia’s demobilization program. What steps can

be taken to insure that military enrollment does not increase with either real or

phantom troops as the demobilization program is implemented, that weapons are

actually confiscated, and that elite forces in Phnom Penh—as well as provincial

forces and commune-level militia—are included in the demobilization program?

Answer. The U.S. provides no assistance to Cambodia for the demobilization effort, although the World Bank, to which the U.S. contributes, will provide funding.

The demobilization process for the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF) serves

a twofold purpose: demilitarization of armed forces which have swelled from thirty

years of war and civil strife, and reshaping the national budget to allocate more resources to social needs. Demobilization remains a crucial condition for broader and

continued international financial aid and loans.

A pilot program conducted earlier this year by the RGC demobilized 1,500 soldiers, and was undertaken to help assess the costs of conducting larger-scale demobilization and to determine an equitable level of compensation to be allotted to each

demobilized soldier. The pilot program has two components, (1) immediate demobiliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:12 Mar 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69749 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
42

zation of soldiers with one year’s compensation, and confiscation of arms, and (2)

provision of training and development of infrastructure to provide sustainable income to the demobilized. The crucial second phase has not yet occurred due to delayed funding from donors. The RGC has said it will not proceed with the full demobilization until the pilot program is complete.

The RCAF has completed a computerized registration of all soldiers and has produced numerical targets for demobilization based on this accounting. Currently

there is no recruitment into the RCAF and donors will closely monitor the demobilization effort and military budget. Elite forces (e.g., body guard and special forces

units) are not targeted for demobilization under the demobilization program, nor are

provincial militias, which fall under the authority of the Ministry of Interior, rather

than the RCAF. We will continue to press the RGC to proceed with a separate demobilization of militia and police.

VIETNAM—RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Question. The Communist Government in Vietnam continues to ban independent

religious activities and repress religious practitioners who want to exercise their

freedom of religion. Mr. Truong Van Thuc, a Hoa Hao Buddhist, will be tried today

along with: Nguyen Chau Lang, Tran Van Be Cao, and Tran Nguyen Huon for

crimes described as defaming the government and abusing democracy.

Madam Secretary, how will you and others in the Administration initiate strong

and immediate intervention with the Government of Vietnam on behalf of the above

Hoa Hao Buddhists and urge their early release from prison?

Answer. The State Department deplores all restrictions on religious freedom. Department officials, along with our Embassy in Hanoi and our Consulate in Ho Chi

Minh City, frankly and frequently express to the Vietnamese Government our concerns about religious freedom. During my September 21 meeting with Vietnamese

Foreign Minister Nien, I pressed the issue of Vietnamese Government harassment

of religious adherents who do not belong to officially-recognized religious organizations. Former Ambassador for International Religious Freedom Seiple discussed this

issue at length with the Vietnamese during the last meeting of our Human Rights

Dialogue. Ambassador Peterson regularly raises these issues at the highest levels

of the government in Hanoi. While immediate results may not be apparent, our engagement with the Vietnamese Government on this issue has contributed to the release of some persons who have been detained for religious practices. We will continue to monitor religious freedom in Vietnam, and to urge that the Vietnamese

Government respect the basic right to freedom of religion.

VIETNAM—HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PRESIDENT’S TRIP

Question. How will President Clinton’s upcoming visit to Vietnam be used to promote significant improvements in human rights and ensure that Vietnam’s progress

in political reform keeps pace with economic change?

Answer. President Clinton’s upcoming visit to Vietnam will promote U.S. policy

goals as part of a strategy of engagement with Vietnam. The President will use his

meetings with Vietnam’s leaders to press for the fullest possible accounting for

American POW/MIAs, freedom of emigration, and respect for human rights and religious freedom. He will also encourage them to continue with economic reform, to

provide increased opportunities to U.S. business, and to contribute constructively to

Asian regional stability.

VIETNAM—PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Question. What will President Clinton do both prior to and during his visit to

press for significant, realistic and tangible progress in human rights, specifically in

tenns of addressing the harassment and silencing of government critics and restrictions on basic rights of free expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion,

and freedom of the press?

