U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–423PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN A

CHALLENGING WORLD

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 14, 2018

Serial No. 115–142

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,

or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Carl Gershman, president, National Endowment for Democracy ................ 5

Mr. Daniel Twining, president, International Republican Institute ................... 12

Mr. Kenneth Wollack, president, National Democratic Institute ........................ 23

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Carl Gershman: Prepared statement .............................................................. 8

Mr. Daniel Twining: Prepared statement .............................................................. 15

Mr. Kenneth Wollack: Prepared statement ........................................................... 26

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 78

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 79

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Statement from the Democracy in Europe Working Group ...... 81

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 88

Written responses from the witnesses to questions submitted for the record 

by: 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey ................................................................................... 90

The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 111

The Honorable Ann Wagner, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri ......................................................................................................... 112

The Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada .......................................................................................................... 115

(1)

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN A

CHALLENGING WORLD 

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2018

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This committee will come to order. 

There is no doubt democracy is on the ropes. Freedom House reports that democracy has declined worldwide over the last decade. 

The question for us is do we care? And if so, what should we do 

about it? 

We better care. Democracy’s expansion brought unprecedented 

prosperity. America is more secure when fewer nations are authoritarian, which is the unfortunate alternative to democracy. 

Strongmen regimes justify their repression at home by creating 

enemies abroad. Since the freedom we enjoy is a threat to authoritarian regimes, the U.S. and our allies are natural targets of their 

aggression. 

We have seen this with Russia and China and North Korea, and 

I’d rather trade and do business with a democracy than with a regime. 

Democracy is morally just. Members of this committee have 

spent countless hours holding hearings, protesting, and fighting injustice abroad. Human rights are far better protected in democratic 

countries, ones without dank prison cells full of political prisoners. 

Democracy is more than just elections. Democracy without the 

foundation of rule of law or individual liberties, a free press, and 

a culture of tolerance is dangerous populism or mob rule. 

We’ve seen that in Burma, South Sudan, Gaza, and too many 

other places. Democratic values are universal. Of course, each 

country will develop democracy in different ways and at a different 

pace, and we may have differences over how best to promote democracy in various countries, especially given our strategic interests. 

But we should always remember that, as Ronald Reagan noted 

in his 1982 Westminster speech, free elections are enshrined in the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

At home, we must maintain the decades-old bipartisan consensus 

that democracy is a core element of U.S. foreign policy. 

2

That is why it is important to have the National Endowment for 

Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and the National Democratic Institute here today, and that is why it’s important that Congress continues to adequately fund these institutions. 

Promoting democracy is not easy. There are many stresses, including destabilizing mass refugee flows and accelerating economic 

change. 

Mistakes have been made, but lessons have been learned. These 

include the need to promote women in building and supporting democracy. 

Compounding the challenge, authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China are aggressively attacking democracies across the 

globe, including attacking our own democracy. 

As one witness will note, these attacks are broad, political, economic, and they are cultural. Beijing is spending billions, using the 

technology revolution to surveille its citizens at home while spreading propaganda abroad. 

I have seen Moscow’s assault on its neighbors firsthand. We better wake up to this threat. Now. 

For years, our great Nation has inspired countless individuals to 

seek freedom in their homelands. Some have been tortured, murdered for their democratic commitment. 

Many have succeeded. Our wonderful legacy of leadership on this 

issue has given us power and influence. We must protect and nurture our own democracy for that to continue. 

And I will momentarily turn to our ranking member, Mr. Eliot 

Engel from New York, for his opening statement here this morning 

as well. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses, 

welcome. I want to especially thank Ken Wollack for 35 years of 

service. Congratulations on your retirement in September. 

Your organizations do incredible work promoting democracy 

around the world, making governments more accountable and responsive and shining the light on abuses and corruption. 

It’s such important work because around the world democracy, 

unfortunately, is backsliding. According to the Freedom in the 

World report, democracy and global freedom has declined around 

the world for 12 straight years. 

In Africa, while we have seen a slight opening of political systems, in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Gambia, and elsewhere, in Burundi, 

Rwanda, and the Republic of the Congo, the new normal has become constitutional coups, which is term limited incumbents changing the rules so they can stay in power. 

When I was in Africa with the chairman we tried to speak to the 

leadership about this but, of course, they wouldn’t speak with us 

because they knew what we were going to say. 

Tanzania and Zambia show warning signs of creeping 

authoritarianism, and more and more governments are shutting 

down the internet to stifle dissent and buy time to tamper with 

election results. 

In the Middle East, Tunisia’s progress has been inspiring and we 

should help improve the climate for foreign investment there. But 

it’s another story in Egypt, where draconian laws have limited the 

ability of civil society to operate. 

3

And I am a friend of Egypt, so it really pains me when I say this. 

The recent elections in Iraq are overshadowed by reports of fraud, 

which should be cleared up by full recounts before forming a new 

government. 

Across Europe, democratic practices have steadily eroded. Turkey’s President, Erdogan, has consolidated power and cracked 

down on dissent. It’s just really disgraceful what’s going on in Turkey. 

In Hungary, refugees and migrants face hostility from the higher 

levels of government. In Poland, free speech and an independent 

judiciary are under attack. 

Now, much of this is driven by Russia, a fake democracy, whose 

leader, Vladimir Putin, seeks to undermine Western unity and discredit democratic institutions. 

Since 2014, in Asia, there has been a military coup in Thailand, 

a populist leader elected in the Philippines, who shoots people on 

sight because the thinks they are involved with drugs, ethnic 

cleansing in Burma at the hands of the military—very disappointing. 

Cambodia’s prime minister of 33 years has neutralized political 

opposition and China grows more aggressive in oppressing its own 

citizens, quietly promoting its authoritarian model around the 

world as an alternative to Western democratic values and chipping 

away at international norms. 

Here in our neighborhood in our hemisphere, Nicholas Maduro 

has turned Venezuela into a full-blown dictatorship with sham 

elections, political prisoners, and a denial of the country’s humanitarian crisis. 

Taken together, these cases and others become a problem for our 

national security. The United States wants to see vibrant democracies around the world, countries that share our values and priorities. 

Strong democracies make strong partners. When we collaborate 

with like-minded governments, we are better able to meet challenges, project stability, and drive prosperity. 

On the other hand, the greatest threats we face come from places 

where governments are closed off, where human rights aren’t a priority, where ordinary citizens have less of a say in choosing their 

leaders. 

These are the places where vulnerable people are exploited and 

extremism is able to take root. So promoting democracy, helping to 

advance our democratic values around the world—the work that 

your three organizations do—as I say to the witnesses—should be 

at the center of our foreign policy. 

As I often say, it’s the right thing to do because democracy helps 

people live fuller freer lives and it’s also the smart thing to do because democracy is good for our security. 

That’s why it’s baffling that the administration has decided that 

democracy is no longer a foreign policy priority. The budgets the 

administration has sent us seek to slash investments in diplomacy 

and development by a third. 

So many of the efforts we make around the world to strengthen 

democracy would be hobbled if Congress went along with these draconian cuts. 

4

Thankfully, Congress did not. In Nicaragua, for example, 140 

people have been killed in the last 2 months, primarily at the 

hands of President Ortega’s thugs. 

The White House request for democracy assistance in Nicaragua 

for next year, zero. The three organizations represented today all 

rely on Federal grants to carry out their important work. Not if the 

administration gets its way. 

The State Department even removed democracy from its mission 

statement. What does that say about American values and American leadership? 

And on issues like this, leadership starts at the top. Democracy 

isn’t just under attack in distant places. The Economist’s Democracy Index recently downgraded the United States to flawed democracy as opposed to a full democracy. 

Just yesterday, the President tweeted, ‘‘Our country’s biggest 

enemy is the fake news so easily promulgated by fools.’’

Attacking the free press, the way I see it, is an attack on democracy. It’s an attack on a fundamental right in this country. 

Our President has spoken glowingly of Vladimir Putin, Saddam 

Hussein, Erdogan, Duterte in the Philippines, Xi in China, and, of 

course, in Singapore, he had nothing but kind words for Kim Jongun, a brutal dictator, a murderer, who rules over the most oppressive system in the world, all while attacking America’s closest 

friends like Canada. 

So the world looks to us to set an example, to show leadership, 

to advance our interests in a way that respects the dignity and 

rights of all people, and right now, I don’t believe we are sending 

the right message. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we 

can get back on track and revitalize democracy as part of our foreign policy. 

I thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

This morning, I am pleased to welcome our distinguished guests 

here on the panel, including Mr. Carl Gershman, who has served 

as president of the National Endowment for Democracy since its 

founding in 1984. 

He’s a long-time friend of this committee. He’s respected worldwide for his work, especially in his efforts to help peaceably end the 

Cold War and transition countries from behind the Iron Curtain to 

democracy, and he’s done this through nongovernmental action. 

Before his time at NED, he was the senior counselor to the 

United States representative to the United Nations, where he 

worked on international human rights issues. 

Mr. Daniel Twining is the president of the International Republican Institute and previously he served as the counselor and director of the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of the 

United States. He also worked here in Congress as a foreign policy 

advisor to Senator John McCain. 

And we have Mr. Kenneth Wollack. He is president of the National Democratic Institute, and he has co-edited the Middle East 

Policy Survey and written regularly on foreign affairs for the Los 

Angeles times. 

5

We wish him well on his retirement, but we are going to miss 

his active expertise on so many issues. 

We appreciate all of you being here today, especially given the 

contributions the three of you have made, and without objection, 

the witnesses’ full prepared statements will be made part of the 

record. 

Members here will have 5 legislative, or calendar, days to submit 

statements and questions and extraneous material for the record. 

So if you would, Mr. Gershman, please summarize your remarks 

and after we hear from the panel we will go to our questions. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CARL GERSHMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your long leadership and for your commitment to the cause of democracy throughout the world. We deeply appreciate it. 

I agree with you that democracy is on the ropes. Freedom House 

data and so forth, resurgent authoritarianism, democratic backsliding in many countries, the sharp power phenomenon that we 

have called attention to. 

But I want to devote myself this morning, if I may, to a more 

positive narrative, to take a look at something that I would call 

democratic resilience and also authoritarian vulnerability, and then 

what we can do practically to help, because I think it would be a 

mistake to assume that the decline of a democracy is inevitable or 

irreversible. 

I’d call your attention, for example, to some recent events, among 

them the remarkable democratic transition in Gambia; the fall of 

the corrupt Zuma government in South Africa; the stunning victory 

of democracy in Malaysia, and the freeing of opposition leader 

Anwar Ibrahim; the equally stunning triumph of democracy in Armenia; and the successful local elections in Tunisia that are, in my 

view, a decisive step forward in the Arab world’s first democracy. 

These are just a few of the examples that I could give of recent 

democratic advances. There is Slovakia, interesting developments 

in Ethiopia. Even in a country like Uzbekistan we can see some 

glimmerings of some opening. 

They show that we should never underestimate the desire of ordinary people for freedom and dignity or the extent of the anger 

at corrupt and unresponsive government officials. 

On the question of authoritarian vulnerability, the Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, is a failed system, in my view, which 

was shown by the protests that swept over the country less than 

6 months ago and that will certainly recur. 

The Bolivarian dictatorship in Venezuela and the Ortega regime 

in Nicaragua are also, in my view, failed systems, not to mention 

the Cuban and North Korean dictatorships as well as the stagnant 

Russian kleptocracy. 

China is projecting its military and economic power and threatening to spread its model of the totalitarian surveillance state. 

But while Xi’s regime may claim performance legitimacy because 

of its economic growth, it lacks political legitimacy. Why must Xi 

prohibit what he calls historical nihilism, meaning any discussion 

6

of the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Maoist disaster like the 

Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward? 

Why has it been necessary to eliminate a political dissident like 

Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo, to arrest hundreds of human rights 

lawyers, suppress the Christian house church movement in China 

and expunge the cultural and religious identity of Tibetan and 

Uighur minorities? 

By stoking nationalism to fill the void left by the death of Communist ideology, the regime just exposes its failure to develop values with broad appeal. 

Why, therefore, should we assume that the so-called China model 

will not also end up as Reagan said in that Westminster address 

‘‘on the ash heap of history?’’

We must not underestimate the immense challenge of building 

and consolidating stable democracies, and Congressman Engel referred to that. 

Democracy is hard work, especially in countries that are poor 

and that have experienced violent conflict, and it takes time and 

a great deal of effort. 

That means helping the people who share our democratic values 

and who want to build free societies governed by the rule of law 

is something we have to do. 

And so it is in that spirit that the NED and its institutes helps 

the kind of activists we honored last night, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for speaking at our event last night with the NED’s Democracy Awardees who are fighting to rescue the people of North 

Korea from enslavement and it’s remarkable work that they do and 

which we are supporting. 

It’s why we have supported people like Cynthia Gabriel, one of 

the recipients of last year’s Democracy Award, who led the effort 

to expose the massive corruption associated with the 1MDB scandal in Malaysia—Raphael Marques, another award recipient last 

year, who has led the fight against equally massive corruption in 

Angola and who is now on trial for allegedly insulting corrupt officials. 

Other examples include the support that NED has given in 

Ukraine to the Anti-Corruption Action Center that has tirelessly 

led the campaign for the establishment of an independent anti-corruption court, and I am pleased to report that just last week the 

Ukrainian Parliament at long last approved legislation to create 

such a court. 

Another important victory just occurred in Afghanistan where a 

daily newspaper that we support published an investigative report 

on the illegal issuance of diplomatic passports to Afghan strongmen 

and the government immediately cancelled over 4,000 such passports in Afghanistan. 

The last example is the nonpartisan training conducted by four 

NGOs in Tunisia of new candidates who participated in last 

month’s local elections. Of the 235 individuals who were trained, 

112 won seats and 25 were at the heads of their electoral lists. 

These elections have made democracy in Tunisia more inclusive 

and responsive, dealing a blow to ISIS, which has been able to recruit young people in Tunisia who are frustrated over the failure 

7

of the revolution to produce meaningful social and economic 

change. 

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and give many other examples of 

dedicated NED grantees whose work is advancing American values 

and security around the world. 

Our job is to empower such brave people and to let them know 

that they are not alone because they have the support of the American people and the American Congress, of course. 

This, I believe, is what Reagan meant when he said at Westminster that as important as military strength is, and I quote,

‘‘The ultimate determinant in the struggle that is now 

going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but 

a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the 

values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, and the ideals to 

which we are dedicated.’’

We can win this test of wills and ideas if we have the spiritual 

resolve to fight and to stand with the people and support people 

around the world who are struggling to build democratic societies. 

If we do this, we will make the world a safer and more peaceful 

place and the values upon which this Nation is founded will be 

strengthened as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gershman follows:]

8


30423a-1.eps

Testimony of Carl Gershman 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2018 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continued support for the National 

Endowment for Democracy. 

The NED was authorized by Congress in 1983 as an independent grant-making 

organization to fund brave actors on the front lines of the struggle for liberty in the world. We 

make grants to our four party, labor, and business core institutes, as well as some 1,400 small 

grants that we make annually to civil society groups, independent media, and other nongovernmental organizations. Such grants, along with initiatives such as the World Movement 

for Democracy that networks the activists we support, provide a coordinated, whole-of-society 

approach to aiding democracy. This approach makes the NED both effective and cost-effective. 

The Cold War ended more than a quarter of a century ago, but today the United States 

confronts enemies that are at least as dangerous as the Soviet Union was in 1983 when the NED 

was founded. lt is not a coincidence that the threats we face emanate from states that are 

dictatorships - above all China, Russia, and Iran. Supporting democracy and investing in 

democratic leaders and building democratic institutions are both moral and political imperatives. 

Systemic corruption, deep inequality and injustice, and the failure of governments to address the 

needs of ordinary citizens breed political instability, terrorism, and massive flows of refugeesconditions that threaten our own security and well-being. 

Authoritarian leaders have accelerated their efforts to penetrate and com1pt fragile states 

through aggressive political, economic and cultural mechanisms with the goal of purchasing 

political influence and securing strategic ports and resources. 

In this new era of contestation, China has claimed a larger role on the global stage and 

has sought to promote its own preferred ideas, norms, and models of governance. "Sharp 

Power," as described in a December 2017 report by NED's International Forum for Democratic 

Studies, seeks to pierce and penetrate targeted populations by manipulating and distorting the 

infonnation that reaches them. While there are differences in the shape and tone of the Chinese 

and Russian approaches, both stem from an ideological model that privileges state power over 

individual liberty and is fundamentally hostile to free expression, open debate, and independent 

thought. Beijing, which spends an estimated $10-15 billion on such Sharp Power efforts, is 

investing resources in media, academic, cultural, and think tank initiatives, even in consolidated 

democratic states, like Australia and New Zealand and in our own country as well. 

Democracy is being severely challenged today in many other ways. The latest Freedom 

House annual survey reports that civil and political rights in the world have declined for the l2'h 

consecutive year. As worrying as this trend is, I think it would be a serious mistake to assume 

that the decline of democracy is inevitable or irreversible. 
9


30423a-2.eps

Democracy was also thought to have been in decline in 1982 when Ronald Reagan 

delivered the Westminster Address that launched the bipartisan effort in Congress to pass the 

National Endowment for Democracy Act. The Solidarity Movement in Poland had just been 

suppressed, the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan, and the U.S. was still reeling from the 

defeat in Vietnam. 

Yet Reagan said that he saw a "democratic revolution gathering new strength" in the 

world, and he was right. What Samuel Htmtington was later to call "the third wave of 

democratization" was just gathering strength in the early 1980s, and while it was later to crest 

with the fall of authoritarian regimes in Latin America and East Asia and the collapse of 

communism in Central Europe and the Soviet Union, none of that could have been anticipated 

in 1982. 

I don't know if a fourth wave of democratization is now gathering strength, but we 

shouldn't discount that possibility. I would call your attention to some encouraging recent 

events- among them the remarkable democratic transition in The Gambia, the fall of the 

cormpt Zuma govemment in South Africa, the stunning victory of democracy in Malaysia and 

the freeing of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, the equally stunning triumph in Armenia of the 

democratic opposition, and the successful local elections in Ttmisia that are a decisive step 

forward in the Arab world's first democracy. 

These are just a few of the examples I could give of recent democratic advances. They 

show that we should never underestimate the desire of ordinary people for freedom and dignity, 

or the extent of the anger at corrupt and unresponsive government officials. 

Nor should we assume that strongmen always win. Many people thought communism 

would last forever because it had concentrated so much power in the hands of the ruling 

bureaucracy. Yet Reagan understood the vulnerability of closed and corrupt political systems, 

which is why he declared in his Westminster address that "the march of freedom and 

democracy ... willleave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other 

tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people." That vision 

remains relevant today. 

For example, the Islamic Republic oflran is a failed system, which was shown by the 

protests that swept over the country less than six months ago and that will certainly recur. The 

Bolivarian dictatorship in Venezuela and the Ortega regime in Nicaragua are also failed 

systems, not to mention Cuban and North Korea dictatorships, as well as the stagnant Russian 

kleptocracy. 

China is projecting its military and economic power and threatening to spread its model 

of a totalitarian surveillance state. But while Xi's regime may claim performance legitimacy 

because of its economic growth, it lacks political legitimacy because it was never freely elected, 

and its insecurity shows in many different ways. Why must Xi prohibit what he calls "historical 

nihilism, meaning any discussion of the Tiananmen massacre or such Maoist disasters like the 
10


30423a-3.eps

Cultural Revolution? Why has it been necessary to eliminate a peaceful dissident like the 

Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo, or to arrest hundreds of human rights lawyers, suppress the 

Christian house-church movement, and expunge the cultural and religious identity of the 

Tibetan and Uyghur minorities? By stoking nationalism to till the void left by the death of 

communist ideology, the regime just exposes its failure to develop values with broad appeal. 

Why, therefore, should we assume that the so-called "China model" will not also end up, 

as Reagan said, on the ash-heap of history? 

We must not underestimate the immense challenge of building and consolidating stable 

democracies. Democracy is hard work, especially in countries that are poor and that have 

experienced violent conflict. And it takes time. But "While we must be cautious about forcing 

the pace of change," as Reagan said at Westminster, "we must not hesitate to declare our 

ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them." 

That means helping people who share our democratic values and who want to build free 

societies governed by the rule oflaw. And so it is in that spirit the NED helps the kind of 

activists we honored last night with NED's Democracy Award who are fighting to rescue the 

people of North Korean from enslavement. 

It's why we have supported people like Cynthia Gabriel, one of the recipients of last 

year's Democracy Award, who led the effort to expose the massive corrnption associated with 

the lMDB scandal in Malaysia; and Rafael Marques, another Award recipient last year, who 

has led the fight against equally massive corruption in Angola and who is now on trial for 

allegedly insulting corrupt officials. 

Other examples include the support that NED has given in Ukraine to the AntiCorruption Action Center that has tirelessly led the campaign for the establishment of an 

independent anti-cormption court. I'm pleased to report that just last week the Ukrainian 

Parliament at long last approved legislation to create such a court. 

Another important victory just occurred in Afghanistan where the daily newspaper Hashte-Subh (Sam), another NED grantee, published an investigative report on the illegal issuance of 

diplomatic passports to Afghan strongmen and their families, leading the government to 

immediately cancel over 4,000 such passports. 

A last example is the non-partisan training conducted by four NGOs in Tunisia of new 

candidates who participated in last month's local elections. Of the 235 individuals who were 

trained, 112 won seats and 25 were the heads of their electoral lists. These elections have made 

democracy in Tunisia more inclusive and responsive, dealing a blow to ISIS which has been 

able to recruit young people in Tunisia who were frustrated over the failure of the revolution to 

produce meaningful social and economic change. 
11


30423a-4.eps

Mr. Chairman, 1 could give many other examples of dedicated NED grantees whose work 

is advancing American values and security in the world. Our job is to empower such brave 

people and to let them know that they are not alone because they have the support of the 

American people. 

This, I believe, is what Reagan meant when he said at Westminster that as important as 

our military strength is, "the ultimate detenninant in the struggle that's now going on in the 

world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the 

values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated." 

We can win this test of wills and ideas if we have the spiritual to fight to stand with and 

support people around the world who are fighting to build democratic societies. lfwe do, we 

will make the world a safer and more peaceful place for America and the values upon which 

this nation was founded. 
12

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Carl, for that testimony today. 

Thank you. 

Dan Twining. Say, Dan, turn that up or hit the button. There we 

go. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL TWINING, PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE 

Mr. TWINING. Got it. Got it. 

Thank you to all of you, the chairman and the ranking member, 

so many of you and so many in this body, for representing not only 

our country’s interest out in the world but the values that reinforce 

those interests, and I would like to argue that those aren’t separate 

things but one and the same. 

Last month, IRI honored Jim Mattis and Nikki Haley at our annual Freedom Dinner. We appreciated Chairman Royce’s participation, and other members of this committee. 

Secretary Mattis shared an observation that speaks to the heart 

of why America supports democracy in the world. Here’s what he 

said:

‘‘I have many privileged glimpses into the human condition, but I’ve never once seen human beings flee the freedom of speech. I never saw families on the run from the 

free practice of religion in the public square and, as a 

young Marine, I never picked anyone out of a life raft on 

the ocean, desperate to escape a free press.’’

By nurturing democracies abroad, by sharing best practices in responsive inclusive and just governance, IRI prepares the soil for 

that flourishing. 

Now, Secretary Mattis is no one’s idea of a starry-eyed idealist. 

His military experience led him to the conclusion that American 

power derives not just from our martial prowess but from our 

democratic ideals. Dictators and extremists who deprive their people of basic rights inevitably create problems that endanger our security at home. 

I would like to focus on the role of democracy assistance in managing four key threats to American security—violent extremism, 

uncontrolled mass migration, the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare, and 

Chinese sharp power. 

The first challenge is countering violent extremism. As the national security strategy points out, violent extremists groups 

‘‘thrive under conditions of state weakness and prey on the vulnerable, as they accelerate the breakdown of rules to create havens 

from which to plan and launch attacks on the United States,’’ and 

we can’t simply fight our way out of this problem. 

Democracy assistance is a vital tool on the preventative side, 

helping create conditions in which populations vulnerable to recruitment by extremists have peaceful outlets to express grievances 

and hold a stake in their societies. 

We at IRI carry out this work around the world from Nigeria to 

Indonesia to Bosnia. Our approach builds on public opinion research, leverages relations with political and civic actors. 