Answer. As the State Department’s annual human rights reports make clear, this

Administration is well aware that Vietnam has a long way to go to meet international standards of respect for human rights. While the White House is the most

appropriate source for information about the President’s specific actions and activities, I fully expect that the President will use his meetings with Vietnam’s leaders

to underscore our concerns about Vietnam’s performance in the realm of human

rights.

43

U.S.-VIETNAM HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE

Question. How can the U.S. beef up its bilateral human rights ‘‘dialogue’’ meetings

with Vietnam, which since 1994 have led to little or no substantial progress beyond

providing a forum for exchange and discussion?

Answer. The annual Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam, which began in 1992,

has become increasingly frank and substantive. These exchanges have served as a

vehicle for demonstrating to Vietnam that the recognition of international human

rights principles is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. While progress may be slow

in coming, we are convinced that, over time, Vietnam will see that its interests will

be best served by adhering to international standards of respect for human rights.

VIETNAM—PRESIDENTIAL TRIP THEMES

Question. Does the President intend to apologize to Vietnam for our involvement

in the Vietnam War?

Answer. While the White House is the most appropriate source for information

about the President’s specific actions and activities, we do not expect the President

to apologize to Vietnam for the United States role in Vietnam.

MALAYSIA: IMPRISONMENT OF ANWAR IBRAHIM

Question. Does the State Department still oppose the imprisonment of Dato Seri

Anwar? Are efforts being made to bring up the treatment of Dato Seri Anwar and

other Malaysian political prisoners in bilateral discussion? Will you instruct our

Ambassador to Malaysia to do everything possible to pressure the Malaysian government to release Dato Seri Anwar?

Answer. We have repeatedly stated our concerns about Anwar Ibrahim’s situation,

and have joined others in openly questioning, on many occasions, the fairness of his

treatment. We have made our concerns about Anwar and other Malaysian human

rights issues known to the government of Malaysia, and will continue to do so. The

strong views we conveyed to the Malaysian government have been reflected as well

in many public statements about this matter.

Our statements have cited concerns about his detention under Malaysia’s Internal

Security Act and his treatment in prison. We have publicly criticized questionable

aspects of his initial trial. On the conclusion of his most recent trial in early August

on a second set of charges, our spokesman issued statement expressing our further

outrage over this new conviction and the heavy sentences meted out to Anwar and

his adopted brother Sukma. The statement also highlighted our concerns over the

many questionable legal procedures that arose during Anwar’s trial.

The U.S. Government considers Anwar to be a political prisoner and has identified him as such in the Department’s Human Rights Report.

MALAYSIA: DOING BUSINESS IN MALAYSIA

Question. What is the State Department doing to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens

doing business in Malaysia; and is the State Department currently warning Americans who wish to do business in Malaysia about the arbitrary nature of that country’s judicial system?

Answer. The Department of State’s annual human rights report notes that ‘‘Since

1988, Government action, constitutional amendments, legislation restricting judicial

review, and other factors have eroded judtcial independence and have strengthened

executive influence over the judiciary.’’ The American business community in Malaysia, of course, is well aware of the situation with regard to the Malaysian judiciary.

However, we have had no report of improper judicial actions against American investors. The American Embassy works closely with the American Chamber of Commerce in Malaysia and its members and regularly briefs visiting American business

executives. In discussions with American firms and individuals considering investments in Malaysia and other foreign countries, as a matter of course we urge them

to review carefully all available and pertinent information on their possible investment destinations. We will continue to do so.

CHINA PROLIFERATION SANCTIONS, JAPAN WHALING SANCTIONS

Question. On September 13, the Clinton-Gore Administration helped defeat a Senate amendment that would have provided for sanctions against China for its proliferation activities around the world. On that very day, the Administration announced that it was initiating sanctions against Japan because Japan had resumed

whaling.