We really work to build local community resilience by directly engaging with vulnerable populations, particularly youth. 

13

The second challenge is uncontrolled mass migration. I am afraid 

we are living through the biggest refugee crisis since World War 

II. Conflicts in the Middle East are destabilizing not only that region but our core allies in Europe. 

Lawlessness in Latin America and Venezuela and Central America is producing migration, fuelling transnational crime, including 

human trafficking and the drug trade, with desperate populations 

fleeing the breakdown of law and order in search of a decent life 

elsewhere. 

The fallout from uncontrolled mass migration for U.S. interests 

is enormous. I don’t need to tell you. To address the drivers of this 

migration that so often washes up on American shores, IRI works 

with local and national governments as well as civic groups in Central America to strengthen the institutions that deliver citizens security so that people are less likely to flee their countries and more 

likely to build successful societies there at home in their own countries. 

The third challenge is the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare. Russia and 

China are looking to export their authoritarian models to undermine U.S. leadership and alliances. 

In Europe, the Kremlin is deploying a sophisticated information 

warfare campaign to undermine democratic institutions, erode citizen trust in democracy and wedge apart the transatlantic alliance. 

This form of warfare is particularly insidious—this political warfare—because it uses core features of democracy against us—exploiting our free media, manipulating false information, undermining confidence in electoral systems. 

IRI’s Beacon Project is engaged in a big line of work to leverage 

our relationships for European political parties and civil societies 

groups to track Russian misinformation including in many local 

languages and then to coordinate political responses to that. 

The fourth and final challenge is Chinese sharp power. The Chinese Communist Party uses sophisticated tactics to build political 

influence around the world. Their goal is to challenge and ultimately supplant America’s global leadership. 

Their authoritarian political model and leveraging of vast economic resources pulls smaller countries into China’s orbit. These 

activities contribute to political corruption and state capture by 

China, risk the creation of an expansive hostile sphere of influence 

that’s inimical to American interests. 

Fragile democracies are most vulnerable. Helping U.S. partners 

build political resiliency to protect their own sovereignty, to stand 

on their own two feet, and not be captured by a foreign authoritarian power is a vital U.S. interest, I would argue, and our work 

works with many countries to help protect them to prevent China 

suborning their democracies. 

I would also just mention some other opportunities. Anti-corruption programs that level the playing field for U.S. business in the 

world, programs on youth and women’s empowerment both speak 

to rising generations to include them in politics and, of course, to 

get greater female leadership in politics to stabilize and build 

peace. 

14

I would just close with the thought that we do face a really dangerous world. It’s perhaps more complicated and dangerous than 

any time including during the Cold War. 

I think it can be tempting to take refuge in a believe that democracy promotion somehow is a luxury we can’t afford. But democracy 

assistance is not about making ourselves feel good. 

It’s not just about doing the right thing. It’s a way of advancing 

American interests and American influence in a contested world. 

So thank you all for your continued support for this vital work. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Twining follows:]

15


30423b-1.eps

INTERNATIONAl 

REPUBLICAN 

INSTITUTE 

Democracy Promotion in a 

Challenging World 

Daniel Twining, 

U.S. HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

JUNE 14, 2018 
16


30423b-2.eps

Introduction 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, distinguished Members of the Committee, it is my 

pleasure to testify before you today on the topic of democracy promotion in a challenging 

world. 

Last month, the International Republican Institute (IRI) had the privilege of honoring 

Secretary of Defense james Mattis and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley at our annual Freedom 

Award dinner, for a truly inspiring evening that we were pleased Chairman Royce could 

join us to celebrate. In his remarks, Secretary Mattis shared an observation that speaks to 

the heart of what we mean when we talk about the importance of democracy promotion: 

"I had many privileged glimpses into the human condition, but I never once saw 

human beings flee the freedom of speech; I never saw families on the run from the 

free practice of religion in the public square; and as a young Marine, I never picked 

anybody out of a raft on the ocean desperate to escape a free press. By nurturing 

democracies abroad, by sharing best practices in responsive, inclusive and just 

governance, IRI prepares the soil for that flourishing." 

Secretary Mattis is no one's idea of a starry-eyed idealist. Through his decades of service in 

the military, he arrived at the conclusion that American power derives not just from our 

martial prowess, but ultimately from the democratic ideals that underpin and inform 

everything we do. In contrast, the societies that do not embrace those ideals inevitably 

create the problems that are driving some of the world's most difficult challenges. 

Today I will explore the irreplaceable role of democracy assistance in advancing U.S. 

strategic interests, focusing on four key threats: violent extremism, uncontrolled mass 

migration, the Kremlin's hybrid warfare and Chinese sharp power. 

CHALLENGE 1: COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM 

Nearly 17 years after 9/11, we have grown more or less accustomed to the ever-present 

threat of terrorism, and we are all too used to seeing lives destroyed and nations torn apart 

by this scourge. As the Trump Administration's National Security Strategy points out, 

violent extremist organizations "thrive under conditions of state weakness and prey on the 

vulnerable as they accelerate the breakdown of rules to create havens from which to plan 

and launch attacks on the United States, our allies, and our partners." In order to 

successfully combat extremism, we must look to the source of the problem. Sobering 

experience has taught us that a kinetic response, while necessary, is not sufficient to 
17


30423b-3.eps

address violent extremism. We cannot simply fight our way out of this problem but must 

also look to preventative measures. 

The dynamics that enable violent extremists to flourish are not just confined to the Middle 

East. For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, violent extremists intentionally exacerbate 

the country's legacy of interethnic conflict to drive radicalization in vulnerable 

communities. In young democracies like Bosnia, the problems attendant with developing 

institutions and residual difficulties in bridging the gap between citizens and government 

can create feelings of hopelessness that drive some toward the illusory promises of violent 

extremism. 

Our approach to this challenge must be multifaceted. Democracy assistance is a vital tool 

on the preventative side-helping to create the conditions in which populations that might 

otherwise be vulnerable to recruitment by violent extremists have peaceful outlets to 

express grievances and have a stake in their societies. 

IRI carries out this work in 13 countries around the world-working in a variety of 

contexts and adapting our approach to local conditions. IRI's institutional approach builds 

on public opinion research and leverages our extensive relationships with political parties, 

government officials, and civil society groups to address the unique challenges faced in 

each country. 

In Africa, IRI invests in building local community resilience by directly engaging with 

vulnerable populations-particularly youth-and supporting inter-religious dialogue that 

counters polarizing and extremist ideologies. In Tanzania, IRI's work includes engaging 

with youth, religious leaders and security organs to improve relationships, foster greater 

information sharing and build common understanding and partnerships that make 

communities more resilient to extremist threats. In Nigeria, the U.S. ambassador told me 

his greatest fear is that ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq only to reconstitute its selfproclaimed caliphate in northern Nigeria-but that IRI's work to give young people a voice 

in shaping Nigeria's future through political inclusion is one antidote to that risk. 

Southeast Asia is another target for recruitment by ISIS and its affiliates, who seek to gain a 

foothold among vulnerable populations in countries where democratic deficits and 

interethnic rivalries present opportunities for radicalization. In Indonesia, terrorism, 

ethno-religious conflict and intolerance have undermined the country's democratic 

progress since the fall of Suharto 20 years ago. !RI conducts focused public opinion 

research to better understand both the vulnerabilities to violent extremism and sources of 

resilience in this country, with the aim of better equipping stakeholders in the government, 

political parties and civil society organizations with the tools they need to combat this 

threat. 
18


30423b-4.eps

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, IRI is working to prevent violent extremism by strengthening 

democratic institutions, especially parliamentary caucus structures, and investing in 

programs that target the most vulnerable populations-namely, youth. We help strengthen 

institutions so that they can address the issues of greatest concern to citizens and reduce 

the sense of hopelessness that drives people to embrace terrorism. IRI's Western Balkans 

Task Force on Violent Extremism has been helping legislators and government officials 

design effective policies to prevent and counter terrorism-including helping to design a 

law to cope with foreign fighters returning from Syria. We also bridge gaps between 

communities that have suffered from interethnic strife so that these divisions are not 

manipulated by extremists who thrive on nurturing grievances. 

CHALLENGE 2: UNCONTROLLED MASS MIGRATION 

We are in the midst of the most significant refugee crisis since the Second World Warcreating monumental security and societal challenges and destabilizing entire regions, 

including not just conflict states in the Middle East but also our close allies in Europe. In 

our own hemisphere, uncontrolled mass migration fuels transnational crime, including 

human trafficking and the drug trade, as increasingly desperate populations flee the 

breakdown of law and order and governance in places like Venezuela and Central America 

in search of a decent life elsewhere. 

The fallout from uncontrolled migration around the world for U.S. interests is enormousundermining core security interests, weakening our allies, radicalizing new generations of 

young people, and costing billions in both direct humanitarian assistance and in the 

indirect problems caused by this destabilizing trend. 

Any successful approach to this complex problem must address the drivers of mass 

migration, often caused by the failure of government institutions to provide the conditions 

in which people can live with security and provide for their families. Corruption, the 

breakdown oflaw and order and citizen insecurity are key drivers of mass migration. 

IRI works with national and local governments and civil society organizations in 

Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to strengthen the institutions that deliver security 

and key services so that people will be less likely to flee and more likely to build successful 

societies at home. IRI helps citizens, governments, and law enforcement authorities to 

address public safety needs, making citizens an integral part of the solutions to the 

problems they are trying to escape. 

IRI has also worked with local governments in Guatemala to create Municipal Economic 

Development Offices (OMDELs) that help stimulate local economies. OMDELs provide 

4 
19


30423b-5.eps

citizens with technical and vocational trainings that have enhanced workforce readiness, 

produced a job-seeker database to help recruiters fill employment vacancies, and helped to 

drive the creation of private businesses. If governments can provide a minimum of citizen 

security and opportunity to their citizens, they are less likely to want to come to the United 

States and more likely to invest in their own country's future. 

CHALLENGE 3: KREMLIN HYBRID WARFARE 

In his National Security Strategy, President Trump put the challenge we face from the socalled "return of geopolitics" starkly: 

"China and Russia wantto shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests. 

China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the 

reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor. 

Russia seeks to restore its great power status and establish spheres of influence 

near its borders." 

Secretary Mattis' National Defense Strategy similarly warns that Russia and China both 

seek to export their authoritarian models in order to undermine U.S. leadership and the 

democratic world order the United States built with our allies after the Second World War. 

America's authoritarian challengers merit separate consideration, so I will start by 

addressing the dangers posed by Russia's increasingly aggressive campaign of hybrid 

warfare. In Europe and beyond, the Kremlin is deploying a sophisticated information 

warfare campaign-including cybersecurity attacks on electoral systems and political 

parties and coordinated campaigns of disinformation-to undermine democratic 

institutions, exploit societal divisions, and erode citizens' confidence in democracy. 

Moscow's aim is to create an environment in which the post-war American-led democratic 

order is diminished and the Putin autocracy is free to continue stealing from its own 

people, deny the Russian people their basic rights, and extend its historical sphere of 

influence into the heart of Europe. 

What makes this form of political warfare particularly insidious is that it uses some of the 

core features of our democracy against us-exploiting free media to manipulate and spread 

false information, and attempting to undermine confidence in our electoral systems. Our 

approach to this challenge must be to harness the strengths of democracy to expose these 

practices and create coordinated policies that push back against this campaign to subvert 

our open societies. 

IRI has been combatting this problem for more than two years with the Beacon Projectone of the very first programs to track and mobilize political coalitions against Russian 

disinformation and meddling on European society. We have leveraged our vast and 
20


30423b-6.eps

established network of relationships with European political parties and civil society 

groups to create coordinated policy responses that tackle this problem and reinforce the 

transatlantic alliance and our shared values. 

When IRI began this initiative, we set out to overcome two major deficits: the dearth of 

information about the extent and impact of disinformation and the lack of coordination 

among political and civil society stakeholders on this issue. Since then, the project has 

expanded its informal Beacon Network from a disparate collection of organizations 

working independently into a sustainable coalition of experts and political activists across 

Europe with access to policymakers at the EU and national levels. IRI has operationalized 

this network by training members in the use of our proprietary media monitoring platform, 

a digital tool called >versus<. This tool has enabled our local partners to track 

disinformation, propaganda, and other forms of media manipulation as a means of 

informing their policy and advocacy responses. 

CHALLENGE 4: CHINESE SHARP POWER 

As the National Endowment for Democracy's recent report on the phenomenon of 

authoritarian "sharp power" explains, 

"Over the past decade, China and Russia have spent billions of dollars to shape 

public opinion and perceptions around the world. This foreign authoritarian 

influence is not principally about attraction or persuasion; instead, it centers on 

distraction and manipulation. These ambitious authoritarian regimes, which 

systematically suppress political pluralism and free expression at home, are 

increasingly seeking to apply similar principles internationally to secure their 

interests." 

The Chinese government, led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), utilizes sophisticated 

tactics to build and wield political influence around the world, with the aim of challenging, 

and ultimately supplanting, America's global dominance. China's vast economic resources 

and its efforts to tout rapid economic development under strongman rule as an alternative 

model to Western democracy allows it to have a deep and often hidden impact in any given 

country. 

The CCP's authoritarian political model and the role of the state in steering Chinese 

economic engagement abroad for grand strategic purposes poses grave risks to smaller 

countries by pulling them into China's orbit in ways that undermine political pluralism. In 

addition to authoritarian sharp power tactics, the Chinese government and governmentlinked companies use financial leverage and influence operations beyond its borders to 

silence critics of China's authoritarian model and influence domestic political decisionmaking in China's favor. 
21


30423b-7.eps

Whether through sharp power tactics or leveraging economic investments, the Chinese 

Communist Party seeks to build political influence in target countries through such 

efforts. These activities are often meant to influence local government decisions over 

time-contributing to societal divisions and political corruption, which in turn leads to 

state capture by China and an expansive illiberal sphere of influence hostile to the United 

States. 

It is becoming clear that fragile democracies and authoritarian states are most susceptible 

to such influence. In countries including Cambodia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, weak 

governance structures are further undermined by the influence of large sums of Chinese 

government investment, feeding corruption and derailing the government from 

representing the interests of citizens. 

While established and developed democracies may be able to more effectively address such 

foreign authoritarian influence, for many developing countries, this influence succeeds 

primarily because governments caught in Chinese debt traps have no choice but to work 

with the Chinese government and government-linked companies and organizations. In 

most cases, the West has not sought to actively compete with China nor provide 

alternatives for host governments. 

It is well past time for the U.S. to confront this challenge. Helping countries build political 

resiliency to corruption and state capture by a hostile authoritarian power is an American 

national security interest. One important way of doing this is to invest in bolstering 

democratic institutions so that they can represent the interests of their people and resist 

this crypto-colonization. IRI is pushing back on this development with a new initiative 

designed to expose the projection of Chinese sharp power in Europe and South Asia. In 

doing so, we will increase awareness among our democratic partners of the perils of 

China's efforts to suborn their democracies and help them resist its dangers. 

OTHER OPPORTUNITIES 

Other lines of IRI work include helping countries pursue anti-corruption programs. This not 

only helps legitimize democracy in those countries; it creates a better environment for 

American business. American corporations struggle in countries marred by kleptocracy; 

they thrive where there is rule of law, open government and strong institutions that help 

create a level playing field for business and protect their investments. 

IRI also works extensively on youth empowerment around the world through our youth 

initiative, Generation Democracy. Africa alone will have more than one billion new people 

born over the next 30 years. Young people will need a voice in their country's politics so 

they do not become marginalized and aggrieved in ways that produce vast, destabilizing 

flows of migration and new extremist networks. 

7 
22


30423b-8.eps

Finally, IRI is committed to promoting women's empowerment, which we carry out through 

our Women's Democracy Network program. This is a vital component of democracy 

promotion, because we know that where women have a strong voice in society and politics, 

those countries are less likely to be corrupt, violent, and dangerous to their people and 

their neighbors. 

CONCLUSION 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, Members of the Committee: thank you for the 

opportunity to offer testimony today. There is no doubt that the U.S. faces an array of 

daunting challenges to our strategic interests and national security, and it can be tempting 

to take refuge in the mistaken belief that democracy promotion is a luxury we simply 

cannot afford. Yet as IRI Chairman Senator john McCain argues in his new memoir, 

"[America] has done great good in the world because we believed our ideals are the 

natural aspiration of all mankind, and that the principles, rules, and alliances of the 

international order we superintended would improve the security and prosperity of 

all who joined it. That leadership has had its costs, but we have become 

incomparably powerful and wealthy as well." 

Democracy assistance isn't simply a matter of making ourselves feel good, or of doing the 

right thing; it is a way of advancing our interests and influence through what is arguably 

our most powerful export -our values. I am grateful for the opportunity to represent an 

organization that is helping to do that around the world, with the generous support of the 

Congress, and I am proud to stand alongside our friends at NED and NDI on that journey. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

8 
23

Chairman ROYCE. Thanks, Dan. 

Ken. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH WOLLACK, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE 

Mr. WOLLACK. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and 

members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity on behalf 

of NDI to speak on democracy promotion efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, your leadership will be sorely missed, not only in 

the halls of Congress but in many countries, particularly in Africa 

where your voice and engagement has made a real difference. 

The notion that there should be a dichotomy between our moral 

preferences and our strategic interests is a false one. Our ultimate 

goal is a world that is secure, stable, humane, and safe, where the 

risk of war is minimal. 

Yet, the hot spots most likely to erupt in violence are often found 

in areas of the world that are nondemocratic—places defined by the 

Defense Department as the arc of instability. 

These are places that experience ethnic conflict and civil war, 

they generate refugee flows across borders, they are places where 

terrorists are harbored and illegal drugs are produced. And in this 

interdependent world, what happens within borders of nations 

have regional and sometimes global impact. 

The 2018 National Security Strategy, the National Defense 

Strategy, the Worldwide Threat Assessment by the U.S. intelligence community, all point to efforts by Russia and China to 

propagate their authoritarian models as a threat to our interests. 

A proper response calls for a democratic stimulus, not a retreat, 

and the best way to counter this new threat is not to confront it 

unilaterally but to build stronger global alliances that support an 

alternative model based on transparent and accountable government. 

We have witnessed more than a decade of democratic recession. 

Autocrats have become more aggressive and new fragile democracies are failing to deliver. 

Even more established democracies have been beset by political 

polarization and growing public discontent. Authoritarian regimes 

are using digital tools to advance their interests including electoral 

espionage and the dissemination of disinformation to skew electoral 

outcomes, disrupt democratic discourse, discredit institutions, and 

fuel ethnic and social divisions. 

NDI has responded by providing cybersecurity support, assisting 

efforts of civic, media, and political groups to detect, expose, and 

combat this information, and conducting new types of public opinion research to identify populations that are most susceptible to 

Russian disinformation and develop messages that can build resilience. 

In cooperation with IRI and NED, NDI is helping to launch a 

new effort with democracy groups, civil society organizations, civic 

tech partners, political parties, and a global network of 4 million 

citizen election monitors to interact more regularly with the technology companies. 

24

Among other purposes, this Design for a Democracy Coalition 

will identify disinformation that subverts democratic processes so 

tech companies can find speedy resolutions. 

Now, despite recent declines in democracy, there is another more 

positive story. Public opinion polls in every region of the world 

show large majorities agree that democracy is the best political system. 

Democratic change and rising citizen demand for democracy in 

such diverse places as Ethiopia, Armenia, Malaysia, Slovakia, and 

Nicaragua are but a few examples in recent months. 

Some have argued that the Arab Spring unleashed a new era of 

instability in the Middle East by toppling repressive but so-called 

stable regimes. 

However, the idea that autocracy equals stability collapses under 

scrutiny as the remaining supposedly stable regimes are increasingly the locus of conflict. 

In contrast, those places that are going through democratic transition like Tunisia or political liberalization like Morocco and Jordan are better able to address economic challenges or threats from 

extremist ideologies and groups. 

I would like to highlight two democracy efforts in challenging environments—Ukraine and Syria—which is seemingly one of the 

most unlikely places on earth to find good news on this front. 

Ukraine faces severe economic problems and deeply-rooted corruption, not to mention occupation in the south and a war in the 

east. 

However, NDI’s research shows that Ukrainians are virtually 

united in their view that democracy is the best guarantor of their 

independence and sovereignty. 

Ukrainians can point to concrete achievements in recent years. 

These include the emergence of new political parties that have national reach and are focused on citizens they represent rather than 

on oligarchs who would finance them. 

Brought together by NDI in partnership with the European Parliament, party factions in the Rada are overcoming deep fragmentation to agree on procedures that will make it easier to build 

consensus around reforms. 

In NDI programs alone more than 45,000 citizens have engaged 

directly in the national reform process and are reaching more than 

1.3 million citizens through the media. 

These are the kinds of bottom-up changes that, given time and 

continued support, can put down deep democratic roots. 

Another story of democratic resilience is unfolding in Syria. In 

northern Syria, citizen groups are prioritizing community needs 

and local administrative councils are responding by providing critical services. 

Fifty NDI governance advisors are working each day in 34 locations to advise citizen groups and administrative councils and 

bringing them together to solve problems. 

Courageously, these groups and counsels have challenged extremist groups, which have sought to establish parallel governing 

structures. 

As one regional news outlet noted, ‘‘You may think Syrians are 

condemned to an unpleasant choice between Bashar Assad and the 

25

jihadists. But the real choice being fought out by Syrians is between violent authoritarianism on the one hand and grass roots democracy on the other.’’

Mr. Chairman, the citizens of our country have held the conviction that to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our 

country, we must establish government that derives legitimacy 

from the consent of the people. 

We received the help of others in our founding and have assisted 

those around the world who step forward, sometimes at great risk 

to their own countries and to their personal lives to promote, establish, and sustain democracy. 

Our Nation has benefited from the peace that global democracy 

produces and the economic opportunities that it creates. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wollack follows:]

26


30423c-1.eps

Statement by Kenneth Wollack, 

President, National Democratic Institute on 

Denwcracy Pronwtion in a Challenging World 

before the 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

June 14, 2018 

Chairman Royce, Ranking member Engel and members of the Committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity on behalf of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) to present our views on the 

importance and efficacy of U.S. efforts to support the global development of democratic 

institutions and practices. 

Democracy promotion, long a pillar of America's foreign policy framework, has, in recent years 

and in certain circles, become an issue of some debate. Paradoxically, and wrongly in my view, 

democracy assistance is viewed either as too soft or idealistic as a response to serious security 

threats facing the nation; or it is seen as too bellicose -- conflated with regime change and the use 

of military force. The real issue, however, is not whether democracy promotion is "hard" or 

"soft" or whether it fits neatly into the "realism" or "idealism" paradigms. The issue, rather, is 

whether advancing democracy reflects our values and is an important means of advancing 

America's interests and protecting our national security in a turbulent and often violent world. I 

think the answer is clearly "yes." 

The notion that there should be a dichotomy between our moral preferences and our strategic 

interests is a false one. Our ultimate foreign policy goal is a world that is secure, stable, humane, 

and safe, where the risk of war is minimaL Yet, the reality is that hotspots most likely to erupt 

into violence are found, for the most part, in areas of the world that are nondemocratic --places 

that have been defined by the Defense Department as the "arc of instability." These are places 

that experience ethnic conflict and civil war; they generate refugee flows across borders; they are 

places where terrorists are harbored and illegal drugs are produced. The international community 

has rightly worked to restore order by helping to establish a democratic framework for 

governance in a number of these countries. The response has not always been entirely successful, 

but on the whole, the introduction of democratic processes and citizen engagement have made 

these countries less dangerous than they had been. 

Moreover, the 2018 National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy and Worldwide 

Threat Assessmem by the U.S. intelligence community all point to efforts by Russia and China to 

propagate their authoritarian models as a direct threat to our interests. Clearly, therefore, these 

threats, require renewed efforts by the U.S. -- in fact, a democratic stimulus-- not retreat. As 

Tom Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment points out, "such efforts align closely with and serve 

a critical array of unquestionably hard interests. These include limiting the strategic reach of the 
27


30423c-2.eps

United States' autocratic rivals, fighting terrorism, reducing international drug trafficking, and 

undercutting drivers of massive refugee flows." The cost for the U.S. has been relatively 

inexpensive; foreign assistance is only about 1 percent of the total U.S. budget; democracy 

assistance represents just 4 percent of our foreign aid. 

There are those who have argued that the Arab Spring unleashed a new area of instability in the 

Middle East by toppling repressive, but so-called "stable" regimes. However, this idea that 

autocracy equals stability collapses under scrutiny as the remaining supposedly stable regimes 

are increasingly the locus of conflict; while those places that are going through democratic 

transition or are engaged in either political reforms or liberalization are better able to address 

economic challenges or threats from extremist ideologies and groups. As President Kennedy 

said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." 

Even from the traditional foreign aid perspective, economic assistance alone can not achieve 

sustained economic growih and social stability. Political systems that lack accountability 

mechanisms or sufficient political and social inclusion are usually plagued by corruption or 

conflict, both of which undennine the objectives of economic development aid to achieve 

self-sustaining growth and poverty reduction. Deforestation, rural dislocation, environmental 

degradation, and agricultural policies that lead to famine all trace to political systems in which 

the victims have no political voice; in which government institutions feel no obligation to answer 

to the people; and in which special interests feel free to exploit the resources, land and people 

without fear of oversight or the need to account. In short, authoritarian regimes create the 

illusion of stability but, in reality, they fuel instability. That is because autocrats who arrogate 

power to themselves by claiming to have all the answers are bound to fail. The respected 

diplomat, Princeton Lyman, reminded his colleagues in a 1998 cable that the problem with even 

an enlightened authoritarian leader is that "blinded by economic success, hubris takes over along 

with greed: his or her rule is perpetuated, and corruption grows." He urged policymakers at that 

time to judge trends, rather than the snapshot of the day. 

During the 1980s, an important lesson was learned about political transformations in countries 

like the Philippines and Chile that forces on the political fringes enjoy a mutually reinforcing 

relationship, drawing strength from each other and, in the process, marginalizing a democratic 

center. Prospects for peace and stability only emerged once democratic political parties and civil 

society were able to offer a viable alternative to the extremes. These democratic forces benefited 

In short, authoritarian regimes create the illusion of stability but from the solidarity and 

support they received from the international community and, in the United States, Republicans 

and Democrats joined together to champion their cause. Today, these conditions find their 

parallel in other countries around the world. 

When World War II ended, fewer than a dozen democracies stood as the Iron Curtain rose, 

military dictatorships proliferated, and colonialism sought to regain its footing. Major 

breakthroughs against those trends began with the so-called third wave of democratization 

which, since the 1970s, impacted more than 100 countries where people in every region of the 

world struggled against oppression and for government based on popular will 

2 
28


30423c-3.eps

Freedom House, the Economist, and others, however, have now chronicled more than a decade 

of democratic recession, with a decline of political rights globally, along with a decreasing 

number of democracies. Autocrats have become more aggressive and sophisticated in stifling the 

voices of civil society and political opponents, undercutting independent media and judicial 

independence and manipulating elections. 

We now know that initial views about the impact of technological change were incomplete. 

There were those who had presented a cyber-utopian view of the impact of social media on 

democracy, whereby increased internet access would inevitably lead to more open societies. 

This has now given way to a more realistic, if not darker view. As Wael Ghonim, the 

democratic activist whose Facebook posts helped ignite the Egyptian revolution now warns: 

"Social media was once seen as a liberating means to speak truth to power. Now the issue is 

how to speak truth to social media." 

Authoritarian regimes are also using a broader and more aggressive set of tools to advance their 

interests, including various forms of electoral espionage, the hacking of politicians and political 

parties, and the dissemination of misinfonnation and fake news -- all designed to skew electoral 

outcomes and to discredit democratic systems. Repressive regimes are using what we call 

"distributed denial of democracy" (DDoD) attacks to pollute new media channels with 

disinformation, making new media less useful as a mechanism for legitimate democratic 

discourse. This hybrid warfare uses troll farms and botnets to amplify certain stories on new 

media. Such etiorts also aim to create a false equivalency between legitimate international 

democracy assistance and foreign interference that subverts democratic dialogue, practices, and 

elections. 

At the same time, new, fragile democracies are struggling to meet rising expectations of their 

citizens, particularly with regard to etiorts that would combat corruption and improve standards 

of living. Democratic transitions have been stymied or reversed by violence and terrorism by 

non-state actors, or by the inability of democratic movements to move from "protest to politics" 

and to challenge the resiliency of the so-called "deep state" -- the elites and institutions that 

benefited from years of corruption and impunity afforded by entrenched autocracy. And even 

established democracies have been beset by political polarization and growing citizen discontent 

with the performance of democratic institutions and elected leaders. 

While women have made significant political gains in the last several decades, they remain 

woefully underrepresented in political parties, parliaments, and government, at both the national 

and local levels. Moreover, with the advent of the internet, women face a growing threat against 

their active participation in politics -- psychological along with physical violence. Cyber 

bullying not only impacts women who are targeted but also has a chilling effect on others who 

may want to enter the political arena. In response, NDI launched the global #NotTheCost 

campaign in 2016 to collect data, report on and combat this scourge. 

l don't want to dismiss these negative developments because they are real but we should view the 

past decade as a snapshot and otier a degree of perspective -- another picture that includes a 

slightly longer sweep of history. But it is not the distant past. Four years after President Reagan 

3 
29


30423c-4.eps

delivered his landmark democracy speech before the British parliament in 1982 and less than 

three years after Congress established the National Endowment for Democracy. Freedom House 

scored only 52 countries as "free" as compared to 88 in 2018. The countries of Latin America 

were largely run by military regimes, as were the Asian countries of South Korea, Bangladesh, 

Pakistan and Bunna. Dictators were in power in Indonesia and the Philippines; martial rule was 

in place in Taiwan; the communists ruled Mongolia; and the monarchy enjoyed absolute power 

in Nepal. 

On the African continent, only four leaders since 1960 had retired voluntarily or left office after 

losing an election --that tigure stands at nearly 50 since then. Democracy, freedom and dignity 

were not even part of the lexicon of the Middle East. And Soviet communism, which extended to 

the borders of Western Europe, seemed deeply embedded. Only Senator Moynihan and a few 

others at the time were naive enough to predict its demise. Meanwhile, intergovernmental groups 

like the Organization of American States and the Organization of Mrican Unity -- the 

predecessor to the Mrican Union -- operated on the principle of "nonintervention" into the 

affairs of member states. They routinely turned a blind eye to military coups and other abuses. 

Today, both organizations and others like them have adopted democratic charters and have 

intervened to defend democratic rule . 

In 1986, there was minuscule if any democracy and governance funding by USAID, the State 

Department, the UNDP or by the OECD donor aid agencies. Aside from the German party 

foundations, which played such an important role in the democratic transitions of Spain and 

Portugal during the 1970s, there were no democracy support NGOs; in the mid-1980s, no 

networks of citizen election monitors, who today number 4 million, democratic governments and 

legislatures, or parliamentary monitoring organizations. 

Yet there is another, more positive story -- a story that should remind us about the universal 

demand for democracy and progress being made, sometimes in the most challenging of 

environments. Public opinion polls from countries in every region of the world have shown that 

vast majorities agree that democracy, despite its problems, is the best political system. One 

recent study of more than 800 protest movements around the world show that they are not driven 

primarily by a desire for better economic conditions, but rather by demands for a better 

democracy, which the protesters believe can better address economic issues. This shows that the 

desire for improved economic opportunities often coexists with the demand for a political voice. 

And in today's interdependent world, citizens will not indefinitely postpone the latter for the 

former. Recent democratic change, or rising citizen demands for democracy in such diverse 

places as Ethiopia, Armenia, Malaysia, Slovakia and Nicaragua are but a few recent examples. 

Admittedly, there have been times when many citizens seemingly abandoned democratic 

aspirations because of instability, insecurity, or the performance of government. This was the 

case in Pakistan, Venezuela, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, and Chile; but broad support for authoritarian 

rule in these places has been short lived. 

Then there are countries where active civil societies and reform-minded political leadership have 

maintained positive democratic trajectories. Nascent African democracies of Ghana, Cote 

d'lvoire, Senegal, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone are among the world's fastest growing 

4 
30


30423c-5.eps

economies, while many countries -- including Indonesia, Mongolia, Chile, Colombia, Georgia, 

South Korea and Mexico -- have continued to make strides in both consolidating their 

democracies and maintaining steady economic growth. There are also places where democratic 

setbacks have been reversed, either by the demands of citizen movements, as was the case in 

Burkina Faso, or through the intervention of regional organizations as recently occurred in The 

Gambia. And in Myanmar/Burrna, Ukraine, and Tunisia, active U.S. support for the democratic 

transitions underway have reflected the convergence of our values and strategic interests. 

Since the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the four core institutes of the 

Endowment were established, we have learned a great deal about democratic change, along with 

appropriate and etl'ective ways to nurture and support democracy. I would like to share some 

fundamental lessons. 

First, in this interconnected and interdependent world, what happens for good or for bad within 

the borders of nations has regional and, sometimes, global impact. Contrary to that famous 

tagline in tourism marketing, what happens, let's say, in Kyiv or Cairo doesn't stay there. 

Therefore, at a basic level, we have a direct interest in how people live and how they are treated 

by their governments. 

Second, the credibility of a democracy ultimately depends on how it works in practice and on 

what it delivers. Democracies must be able to hold credible elections so that the institutions that 

emerge from those polls enjoy legitimacy. But those institutions must be built and strengthened 

between elections, and citizen engagement must be developed and sustained. Nascent democratic 

regimes often inherit the legacies of their nondemocratic predecessors --poverty, corruption and 

political exclusion. And when those institutions fail to meet public expectations, opportunities 

are created for populist, often nondemocratic leaders who will roll back hard-won democratic 

gains. 

The once rapid pace of democratic change had led many in the democracy community to hope, if 

not expect. that progress toward fuller democracy would be more linear than has been the case. 

As the late Polish historian and politician Bronislaw Geremek warned, "Democracy is by no 

means a process that goes from triumph to triumph nor is it exempt from creating the very 

conditions that undennine it." This means long-terrn commitments are necessary to support a 

culture of transparency, participation, and accountability. 

Sustaining socioeconomic development over the long term requires a political system whose 

incentive structures make it more likely that responsive, reform-minded, and accountable 

politicians will emerge at all levels of government. It requires governments that have the popular 

support and legitimacy to sustain development policies. lt also requires mechanisms for orderly 

alternation of power in order to reduce the incentives for corruption that inevitably affect 

governments with no fear of losing office. It requires strengthened policy development and 

capacity within political parties in order to help raise the level of political discourse. It requires 

effective legislatures -- with significant roles for opposition voices and the means to build 

broader consensus on public policy issues -- in order to avoid policy reversals when governments 

tum over. It requires greater voice and power for citizens, particularly women and young people, 

5 
31


30423c-6.eps

along with historically marginalized communities, in order to complement increased economic 

empowerment with increased political participation. 

Third, while citizens around the world have begun to harness the benefits of information and 

communication technology to amplify their voices, their political institutions have often been 

slower to respond. As one tech leader explained via Twitter, "Citizens using 21st cent tools to 

talk, gov't using 20th cent tools to listen, and 19th cent processes to respond'' As technology 

innovation amplifies the voices of desegregated citizen interests, fledgling democratic 

institutions -- governments, parliaments, and political parties -- must harness innovation to 

strengthen deliberative discourse, broker compromise, and respond in a timely and effective 

manner. 

New responses are also needed as authoritarian regimes have become more aggressive in 

utilizing technology to subvert democracy and to project their interests internationally. These 

responses include: cyber security support; media literacy training with respect to disinformation 

spread through new media; assistance to civic, media, and political groups that can expose and 

combat misinformation; and policy advocacy with technology finns to help them understand the 

impact of their policies on democratic discourse and to help them prevent their platforms from 

being used in distributed denial of democracy (DDoD) attacks. In NDI is helping to launch this 

last effort by working with a global grouping of democracy groups, civil society organizations, 

civic tech partners, associations of political parties and a global network of 4 million citizen 

election monitors to interact with major technology companies. This so-called Design for 

Democracy Coalition will identify incidents of disinformation that are designed to subvert 

democratic processes, including elections, and bring them directly to the attention to the tech 

companies for speedy resolution. The Coalition will also provide a vehicle in which to 

coordinate research, monitor and investigate trends concerning the abuse of technology in efforts 

to impair democratic discourse, processes and institutions. 

Fourth, for those of us in this country who are engaged in assisting democratic development 

overseas, we have been most successful when we have joined with others in the international 

community, including governments, parliaments, political parties, intergovernmental 

organizations, and other non governmental groups. Today, these groups make up an 

international democratic architecture that did not exist some 30 years ago. As a practical matter, 

people making a democratic transition require diverse experiences and expertise, along with 

broad peer support. Cooperative approaches also convey a deeper truth: that democrats are 

joining a community of nations which have traversed the same course, that they can count on 

natural allies and an active support structure because other nations are concerned and are 

watching. 

Fifth, the US. government -- including the White House, State Department, Congress, and 

overseas embassies -- can set the tone and foreign aid can provide needed resources. Yet, much 

of the day-to-day democratic development work should be carried out, with proper oversight, by 

nongovernmental organizations, which operate in the realm of people-to-people relations. Such 

mission-driven groups often have pre-existing, global relationships and are not constrained by 

the stringent rules of formal diplomacy. Most important, in countries where a primary issue is 

6 
32


30423c-7.eps

the paucity of autonomous civic and political institutions, the very idea that government ought 

not control all aspects of society can be undermined by a too visible and too direct donor 

government hand. This is borne out by the results of a new type of opinion research being 

carried out by NDI in Ukraine to determine populations that are most vulnerable to Russian 

disinformation campaigns and how best to respond with messages that that build resilience. One 

result shows that such counter messages delivered by government are not seen as credible and 

may, in fact, lead people to more readily believe in the original disinformation. 

Ultimately, it is the nature of relationships with local partners that matter the most. In a recent 

New York Times op-ed, David Brooks asked a veteran youth activist in this country about which 

programs "tum around" the lives of young people living in poverty. "I still haven't seen one 

program change one kid's life," he replied. "What changes people is relationships'' The same can 

be said about successful democracy etTorts overseas. How positive relationships with local 

partners are established, developed, and evolve will ultimately determine the success or failure of 

any and all interventions. 

Sixth, pluralism in democracy assistance has served the United States well, allowing for diverse 

yet complementary programming that, over the long term, could not be sustained by a highly 

static and centralized system. Funding by the NED has allowed the Endowment and its four core 

institutes to plan strategically, yet respond quickly and flexibly to emerging opportunities and 

sudden problems in rapidly shifting political environments. In addition, the NED has been able to 

operate effectively in closed societies where direct government engagement is more ditlicult. 

USATD has provided the basis for longer-term commitments in helping to develop a country's 

democratic institutions. The State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and 

Labor and other programs within the Department, such as the Middle East Partnership, have 

given the U.S. government the capacity to support -- without cumbersome regulations -- cutting 

edge and highly focused democracy initiatives for individual countries, as well for regional and 

global initiatives. It would not be advantageous to try to create a centralized structure, or a highly 

coordinated approach for the design and implementation of these initiatives, but rather to 

promote ongoing cooperation and open lines of communication. Already, much of this 

cooperation and communication is taking place both here in Washington and in countries where 

we and others work. 

Seventh, and finally, democracy assistance can best be delivered in four ways 1) through direct, 

in-country presence where long term, day-to-day relationships can be established and nurtured. 

(in non democratic places that prohibit such engagement, long distance learning using 

information technology and otTshore programs can maintain solidality and provide more limited 

but critical outside support to groups and individuals); 2) through targeted financial support to 

governments, election commissions, civil society groups, and parliaments; 3) through 

international and regional networks that can offer peer support; and 4) through the development 

and application of international norms and standards. The latter two approaches are designed to 

provide external incentives for refom1, particularly in places where local organizations, leaders, 

and institutions seek to become members of a global community-- whether a community of civic 

groups, political parties, parliaments, or governments. Examples of these communities include 

the Open Government Pminership, the four major international groupings of political parties, the 

7 
33


30423c-8.eps

Community of Democracies, the Global Network of Domestic Election Monitors, and the World 

Movement for Democracy. ln this regard, the House Democracy Partnership, led by 

Representatives Peter Roskam and David Price, has contributed measurably to parliamentary 

strengthening efforts in 19 countries to date. 

l would like to point to democracy support efforts in two challenging environments: in Ukraine 

and in Syria, which is seemingly one of the most unlikely places on earth to find good news on 

this front. These efforts have been supported by the NED, USAID, the Department of State, the 

Canadian and British governments, and others. 

Ukraine undoubtedly continues to face grave challenges, including severe economic problems, 

deeply-rooted conuption, public impatience with the pace of reform-- not to mention occupation 

in the South and a war in the East. Purveyors of false news would have us believe that the 

country is deeply divided and that a large portion of the population is desperate to be rescued by 

Russia. The truth, however, is exactly the opposite. 

NDI's research shows that Ukrainians expect that the next generation will be better off than their 

own with 86 percent saying it is ''important" or "very important" that their country become a 

democracy. This is true whether respondents live in the East or the West and regardless of 

political affiliations. Moreover, the research and our observations on the ground show that 

Ukrainians are not particularly susceptible to populist appeals or to conspiracy theories, 

particularly those seen as emanating from outside the country. Ukrainians feel strongly that they 

will not give up their right to determine their own future-- even if doing so would bring peace. 

As these findings show, Ukrainians are virtually united in their view that democracy is the best 

guarantor of their independence and sovereignty. To the extent that their country succeeds, it will 

be because ordinary Ukrainians have embraced these goals as their own and are taking 

responsibility for reaching them. 

This positive outlook is not based solely on public attitudes. With outside encouragement and 

support, Ukrainians can point to concrete achievements in recent years. These include the 

emergence of new political parties that have national reach and are focused on citizens they 

represent rather than on oligarchs who would finance them. Brought together by NDI, in 

partnership with European institutions, party factions in the parliament are overcoming deep 

fragmentation to agree on procedures that will make it easier to build consensus around reforms. 

Local civil society groups are partnering with larger national organizations to push for economic 

and political change, and Ukrainians are advocating and voting for more women in elected 

office. 

At the local level, citizens without prior experience in any kind of activism are participating in 

decision-making in large numbers. One quarter has attended community meetings and an 

additional 29 percent are willing to do so. In NDI programs alone, more than 45,000 citizens 

have engaged directly in the national reform process in the past two years and more than 1.3 

million have been reached by television. A decentralization process will ultimately give 

Ukrainians more opportunities to influence decisions that affect their lives. These are the kinds 

8 
34


30423c-9.eps

of bottom-up changes that, given time and continued support, can put down deep democratic 

roots. 

In the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis and refugee flight, another story of democratic 

resilience is unfolding in Syria. As the Syrian government has lost control of large parts of the 

country, and the war has expanded over the past six years, millions of citizens have been left 

bereft of services and governing institutions to maintain order and to meet their basic needs. But 

in liberated territories across northern Syria, citizen groups are identifying and prioritizing 

community needs, and local administrative councils, some democratically elected, are 

responding by providing critical services. These democratic subcultures can become a powerful 

model for the country's future once the confEct subsides. 

More than two dozen NDI governance advisers are working each day in 34 of these locations 

within Syria, helping to advise local citizen groups and administrative councils, and bringing 

them together to solve problems. Already, thousands of consultations and training sessions have 

been conducted. More than 500 council members and staff and 7,000 civic activists, including 

many young people and women, have been engaged in the program. Courageously, these civic 

groups and councils have challenged extremist groups which have sought to establish parallel 

governing structures. "You may think Syrians are condemned to an unpleasant choice between 

Bashar AI Assad and the jihadists," noted one regional news outlet. "But the real choice being 

fought out by Syrians is between violent authoritarianism on the one hand and grassroots 

democracy on the other." 

Mr. Chairman, the citizens of our country -- from its very founding -- have held the conviction 

that to "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our country," we must establish 

government that derives legitimacy and power from the consent of the people. We received the 

help of others in our founding, and trom that point onward have embraced the ethic of assisting 

those around the world who step forward-- sometimes at great risk in their own countries-- to 

promote, establish, and sustain democracy. We as a nation have benefited from the peace that 

global democratic development produces and trom the economic opportunities that it creates. 

Assisting the advance of democracy has helped war-torn and violence-prone states achieve more 

"domestic tranquility," preventing humanitarian disasters, refugee flows and violent extremist 

recruitment. Across the globe, it has helped establish more stable and honest frameworks for 

economic life, opening markets to trade and investment. Democratic development has also 

helped cultivate a community of nations that refrain trom war with each other and often ally 

themselves with the U.S. on geostrategic concerns. It is our hope that this mission remains a 

priority for both the Congress and the Administration. 

9 
35

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Wollack. 

I guess the dichotomy here is that your data that you’re expressing shows that in terms of support for grass roots democracy worldwide that’s on the upswing in terms of how people feel—what people want to see, and the Freedom House statistics then reflect the 

sales pitch of authoritarian regimes, in particular Moscow and Beijing and their efforts to convince other strong heads of state to 

move toward their model. 

So I will just ask you this. I’ve traveled throughout Europe and 

I’ve seen firsthand the very powerful impact that information can 

have as well—and I saw that in 1985 in East Germany with our 

broadcasts and how impactful or inspirational it was. 

But I’ve also seen that damaging power of disinformation that 

Russia is actively manipulating in order to sow chaos and in order 

to push an anti-Western agenda in those frontline European states 

and, frankly, to push it here. 

And so you’re in these countries. How effective are our international broadcasting, which is something that Mr. Engel and I 

have been trying to reform—how effective is that in combatting 

Russia’s disinformation campaigns abroad and are we coming near 

to neutralizing this threat or is this continuing to advance? 

And so, Carl, if I would have your observation. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. When we published the Sharp Power Report in 

December, we were calling attention to this problem, and it’s a 

growing problem. 

People are aware of it now, especially because of what Russia has 

been doing but also and especially because of China, and when the 

Economist magazine picked up the sharp power report they focused 

more on China, whose efforts are enormous in this area. 

And I think the importance of having that concept, Mr. Chairman, is that it helped people understand the nature of the problem. 

If we called it soft power they wouldn’t understand—that they 

would think it was pretty much what we do. 

But if you call it sharp power, you understand that you have 

really undemocratic hostile powers who are using information to 

penetrate, to manipulate, to undermine, to control, and that’s basically what we have. 

And radios are, obviously, one important instrument, not to 

counter that in terms of building a defense against disinformation 

but to project a positive message. 

But you’ve got to build a defense against it and a lot of the 

groups that we helped stop fake news in Ukraine and other groups 

like that are being able to identify fake information. 

We have a dialogue—a very ongoing dialogue with the internet 

companies to take down a lot of incitement, a lot of fake news. 

We are connecting our grantees with the internet companies. We 

have groups like Bellingcat, which is an investigative journalist 

group. They use open source information. But they’ve identified the 

Russian general who provided the missile that shot down the Malaysian airliner. 

You have got to fight back. You need a good defense but you need 

a good offense and we have to understand that we don’t live in a 

world where everybody loves us or loves the values that we stand 

for. 

36

There are people who are against those values and we have developed the capacity within the framework, obviously, of our democratic values to defend those values and to fight back against the 

attacks upon us. 

Chairman ROYCE. And Ken, what else could we be doing? 

And I’ve got to tell you, in terms of one of the disappointing 

things across much of the world is watching Beijing also sell this 

concept that rather than democracy or independent courts or bolstering civil society you’d need a strong authoritarian model. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Let me say the Russian cyber warfare is quite different than the Soviet Union’s propaganda. The Soviet Union propaganda was that our tractor is better than your tractor. 

Nobody believed it. And what makes the Russian efforts so effective is they’re playing on fertile territory. They’re reinforcing preconceived notions that people have about their own political institutions. 

So, first and foremost, the institutions of democratic governance, 

particularly in places like the Balkans and eastern Europe need to 

be shored up. There needs to be reform and modernization efforts 

and this is one of the most effective ways to respond to 

disinformation. 

Secondly, radio is extremely important. But this a daily fight on 

the ground. 

Chairman ROYCE. A social media fight? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Yes. To give you one example, the Democratic 

Party of Serbia, 2 weeks before the local elections, the Russians—

presumably the Russians—had hacked their Facebook page, and 

put horrible content on it. 

The hackers then contacted Facebook, told them to look at the 

site. Facebook immediately took down the Facebook page. 