44

So here we have the Clinton-Gore Administration refusing to sanction an adversarial nation, China, over a critical national security threat—nuclear proliferation,

while simultaneously sanctioning a treaty ally, Japan, over a manifestly trivial

issue—whaling.

Why should this not be viewed as an example of misplaced foreign policy priorities?

Answer. Nonproliferation is one of the most important issues for this Administration and is a key component in our relationship with China. As has been pointed

out many times, we have serious concerns about the missile- and weapons of mass

destruction-related export activities of Chinese entities. We have sanctioned Chinese

entities before (1991, 1993, and 1997) for proliferation-related activities, and we will

do so again if warranted.

The question is not one of commitment, therefore, but of results. We continue to

believe that our current approach is the most effective way to make progress with

China in the nonproliferation area. Our 1997 agreement on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the accompanying strengthening of China’s nuclear related export

control regime is a case in point. We will not relent in our efforts to bring China’s policies and practices in line with international norms.

As for the response to the expanded Japanese whaling program, the Administration does not consider this a trivial matter. Despite international protection, Japan

expanded its North Pacific lethal ‘‘scientific’’ whaling program to include two endangered or threatened species, the sperm and Brydes whales. Commerce Secretary Mineta certified Japan under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act

of 1967, a law that requires the Secretary to notify the President whenever the Secretary determines that a country is taking actions that undermine the effectiveness

of an international fishery conservation program—in this case, that of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The certification triggers a process for the

President to consider trade measures against Japan and requires him to report to

Congress within sixty days on any action taken by him pursuant to the certification.

Our goal is an outcome that protects this threatened resource and strengthens the

effectiveness of the IWC.

HONG KONG

Question. Why did the Clinton-Gore Administration deem the recent Hong Kong

elections as ‘‘free and fair,’’ when more than 50 percent of the seats in Hong Kong’s

legislature were not democratically chosen and in fact were packed with people who

are loyal to the Communist Chinese government?

Answer. The Administration’s assessment that Hong Kong’s elections were ‘‘free

and fair’’ referred to the conduct of the electoral process. Most observers, including

democratic parties and civic organizations, agree that the elections were widely contested and free of fraud or malfeasance. Restrictions on campaign spending and regulations requiring equal airtime were rigorously and fairly enforced. The Administration recognizes that only 24 of the 60 Legislative Council seats are fully democratic, i.e., directly elected by Hong Kong’s people. We have never endorsed the British instituted system of ‘‘functional constituencies’’ or the ‘‘Election Committee’’ by

which the other 36 seats were elected by significantly smaller numbers of voters.

However, there have been no reports that any of those ‘‘closed circle’’ elections were

characterized by fraud.

In addition to commenting on constitutional limitations on the power of the legislature, the State Department’s press statement on the elections also noted that

Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, states the election of all members of

the legislative council by universal suffrage is the ‘‘ultimate aim.’’ The United States

continues to push for increased democratization in Hong Kong at a pace the people

of Hong Kong want.

RESPONSES OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE

RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GORDON SMITH

NATO ENLARGEMENT

Question 1. Are there any Central European states that are prepared today to join

the Alliance?

Answer. NATO has not made any decisions on extending invitations to any of the

nine self-designated aspirant countries—Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. At the April 1999 Washington

45

Summit, NATO agreed to review this process at its next summit, which will be held

no later than 2002.

The Administration, however, strongly supports an Open Door policy on NATO

enlargement. President Clinton has stated: ‘‘NATO’s door is and will remain open

to every Partner nation, and America is determined to create the conditions under

which [aspirant countries] can one day walk through that door.’’ Under the Membership Action Plan, NATO with full U.S. participation is working with the aspirants

to help them become as strong candidates as they possibly can.

The aspirant countries are fully engaged in the MAP process in order to enhance

their candidacies for eventual membership in the Alliance.

Question 2. As you know, Madam Secretary, at the Washington Summit, the Alliance committed to address the issue of NATO enlargement in 2002. What, specifically, is the Clinton Administration doing to encourage our current Allies to be more

supportive of NATO enlargement in 2002?