Now, the party didn’t know who to contact. They had no contact 

with Facebook. They were able to contact us. Our office in Silicon 

Valley managed to reach the Facebook executives. They immediately took it down. 

But this is playing out dozens, hundreds, and thousands of time 

all over the world, and not just propagated by the Russians and the 

Chinese. It’s propagated by authoritarian leaders all over the 

world. Hun Sen of Cambodia, Duterte—the majority of the news 

about them are generated by bots. 

So this is now a tool that everybody is using. Some of it external 

threats, some of it done internally by non-democratic forces. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ken. 

Eliot. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say to all three 

of you again that I so much admire the good work that you do and 

the organizations you all represent. 

They are three outstanding organizations, and those of us who 

have been on this committee for many, many, many years are very 

aware of the fine work you do. 

So I want to reiterate that and thank all three of you. 

Mr. Chairman, before I ask my question, I would like unanimous 

consent to enter into the record a document by the Democracy in 

Europe Working Group, signed by over 64 former administrations 

officials and Members of Congress, democracy experts, and human 

37

rights activists, which lays out growing concerns regarding democratic backsliding in Europe. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to ask my first question involving something I said in my 

opening statement and I’ve been saying for the past year and a half 

on this committee, as have we all on both sides of the aisle. 

That’s the budget that’s, woefully, inadequate. 

Let me start with you, Mr. Gershman. We understand the critical importance of the NED’s work and that of NDI and IRI around 

the world. 

The budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 requested a $67 million for NED, which is a 60 percent cut from the amount, which is $170 

million that Congress has appropriated yearly since fiscal year 

2016. 

Not only did the fiscal year 2019 budget of the administration 

gut NED’s funding, they also took aim at Congress’ funding of your 

four core institutes—again, NDI, IRI, the Center for International 

Private Enterprise, and the Solidarity Center. 

Let me ask, what effect would the drastic budget proposal have 

on your ability to fund democracy activities and if the budget became law what would have to be cut and how do you prioritize 

when the needs are so great? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Thank you very much for that question. 

There are, obviously, two fundamental problems with the OMB 

budget request for fiscal 2019—the amount and separating us from 

the four institutes. 

And both of these are devastating. I don’t even want to get into 

now what we would have to cut. They’re devastating—utterly devastating. It would virtually kill the whole program, and it’s based 

upon, in my view, just a failure to understand what we do and the 

value of what we do. 

And I should point out to you, Congressman Engel, that we are 

in close touch with the NSC, with OMB, to try to talk about these 

issues. It’s partly an educational process. It’s also political, and to 

try to explain why NED is both effective and cost effective, I think, 

because we have a multi sectoral structure. It’s also labor and business that is part of this in addition to our political parties, with the 

civil society groups that the NED supports directly, which is a 

broad and extremely effective and also cost-effective operation—

cost-effective because we are not imposing things on people. We are 

supporting bottom-up processes. We are responding to demands 

that are on the ground, finding the best groups and helping them. 

And so this is something that works and I think Congress understands this. As I look around this committee, Congress understands 

that this is something effective, and in a way, we’ve always been 

an institution of the Congress. 

I look at Dante on the wall and Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde, 

Ben Gilman, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. You people have understood 

what this is all about from the very, very beginning. 

But we do have a problem now in terms of explaining this and 

educating a new generation who don’t necessarily have the same 

history, and this is something we have to do, and things like we 

did last night when we brought these leaders of four North Korean 

38

NGOs to the Congress and got them around so people could meet 

them to see what they do with the defector organizations—North 

Koreans who’ve defected from North Korea who are now working 

both to rescue people and also to reach into North Korea with information, breaking down the communications blockade—the information blockade that the regime in North Korea has established. 

When people understand this in concrete terms and see how far 

small grants can go in assisting people who are on the front lines 

of the struggle for freedom, I believe we are going to get that support and we just have to keep fighting that. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Several formerly democratic countries, as I mentioned in my 

opening statement have moved in a decisively autocratic direction 

over the last several years. From Turkey to Venezuela to Russia, 

authoritarian leaders are diminishing democratic space, squelching 

the free press, and undermining the independence of their judiciaries. 

So let me ask Mr. Twining and Mr. Wollack—can your organizations function in these and other countries which have backslid so 

far? Is there ample latitude for effective employment of democracy 

promotion in places like these? 

Mr. TWINING. Sir, there is. Some of the work has to be offshore. 

Obviously, all of it is in very tough conditions. We also need to play 

a long game. I mean, I will give you another example. 

You mentioned some back slipping. But in Malaysia, IRI has 

been working with the opposition there since 2002. Malaysia was 

essentially a one-party majoritarian state. The ruling party had 

ruled since 1957. It had gerrymandered all the districts, given itself 

every advantage. But in this last election a month ago, the opposition won for the first time in 60 something years, and that was an 

example of playing the long game, right. 

We, the United States, supported a democratic opposition that is 

now in charge of this very strategic country right there on the front 

lines of the South China Sea, right there on the front lines of the 

Islamic world’s intersection with the rest of Asia, and that’s good 

for America. 

So we look at a country like Russia and we see a leader who 

looks very strong but, frankly, who is very brittle and, frankly, 

quite insecure, and we know that Russians would like to have a 

choice and a different future—a much more European and prosperous than he can offer them. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Wollack. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Let me just say, operating in the so-called semiauthoritarian regimes in which you have the forms of democracy. 

You have elections. You have political parties. You have civil society groups, some media, but in fact one party, one individual, one 

family controls all aspects of society and all political institutions. 

In many of these places, this is the most challenging environment to work and what we do is we work in these environments 

with civil society, with political actors and find reformist elements 

within the ruling elite and work with them. 

Sometimes, however, we become the canaries in the coal mine. 

When the governments want to crack down, fear any diffusion of 

39

political power, we become the victims of that along with those on 

the ground in places like Azerbaijan and places like Russia. 

And as Dan said, we have begun to work offshore in these places 

using long-distance learning, bringing people out. We use technology so they can share information among themselves, and sometimes, in places like Belarus, you can reach more people this way, 

too, where literally hundreds of thousands of people are being 

reached by these methods. 

But it’s a challenge. But things change. Nothing is constant. In 

Armenia, for example, now there is a welcoming and an opening for 

the international community to return, to help institutions—newlycreated institutions, helping the government reform, to communicate. And so, ultimately speaking, we play the long game in all 

of this. We understand that this is a process. It’s not a destination 

and democracy isn’t linear. But I think there have been many 

places where we were not welcome but we have returned as openings took place. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Royce and 

Ranking Member Engel, for your leadership in holding this important hearing. 

Ted and I, in our Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, 

held a similar hearing last year when we heard from IRI and NDI, 

who are with us today, as well as from IFES and Freedom House, 

and these organizations make up four major implementers of U.S. 

democracy and governance assistance. 

I am grateful to each and every one of them as well as to NED 

for their constant efforts not just in the Middle East but every 

place where freedom and human rights are under attack. 

One of my biggest concerns is the increasing amount of collaboration between repressive regimes as dictators and their accomplices 

get together and they share best practices and techniques for 

crushing dissent. 

We see it in places like Egypt where Sisi is using similar tactics 

deployed in other countries and implementing choking restrictions 

on NGOs on foreign aid and the media and we see it in places like 

Nicaragua, and thank you to all of you who have brought that up, 

where the Ortega regime is not only executing Cuba’s play book 

but staying in close contact with its operatives to co-opt institutions 

and repress the Nicaraguan people. And this collaboration problem 

is only going to get worse in the years ahead. I am concerned that 

we either aren’t recognizing it or we are failing to give it the attention that it deserves. We cannot afford cuts to democracy and governance programs right now or, when it’s appropriated, fail to implement programs because of directives from the White House or 

Embassies abroad. 

So I have two questions for the panel. What can you tell us about 

our Embassy in Lebanon’s decision to cancel or refuse to renew 

U.S.-funded projects in the lead-up to the election and what impact 

do you think that had? 

And on Nicaragua, despite being designated for democracy, much 

of our aid ends up funding programs barely related to democracy 

and governance, if at all. 

40

What is your experience with U.S.-funded aid projects in Nicaragua and how can we do better? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLLACK. In the case of Nicaragua, we have been working 

there for the past 5 years—well, going back to earlier times but in 

our latest effort we have been working on youth leadership programs and have worked with more than 8,000 youth on a very extensive course work and academies to develop youth engagement, 

and while, obviously, we are not training people to engage in revolutionary activities or regime change, obviously, youth is playing a 

prominent role in the demonstrations that are taking place now. 

Our programs, and I believe the programs of IRI, have been supported by both the NED and USAID, and it think that there is a 

commitment on the part of USAID to continue this effort. 

It’s a very tense and difficult time right now, but I think there 

is a commitment. In terms of the Lebanese elections, we were in 

Lebanon for the elections with an international observer delegation. 

This was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. 

Funding was not available by USAID but the State Department 

and the Embassy and the USAID mission were quite supportive of 

that effort when we were in-country and the work that we did preceding the election. 

Mr. TWINING. So, Congresswoman, my predecessor, Mark Green, 

is running USAID and Mark brings the insight, which I don’t think 

is that surprising, but which apparently is an insight that if you 

don’t have some decent governance and some institutions, most 

U.S. foreign assistance is not spent well in those countries. 

All these academic studies have been done showing that most development assistance, when it goes to corrupt kleptocratic badlyrun countries, is wasted. It goes into elite pockets, et cetera, as you 

know. 

So another way to think about this democracy in governance 

work, whether it’s in Nicaragua, whether it’s in Lebanon, whether 

it’s elsewhere, is that it basically offers you a real return on the 

other investments one is making in that country—that America is 

making in that country, and that if you don’t have decent governance and some degree of democratic rule of law, you’re not going 

to get very far with all your other efforts at engagement whether 

they’re military, whether they’re business, et cetera. 

In Lebanon, I will just say that another way to think about this 

work is there are lots of other foreign powers seeking to meddle 

and subvert and determine outcomes. 

We are not trying to determine outcomes. The work we are doing 

in the democracy community is to create a level playing field so the 

people’s choice actually comes out in a vote or in a political process. 

But, gosh, in Lebanon you had the Saudis, you had the Iranians—I mean, you had all of these actors working to influence 

outcomes and that’s something Americans should reflect on is we 

need a level playing field. 

Mr. WOLLACK. I should just add one thing and that is that Hugo 

Chavez once famously said that he was not the cause—he was the 

result. He was the result of failed political institutions in Venezuela. 

41

It wasn’t that there were insufficient civil society organizations. 

The political parties, the legislature, were seen as being out of 

touch and corrupt, and often times when that happens and there’s 

a crisis of confidence in political institutions, people either go to the 

streets or they vote for a populist leader who promises easy answers to very complex issues. 

And so the question in these places—and Venezuela used to be 

the teacher of democracy in the hemisphere—so the question becomes how do these institutions reform and modernize, and not 

that they’re going to be the most popular institutions in the country but how do you avoid a crisis of confidence—how do you engage 

citizens—how do you promote women’s political leadership, 

marginalized communities, youth engagement—all these things 

that give people a stake in the system. And that is the challenge 

for political institutions in every region of the world. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

He yields to Mr. Greg Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I just am delighted to have these three gentlemen before 

us today, congratulating Mr. Wollack on 35 years of great service 

to our country. I’ve been with NDI on various election-monitoring 

missions and seen the great work that you have done. 

Mr. Twining, and I’ve known what IRI is doing and I’ve seen 

what you’re doing specifically in Colombia with African-Colombians 

and working with the Ban Kata and making a difference in developing democracy there. 

And Mr. Gershman, I am a former board member at NED so I’ve 

seen firsthand the work that you and your dedication and the bipartisan board of NED collectively working together to try to make 

sure that we have a better world for all of us. 

So I thank all three of you and the organizations that you represent and have led for your work and your dedication to our country and to our world, because it is really, really, really needed and 

I thank you very much. 

Unfortunately, I am concerned about the data and I know that 

you all have put a positive spin on it, which is what you do, to 

try—because you’re trying to make sure the world is better. 

But I think Congress has gotten it right, when I look at Congress 

and what they have put together—there’s an appropriation of $170 

million for NED. But yet, the administration’s budget was $67 million, as Mr. Engel has talked about. That gives me grave concern. 

In fact, when I look at the fact that the current administration, 

the Trump budget has slashed all democracy-promotion funding by 

more than half, I see the State Department has been just about 

hollowed out, and we hope that Mr. Pompeo can bring back some 

of those individuals in the workforce. 

And then there’s a proposed massive international affairs budget—their budget is being cut. I think that the committee gets it. 

I know that the chairman of this committee gets it. I know the 

ranking members and many others—we are going to work collectively together to make a difference because we understand the 

work that you do. 

I think with Mr. Gershman, who indicated that education is important now because of a different generation and different folks 

42

and, unfortunately, a different administration also, so I think—and 

part of that, as I travel particularly in Europe, as I am the ranking 

member on the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging 

Threats and I’ve gotten folks coming back and forth, I’ve been hearing a lot from our European allies that the President’s embrace of 

strongmen and shunning of democratic allies and his attacks on 

our own democratic process and institutions, it’s damaging us. So 

but maybe what we can do—and I will start with you, Mr. 

Wollack—could you please address the difference between your 

work, democracy promotion, and meddling, because some say that 

what we are doing is meddling and getting involved. 

Can you explain the difference between those things? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, this has been part of the Russian propaganda campaign as well. Russia, as the United States is, is a member of the OSCE—the Organization for Security and Cooperation 

and Europe. 

The OSCE was established based on democratic principles that 

all member states must abide. So when we are working in countries, particularly in that region of the world, Congressman, we are 

working under the principles established by the OSCE, which require members states to adhere to those principles. 

Our engagement is not to spread falsehoods. It’s not to create 

fake news. It’s not to try to disrupt the process. It’s not to try to 

spur conflict in countries. 

What we are trying to do is promote the principles, values, processes, and institutions that are enshrined in an intergovernmental 

organization and our work is to try to help people engage in the 

political process. 

It’s to help people monitor the political process, which is their 

right. It’s about engagement, it’s about monitoring, and it’s about 

helping promote the integrity of the process. 

Russian efforts are exactly the opposite. It’s designed to subvert 

a process in these countries and try to skew outcomes and it’s a 

little bit like a doctor—one doctor who prescribes poison to a patient and another doctor who prescribes lifesaving medicine to a 

patient. 

I mean, they’re both being prescribed by a doctor but one kills 

and one, hopefully, helps to cure. 

Chairman ROYCE. We’ll go to Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

am perplexed by some of the testimony today and I will have to say 

that over the years one of the greatest things I’ve been proud of 

is Ronald Reagan’s making human rights and democracy a major, 

major part of his administration’s goals. 

But let us remember that Westminster speech—I remember it 

very well—I worked in the speech writing department during that 

time and I am not taking credit for the speech, however—let me 

note that. 

But in pursuing democracy and human rights and, basically, we 

needed to make sure that we did not and it was very clear that we 

did not take away and work against those regimes that were imperfect or had problems—democratic problems in a way that it 

would result in strengthening the Soviet Union and permit ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:07 Jul 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\061418\30423 SHIRL
43

munist governments to exist where flawed, not maybe authoritarian governments. 

In fact, Carl and I know very well your former boss, Jeanne 

Kirkpatrick, who was one of my great heroes and still is, differentiated between authoritarian and totalitarian governments. 

And what I think what we’ve gotten so far away from Jeanne 

Kirkpatrick, what we have are policies that undermine democratic 

governance, and to the benefit of what is our major threat today. 

Ronald Reagan wanted to use, and what worked, was make sure 

we supported democracy and human rights to defeat the major 

threat of the day, which was Soviet communism. 

All right. Today, radical Islamic terrorism is the major threat to 

Western civilization today, and if we end up undermining governments like in Egypt—undermining Egypt right now, as imperfect 

as General Sisi is, if we end up with a government that is controlled by radical Islamic terrorists we have done a great disservice 

to our people and to the world. 

We can speak of all these cliches—we all believe in those phrases 

that our Founding Fathers came forth and put forth to the countries and the people of the world—life, liberty, and the pursuit of 

happiness given to all human beings. 

We believe in that. But if we are so arrogant that we interfere 

with other people’s democratic process because they are flawed and 

it results in more radical Islamic terrorism or Chinese hegemony, 

they we have done a disservice to the world and I see that creeping 

into our policies. 

I don’t know why Indonesia was selected. Isn’t our involvement 

in the Indonesian Government—isn’t that meddling? I mean, Indonesia has a somewhat democratic government, and I see these complaints coming from all over the world now about how—did we or 

did we want involve ourselves heavily to undermine the democratically-elected government of Yanokovych in Ukraine? And what did 

it bring us? It brought us turmoil and conflict—that if we would 

have waited and let that government be elected, because of its 

flaws unelected, we would not be this situation today where the 

world is more likely to go into conflict because of that. I don’t believe the Russians would have invaded Ukraine had we not arrogantly involved ourselves to overthrow that democratically elected 

government in Ukraine. 

And what we need to make sure is—we had a comment about the 

Arab Spring. I will tell you this about the Arab Spring. The Arab 

Spring may have brought more threat to this world than freedom. 

I remember very well the Shah of Iran, who was, yes, had a very 

flawed government. But you know what? We should have stuck by 

the Shah of Iran and it would be a more peaceful world and a 

world with more freedom in the world had we stuck with the Shah 

of Iran rather than cut him off at the knees. 

And we see that with Mubarak in Egypt. When we cut Mubarak 

off, we ended up with a government leader who was a follower of 

the Muslim Brotherhood. 

These things—look, if we are Americans we believe in freedom 

and we believe in democracy. But we better make sure that we—

you know, what Ronald Reagan did when he gave that WestVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:07 Jul 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\061418\30423 SHIRL
44

minster speech. We cannot permit that to allow the greatest enemy 

of freedom and democracy to come to power in various countries. 

So I’ve had my say. I know I am making everybody mad at me 

but I had to say it. 

If the chairman will allow, you certainly will have any amount 

of time you want to respond what I just said. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. I feel like, if I may, I can call you Dana and Ambassador Kirkpatrick will be Jeanne in this discussion, because this 

is a discussion among ourselves and it’s a long discussion. 

Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote that article back in 1979, ‘‘Dictatorships and Double Standards,’’ where she made the distinction 

you’re talking about. 

Different period now, and Jeanne was a member of the IRI 

board—very close friend when the NED was created and she supported completely what we did and I think she did because what 

we do is very pragmatic. Dictatorships and double standards are 

based upon the idea that maybe there are only two choices, and I 

think what NED does is it offers a third choice and it offers a third 

choice by trying to work with whatever openings exist in authoritarian countries to move them toward democracy. 

And my great fear, Congressman, is that if that doesn’t happen 

they will become targets for anti-democratic elements. And I gave 

a talk, which I would like to share with you, recently to the Potomac Institute on Democracy and Terrorism where I think that—

and I quote an Israeli scholar in that talk on terrorism who says 

that the best way of fighting terrorism is through democracy, and 

there’s a lot of evidence for that. 

And what I fear, I spoke about this in the talk—is that the way 

Sisi is opposing the Muslim Brotherhood and the extremists is actually making the problem worse. 

In the prisons where ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood are recruiting it’s making the problem worse, and the example I gave in 

contrast to what Egypt is doing is Tunisia. 

In January, we ran an article by two IRI people in the Journal 

of Democracy who were saying that because the revolution in Tunisia did not produce immediate economic benefits for the people it 

became a fertile recruiting ground for ISIS, okay, and that was a 

problem. 

And I realize that these situations can become problems, but 

what Tunisia has done now—and I refer to this in my testimony—

it’s both fighting terrorism and controlling terrorism—there have 

been no terrorist incidents in Tunisia in the last 3 years—but also 

to deepen and broaden and make more inclusive democracy. 

And I think a tremendous step forward in the Middle East’s first 

Arab democracy was taken on the May 6th local elections in Tunisia and where we all were involved in that, which, I think, the majority of candidates were young people in those elections. 

And through those types of elections, you have made democracy 

meaningful to people. You have told them that their voices count, 

and I think that is the best way, ultimately, to fight terrorism. 

I don’t disagree with you about the problem of terrorism but you 

have to be smart in the way you fight it and I think the best way 

to fight it is by deepening and broadening democracy wherever we 

can. 

45

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think we need to avoid a belief that what we do 

in Washington controls the whole world and everything is all about 

us. The Shah fell—I am not sure there’s anything that happened 

in Washington that caused that or could have prevented it. 

Mubarak fell trying to install a corrupt son to be his successor. 

I am not sure there’s anything that could have happened in Washington that would have preserved him. 

It meets the psychological needs of both the Iranians and the 

Americans to say that in the 1950s we saved the Shah. That massively overstates our importance. But overstating our importance 

makes us feel good and overstating the degree to which Iran is subject to foreign manipulation meets the psychological needs of many 

Iranians. 

On North Korea, I will ask the witnesses or at least whoever answers first, is there a more repressive regime in the world? Can 

anyone name one? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. No, this is——

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. 

Mr. GERSHMAN [continuing]. The most repressive regime in the 

world. 

Mr. SHERMAN. To what extent do we undercut our credibility by 

not even mentioning how the North Korean people are treated 

when our President is in Singapore? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Congressman Sherman, we honored yesterday in 

the Congress four North Korean groups—groups working on 

human rights in North Korea and it was a great celebration 

about——

Mr. SHERMAN. I am not asking about your wonderful organization. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. One of the people we honored yesterday was the 

young man with the crutches who was celebrated during the State 

of the Union Address. I just want to note that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am going to ask also Mr. Wollack, does it undercut? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Okay, but what I do want to say is——

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Gershman, it’s my time. I am going to 

ask——

Mr. GERSHMAN [continuing]. In my view——

Mr. SHERMAN. I am going to ask Mr. Wollack to respond. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Okay. But let me just say one more thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am not sure the chairman will give me 3 or 4 

extra minutes to allow long responses. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Give me one sentence. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If he will, then you’re free to continue. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. One sentence. 

Mr. SHERMAN. One sentence. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Thank you. I don’t think any meaningful nuclear 

agreement is possible without promoting and defending human 

rights. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Wollack. 

46

Mr. WOLLACK. I think that there has been a sea change in the 

United States over the last 35 years in terms of our diplomatic missions. 

I don’t think there is an Ambassador in any country that does 

not have democracy and human rights as part of his or her portfolio. That didn’t exist 35 years ago. 

Now, in some places it’s not the number-one agenda item. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I understand. 

Mr. WOLLACK. It may not be the second or third or the fifth. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Wollack. 

Mr. WOLLACK. And——

[Crosstalk.] 

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank you for your comments, but my question 

was directed at what physically happened in Singapore. I realize 

the importance of human rights to the State Department in general. 

Mr. WOLLACK. No, no, no. I am—Congressman, all I am saying 

is that these are organizations who believe——

Mr. SHERMAN. The question wasn’t about your three organizations. It was about the President and his entourage in Singapore. 

One thing I want to point out is that perhaps the most important 

thing America does for democracy around the world is to serve as 

a model for democracy, and nothing would undermine that more 

than if we fail to have a verifiable auditable paper trail for our own 

elections, which Congress has yet to fund. 

What happened in the year 2000 in Florida and looking at chads 

would be a minor thing compared to a year 2020 election in which 

we believe that perhaps a foreign entity or other skullduggery was 

capable of manipulating the electoral count and that there was no 

way for us to audit it. 

And I want to turn our attention to Yerevan and Armenia. NED 

has allocated $1.3 million last year. Now we’ve seen a real move 

toward democracy. Are you going to do more, given the fluid situation there? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Thank you very much for that question, Mr. 

Sherman. 

Yes. The answer is yes. Our board, which meets later this week, 

is making Armenia what we call a country eligible for contingency 

funds, which are funds set aside for new situations and, obviously, 

what’s happened in Armenia is very, very new. 

And we—I think there are several priorities that have to be addressed. There are going to be quick elections that have been called 

in Armenia and those elections have to have integrity to them to 

give legitimacy to the current Pashinyan government. 

There is a Parliament that oversees this and government officials 

are really new to the governing game. The system has been controlled by a centralized authority for a number of years and so a 

lot of training will have to be necessary for some of the new government officials. 