Answer. We remain committed to establishing a Europe that is whole and free,

and—pursuant to that policy—NATO enlargement remains a high priority. As

NATO moves toward its next summit in 2002, the U.S. and its Allies focus on the

issue in both bilateral and multilateral contexts. For example, via NATO’s Membership Action Plan, Allies regularly meet in a structured program and review the efforts of the nine aspirant countries to improve their candidacies for membership.

Most recently, during their meeting in Florence in May, NATO’s foreign ministers

reaffirmed the Alliance commitment to remain open to new members. Also in May,

all nine foreign ministers of aspirant countries, meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, underscored their commitment to taking the steps needed to fully implement their

MAP programs.

NATO will remain seized with this issue. Throughout the next year and into 2002

(the next summit is not yet scheduled but should take place the first half of that

year), Allies will continue to work with aspirants via MAP. The U.S. will also continue to offer aspirants advice in bilateral and regional contexts.

NATO

Question. How do you assess the performance of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech

Republic as new Allies?

Answer. NATO’s three newest members—Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic—are effectively integrating into the Alliance. All three are fully engaged in

NATO’s Defense Planning Process and are committed to providing the forces and

resources that NATO is asking of them. The three newest members can provide

military forces to NATO’s Reaction Forces and are supporting operations in the Balkans.

The defense budgets for the three countries have increased for the last three years

and, despite domestic economic challenges, each has committed to increase or maintain at year 2000 levels its defense expenditures for 2001. The greatest challenge

the three newest members face is the same faced by all NATO members: a lack of

sufficient financial resources to implement all of their modernization programs and

NATO Force Goals.

They continue to reform, restructure and modernize their military structures to

make them more mobile and more interoperable with other Allies’ militaries. Particular emphasis is being placed on personnel reform issues and on the replacement

or modernization of obsolete equipment.

The three new members engaged in Operation ALLIED FORCE and supported

NATO objectives. All three nations supported the air campaign by offering or providing the use of their airfields for the basing of NATO aircraft and troops and by

allowing the transit of NATO forces through their territory.

Further, all three nations provided financial assistance to Albanian refugees, accepted or agreed to take Albanian refugees from Kosovo, and deployed military

forces and aircraft to Albania in support of humanitarian operations. Currently,

each nation has military forces deployed in support of KFOR and SFOR.

The three new members, particularly the Czech Republic, gave support to the

democratic opposition in Serbia. Additionally, the three new members are sharing

their experiences in preparing for NATO membership and providing invaluable assistance to those nations aspiring to join the Alliance.

Overall—in a process that will take time to fully complete—I believe we must be

pleased with the record to date on the performance of Poland, Hungary, and the

Czech Republic as our newest NATO Allies.

46

EUROPE

Question 1. What impact do you expect the European Union’s new defense identity to have on the process of NATO enlargement? Is the EU focussing more on this

effort, than on the further inclusion of Central European countries in the Alliance?

Answer. ESDI/P and NATO enlargement both figure prominently on the transatlantic security agenda. Getting ESDI right means that the Alliance will also be

stronger. NATO has not made any decisions on extending invitations to any of the

nine self-designated aspirant countries. At the April 1999 Washington Summit,

NATO agreed that the door remains open to new members and they committed to

review the enlargement process at the next Alliance summit, to be held no later

than 2002. The May 2000 Florence Ministerial reaffirmed this commitment as

NATO Allies continue to work with aspirants via the Alliance’s Membership Action

Plan.

The EU has made a commitment to the further inclusion of new EU members in

order to establish a Europe that is whole and free. The U.S. supports development

of ESDI/P. The Open Door Policy on NATO enlargement, a successful ESDI/P as

part of an Alliance framework, and integration of transitory democracies in Central

Europe are mutually reinforcing developments.

Question 2. Would the EU headline goal, if fulfilled, substantially increase the

ability of our European NATO members to better contribute to a high-intensity

NATO military operation, such as the NATO bombing campaign in Serbia?