And then finally, there’s going to be a big information war, the 

kind of issue raised by Congressman Royce, and it is very essential 

in this period—and this is what the groups that we help are 

doing—is to get people reliable and independent information so 

they don’t make the judgments based upon the disinformation that 

47

is going to be promoted by the forces that have just been removed 

from power. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me, finally, comment that we have to believe 

in democracy and elections even when we are on the losing side 

and we can’t be for overthrowing a democratically-elected government even if the people doing it are Westernized, waging a color 

revolution. 

If the government was legitimately elected, the fact that it has 

lost popularity in the capital city should not be a reason for discarding democratic institutions and a government does not fall because it becomes unpopular on a particular day under most constitutions. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Steve Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Nicaragua appears to be heading in the same direction—off a 

cliff—as Venezuela and Cuba before that. The brutal thug, Daniel 

Ortega, has been using lethal force against innocent protestors, 

having already killed approximately 150 people. Many more have 

been wounded or been tortured or have just disappeared. 

There was a massacre of innocent protestors, many of them 

women, on Nicaraguan Mother’s Day recently—very recently. Progovernment Sandinista mobs and gangs are terrorizing and killing 

its own innocent people. What can be done to help innocent Nicaraguan civilians who are being brutalized by their own government? 

Whoever would like to handle that. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Well, Nicaragua happened almost at the same 

time as Armenia and they had, so far, very different outcomes. In 

Armenia, the government withdrew. It was not overthrown. 

The Serzh government withdrew and a new government came in 

and they’re going to have elections. In Nicaragua, the church intervened. There was an uprising. The church intervened to try to have 

a negotiated settlement there and that’s fallen apart. 

It was the young people especially in Nicaragua—the students—

and I was impressed in both Armenia and Nicaragua that a lot of 

the groups that we were supporting just to do regular training programs, leadership training, information programs—when these 

events happened, these are people who are in the middle of the 

struggle. It’s not something that we are doing. 

It’s their struggle. But if you sort of find the most creative and 

dynamic and dedicated democrats, they’re going to be in these 

struggles when an opportunity comes, and it happened in Nicaragua with the announced reform of the pension system. 

It was the spark that led to this uprising. These young people 

were in the forefront of this struggle and they need continued support and solidarity. There are immediate groups there that need 

continued support and solidarity. 

We have to work with and help the church, which is trying to 

mediate this conflict and we have to let Ortega know that there 

really is no future for his regime. He’s lost his legitimacy. 

A lot of the young people who are in the streets were former supporters of the Sandinistas. He has lost those people and Nicaragua 

has to move now on a democratic path. 

48

That’s going to be a very complicated thing because there needs 

to be a political strategy developed by the people in Nicaragua to 

lead to this. There’s no real party right now which can offer an alternative to Ortega. They’re going to have to do that. 

But we just have to continue to support the civil society, media, 

and other elements that are the authentic democratic elements and 

that are outraged by the really utter corruption and the undermining of all the so-called claims to democracy that Ortega had. 

He’s lost his legitimacy. It’s time for him to go and we have to 

sort of see this process move forward peacefully. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

I will move on to another issue. I introduced, and the House 

passed, the Protecting Girls’ Access to Education Act, which would 

prioritize education, especially for girls who are particularly at risk 

around the world, in State Department programs. 

Could somebody touch on how, in your experience, promoting 

education among vulnerable populations helps to strengthen democratic institutions? 

Mr. Twining. 

Mr. TWINING. So, I mean, we are not directly in the education 

business but could I just pick up your point about girls and 

women? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Mr. TWINING. It’s just really one of the single best variables for 

determining whether a country will have a successful democratic 

outcome in institutions is the role of women in political life. 

I mean, one of the pathologies of much of the Arab world is that 

women have been absent from political life in so many ways. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. TWINING. So much of our work in the democracy community 

revolves around trying to empower women and it’s not just about 

kind of training and mechanics. It’s about a mindset change that 

they do have an equal voice in their country’s political life and future. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I only have a little time left. I want to 

give you another question, Mr. Wollack, if I can, real quickly. 

Last year, Prime Minister Hun Sen expelled NDI from Cambodia. My Democratic colleague, Alan Lowenthal, and I are the 

congressional caucus co-chairmen of the Cambodia Caucus and we 

followed the situation very closely. 

There’s little doubt that next month’s elections are going to be 

a sham. So what do you think is our best response? Is there much 

hope for continuing to promote true democracy in Cambodia at this 

point? 

Mr. WOLLACK. I think since the 1993 elections in Cambodia it’s 

been a series of coups in the country. The CPP did not accept the 

results and Hun Sen did not accept the results of the 1993 elections and forced a coalition government, despite losing that election. 

In 1997, there was another coup in which the opposition was exiled and the latest actions by the government is the third coup 

since the U.N.—UNTAC-run elections. 

What we can do right now is to, as Carl said, keep a lifeline to 

civil society organizations on the ground that are trying to engage 

49

as actively as they can under very difficult circumstances and we 

can continue to provide a lifeline to a legitimate political party that 

most likely would have won the elections if it had been allowed to 

compete freely and fairly, and I think one of the reasons why the 

government went after them is their internal polls showed that 

they were going to lose the election. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLLACK. So I think we can keep a lifeline both to the leadership of the party, most of which is in exile, and also to the civic 

groups on the ground. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Chabot, getting women more involved in 

the political sphere and in the economy is something we’ve been focused on with the hearings in this committee and it’s something we 

will continue to double down. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one 

quick point. 

I think that one of the best ways that you can address the issue 

of women’s education and girls and women’s enterprises is to get 

more women elected to leadership positions in political institutions. 

There is lots of research that shows when there’s a critical mass 

of women in parliaments and in government, they will address 

those issues more effectively, and one of the things that NDI and 

IRI does—they do is to try to help political parties, particularly in 

parliamentary systems, reform so women have greater leadership 

roles and are higher up enough on lists in parliamentary systems 

so they actually get represented in parliaments, and then what you 

see are changes that level the playing field for men and women in 

areas of education and business. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. 

We go to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 

all of our witnesses for being here. The work that you do has never 

been more important than it is today and, Mr. Wollack, I would 

join my colleagues in thanking you for your dedication to promoting 

democracy and rule of law and governance and contributions you 

made throughout a very distinguished career and wish you all of 

the best in your retirement. 

There was a—well, actually, let me ask this question first. We 

had touched on Kim Jong-un. Could I just ask you to describe the 

nature of Kim’s regime? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. This is a personalistic dictatorship. It’s a dynasty in the sense that he’s the grandson of Kim Il-sung, who created the regime. 

There is maybe the issue that has gotten most attention is the 

Kwan-li-so, which is the prison camp system where there are now 

120,000 prisoners. But, as I said last night in remarks I made at 

the award event for our grantees working on North Korea, I understand that, reliably, about 400,000 people have died in those prison 

camps. There was, obviously, also mass starvation in the 1990s. 

But I consider what’s happening in North Korea today, Congressman Deutch, an eroding totalitarian system. When we started our 

work in North Korea there was a complete information blockade. 

50

There were no North Koreans who were able to get outside. 

There are now 31,000. The information blockade has broken down. 

One of the groups who are running unification media group is getting news in and getting news out. 

There is a market system now in North Korea because of the collapse of the state distribution system during the famine of the 

1990s. 

This is an eroding totalitarian system. So we shouldn’t give up 

hope on the possibilities for internal change. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. So that gets me to my question. When the 

President had a face-to-face meeting with Kim—the leader of a 

country where there’s been mass starvation, 400,000 dead in these 

prisons, 120,000 prisoners—and then went on in an interview the 

next day in response to a question from Brett Baier referred to Kim 

as a tough guy—he said when you take over a country—a tough 

country, and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you 

are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have—if you can 

do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that can do 

that, so he’s a very smart guy. 

Brett Baier then followed up and said, but he’s still doing some 

really bad things, and the President said, yeah, but so have other 

people done some really bad things. I can go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done. 

I’ve got to ask this questions. I have all sorts of questions about 

Russia and Russia’s attempts to meddle. I have all sorts of notes 

here about the work that you’re doing in countries around the 

world where democracy is at risk. 

But how much more difficult is your work—how much more difficult is democracy promotion and standing up for—and standing 

up against repressive regimes that have 120,000 prisoners where 

400,000 have died, where there’s mass starvation—how much harder is it when the President of the United States seems to condone 

the actions of the worst and most brutal dictators in the world? 

Mr. TWINING. Sir, I mean, I would just say we’ve all been in business for 35 years, right, and we are so directly tied to Congress, 

which was central to the formation of the democracy community institutes. Everywhere I go in the world, I talk about congressional 

leadership in issues like you were describing right now. 

I would also just say I think there’s a fundamental insight that 

most Republicans and most Democrats share, which is that the nature of the threat to the United States from a country like North 

Korea stems from the nature of its regime. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Gershman. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Mr. Wollack, you’re leaving, I mean——

Mr. WOLLACK. There’s no solution aside from——

Mr. DEUTCH. Any comments? [Laughter.] 

Feel free to speak freely. 

Mr. WOLLACK. I think democrats in countries all over the world 

look to the United States. Oftentimes they do, as Dan said, look to 

the Congress as the first address because usually it’s the Congress, 

irrespective of administrations, that have recognized their struggle. 

Don’t forget, it’s the Congress that established the NED. It was 

the Congress that established the Bureau for Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor at the State Department. 

51

These have been instructional initiatives. My chairman, Madeline Albright, talks about this being Article I time on these issues, 

and I would agree with that assessment. 

I think when American leadership doesn’t speak out on these 

issues, people in these countries do feel more vulnerable. There is 

no doubt about that. 

Yet, these people who are very, very brave people are able also 

to compartmentalize and they look to international solidarity in a 

variety of ways. 

And so when there is not American leadership in a particular 

place at a particular time, hopefully, that void can be filled by 

other engagement, and it’s—as I said, and it’s not only a particular 

leader, a particular government. This has waxed and waned over 

the years. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Wollack, I am grateful, actually, for the responses from all of you. I am heartened by them and I am immensely grateful to the chairman and my colleagues on this committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, who continue to stand up 

for American ideals in every part of the world. 

We need to continue to do that and I would note that the same 

thing applies to standing up for our own democracy here at home, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. MCCAUL [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Gershman, what a great event last night to honor——

Mr. GERSHMAN. Thank you for speaking. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes, and for me to present awards to two dissidents who were standing up for human rights in North Korea, 

and in particular, Ji Seong Ho, who was, as you mentioned, at the 

State of the Union, in crutches, for me to be able to do that was 

just an incredible experience, and I want to thank all of you for 

what you do for human rights. 

And I think you mentioned Reagan’s speech at Westminster in 

1982 where he said the march of freedom and democracy would 

leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history, and I 

think he was right. 

But I want to focus on China. I could talk about Russia and I 

could talk about—I’ve seen the rise and fall of ISIS under my tenure as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee but now I 

see the rise of nation states being the bigger threats now—that 

being Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. 

I had a briefing yesterday in a classified setting on ZTE and 

Huawei, and their efforts to conduct espionage in this country. I’ve 

also seen them in Sri Lanka where they have burdened them with 

so much debt that they had to turn over a strategic port to the Chinese. 

We see the Chinese now in Djibouti for the first time and we see 

them leveraging the continent of Africa into so much debt that they 

will be able to eventually take over these countries and exploit 

them. 

They bring in their own workers. They don’t even hire the host 

countries’ workers and they export their natural resources in what 

is this One Belt, One Road policy. 

52

I just want to open this discussion up to the three of you on your 

perception of the threat of China and what the United States needs 

to do in response. 

Mr. Gershman. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. We talk about this all the time. I believe this is 

the most serious problem and the most serious threat our country 

faces today. I disagree with Congressman Rohrabacher. I think this 

is much, much more serious than the problem of terrorism, and it’s 

something that I think our country is beginning to understand. 

In March, The Economist magazine had a cover story on China, 

and the bottom line of the cover story was—and this is a direct 

quote—‘‘The West’s 25-year bet on China has failed.’’

The bet was that if China was brought into the World Trade Organization, was encouraged to grow economically, it would become 

a more liberal society and be part of the liberal world order. 

The exact opposite happened, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that I 

had mentioned in my testimony Liu Xiaobo—that the Chinese destroyed him. 

In 2006, Liu Xiaobo—he’s a Nobel Laureate who died in prison—

wrote an essay where he warned against the problem of China rising as a dictatorship, and he mentioned Hitler. 

He mentioned the Meiji emperors in Japan. He mentioned Stalin, 

and he said, this is the danger. This is going to be a threat for liberal democracy around the world. He was then silenced. 

But what he was saying then, I think, is now becoming understood by the foreign policy establishment. There was a recent policy 

article in Foreign Affairs by Kurt Campbell basically recognizing 

that the old view was wrong—that it hasn’t happened that way and 

that people are now recognizing that we have a new problem. It’s 

a problem with the Belt and Road Initiative, which is not just an 

economic expansion. 

This is intimately tied to China’s geopolitical and military strategy precisely to get strategic ports in Sri Lanka or in Maldives because they fall into the debt trap and pay back by leasing their 

ports. There’s the issue of sharp power. 

There’s the issue of the South China Sea and the violation of the 

judgement of the international tribunal, which said that they did 

not have control of those islands. This is now being recognized as 

the central problem. 

We have to get our minds around this and we are really at the 

beginning of an effort to try to understand how to deal with this 

problem. 

And I just think that as we go forward in thinking about this 

problem the immediate response is going to be a military, a 

geostrategic, an economic response. But don’t forget the people of 

China. 

Don’t forget that there are people like Liu Xiaobo in China who 

want a different kind of future and when you tighten the centralized power the way Xi Jinping has centralized power there are 

going to be a lot of unhappy people. 

There are going to be splits. We have to not give up on the possibility for democratic change in China and keep findings ways to 

support them. 

53

I realize I am a great optimist. I am always looking at the positive side in North Korea in every country, but I really deeply believe that this is possible. 

I also think, by the way, that we have to keep our eyes focused 

on the minorities issue, what’s happening with the Uighurs. It’s not 

physically genocidal but they’ve got internment camps, reeducation 

camps where a million Uighurs are now in those camps. 

There should be an outcry in the Muslim world against this. I 

was speaking with one of our Uighur participants in last night’s 

event about this, how can we get the Muslim world to protest 

against the repression of the Uighurs. 

There’s the Tibetan issue. We have to challenge—we talked 

about this at the December hearing—we have to challenge China, 

which says that the Dalai Lama must accept the fact that Tibet’s 

been part of China since antiquity, which is not true. China invaded Tibet. Tibet did have an international legal identity. 

We have to challenge these things. We have to defend Taiwan. 

We have to defend Taiwan, which is a Confucius culture and a democracy, and China is very much aware of that. 

They would love to eliminate Taiwan or absorb Taiwan. We have 

to ensure that Taiwan could remain an independent democracy. We 

also have to defend Hong Kong. 

So we have to stand firm with the people who are in these struggles and not let them lose hope. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And my time has expired. But I just want to close 

by saying, I remember reading bin Laden’s writings. He projected 

exactly what their intentions were, and the Chinese—I agree with 

you—are now the bigger threat and they have telegraphed that by 

2025 they will be a world-dominating power both militarily and 

economically and I think the United States needs to wake up to 

that fact. 

The chair now recognizes Ms. Karen Bass from California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to welcome my colleagues from NED and IRI and NDI, and I am a member of the NED board, for my colleagues that are here on the committee, and I have to say the work that NED does around the 

world is really tremendous, and I had the honor recently of being 

at the World Movement for Democracy in Senegal. 

And meeting people from all around the world who are all committed to fighting for democracy was quite an honor. I wanted to 

ask each of you if you would talk about one challenge that is facing 

that in Africa that all of us are very, very concerned about and 

that’s the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 

They were supposed to have elections in 2016, and now is supposedly putting the elections off until December of this year, and 

I don’t believe there’s been any indication that Kabila has made 

any commitment not to run and the deteriorating situation there 

in regard to democracy. 

And I wanted to know if you would each speak to the work of 

each of your entities within DRC and then also what more do you 

think Congress can be doing. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

54

First of all, I just want to make one comment about the African 

continent because when people talk about backsliding, people tend 

to ignore the changing face on the continent. 

Between 1960 and 1990 there were four African heads of state 

that stepped down voluntarily, and since 1990 that figure is over 

50. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. I appreciate you pointing that out because 

we don’t acknowledge when there’s peaceful transitions of power, 

which happen frequently, as you have mentioned. 

Mr. WOLLACK. And some of the fastest growing economies in the 

world are in places now that are new democracies on the African 

continent. 

In terms of the DRC, it is a mystery. Nobody knows what is 

going to happen. What we are trying to do is to work with political 

parties across the spectrum, trying to promote dialogue and preparations for what everybody expects, or everybody hopes if not expects, in December. 

But the big question is going to be Kabila himself. I fear if he 

makes a decision to run, you’re going to see massive social unrest 

in the country, which not only is going to affect the people of the 

DRC but it’ll have regional implications. 

And so the question is, how do you prepare now for a process 

with the assumption that he will make the right decision—really, 

the only decision, that he should make and that’s what we are all 

doing—working with civil society organizations to monitor the elections, helping the parties develop sort of the rules of the game for 

the election, support the election commission and NDI, IRI, and 

IFES have been working in tandem, identifying what the needs are 

and then working on the ground and trying to respond to those 

needs. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. TWINING. Congresswoman, could I just add—I mean, that 

sums up some of our work. But there’s a broader dynamic, which 

is that there are these African success stories. But we had an African leader say to us recently the problem—you look at DRC, you 

look at South Sudan. These countries aren’t just a problem for 

themselves. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Mr. TWINING. They destabilize the entire—refugee flows, illegal 

drugs, militias, everything, the whole human trafficking—and that 

when you think about the African integration agenda, when you 

think about 1 billion new people coming online in Africa in the next 

30 years and what the economic potential of that is versus the 

darker scenario if those people don’t have opportunity—if they are 

pushed to the political extremes. 

We have got to get these almost black holes right, right, that are 

destabilizing the entire continent, and it’s a bigger job than any of 

us can do. But thank you for the focus on it. 

Ms. BASS. Sure. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. I just think that more people have died in the 

Congo over the last 20 years from conflict and the disease and violence associated with conflict than in any other country in the 

world. 

55

So this is a problem that has to be central to our attention. I 

would say only one other point. The opposition is going to come 

from grassroots citizen movements if there is not a free and fair 

election. There is——

Ms. BASS. Which NED supports. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Just as we’ve seen in other countries like 

Burkino Faso, Senegal, in 2012, where they had the uprising—the 

Y’en a Marre uprising—and you have these citizen movements that 

are now all over Africa, and they are the leading force that, I think, 

is going to lead to change in the Congo, and a lot of the groups that 

we support, you know, are trying to train and educate people in 

these citizen movements. 

Ms. BASS. And let me just say, Mr. Chair, before I move on that 

we do have a bipartisan bill that we’ve been working on that I do 

hope we have a markup on in this committee as soon as possible. 

And in walks our chair, Mr. Royce. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Yoho. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you all 

sitting here. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with most of you and 

I’ve read your stuff over the years. I really do appreciate the work 

you do in your organizations, and that is to spread the values and 

ideals that we hold true, and that President Reagan was so great 

sharing with the rest of the world, and those are life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness along with human rights as enshrined and protected in our Constitution. 

We have been attempting to perfect it over 200 years through 

many trials and tribulations, and yet we still don’t have it right. 

So bear with me for a moment. 

As you know, the word democracy is used loosely around the 

world. We have a pretty good understanding here. A democracy is 

defined as majority rule, or mob rule, and we have a constitutional 

republic, a republic that uses a democratic process where the majority of votes won in an electoral college system wins and, yes, 

some countries do have a majority rule by the votes that are cast 

by the electorate. 

So when we talk about spreading democracy around the world, 

I wonder if we are not spreading the wrong message. If one is to 

watch our news and you see the constant of our political leaders, 

all the way up to our President, and they receive it 24/7 that people 

in America are not happy with our many freedoms, do you see 

where it gives leaders in other countries pause and casts doubts to 

its citizens on fighting for what kind of a country they want, or 

what form of government, like a democracy? 

Then a leader like Xi Jinping points to America and points out 

the flaws of democracies, or Chavez, Castro, or Maduro says they 

are a result of failed democracies. Or any other authoritarian dictator or thug points to a democracy as a flawed form of government. 

Again, is there cause for people or leaders in a country to question what form of government they want? We believe it. We fought 

for it. We’ve had it for 200 years. 

56

As you all have said, democracy is on the ropes and it’s being 

challenged, and I think of Mohammad Ali talking about the old 

rope-a-dope in the boxing ring. 

It’s something we’ve had to fight for and it’s something that we 

believe in and we hold these values true. But today there is a paradigm shift going on around the world we have not seen since preWorld War II and there are two dominant players today. 

One is us—the United States, with the most successful, and I am 

going to put democracy in quotes or, more accurately, a republic, 

that offers those liberties, freedoms, in the pursuit of happiness 

along with the human rights and self-governance, provided one 

stays within the parameter of the law, and we honor the rule of 

law. 

These are the rights guaranteed and protected by our Constitution. 

And the second being offered is by China and their dictator now 

for life, Xi Jinping, offering an alternative to leaders around the 

world. He’s not going to offer it to people in another country. He’s 

going to offer it to their leaders. 

Their form of socialism with Chinese characteristics and, as we 

all know, that’s communism. Our form of government empowers 

the people. Empowered people reach their full potential. China empowers the government where the people are suppressed for the 

benefit of the government. 

And so as we go around, doing what you do—and I commend the 

work you do because it’s vital—we have to—we can’t back off of it, 

and no amount of money is going to fix it. You’re not going to 

spread it everywhere in the world. 

But if you spread those ideals that President Reagan spoke 

about, those are innate in every human being on this planet. Those 

are the things that will win by empowering people to those ideals 

they know they have, and there’s not enough money in the world 

to do it. 

But if you empower those people by working through the NGOs 

and the things like you guys do and find those leaders that are 

willing to tie into that, we’ll win that every time because you cannot suppress people over and over again because they yearn to be 

free. 

And so knowing what we know, as we talked about earlier, we 

get asked a lot about North Korea. Yes, it’s very dangerous and it’s 

very serious. But it can be dealt with diplomatically, I truly believe, and we are on the road. 

You know, a job begun is half done. And the biggest threat we 

have is that challenge to the form of government that we see challenged today and how do you think the best way we need to go 

about challenging what we see as the rising dragon out of the 

East? 

Mr. Gershman or Mr. Twining, you are ready there. 

Mr. TWINING. I could be quick, because Carl got his shot on 

China and I was hoping to get mine. [Laughter.] 

So it’s very interesting with China because the Chinese used to 

bide their time, keep a low profile. That was the Deng Xiaoping advice. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

57

Mr. TWINING. Xi Jinping has come out and said actually China 

can be a model for you, other countries——

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Mr. TWINING [continuing]. And it’s the whole suite that, if you’re 

a strongman in another country it’s very attractive. It’s not just the 

money. It’s not just the one-party system or one-man system. 

It’s the surveillance architecture. This Orwellian total surveillance state they’re building with artificial intelligence and facial 

recognition and all this stuff. 

It’s very attractive, as you say, not to people but to leaders. So, 

I mean, I think first response is we’ve got to stick with this. Gosh, 

if there was ever a bad time for America to cede the field, it’s not 

that—this is a bad time to cede the democracy field to other countries, who have very malign intentions. 

That’s one. Two, your fundamental insight, which, put another 

way, is that the thing about China and also Putin, they are fundamentally most afraid of their own people. 

Mr. YOHO. They are. 

Mr. TWINING. Right. We are not. We have a system that is very 

responsive—totally responsive to our publics and we have regular 

elections—do monitor that. 

These leaders, their strategic Achilles heel is fear of their own 

publics and I think we should think about the old Reagan message 

of exploiting that a little. 

Mr. YOHO. I would like to get everybody’s comment but I am out 

of time with respect to everybody else. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. So we are going to go to Bill Keating of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just want to follow up a little bit on Mr. Deutch’s question a little bit, and I mean this—I know you want to get away from partisan kind of issues but sometimes you can’t. 

One of our goals when we go to countries and we are representing the United States of America we are proponents in our 

own rights, as Members of Congress, on issues like freedom of the 

press, rule of law, freedom of religion, free elections. 

But, honestly, not so much in public conversations but privately 

we get thrown back in our face freedom of the press—well, what 

about fake news—what about, you know, business attacks at networks, undermining that from the business concern, which the 

President has done? 

What about rule of law issue where these partisan attacks on enforcement agencies like the FBI or attacks on the judiciary based 

on the family history and nationality of one of the judges—freedom 

of religion on exclusionary orders or freedom of elections from 

statements that 5 million people in our country are voting illegally, 

or congratulating Putin on his election or even recently the German Ambassador putting his hands on the scales saying that he 

hopes in Europe that is more conservative winning in the elections, 

to paraphrase him loosely? 

So those are the issues. It’s hard for us to do that. Any suggestions? 

Mr. WOLLACK. I will just make perhaps one point in this. There 

is an issue, too. Even though there were NGOs, we are operating 

58

on U.S. Government money, too. And so there is understandable, 

I think, reluctance to get involved in critiquing the administration’s 

foreign policy. 

Mr. KEATING. Okay. Maybe this. 

Forget what I just said and pretend it’s a hypothetical. 

Mr. WOLLACK. But I will tell you that overseas what people admire most about the United States is not a single individual. It 

happens to be the institutions of this country. 

There are many people and many places who would say we aspire to have your problems, because if our leader says something 

we do not have the option to turn on television and hear that leader criticized in mainstream media. We don’t see the courts operating to create some check on the executive. We don’t see Congress 

with the Article 1 powers, the right to subpoena, the right to control the budgets, that can provide another check. 

We don’t see civil society in a way that can deal with these 

issues. So I think there’s an understanding that there are problems 

politically. There are problems in this country. 

There are problems in lots of other traditional democracies, and 

the sense of people in these countries that the traditional systems 

are not responding to their needs. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. If I could just interrupt for a second, 

thank you for taking a stab at that. I would say this, too. 

Often I preface statements to other countries where we might be 

a little critical of the way they’re operating. I say, you got to understand our country. We criticize ourselves, I said, so what I am 

doing and what we are doing here, that’s us. That’s part of our 

DNA. 

So I think it’s a great point to point out the fact that, look, we 

are having our own political differences—but that’s what we are 

about. 

So thank you for that. I have another quick question that’s really 

granular, I know, because I just received some correspondence—

and we mentioned Nicaragua before and some of the violence. 

I had a disturbing communication sent to me with the threats on 

some Jesuit priests and the clergy that are there. 

They’re outspoken in many of their doctrines, and there’s a Father Jose Alberto Idiaquez, who is a rector there in Central America University in Nicaragua. He’s an educator. But his life has been 

threatened. 

Can we do anything as a country to try and deal with those 

issues where even educational heads—religious heads are just 

speaking up and their lives are being threatened? Is there something we can do in the U.S. to try and help in that regard at all? 

Any suggestions, based on your experience? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Throughout the world we are in countries where 

the people that we work with are being threatened, being killed, 

and we do everything we can. Congresswoman Bass mentioned the 

World Movement for Democracy and we have an alert system 

where we put out alerts which go around the world and we can do 

that. 

The government, presumably has tried to provide training for security services. But you have a corrupt government in Nicaragua, 

which is actually part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

59

Ultimately, you have got to press for political change there because this system is responsible for killing a lot of dissidents, and 

organizing these turbas against young people who have their own 

legitimate criticisms of the government, and I just think we have 

to mobilize both through official channels, our Government, the 

international community but also then the private human rights 

organizations to put pressure on Nicaragua so Ortega realizes he 

can’t get away with this. 

And then we have to continue to support the people inside Nicaragua who are fighting for a better way of governing themselves. 

Mr. KEATING. My time has expired. I thank you all. Forward 

some of this information. 

Mr. WOLLACK. I would say publicity under these circumstances 

is the best response, whether it’s the OAS, the Human Rights Commission within the OAS, whether it’s Members of Congress, whether it’s human rights organizations around the world. 

That is not an antidote but it provides a degree of protection. 

Mr. KEATING. As you may gather, that’s why I mentioned it. 

Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go to Mr. Ted Poe of Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to tap my foot 

and say amen to my friend, Mr. Keating, from Massachusetts, and 

his comments and his questions. 

I want to cover three subjects in 5 minutes so make your answers brief. So if I ask you the time, don’t tell me how to make 

a watch, if you can appreciate it, because you all have a lot of wisdom here. 

Globally, what do you personally see is the number-one entity 

that is a threat to democracy, worldwide? Is it China? Is it Russia? 

Is it North Korea? Is it ISIS? Is it Iran? 

Pick one. Pick the one you think is a threat. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. China. 

Mr. POE. China. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. China. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Twining. 

Mr. TWINING. China. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Wollack. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Russia. 

Mr. POE. Russia. Russia and China. 

Okay. Turkey—it seems to me Turkey is moving away from 

democratic principles at a rapid rate, everything from Erdogan to 

security guards coming to the United States and beating up a 

bunch of Americans and then fleeing the country and Erdogan 

never, I think, took responsibility for that, and some of the things 

internally that are happening to what I see democracy in Turkey. 

What can we do to help Turkey move back toward a democratic 

state? Anyone of you want to tackle that? Then I have one more 

question. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Well, look, they’ve got elections coming up in less 

than 2 weeks—June 24th—and those elections could go to a second 

round. That’s very, very important and we should insist that these 

elections are free and fair and that there’s a fair count there, even 

though the media situation is not fair. 

60

The regime in Turkey—there’s a real economic crisis. I think 

they’re worried about that. They want an election soon because 

they see the economic problems coming later, and so I think if you 

can help the alternative points of view emerging there—I know 

that NDI and IRI are both working on that and they may want to 

say a word. I think what would be very, very helpful. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Mr. TWINING. Just very quickly, I would say if there was some 

way for us to stabilize Syria—not us the democracy community, us 

the West——

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Mr. TWINING [continuing]. Because he has manipulated antiKurdish nationalism inside Turkey to bolster his political standing 

and hollow out institutions. 

Mr. POE. Good point. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Support for the democratic center because he’s 

been able to play off the very—the opposition parties and opposition groups over the nationalism issue, and how do you support the 

democratic center in the country and a large civil society network 

that are advocating for these checks and balance principles. 

Mr. POE. Okay. And the other issue I want to talk about are the 

three countries of Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia. 

All three countries, I think, seem to have the similar issues internally and externally. All three countries are occupied by Russian 

troops. They’re close to Russia and to me it seems like they’re kind 

of on the fence about which way they’re going to go. 

I met with all three Speakers of the House not long ago in 

Moldova, and we talked about these very issues. But what is the 

realistic situation in those three countries today as you see it? 

Mr. TWINING. Sir, I lived in Georgia for 3 years before this job. 

We also have a lot of Ukrainians coming through IRI. I don’t think 

there is a big divide. They want to be part of the West. 

They want to lean toward Europe, toward the United States. A 

Google executive told me that Russia is waging a ‘‘total war’’ 

against Ukraine in cyberspace. He said it’s like Hiroshima and Nagasaki in cyberspace. You just don’t see it because it’s all these digital assaults on Ukrainian Government institutions, on free media 

in Ukraine, et cetera. 

So I would just reference that I don’t think the people are equally divided. Most of the people in those countries want to be part 

of the modern Western world. 

Mr. POE. I was in Georgia the week after the Russians invaded 

in 2008, and the Russians are still there. Now, I would agree that 

it’s the people that want to move to the West. But the government 

maybe doesn’t seem like it to me that are moving to the West. 

But maybe you disagree. 

Comments by the other two of you on those three countries—

Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Yes. I would say Moldova is slightly different than 

Ukraine and Georgia in this regard. Both—in Georgia, overwhelming majorities are for joining the EU and NATO and a large 

majority in Ukraine. 

Moldova is mixed, and the problem in Moldova is you have a substantial portion that looks East and a substantial portion that 

61

looks to the West but doesn’t see the benefits coming from integration, and they view the pro-Western parties as corrupt and out of 

touch. 

And so you have a very divided government. You have a divided 

population and that can go either way. And so the parties that 

favor European integration have not been doing a very good job in 

terms of communicating with the public on the benefits of participation in the EU and they are seeing that there’s a crisis of confidence in those parties. 

And the question is whether there will be some third way in the 

country that provides an alternative to these two polar political 

movements. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Congressman, you wanted a short answer. So in 

Moldova and Ukraine, in addition to the Russian problem, the critical problem is corruption, and we have to work to support groups 

who are fighting corruption from the grass roots. 

Otherwise, those countries are going to lose population because 

nobody will invest and people will leave and that’s happening even 

right now. 

In Georgia, I would only add one point. We are doing a lot of 

work right now with a group that’s working with the Georgian 

Church—the orthodox church—and they brought a lot of these orthodox priests here, along with Muslim and Catholic leaders as 

well, last November. I think it’s extremely important to work with 

the church, to see that they’re connected to Europe and connected 

to the United States. 

This is a very important thing we can do, and I hope that when 

they come again—because they may be coming again—that they 

can come up to the Congress and meet with you because the church 

in Georgia I think is a kind of a central institution that could lean 

to the East but also is now being connected to the West. 

Mr. POE. Thank you very much. I yield back. I will yield back. 

We are out of time. 

Mr. WOLLACK. One positive development I would say in Moldova 

at the grass roots you have hundreds of mayors right now who represent the new reform movement and I think change—I think positive change can come from the bottom up. 

Chairman ROYCE. Lois Frankel from Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, 

for being here and for your work. 

And I just want to start out by saying that I believe in our democracy and what you’re doing. I think we always have to be mindful of protecting our own democracy. 

We have some flaws—the money in politics. We had a flawed ballot in Florida. A few years ago I think we had a FBI director who 

interfered in the last election. 

I mean, these are issues that we have to deal with, and I think 

something that I just have to raise today, and I don’t know if you 

want to comment, is what we are doing on the border, pulling children out of the arms of families and then putting children in cages, 

parents not having any contact with their children for months, to 

me is abominable and just it goes against everything that I know 

I was raised to believe about a great country. 

62

And I am going to ask you if you want to comment on that. Does 

anyone want to comment on that? 

Mr. TWINING. Congresswoman, I would just say as a dad that I 

just think about the conditions in Central America in particular 

that motivate parents to try to come to the United States and how 

desperate they are because of conditions at the source and how our 

work, hopefully, can impact that. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

And I know we’ve put you in an awkward situation. You’re trying 

to get funding from a government where if you look awkwardly at 

the President he’ll cut you off at the knees. 

Anyway, I don’t depend on my funding from him so I can say 

what I want, and I think his policy at the border is, as I said, is 

a disgrace to our country. 

Anyway, I will move right along to my next subject, which is that 

I think it’s quite obvious that you can’t just drop ballot boxes 

around the world and say oh, come on, have a free election. 

There must be infrastructure in place. Actually, it could even be 

a road, right. It could be water supply. It could be education, 

health care, projects that give people confidence in a government 

that’s going in the correct direction. 

And what I would like to hear, if you could, is comment on the 

importance of us having, I would say, a global policy that, again, 

cuts to the State Department where you cut USAID or money to 

NGOs that help provide the infrastructure to democracies as related to what you are fighting for. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. This is bread and butter of what we do, of 

course. 

I would just add, agreeing with what you just said—the issue of 

free media, which has been of critical importance. 

Mr. WOLLACK. People are in a demanding mood. They want to 

put food on their table and they want the right to have a political 

voice in a country, and they’re not going to give up either one. 

And so, therefore, there is a responsibility to respond to that by 

the institutions in those countries and they deserve and expect and 

support outside assistance, particularly at these critical times. 

People talk about sequencing—that somehow people have to have 

a certain level of education or the society has to build a middle 

class before they can have fundamental political and human rights. 

That’s really not the case. I mean, people, demand both, and we 

have to respond to both of those desires on the part of people and 

they both reinforce each other. 

Ms. FRANKEL. One more point that I would like to make, because 

I am going to run out of time, I think one or two of you—I think 

maybe it was Mr. Wollack, you gave what I believe is a very good 

presentation—part of your presentation on the role of women and 

the importance of empowering women to have democracy. 

And just, you know, what I have seen, not only in this country 

but around the world is we have an administration that is trying 

to, I will say, disempower women in every way possible. 

Let me give one specific example in terms of the rest of the 

world, which is the expansion of the gag rule, which now has 

basic—and cutting off funding to the U.N. Population Fund, and 

cutting of health care. 

63

Not—we are not talking about cutting off abortion just—we are 

talking about cutting off health care to women all over the world, 

and organizations that fight child marriage and trafficking and so 

forth. 

I would like to hear a comment on that. 

And what I see are blank stares, and I think it’s very unfortunate because if you think you’re going to get democracy in the 

world, we better empower the women. 

And maybe next time we’ll have some women over there so I 

don’t get a blank stare when I ask that question. 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. FRANKEL. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentlelady acknowledge we do a fair 

number of presentations—witnesses before this committee where 

we actively—myself and Mr. Engel—try to get expertise from 

women? 

It is just a situation right now where the chairman of the NED 

and the IRI and NDI are male. And so I am just trying to——

Mr. WOLLACK. All I would say, Congressman——

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. WOLLACK [continuing]. Is that one of the major efforts of, I 

think, all of these institutions is to dedicate resources and global 

efforts to promote women’s political empowerment so there are sufficient women in office at all levels so they can address issues like 

that so these institutions can address issues like that. 

We generally don’t go in and take positions on policy issues. But 

if sufficient women are in positions of political power and the only 

way they’re going to do that in parliamentary systems is the gateway of political parties and they have to reform, and if women can 

get in those political positions those issues will be addressed by 

these institutions. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And thank you. First, I want to say about our 

chairman, he has absolutely been terrific in terms of trying to advance women’s rights all over the world, and I want to thank you 

for that. 

And I know you can’t help who’s the head of these agencies and 

no disrespect to the three of you. But I think this is just an example, again, of why it’s so important to have women at the table. 

Chairman ROYCE. Which——

Ms. FRANKEL. As some people say, otherwise you’re going to be 

on the menu, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. But as——

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, at NDI we have a woman at the head of our 

table and that’s Madeline Albright. So——

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. So one of the things we’ve tried to do in 

the committee to address this is we have a women’s series of hearings, and part of our goal on the committee is to get governments 

around the world to focus on this. 

So but I need to go to Mr. Tom Garrett of Virginia. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Very briefly, I take marginal umbrage insofar as I believe that 

one who seeks to advance an agenda, whether it’s empowerment of 

women globally or any other agenda, will take their friends where 

64

they can find them and not make political points by virtue of the 

fact that you all happen to each, I think, identify as male. 

Having said that, what I mean is I have worked with great joy 

with my distinguished colleague, Ms. Frankel, to empower women 

globally and said repeatedly that I believe that an empowered educated economically-thriving class of women across the world will reduce radicalism and reduce conflict and increase economic opportunity, and I happen to agree with this President most of the time. 

So take your friends where you find them, because we are on the 

same team on this one. Having said that, it frustrates me to know 

end—I think the chairman might pull his hair out by virtue of my 

repeated reference of the Vandenberg quote from 1948 that politics 

should stop at the water’s edge. 

And I heard criticism of this administration as it related to the 

discourse that occurred in Singapore by virtue of the fact that there 

was a failure to mention human rights violations in North Korea. 

I would ask you, Mr. Wollack, is there anything we can do about 

human rights violations that have already occurred in North 

Korea—the ones that have already occurred. Can we stop them? 

If a human rights violation occurred last year in North Korea, is 

anything that was said in Singapore be influential in changing that 

fact? That’s an obvious question and answer. 

Mr. WOLLACK. I don’t know the answer. 

Mr. GARRETT. Well, I think probably if it’s already occurred, unless we have a time machine about which you and I—you know 

that I don’t, it can’t be changed, right? 

But can we do anything to change human rights violations in 

North Korea, moving forward—those human rights violations that 

have not yet occurred? 

Mr. Twining. 

Mr. TWINING. Yes. You know, I would say if this negotiating 

process leads to a more open North Korea that creates all sorts of 

new opportunities. 

Mr. GARRETT. Having said that, let me ask you the same question. Can we change human rights violations that have already occurred? Is that possible in the world in which we live, sir? 

Okay. And so let me ask you this——

Mr. GERSHMAN. If I may, Congressman. 

Mr. GARRETT. Well, I have a finite amount of time. I won’t get 

extra time because I am a new guy and I am about to be out of 

here in January 2019. 

So, Mr. Gershman, with all due respect, I will get to you in a second. I have a good friend who I’ve worked with a number of 

months, back when I was in a different mode, who’s in the military 

in South Korea and I was excited at the prospect of a detente, if 

you will, with the North Koreans. 

I would ask Mr. Gershman is the probability of kinetic armed 

conflict on the Korean Peninsula lower or higher, in your estimation, than it was in December 2016, today, right now? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. It’s very hard. It depends on how the negotiations go. But when——

Mr. GARRETT. Right this second, is the probability of kinetic conflict lower or higher? 

65

Mr. GERSHMAN. Right this second? Probably lower. Probably 

lower. 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Twining, would you say it’s lower than it was 

in December 2016? 

Mr. TWINING. Lower. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And is the probability of a North Korean 

ballistic missile launch lower or higher than it was, say, 1 year ago, 

Mr. Wollack—today? 

Mr. WOLLACK. I would say yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. It’s lower? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And Mr. Gershman, is the probability of a 

North Korean nuclear test lower or higher than it was, say, 18, 24 

months ago? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Of course it’s lower. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And so as a result of these things, while this 

negotiation is far from complete, and I would submit that the 

North Korean regime from 1950 has a history of making a promise 

and then breaking a promise, as evidenced by the gaming of President Clinton, who I think had very good intentions in the 1990s 

when he strode to a microphone and said this North Korea nuclear 

deal—sound familiar—ends the possibility of nuclear conflagration 

stemming from the Korean Peninsula—and I think he meant it—

but we know that we need to do what I think President Reagan 

said and that is trust but verify. 

Does that sound like an accurate course of action summary moving forward with North Korea? 

But we are somewhere where we were not before and I would 

ask you, Mr. Twining—am I pronouncing that correct? Twining—

I apologize. 

Do you believe that it undermines U.S. foreign policy as it relates 

to the Article 2 powers of the executive branch to engage in foreign 

policy treaties, et cetera, when there are 435 critics in the House 

and 100 critics in the Senate who immediately go contra, in some 

instances reflexively, to whatever comes from the executive branch? 

Do you think that might undermine the credibility of the negotiating power of the executive branch? 

Mr. TWINING. Congress is going to have to do sanctions relief and 

fund assistance to North Korea if that comes. 

I worked in the 1990s for John McCain and we were trying to 

defund the KEDO framework because we knew North Korea was 

cheating. 

So there is a congressional——

Mr. GARRETT. And so we have an ability—I would close with—

and a responsibility that I think this committee generally, across 

the aisle, does a good job with to be a check on executive power 

by virtue of speaking when we are in disagreement. 

However, the reflexive disagreement with an administration 

whose near-term goals may seem antithetical to our long-term 

goals may in fact undermine the accomplishment of the collective 

long-term goal which I would argue in the case of my distinguished 

colleagues across the aisle, myself and the President of the United 

States is peace, stability, and global opportunity—that the path we 

66

choose from point A to point B may vary, but that our overarching 

goal is very similar. 

So with that, I see that my time has expired. I thank the chairman and the distinguished members of the committee and conclude 

my remarks. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Garrett. 

We go to Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our witnesses, not only for being here but for the 

important work that you’re leading. 

I think we all recognize that promoting freedom and democracy 

and protecting human rights is a very important pillar of our work 

around the world and a very critical part of America’s leadership, 

and as Mr. Gershman said, it’s not only morally the right thing to 

do but it’s the smart thing to do because it advances the interests 

of our country. 

And I think there’s always been bipartisan support and understanding of that basic principle that democracies are more resilient, 

they’re more stable, they produce better economic conditions and 

better advance the well-being of all people. 

And I think in particular, to respond directly to Mr. Garrett, I 

think this is actually a moment where Congress has a particularly 

special responsibility to assert itself in promoting democracy and 

human rights around the world in the face of what the administration is doing. 

And so I want to just spend 1 second on what Mr. Deutch and 

Mr. Keating had started to focus on, and that is what is the practical impact of an American President who is cozying up to despotic 

leaders who’s praising authoritarian leadership around the world, 

strongmen? What kind of signal does that send to those who are 

fighting to advance democracy in very hard places around the 

world? The lack of meaningful oversight of the corruption of this 

administration where corruption is such a problem in countries 

that have emerging democracies or repressive governments? 

I am just wondering, as a practical matter, as people are working 

in various places around the world, what are people saying about 

the impact of the American—this administration engaged in those 

activities, engaged in that kind of behavior? Is it making the work 

more difficult? What’s their assessment of it? 

And, obviously, Congress has a role to respond to it. We are 

doing our best to raise our voices. But there has to be some understanding of what the implications are for the people doing the 

work. 

Mr. TWINING. Sir, I would just say I personally use it as an example—democracy is never done, right. We’ve been at it for 200 

years. We are still working on it. 

When I go out into the world I talk about our system of checks 

and balances, our system of congressional oversight, our system of 

federalism, so that most Americans are actually not being governed 

from Washington, DC, but by their mayors and state legislatures 

and governors, et cetera. 

So democracy looks different in every country. But I actually 

think we can take some of the lessons about separation, et cetera, 

into the world. 

67

Mr. WOLLACK. I would say that it doesn’t make our work measurably more difficult. As I said, I think people compartmentalize. 

WE don’t go overseas to preach the American model and to tell 

people that they have to support everything that we do in the 

United States. 

We work internationally. We have international partners. We are 

part of a, really, a democratic solidarity network. 

But I think the people we work with always want strong American leadership. They believe in strong American leadership and 

they would want the United States to speak out on behalf of democracy and human rights. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Gershman, I am going to ask you to incorporate your response, if you haven’t, to my second area that I really want to get 

to, and that is the current conditions in Burma. 

I had the opportunity to be there last November to visit the 

Rohingya in Indonesia and to visit Myanmar, and I am wondering 

what we could be doing better to support democratic governance 

and economic development. 

On the one hand, the discrimination and the near genocide of the 

Rohingya is something which is repulsive and contrary to all of our 

human rights views and human decency. 

And it has been very disturbing to watch the Aung San Suu Kyi 

government actively really obfuscate and really attempt to deny 

this ethnic cleansing. 

And just wondering what actions we should be taking to address 

these challenges of democratic consultation and economic instability in Burma while at the same time making it very clear to the 

world that we understand these atrocities are—cannot continue 

and that the individuals responsible for it must be held accountable 

and it must stop. 

And I am just wondering if you have suggesting how we should 

balance that. And then my last question, which I would ask anyone 

to comment, is suggestions on what we should be doing in Poland 

and Hungary where we are seeing very significant sliding human 

rights in free press and I think very challenging on many, many 

levels and love to hear your thoughts on both those things. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Those are such large and difficult questions 

but—and I want to emphasize NED is not a policy organization 

but, obviously, Congress has to grapple with the issue of sanctions 

on Burma, given what’s happened, and it’s a very important question. 

I realize there may be differences between the House and the 

Senate but that’s something that has to be worked out. 

On Poland and Hungary, look, we understand these are problems—these are countries that are members of the EU. There are 

pressures in these countries especially on independent media and 

political opposition. 

These are the deeply divided countries. But in a sense, we can 

understand that democracy itself is imperiled today around the 

world and these are problems that we have to deal with. 

These are countries with which we are friendly and I think we 

have to be able to talk with these countries and not assume that 

they’re inevitably going to go in this direction. 

68

These are still democratic countries and they still have independent media and political oppositions and we have to hope that 

they will move forward. 

I am not going to get to the other questions because the congressman has left. I will end there. 

Mr. CICILLINE. You can just finish the answer even if he’s——

Mr. GERSHMAN. Well, let me just say one other thing on your 

first question regarding the statements made. 

Nobody that we support is giving up. In other words, I want to 

leave you and others with the understanding—with the knowledge 

that there are dynamic forces on the ground in all these countries 

that we connect to that are energized. 

Now, they may be discouraged if there are statements made that 

suggest where the United States stands. But that could also encourage people to realize that they’ve got to take their future into 

their own hands and be more self-reliant, which is also something 

which can be positive. 

But this is not stopping—I think the Congressman who talked 

about the aspirations of people for freedom and democracy. That is 

true around the world, and I think it’s, in a way, the reason—the 

central reason why the National Endowment for Democracy and its 

institutes are successful institutions and can accomplish great 

things with relatively limited resources, because we are not imposing anything. 