Answer. The EU Headline Goal aims to establish a rapid reaction EU force, consisting of 50,000-60,000 soldiers, capable of undertaking a range of crisis intervention missions—the so-called Petersburg tasks. If successfully implemented, the resulting enhanced European capabilities will benefit NATO as well as the EU. At the

Feira Summit in June, EU member states again reaffirmed that the Headline Goal

and NATO’s Defense Capabilities Initiative will be mutually reinforcing.

Successful implementation of ESDI/P and DCI would give the EU member states

in the Alliance the capabilities to carry a greater share of the burden in possible

peacekeeping operations. This is why we support ESDI/P—it will address the transatlantic gap in capabilities while ensuring that NATO as a whole will act when its

interests are at stake.

NATO/ICTY

Question. Did NATO’s review of its conduct during Operation Allied Force in response to the investigation by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former

Yugoslavia set a legal precedent that gives the Tribunal or any other international

organization the right to investigate NATO activities, including those involving U.S.

personnel?

Answer. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former

Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) is set out in UN Security Council Resolution 827 (1993). NATO

responded voluntarily to questions from the Prosecutor of ICTY, which were part

of an informal internal inquiry by ICTY and not a formal ‘‘investigation.’’ Voluntary

cooperation, by its nature, does not create a legal precedent. The United States policy is to cooperate fully with the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor, whether legally required to do so or not. We and ICTY consider this matter now closed.

RUSSIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY

Question 1. What steps has the Administration taken during the past year to indicate U.S. concerns about Russian Government interference in the internal affairs of

the Russian Jewish Community?

Answer. The Administration continues to make religious freedom in Russia a priority. Freedom of religion and the rights of religious communities to conduct their

internal affairs is an essential part of Russia’s democratic transition.

We have conveyed to the Russian Government in our bilateral meetings our concern that religious communities, including the Jewish community, be free to conduct

their internal affairs without government interference. The President, Secretary and

other USG officials have discussed religious freedom during their meetings with

senior Russian officials. Our views have also been put forward in public statements

and reports which, we know, are followed closely by the Russian Government.

Our Embassy maintains close contacts with all segments of the Jewish community

in Russia and meets regularly with Jewish leaders to discuss this and other issues

of importance to the community.

47

Question 2. How confident are you of the Russian Government’s commitment and

ability to safeguard the rights of Russia’s Jewish community, as well as other religious and ethnic minorities?

Answer. President Putin recently made a strong statement in support of the Russian Jewish community, noting the importance of religious pluralism and respect for

Russia’s traditional religions.

There have been statements and other actions by the Russian Government in recent weeks, however, that raise questions about the Russian Government’s attitudes

toward the Jewish Community. For example, on October 19, the police raided the

Choral Synagogue 19. Earlier this fall, an anti-Semitic article in the press was attributed to a member of the Presidential Administration.

We have called on the Russian Government to disavow these acts. In response,

the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that the Russian Government is

committed to protecting religious freedom.

The registration of religious groups and organizations required by Russia’s Law

on Religion is proceeding at a faster pace but there is some concern that all groups

will not be registered by the December 31 deadline. Many of the earlier registration

problems can be traced to confusing registration procedures or to local officials who

do not understand the process. In some instances, however, local officials have used

the process to discriminate against minority religions. In cases where the religious

denomination has filed suit, the courts have generally ruled in their favor.

We have urged Russian Government to do more to bring local officials and regulations in line with federal law and to give religious organizations every opportunity

to register. Russian Government officials have offered assurances that most all registrations will be approved by the deadline. Potentially hundreds of groups may not

be, but it is our understanding based on conversations with Russian Government

officials that those groups not registered will not automatically lose their juridical

status. Authorities must seek a court order before that status is withdrawn. This

is a different interpretation than what religious organizations were led to believe

earlier this year, and we hope that this is evidence that the government wishes to

be responsive to religious freedom concerns.

The Department and our embassy and consulates in Russia have actively supported religious freedom, regularly meeting with government and religious officials

and investigating reports of violations of religious freedom.

Æ