We are not asking people to do anything that they don’t want to 

do. We are supporting their own aspirations and giving them some 

of the tools to realize those aspirations, and I think it should not 

be forgotten NED was created as an independent institution so 

that even when you have problems, whatever the problems are 

with the executive branch, our work continues consistently, and I 

think that was a brilliant idea and it’s in the National Endowment 

for Democracy Act adopted by the Congress by Dante Fascell in 

1983, and I think it was brilliant to give the NED that kind of 

independence so that we can go forward, regardless of what the 

policies of the executive branch are at any particular time. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. Brad Schneider, Illinois. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, and I want to thank the chairman 

and the ranking member for holding this critically important hearing. 

I want to thank the witnesses, first, for your patience staying 

here this morning, for your work and commitment to democracy 

here and around the world—for your passion and for your optimism. It’s been refreshing to be here this morning with you at a 

challenging time. 

Mr. Gershman, in your remarks and written testimony you referenced that Freedom House, for the past 12 consecutive years has 

said there’s been a decline in civil and political rights. 

My first set of questions are around this and anyone can feel free 

to respond. But what do you see as the key drivers of that decline? 

Within the context of U.S. policy, what are the risks to the United 

States? What are the opportunities for the United States? What are 

our responsibilities? 

69

And I guess the third is how do you see or what do you see the 

United States role should be in reversing that decline and making 

sure the democracy that we as a Nation have held so dear and 

worked to perfect over the entire course of our history has the opportunity to take hold and prosper around the world, which will 

also benefit the United States? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Well, Congressman, the problems of both external, meaning resurgent authoritarianism, and we’ve heard a lot 

about that today, and internal democracy is difficult, and countries 

have problems of corruption. 

Elites can be divorced from their people. These are difficult 

things, and the Freedom House survey is a reflection of the troubles that we’ve seen in the world. 

But I think it’s important to point out that the total number of 

democracies in the world mushroomed after what Professor Sam 

Huntington called the third wave of democratization, from about 70 

to 125, which is quite remarkable, and we are still having, in a 

sense, problems absorbing these changes. 

Huntington also predicted what he called a reverse wave, the 

first waves of democratization were followed by the rise of Nazism 

and communism in the 1920s and 1930s, the breakdown of democracy in the 1960s and the 1970s, the rise of military dictatorships. 

You then have the third wave, and in a way, a reverse—we don’t 

even know if it’s a reverse wave but what they call a recession—

whether this was an inevitable part of the process and what I 

guess what I was saying in my testimony, Congressman, I don’t 

want to be a Pollyannaish optimist but I do see signs that are taking place now in a number of different countries around the world 

which could indicate that maybe some change is in the offing. 

When Reagan gave his Westminster speech it was in 1982. It 

was a bad time. It was right after the crackdown in Poland, right 

after the invasion of Afghanistan. We were still reeling from Vietnam. 

Sandinistas had taken over in Central America, and Reagan said 

in that speech in 1982, 10 years before Huntington wrote the book 

on the third wave, that a democratic revolution was gathering 

strength in the world. 

That’s quite remarkable. And so now it’s a bad period. I don’t 

know but it’s not out of the question that a democratic revolution 

is gathering strength even as we are looking at all the negative 

problems. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I pray you’re right. 

Mr. Twining, I don’t know if you want to expand, or Mr. Wollack, 

you had earlier. 

Mr. TWINING. When I think about the youth bulge in key parts 

of the world, I think only a democratic structure inside countries 

is going to be able to handle digitally empowered kids with smart 

phones who want to be politically active and shake their countries’ 

future. 

I grew up in Africa as a diplomatic kid in the ’80s in the era of 

strongmen, and all the Africans I meet today, when I travel to Africa none of them wants to live in a country run by a strongman, 

right. 

70

They want to have a voice and a choice and be active and engaged. That gives me great hope. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We had a hearing here yesterday about the Middle East and the explosion of the youth there, because the demographics are so important in that context. We need to make sure 

these kids have hope, that they have opportunity that takes us beyond here. 

Mr. Wollack, let me just wish you well in your retirement. We 

are going to miss you, but give you the last word. 

Mr. WOLLACK. I would just say when President Reagan gave that 

speech, when you look at the world at that time, Latin America 

was dominated by military regimes. You had military governments 

in Bangladesh and Pakistan and South Korea, martial law in Taiwan, absolute monarchy in Nepal, Communist government in Mongolia, dictatorships in Philippines and Indonesia. 

The lexicon of democracy had not even entered the Middle East. 

Soviet Communism had reached the borders of western Europe. 

It was pretty bleak at the time, and so one has to look at this 

with some degree of perspective and perhaps a longer arc of history, and when we see things that take place on the ground in 

places like Malaysia and Armenia and Nicaragua and Slovakia and 

Guatemala, we see today not only movements on the ground but 

also you have an international architecture on democracy. 

You know, intergovernmental organizations at that time had 

nonintervention clauses—the OAS, the African Union. Now they 

have intervened in member states. 

So I tend to look at this as a glass half full and we may be talking differently 10 years from now. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And that’s why I reflected on the optimism. I 

will close with this. 

My entire life but, really, the entire history of our country we 

have been a light to the other nations—a beacon of hope to people 

around the world, and I think if we are going to see democracy 

flourish around the world it’s imperative that the United States 

continues to be that. 

I am going to close with repeating what Mr. Gershman had in 

his remarks but it’s President Reagan’s words—the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in the world will not 

be the bombs and rockets but the test of will and ideas—our ideas, 

if you will—a trial of spiritual resolve, which I think we have, and 

the values we all in this room hold, the belief we cherish, the ideals 

to which we are dedicated, and I hope as Democrats and Republicans we can stick to those ideals. We can stand strong and we can 

be that beacon to the rest of the world. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Mr. Twining, for the record, I don’t want to live in a country with 

a strongman either, and I wish Mr. Garrett, my colleague from Virginia, was still here. I find it less than amusing to hear a friend 

from the other side of the aisle lecture us about criticism of a President’s foreign policy because all differences should end at the 

shores. 

71

That certainly has not been the ethos on this committee. When 

it came to President Obama, whether it would be Syria or Yemen 

or Middle East policy or Israel policy or the Iran nuclear agreement 

or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the climate change accord in 

Paris, my friends on the other side of the aisle were quite reflexively critical. 

That’s their right. But we are now going to exercise our right and 

we will not be lectured about it because, frankly, now is the time 

to be speaking up and being heard, given the fact that there are 

threats to our own democracy. 

And I very much appreciate the chairman having today’s hearing 

because there are connections between our values and whether we 

are living up to them and what we are trying to help other countries do. 

And I applaud the IRI and the NDI and, of course, NED for your 

efforts. I’ve had the privilege of travelling through the auspices of 

the House Democracy Project to a number of countries and, frankly, the work both organizations are doing on the ground is so exciting. 

You have mobilized young people, older people, to actually express themselves and put their bodies on the line for democratic 

values, in their own cultural setting, and you have done it well, 

and it makes you proud as an American to see the work of your 

folks on the ground. 

I wish more of my colleagues could see it because it reaffirms our 

faith in ourselves but also the aspirations of so many people all 

over the world, and I think it also reaffirms the fact that democracy is not cultural-bound. 

It is a universal desire. It has different expressions. But everybody wants to be free. Everybody wants to be liberated from the 

yolk of a strongman and to express themselves as they see fit, and 

nothing does America prouder than the work, frankly, you are 

doing. 

And I don’t mean to sound too gushy about it. But if you see it 

on the ground and hundreds and hundreds of people responding to 

that call in their own cultural and political context, I think there 

is a wellspring of democratic yearning. 

But we as a country—we, the beacon of that democratic ideal—

we’ve got to be consistent in our own democratic values because 

when we stray from them, we damage the work you’re doing and 

your folks are doing on the ground. 

Mr. Gershman, we are looking at the fiscal year 2019 international affairs budget, which would cut democracy promotion by 

more than half and cut assistance to the National Endowment for 

Democracy from $170 million to $67 million. 

Earlier, you testified it would have a devastating impact and 

you’d have to dismantle programs. I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate a little bit. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. It’s hard for me to imagine, frankly, how we 

could function under those circumstances, and I could name countries where we couldn’t work but——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, why don’t we do that? 

Mr. GERSHMAN [continuing]. The organization would be devastated. 

72

Mr. CONNOLLY. Are there countries—I remember a few years 

ago, working with some friends on international democracy and 

just the threat of budget cutbacks required them to close down programs all over Bangladesh, for example. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Right. And we pride ourselves in understanding 

that the work is long-term work. Democracy doesn’t come quickly 

and you have to stay at it with people year after year and you build 

up knowledgeable teams of people—deeply knowledgeable teams of 

people who know how to work with the institutes and with the 

NED. 

If you cut that it just unravels the whole thing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, let’s just—my last remaining time here I 

want to focus on here. It has lasting harm, does it not, in both 

credibility and our commitment to them—there are people putting 

their lives on the line——

Mr. GERSHMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. In fighting for democracy in their 

particular countries, and if we pull the plug because of budget fears 

or actual budget cuts, what happens to them? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. No. I mean, they’re dependent on the support 

that they get in so many different ways. 

They’re going to continue. But I think we are able to really help 

them—give them solidarity, give them technical support, give them 

financial support. 

It’s a lifeline to them, and they say it all the time—you withdraw 

that, it’s a devastating blow to them. They’re not going to leave the 

scene. They’re going to continue to fight. But it’s a devastating 

blow. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And final point—if you’re an authoritarian regime looking askance at that activity because you see it as a threat 

to your centralization and control, the imprimatur of the United 

States behind that NGO activity matters, does it not? And withdrawing it, effectively, actually makes them prey to that authoritarian regime. 

Mr. GERSHMAN. That’s true, and that’s why I said in my statement when I said, you know, the support of the American people, 

I take pride in the fact that when we make grants to groups 

abroad, I take pride that it’s with American taxpayer money. 

We try to protect that money. We try to make sure that every 

single dollar is spent well. But I take pride in the fact that that’s 

a demonstration of the support coming from the American people. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, one final point. I want to thank Mr. Wollack. I 

know he’s retiring. He’s made an extraordinary contribution to democracy all over the world. 

And as he said, there were times it all looked bleak, and hanging 

in there and never giving up and giving it his all, I just want to 

tell Mr. Wollack how much all of us appreciate that, and I know 

there are people all over the world you’re never going to meet who 

also appreciate it. 

You have made a lasting contribution, and I know your voice 

won’t be stilled. You’re going to be in a different capacity. But Ken, 

thank you for all you have done. 

73

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Norma Torres of California. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and the ranking 

member for bringing us together for this very important meeting 

and thank the three of you for doing such great work in representing American values abroad and ensuring that you are building up, as you put it, knowledgeable teams of people around the 

world that can stand up for themselves and stand up for the injustices that their government bring upon their communities or their 

countries. 

And that is why I want to associate myself with some of the comments that were stated earlier about women—what is going on 

right here at our southern border. 

When a government decides that it is an important policy to rip 

away a baby that is nursing from its mother and that that is good 

policy, we have to challenge that. 

And this is all I have to challenge that. So as a woman, I hope 

that the members of this committee stand up and look at their own 

families and see themselves as that person seeking refuge at our 

border and how would they feel if they would be separated and 

torn apart. 

There was one person already that committed suicide out of desperation. This is not the American values that you fight for abroad. 

We talked about earlier about the number of women in elected 

office. Less than 25 percent of women are in elected office worldwide, except for the case of Spain, where the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, appointed the majority of his ministry 11 

women, I believe—11 women and six men. So that brings up their 

percentage of female representatives to 64.7 percent. Kudos to him. 

Now, here in the U.S., this administration as inspired women all 

over the country to run for local office and the majority of—or more 

than half of those women running in those elected positions have 

won. 

But we have organizations such as Emily’s List that helps to fill 

the gap and support women where there is no support—where we 

don’t find the support that we need in, one, raising the money that 

we need; two, getting the support that we need to get into local offices. 

Are there other organizations like Emily’s List globally that we 

can point to and help support to ensure that females have a rightful place in the world as we do here in the U.S.? 

Mr. WOLLACK. The answer is yes. There are groups in Liberia—

that 50/50 group. There are groups in Mexico. All the countries we 

work there are women’s organizations that train other women to 

compete, to run, to be campaign managers, to be candidates, and 

in many of these places our organizations support their efforts. 

Ms. TORRES. Well, thank you for doing that. I want to urge you 

to continue to do that as well as working with civil societies. My 

work has been primarily focused in Central America. 

The work of civil society there in the Northern Triangle is critical. CICIG has been under attack. The former attorney general 

there has been under attack. 

74

MACCIH in Honduras has been under attach. So what more can 

we do to help these institutions move forward with the good work 

that they’re doing and how can we help you help them? 

Mr. GERSHMAN. Well, thank you so much, Congresswoman. I am 

very moved by what you said and it’s also been wonderful to get 

to know you, and thank you for presenting the reward to Claudia 

Escobar last year—our democracy award—and she has been a leader, as you know, in the fight against corruption in Guatemala. 

The most important thing, I think, that we can do in the fight 

against corruption in the Northern Triangle is to support civil society and groups that are mobilizing against that, and we are supporting groups in Honduras and Guatemala that are combatting 

corruption and doing a number of different things. 

One of them is promoting political and electoral reforms. They’re 

monitoring state spending both locally and nationally. They’re providing reliable and digestible information about corruption to the 

people so their voice can be heard. 

They’re engaged in projects to translate citizen protest and sow 

concrete political proposals for change. They’re working to improve 

the transparency of the selection process for the attorney general 

in the three Northern Triangle countries and they’re even in Guatemala trying now to create a network of businesses committed to 

anti-corruption efforts. 

And finally, working with the Central American Institute for Fiscal Studies, we are working to improve the knowledge and technical capacity of lawmakers on issues of fiscal responsibility. 

So it’s a broad program and I think the critical thing we have 

to do is to support groups from the bottom up—put pressure on the 

governments not to be corrupt. 

Ms. TORRES. Which—I just finally want to point to the work the 

IRI is doing to build up with the mayors—with the local mayors. 

I know a couple of years ago I had dinner with some of the mayors 

that you had here that you were training from, I believe, El Salvador. 

So I want to—as a former mayor, that work is critically important because these are the people that are on the front line as it 

relates to Mexican elections right now. These are the people that 

are losing their lives as candidates in trying to move a different 

agenda forward. 

Thank you so much for allowing me the extra time. I really appreciate you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Ms. TORRES. I am going to miss you miserably. I am just going 

to keep seeing that every meeting that we have. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, Congresswoman Torres, thank you very 

much. 

And I—look, I really want to thank our witnesses here today because it’s truly and exceptional panel that we have, and I am confident that all three of you will continue your major contributions 

to promoting democracy, your contributions to our Nation’s interests for years to come. 

And I think the members of this committee learned from you an 

awful lot today, as we’ve heard your strong bipartisan support for 

democracy promotion, for the work of your organizations. 

75

We also heard of the grave challenges to democracy engineered 

by authoritarian regimes that are systematically attacking democratic societies. 

This committee will continue to do all it can through hearings 

and through legislation to combat these efforts. As Mr. Wollack 

noted, we as a country are just waking up to these challenges. 

They have to be met. So, again, thank you, Carl, Dan, Ken. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, would you—would yield to me. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let me yield to the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes. Thank you. 

I also want to, again, reiterate to our three guests how much we 

appreciate your testimony here but, more importantly, the work 

that you do day in and day out. 

We really do appreciate it, and I think you could see by the fact 

that so many members stayed or came back to make sure there 

was tremendous interest in having you here and in listening to 

what you have to say. 

So I want to, again, thank all of you for coming and we work 

very hard, the chairman and I, on this committee. We use the word 

bipartisan and we use that word because we think this is the most 

bipartisan committee in the entire Congress. 

And what better subject can there be when we are talking about 

bipartisanship than the work that you three gentleman do, where 

partisanship stops at the river’s edge. 

It’s so important with—dealing with all these international problems. And so, again, thank you for all your good work. 

Mr. Gershman, Mr. Twining, thank you, and Mr. Wollack, as I 

said before, good luck, and I don’t know—you will have a lot of free 

time. You can come to our hearings here. We’ll still work in a bipartisan fashion. 

And I just feel that everything that the three of you said was 

very important and I hope people are watching. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. And let’s also acknowledge, Eliot, I think, contemplating the work and the risks that your associates all over the 

world, in countries all over this world are taking, for the goals that 

you’re championing, that we are all—that we all believe in, that 

works needs to be acknowledged as well. 

The level of dedication of those out there in the field day in and 

day out. So thank you, and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(77)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

78

f


30423n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 205I5-6128 

Edward R Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

Junel4,2018 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live on the 

Committee website at !EiQ:LLwww.Fol~~igl!c.\Jtairs.bg!J~o::l: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday, June 14, 2018 

10 00 a.m. 

Democracy Promotion in a Challenging World 

Mr. Carl Gershman 

President 

National Endowment for Democracy 

Mr. Daniel Twining 

President 

International Republican Institute 

Mr. Kenneth W ollack 

President 

National Democratic Institute 

By Direction of the Chairman 

1nth dtsabillfws. ~f you are 111 need of spec:al accommod<Jiwns. 

event. whenever practJcahie. vnlh regard fo 

m altern,lfiw; (Urmut>· und UHII'IIVC' J!"wcn) 
79


30423m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

'v!ll\uTES OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

Day _ _oT.::'h::u:..:rs:::d:.::a.:.v __ Date, __ _.::_Oc:.6,Cc:1c:4:..:'12:.:()c:.lc::8'----R"om, ___ .:::;2.::1.:..72=----

Starting Time 10:07 A}I·I Ending Time 12:55 PM 

Recesses ( __ to __ ) L__to __ )( __ to ___ ) L__to_J (, ___ to 

Presiding Member(s) 

Chairman Edward R. Royce 

Representative A1ichael.McCaul 

Check all of the following !hat app{v: 

Open Session 0 Executive (closed) Session D Televised 0 

TITLE OF HEARll\'G: 

Democracy Promotion in a Challenging World 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See atttJChed. 

NON-COMMIT fEE MEYlliERS PRESENT: 

NIA 

Electronically Rccord!'.!!Jlaped)0 

Stenographic Record W 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notic.c attached? YcsE'J NoD 

{Jf' "no", p/e(l.Y€ Jist befow and include fifle1 agency, deparfrnent, or orgtmizafion.j 

IFR -Ranking Member Eliot Engel 

SFR- Representative Gerry Connolly 

)( 

QFR- Representattves Christopher H. Smith, Brad Sherman, Ann Wag11er, ami Di11a Titus 

TIME SCHFDI:LED TO RFCONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOUR"!ED 12:55PM 

to 
80

f


30423m-2.eps

PRESEc'vT 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

Fuu COMMIITHF H~_AJIING 

]\,[EMBER PRESENT MEMBER 

Edward R. Royce, CA X EliotL EngeL NY 

Christopher H. Smith. NJ X Brad Sherman. CA 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL X Gregory W. Meeks, NY 

Dana Rohmbacher. CA X Albia Sires. NJ 

Steve Chabot. OH X Gerald E. Connolly, VA 

Joe Wilson. SC X Theodore E. Deutch. FL 

Michael T. McCaul, TX X Karen Bass, CA 

Ted Poe, TX X William Keating, MA 

Darrell Issa, CA X David Cicillinc. RJ 

Tom Marino, PA X Ami Bem.CA 

Mo Brooks. AL X Lois F rankcL FL 

Paul Cook. CA T ulsi Gabbard, HI 

Scott Perry. PA X Joaquin Castro, TX 

Ron DeSantis. FL X Robin Kelly. TL 

Mark Meadows, NC Brendan Boyle. P A 

Ted Yoho. FL X Dina Titus. NV 

Adan1 Kinzinger,TL X Nonna Torres, CA 

Lee Zeldin. NY X Brad Schneider, IL 

Dan Donovan, NY Tom Suozzi. NY 

James F. Sensenbrem1er. Jr., WI Adriano Espaillat. NY 

Ann Wagner, MO X Ted Lieu, CA 

Brian J. Mast. FL 

Brian K. Fitzpatrick, PA 

Francis Rooney, FL 

Thomas A. Garrett. Jr.. VA 

John Curtis. UT 
81

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


30423i-1.eps
82


30423i-2.eps

April4, 2018 

grant unlimited power to those who win nor arc they a license to limit the rights and liberties 

underpinning democracy. 

We urge the U.S. Congress and executive branch immediately to usc the full diplomatic voice, 

tools, and resources at their disposal to continue upholding our commitment to democracy. And 

we expect that our European allies will hold us to these same standards. Specifically, actions that 

no democratic state should take include: 

Denying any citizens fundamental political liberties and civil rights; 

Inciting, supporting, or engaging in antisemitism, racism, and other forms of discrimination 

and hatred; 

Restricting pluralistic expression and tree debate; 

Stifling a fi'ee and independent media; 

Suppressing peaceful political opposition; 

Constraining civil society; 

Undermining rule of law that is equally enforced and independently adjudicated; 

Eroding the separation of powers; 

Hampering legitimate economic competition, limiting government transparency, or otherwise 

contributing to corruption; 

Impinging on tree and fair elections. 

When these bedrock democratic principles and institutions are put at risk, our bipartisan group 

will call for the U.S. government to take action. Specifically: 

• We call on Congress to hold hearings to address Central Europe's growing democracy 

deficit, its implications for NATO, and the security ofthe United States. Hearings should 

lead to appropriate policies, actions, and resources needed for countering this grave threat to 

U.S. interests. 

• We urge the Congress and executive branch to work together to put in place a comprehensive 

strategy that dramatically increases diplomatic engagement, development assistance, and 

security cooperation in support of democracy in transatlantic and NATO countries. 

We cannot afford complacency. When our shared principles arc endangered, so too is our 

security. 

2 
83


30423i-3.eps

April4, 2018 

Signatories 

Signatories have joined in their individual capacities. Institutional affiliation is listed onlvfor 

identification purposes and is NOT an institutional endorsement of the statement. 

Paige Alexander 

Executive Director, EUCord 

Former Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia, USAfD 

Anders Aslund 

Atlantic Council 

Rabbi Andrew Baker 

American Jewish Committee 

Ambassador Adrian A. Basora 

Co-Chair, Eurasia Program 

Foreign Policy Research Institute 

Ambassador Dan Baer 

Fonner Ambassador to the OSCE and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 

Marc Behrendt 

Director for Europe and Eurasia Programs 

Freedom House 

Howard Berman 

Fonner Congressman 

Ilan Berman 

Senior Vice President 

American Foreign Policy Council 

Nicole Bibbins Sedaca 

Georgetown University 

Erik Brattberg 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

Thomas Carothers 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

Eric Chenoweth 

Director, Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe 

Derek Chollet 

Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor for Security and Defense Policy 

German Marshall Fund of the United States 
84


30423i-4.eps

April4, 2018 

Susan Corke 

Human Rights First 

Nicholas Danforth 

Bipartisan Policy Center 

Charles Davidson 

Publisher, The American Interest 

James S. Denton 

World Affairs Institute 

Larry Diamond 

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution 

Maxim Erista~i 

Atlantic Council 

Gregory Feifer 

Institute of Current World Affairs 

Jamie Fly 

Gennan Marshall Fund ofthe United States 

Ira Forman 

Former Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism 

Diane Francis 

Atlantic Council 

JeffGedmin 

Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council 

Fom1er President and CEO, Radio Free Europe I Radio Liberty 

Secretary Dan Glickman 

Fom1er Congressman and Fonner Secretary of Agriculture 

Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center 

James Goldgcicr 

Daniel S. Hamilton 

Johns Hopkins University 

Benjamin Haddad 

Research Fellow 

II udson Institute 

Melinda Haring 

4 
85


30423i-5.eps

April4, 2018 

Atlantic Council and F orcign Policy Research Institute 

Melissa Hooper 

Human Rights First 

Alex T. Johnson 

Open Society Policy Center 

Robert Kagan 

Brookings fnstitution 

Jonathan Katz 

Senior Fellow 

Gennan Marshall Fund ofthe United States 

Liz Kennedy 

Senior Director, Center for American Progress 

Dr. Michael Kim mage 

Catholic University of America 

James Kirchick 

Brookings Institution 

David Koranyi 

Former Director and Current Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council 

Former Under-Secretary or Stale ror Foreign Policy and National Security under Prime Minister 

Gordon Bajnai 

Richard Kraemer 

Fellow- Eurasia Program 

Foreign Policy Research Institute 

David .J. Kramer 

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 

Katrina Lantos Swett 

President, Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice 

John A. Lindburg 

Lindsay Lloyd 

Deputy Director, Human Freedom 

George W. Bush Presidential Center 

Ch.-is Maroshegyi 

Damir Marusic 
86


30423i-6.eps

April4, 2018 

Executive Editor 

The American Interest 

Thomas 0. Melia 

Fonner Assistant Administrator, USAID 

and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 

George W. Bush Institute 

Princeton University 

Blaise Misztal 

Bipartisan Policy Center 

Yascha Mounk 

Lecturer, Harvard Un ivcrsity 

Joshua Muravchik 

Distinguished Fellow, World Affairs Institute 

Fron Nahzi 

Senior Director of Global Development 

The McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University 

Dalibor Rohac 

American Enterprise Institute 

Jonas Rolett 

Open Society Policy Center 

Laura Rosenberger 

Gem1an Marshall Fund 

Gary J. Schmitt 

American Enterprise Institute 

Andras Simonyi 

Vikram Singh 

Center for American Progress 

Julianne Smith 

Director, Transatlantic Security Program, CN AS 

Fonner Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Joesph Biden 

Dr. Maria Sncgovaya 

Columbia University 

Jake Sullivan 

Fonner National Security Advisor to the Vice President, Obama Administration 
87

f


30423i-7.eps

April4, 2018 

Daniel V ajdich 

Atlantic Council 

Veronika Vetch (Kruglashova) 

Director, The Office oC.Juleanna Glover 

Alexander Vershbow 

Distinguished Fellow, Atlantic Council 

Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Russia, and South Korea 

Former NATO Deputy Secretary General 

Alyssa Weiner 

American Jewish Committee 
88


30423d-1.eps

Statement for the Record from Representative Gerry Connolly 

Democracy Promotion in a Chalienging World 

June 14, 2018 

The global rise of authoritarianism and extremism presents the most formidable challenge to liberal 

democracy in a generation. In the face of this democratic backsliding, the Tmmp Administration's 

response is to retreat from US. global leadership by disinvesting in democracy promotion and 

disparaging our al!ies while cozying up to dictators. This approach neglects the core values of 

freedom and democracy upon which our nation was founded, and endanger:, U.S interests by 

allowing adversarial forces to t1ourish unchecked 

According to Freedom House, more countries have been experiencing democratic declines than 

gains every year since 2006. The latest h·eedom in the World report cited significant backsliding 

in 19 of 29 European countries due to declines in judicial independence, free media and civil 

society, and functioning checks and balances. President Trump's FY 2019 international a!Iairs 

budget wonld slash democracy promotion tunding by more than halt~ and cut assistance to the 

National Endowment for Democracy from $170 million in FY 2018 to just $67 million. Given the 

negative global trends of democracy indexes, now is not the time to retreat. 

When it comes to raising the issue of human rights and the rule oflaw, the Trump Administration's 

silence is deafening. In response lo early revisions of the State Department and USAID mission 

statements last December, I led a letter with 15 member& of this Committee expressing concern 

with language that abandoned the Cnited States' role in suppmting democracy and justice around 

the world. Our constihlents believe that all people should enjoy the basic freedoms of speech, 

expression, and religion, and freedom from tyranny, oppression, tmture, and discrimination. 

American foreign policy should re±1ect and promote these core values, not only because it is the 

right thing to do, but also because it serves our national interests 

In just the past week President Trump has given us two images that paint a poignant picture of 

this Administration's approach to democracy and human rights. Jn the ilrst photograph, Gemtan 

Chancellor Angela ;\1erkcl and our other G-7 allies confront a defiant President Trump shortly 

before he refuses to sign the Joint Communique and escalates a feud with Canadian Prime Minister 

Justin Tmdcau, one of our closest allies. In the second image, Trump shakes hands with the 

murderous North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un against a backdrop of American and North Korean 

t1ags. The President's atlinity for dictators severely undermines u.S. efforts to pressure oppressive 

regimes to respect the human rigl1ts of their people. 

When adequately resourced and supported, U.S. democracy promotion programs can reduce 

pove1ty, expand oppo1innity, and nmture societies that respect fundamental freedoms and the mle 

of law, t:1cilitate broadly representative government institutions, and minimize coiTuption. It is 

through organizations like those represented today that vve train the next generation of women 

political leaders; promote programs that counter violent extremism; provide governance training 

to communities in liberated areas of Syria; assist desperate refugee families in Jordan and Lebanon; 

conduct election monitoring in Tunisia; and lend parliamentary support in lraq and .Morocco to 

ease corruption and empower minorit} and marginalized groups in the political process. I am a 

proud member of the House Democracy Partnership, which works with partner countries like 

Georgia, Sri Lanka, and .Mongolia to strengthen democratic legislatures with support from the 

National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute 
89

f


30423d-2.eps

Citizens must be reassured that, at the end of the day, their government is working and working 

for them. There is no better way to ensure this is the case than by supporting local governments. 

During my 14 years serving in local government, I was constantly reminded of how immediately 

one's performance is judged, rewarded, or punished. Local government is where accountability 

and efficacy are reinforced. and it is an essential building block to any functioning democratic 

society 

A consistent, effective, and sustained strategy is crucial to reflect our nation's commitment to 

universal values of freedom and equality, and to treat the disease of oppression and 

disenfranchisement that has helped foster autocracy and breed violent extremism around !he world. 

The Trump Administration's contempt for the promotion of democracy and human rights, in word 

and deed, gravely endangers this cause. 
90


30423e-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Christophe•· H. Smith 

Democracy Promotion in a Challenging World 

June 14, 2018 

NOTE: The responses below are provided on behalf of :-Jational Endowment for Democracy 

(NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) 

with respect to funding from the NED, except where a question is specifically directed to one 

individual. 

Question: 

Would you agree that free speech is a core principle absolutely essential to democracy? If so, 

what has been NED, TRT and NDT's response to recent legislative steps taken hy Westem 

Europem1 governments to restrict free speech, which, in this country, would likely be struck 

down as violative of our First Amendment? For exa111ple: 

Answer: 

a) Ge1many's NetzDG law was passed in June 2017, goveming the content of social 

media postings. Social media platforms are supposed to remove "hate speech" 

Vl~thin 24 hours or face onerous fines. Arc you worried that it \Vill be applied in 

m1 overly broad manner? 

b) The Association of German Journalists condemned this as "censorship." Have 

made any of the NetzDG law? 

c) As reported by the Washington Post, the French nationalist figure Marine LePen 

was charged criminally for posting images on Twitter showing brutal killings by 

ISIS fighters. While we may not approve of LePen' s rhetoric or flirtations with 

extremism, debates about ISIS as well as inm1igration are core political speech. 

Did your organizations comment on this incident or the French law barring 

extreme speech under which she was charged, which carries up to three years in 

and $90,000 fine? 

The Endow1nent and the institutes do not fund democracy progra111s in established democracies. 

Nor do we take positions on the internal developments in such countries. 

Question: 

Article 41 of the Vie1ma Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which the United States ratified in 

1972, states that those enjoying diplomatic privileges and immunities have a duty "not to 

interfere with the internal affairs of that State." 
91


30423e-2.eps

The non-interference principle of the Vienna Convention is an important one and one that we 

have an interest in seeing observed, if not out of a spirit of comity, then out of an expectation that 

foreign countries would not intervene in our internal affairs - see for example, the concern over 

Russian interference and meddling. 

Answer: 

a) Are NED, IRI, and l\DI officers working abroad bound by the Vienna 

convention? 

b) How do your respective organizations view the principle of non-interference? 

c) Is there a line which you believe governs your activities that you believe you 

should not cross so as to constitute interference in the internal affairs of a state? 

d) What steps do you take to ensure that your activities do not cross that line? 

e) Do you have bylaws or internal regulations that address the issue of noninterference? 

f) If so, can you produce them? 

The mission of the Endowment is to support democracy. The NED, as a grant-making 

organization, funds requests for assistance fiom indigenous organizations in more than 90 

countries that are dedicated to promoting pluralism and accountable governance, as ''vell as 

tl.mding programs of NED's four core institutes NDl, llU, the Center for international Private 

Enterprise and the Solidarity Center. Our work is guided by President Reagan's vision as 

articulated in his Westminster Address and which led to the bi-partisan effort in Congress to pass 

the NED Act in 1983. Reagan's vision was for NED "to foster the infrastructure of democracy, 

the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people lo choose 

their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful 

n1eans." 

Our ;vork is also guided by international covenants such as the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights and democracy principles established in regional covenants such as the OSCE, the OAS 

and the African Union. 

The Endowment, NDI and IRI are independent 501(c)(3) organizations whose employees are 

neither diplomats nor government employees of any country and are therefore not subject to 

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. 

Question: 

Further to the above questions, do you ever hear from parliamentarians and officials from 

democratic countries who complain that the programs of NDI, IRJ, and ~ED constitute 

interference in their countries' political process, the favoring of certain parties and political 

movements over others, or the preferencing of certain issues over others? 

a) If so, in which countries have you heard such complaints? 

b) How do you respond to such complaints? 

e) Does your democracy programming transfer money directly to political parties? 

What about indirectly? 
92


30423e-3.eps

d) Does your democracy programming transfer money to non-governmental groups 

that are not political parties per se yel pursue political goals or politically-charged 

social issues? 

e) When you suppmi media in other countries, hmv do you ensure balance so that 

one side is not favored over another? 

f) Have you been successful in doing that? 

NED and the core institutes do not fund programs targeting established democracies. We have 

not heard complaints from parliamentarians or oftlcials in democratic cmmtries that programs 

supported hy NED (or with 1\ED funding for NDI or IRI) constitute interference in their 

countries' internal affairs. As a general rule, we don't transfer money directly or indirectly to 

political parties. 

NDI and IRI work with democratic parties across the political spectmm to provide teclmical 

expertise and assistance on organizational development, hut that does not include direct or 

indirect funding. Moreover, we follow the NED guidelines on election support, which prohibit 

funds from being used to finance campaign; of =didates for public office. TI1ose guidelines 

arc attached. 

NED funds NGOs and media organizations. Our funding is pluralistic and encompasses the 

followi.'lg topics: 

• Promotion and defense of human rights and the mle oflaw 

• Supporting freedom of information and independent media 

Strengthening democratic ideas and values 

• Promoting accountability and transparency 

• Strengthening civil society 

Streuglht:rling democratic processes and institutions 

• Promoting civic education 

• Supporting democratic conflict resolution 

• Promoting freedom of association 

• Supporting and strengthening free markets and independent trade unions 

Questi(ln: 

Please identify in sufficient detail, including names of all grantees, dates and purposes of grants, 

all democracy and related (civil society, media and citizen mobilization) programming and other 

monies spent in countries in the past three years by NED, NDI, and IRI for the following 

geographically-representative countries: 

a) Colombia 

b) Guatemala 

c) Democratic Republic of the Congo 

d) Nigeria 

e) Macedonia 

f) TJkraine 
93


30423e-4.eps

g) Philippines 

h) Indonesia 

Answer: 

The information requested for KED grilllt funding over three years is voluminous. We are 

compiling this information and will send it to you directly. information about all NED grants, 

including to NDI and JRI, from 2014 to the is also available in NED's online database: 

Please identify in sufficient detail all pubiic events (including the names of ali panelists/ 

participants) hosted by NED, NDI, and IRl in past three years on the following countries: 

<~) Colombia 

b) Guatemala 

c) Democratic Republic of the Congo 

d) Nigeri<~ 

e) Macedonia 

f) Ukraine 

g) Philippines 

h) Indonesia 

Please find attached a list of public events related to these countries. You can also find 

information about NED events on our website: !ill~fi:::l~""'-!~&!Bi's~~L 
94


30423e-5.eps

Title: 

Date: 

Description: 

Speakers: 

Colombia 

None. 

Guatemala 

Corruption in Central America 

October 12, 2017 

Join us for a discussion of the newly released report, Corruption: Its Path and 

Impact on Society and an Agenda to Comhat It in the Northern Triangle of 

Central America, produced by the Central American Institute for Fiscal Studies 

(ICEFI), a NED granle~. 

The report is a comparative study ofthe relationship between corruption and 

democracy in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and 

Honduras. While the twin challenges of corruption and impunity are widely 

understood to undermine confidence in public institutions, the rule of law, and 

democratic govemance, lCEFI' s new report moves beyond generalities and 

highlights the main paths of corruption within each state. The report quantifies the 

social costs of corruption··· for example, highlighting the percentage of different 

Ministries' budgets lost to specific corruption cases or schemes, and its impact on 

public goods and services. 

We will be joined by Ricardo Barrientos, a senior economist with TCF.FT and a 

contributor to this landmark study. 

Ricardo Barrientos, Senior Economist, Central American Institute for Fiscal 

Studies 

Juan Pablo Guerrero, 1\etwork Director, Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency 

Janelle Nodhturft Williams, Program Officer, National Endowment for 

Democracy 

Title: Freedom of Expression and the Judiciary: Lessons from Latin America 

Date: August 29, 2017 

Description: All but one of the 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have 

constitutional guarantees or laws that protect freedom of expression as a 

fundamental right, and in recent years at least 19 countries in the region have 

refonned their media laws or regulations to strengthen pluralism. These figures 

speak to the remarkable progress that advocates of free speech and pluralism in 

the region have made by building alliances with judicial and legal actors. And yet, 

the rise of violent attacks on joumalists by non-state actors and a reslll'genc.c of 

government harassment of reporters, however, also underscores the fragility of the 

gains won in press freedoms in the region. 

1 

To what extent can judges, lawyers. and other legal professionals in Latin 

America and the Caribbean provide a strong defense against those who would 

seek to silence independent media, and what lessons does the region offer to other 

parts of the world contending with similar threats to pluralism and free speech'? 
95


30423e-6.eps

Speakers: 

Following the launch of a new ClMA publication, "International Standards for 

Freedom of Expression: A Basic Guide for Legal Professionals in Latin 

America," author Silvia Chocatro will lead a roundtable discussion on the role of 

the judiciary in creating an open media system that complies with international 

legal norms. Don Podesta, Program Officer at the National Endowment for 

Democracy, will moderate the discussion, joined by Edison Lanza, Special 

Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression for the Inter-American Commission on 

Human Rights, and Judge Claudia Escobar, former magistrate of the Comi of 

Appeals of Guatemala. 

Silvia Chocarro, Journalist, and consultant on media and freedom of expression 

Judge Claudia f:scohar, Jiorrner magistrate ofthc Court of Appeals of Guatemala 

and Nalivnal Endowment for Democracy Reagan-Fascell Fellow 

Edison Lanza, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Inter-American 

Commission on Human Rights 

Don Podesta, Program Oft1ccr for Latin America and the Caribbean, National 

Endowment for Democracy 

Democratic Republic ofthc Congo 

Title: Why Women's Political Participation 'v1atters In The Congo 

Date: June 28, 2018 

Description: Despite participating enthusiastically in political and community life in the 

Democratic Republic of Congo, women hold few public decision-making 

positions. Many have withdrawn from seeking office or getting involved in public 

life, even though they are disproportionately affected by the civil wars and the 

resulting humanitarian crises that have plagued their country for more than 20 

years. Women are under-represented or absent from national and international 

consultations in peacebuilding proeesses. Dming her presentation, Passy 

Mubalama shared her experience as a former journalist and current human rights 

activist in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. She examined how the 

current political crisis affects women's rights in the DRC, and why the 

participation of women in politics and security is vital for the prospects of 

bringing peace and democracy to the country. Connnents from NED Program 

Officer for Central and West Africa Rudy Massamba followed. 

Speakers: Passy Mubalama, Rcagan-Fasccll Democracy Fellow 

Rudy Massamba, Program Officer for Central and WestAfi'ica, National 

Endowment for Democracy 

Sally Blair, Senior Director of Fellowship Programs, National Endowment for 

Democracy 

Title: Social Media And Support For Free Speech And Democracy Tn Central Africa 

Date: June 14, 2016 

Description: While many countries in Africa face restrictive media environments, the Central 

African region stands out as a bastion for repression of freedom of expression. 

The governments of the Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, and the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, in particular, make great attempts to stifle the press and 

2 
96


30423e-7.eps

limit free speech in their countries. Despite such repression, however, social 

media is playing an increasingly impmiant role in activists' attempts to combat 

the undemocratic tendencies of their countries' leaders. In his presentation, Elie 

Smith will discuss the ways that journalists, bloggers, activists, and ordinary 

citizens are harnessing social media to promote free speech and push for 

democratic change in the Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, and the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo. His presentation will he followed by comments by Piene 

Tantchou. 

Speakers: Elie Smith, Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow 

Pierre Tantchou, National Endowment for Democracy 

Zerxes Spencer, International Porum for Democratic Studies 

Title: The Faith-Based Community's Role In Congo's Electoral Process 

Date: November 10,2015 

Description: The Democratic Republic ofthc Congo (DRC) is preparing for m1 unprecedented 

elecloral cycle that may culminate in its first peaceful and democratic transfer of 

power since independence. Congo's leading religious leaders, thmugh the 

Commission for Integrity ru1d Electoral Mediation (Commission d'Integrite et de 

Mediation Elcctoralc, ClME), have an important role to play in this process. The 

recent restructuring of the country's provinces has exacerbated the complexity 

involved in organizing the upcoming elections. Tn light ofthese challenges, please 

join us for a discussion with civic and religious leaders on ways the DRC's faithbased community can contribute to the success of these elections. 

Speakers: Panel 1: 

3 

Dave Peterson, Senior Director for Africa, National Endm,ment for Democracy 

Paul Fagan, Program Director for the Demo~ratic Republic of the Congo, "'1cCa in 

Institute 

Bishop Annlvlary Swenson, Vice-Moderator, World Council of Churches 

Panel II: 

Rudy Massamba, Program Officer for Central Africa, National Endowment for 

Democracy 

Father Donatien Nshole, Deputy Secretary General, National Episcopal 

Conference of Congo 

Grace Lula Hamba, Agir pour des Elections Apaisees et Transparentes 

Bishop David Yemba, United Methodist Chureh ofDRC, Vice Presdient of the 

Commission on Integrity and Electoral Mediation 

Panel 111: 

Mvemha Dizolele, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies 

Jacqueline Nembe Luhahi, United Methodist Church of DRC 

Stephen Hilbert, Foreign Policy Advisor, United States Conference of Catholic 

Bishops 

Reverend Andre Milenge Mwcnclwata, 2nd Vice President, Eglise dn Christ au 

Congo 

Jeanne Hruska, Senior Advisor to the Special Envoy for the Great Lakes and the 

DRC 
97


30423e-8.eps

Title: Premiere Screening Oflhe Man Who Mends Women 

Date: October 19, 2015 

Description: Panzi Foundation USA, King Baudouin Foundation United States, the National 

Endowment for Democracy, Physicians for Hum~'1 Rights and Women for 

Women International invite you to join us for a private screening of The Man Who 

Mendr Women, the critically acclaimed film by Thierry Michel and Colette 

Braeckman. 

The Man Who Mends Women is the moving story of Dr. Denis Mukwege and his 

work at the landmark Panzi Hospital in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Winner ofthe Sakharov Prize 2014, Doctor Mukwege is internationally known as 

the man who not only repairs the bodies oftcns thousands of women who have 

been raped during the 20 years of conflicts in the Fast of the Democratic Republic 

of the Congo, but works to restore their lives and address the root causes of 

violence in DRC. 

Title: Decaying Institutions: How Corruption Undermines Democracy in Nigeria 

Date: January 30, 2018 

Description: In 2015, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari was elected by citizens inspired 

by his assurances to fight corruption, and his govemment has since taken steps to 

keep this promise. Initiatives include strengthening anti-corruption institutions, 

implementing fiscal reforms, and joining the Open Government Partnership. 

However, the initial excitemont is tnrning into disenchantment as Nigerian voters 

realize that, despite Buhari's good intentions, cormption remains deeply 

entrenched in their country. Recent state and parliamentary dcctions have 

witnessed low voter turnout, while public trust in politicians and the state 

continues to decline. ln his presentation, Oludotun Babayemi examined how the 

structure ofNigeria's political institutions perpetuate corrnpt practices. He also 

offered recommendations on how both domesli~ organizations and international 

funders can tackle corruption, including the use of citizen-led initiatives such as 

Follow the Money. Debra LaPrevotte offered comments. 

Speukers: Mr. Oludotun Babayemi, Reagan-l'ascell Democracy fellow 

Ms. Debra LaPrevotte, Senior Investigator, The Sentry 

Christopher O'Conner, Program Officer for West Africa, National Endowment 

for Democracy 

Macedonia 

Title: Stability And Progress In The Western Balkans: Threats, Predictions, Solutions 

Date: february 1, 2017 

Description: Decades of international presence and investment in promoting stability and 

progress in the Western Balkan' seem to have paid some dividends. Bnt the full 

democratic consolidation of most former YuQoslav countries seems like an 

elusive goal. Political institutions remain we:ik and dominated by nationalist and 

populist strongmen who are polarizing societies. Endemic corruption, captured 

4 
98


30423e-9.eps

media, and public frustration plague transitions across the region. These 

challenges also make regional governments vulnerable to malign foreign 

influences. Russia, which has beeu expanding its geopolitical influence across the 

Balkans and neighboring regions, has already begun to exploit these 

vulnerabilities. Meanwhile. foreign fighter recruitment remains a threat in the 

region. Scores of veteran fighters have returned home to Bosnia and Herzegovina 

and Kosovo, raising even greater security and radicalization risks, not just to these 

fragile states, but to the peace and stability of Europe as a whole. 

2016 was particularly challenging, witnessing an escalation of domestic crises in 

key countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia, and even 

Croatia. Neighborly relations have suffered as well. Two decades after the signing 

of the Dayton Peace Accords, rhetoric at both the political and grassroots levels 

increasingly resembles that of the early 1990s. Featuring some of the region's 

leading practitioners and analysts, this event explored new threats to stability and 

progress in the Western Balkans, assessed upcoming challenges and 

opporltmities, and proposed ways forward. 

Speakers: Andrej ::--fosov, Direc.tor, Heruiefacl Fund & Reagan-FasceH Fellow, National 

Endowment for Democracy 

Go ran Milcti6, Program Director for the Western Balkans, Civil Rights Defenders 

Jasmin Vfujanovic, Policy Consultant, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung ·· Dialogue 

Southeast EtJrope 

Sandra Orlovic, former Executive Director, Humanitarian Law Center 

Ivana Cvetkovic BBcirovi6, Senior Program Officer, National Endowment for 

Democracy 

Title: Creating Sustainable Media Systems In The Balkans 

Date: April 2, 2015 

Description: Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia all have constitutions that protect their 

citi7ens' rights to free speech, expression, and a tree press. However, exercising 

these rights become difficult when defamation lawsuits still persist, journalists are 

routinely imprisoned, andjoumalists and media workers face conslru1t threats, 

physical violence, and verbal attacks by the govermnent and media rivals. The 

outlets in these countries also iacc great financial instability, which means many 

of them rely on government advertising for a large bulk of their funding. This 

leads to content that is oftentimes skewed towards government positions, as 

outlets do not want to risk their financial viability with unflattering coverage of 

government officials and policies. How can independent media thrive when there 

are a lack of legal and economic enabling environments in these countries? Are 

journalists doomed to serve as government mouthpieces, and will those who 

attack and kill joumalists face justice? Please join us for lum:h between 12:00-

12:30. The event will start promptly at 12:30. 

Speakers: Marija Sajkas, Media Diversity Institute 

Milka Tadic \1ijovic, Weekly Monitor 

Ivana Cvetkovic Bajrovic, National Endowment for Democracy 

5 
99


30423e-10.eps

Title: Mustafa: Film Screening and Discussion 

Date: May 24,2018 

Description: When Mustafa Dzhemilev was named Commissioner of the President ofl:kraine 

for the Affairs of Crimean Tatars in 2014, he gained an oft1cial title for the work 

he relentlessly pursued since the darkest days of the Soviet Union. Dzhemilev, a 

renowned human rights activist and Soviet dissident, campaigned for the right of 

return of the Crimean Tatars following their depmtation under Stalin. As a result, 

he spent 15 years in prison camps in the USSR and undertook what remains the 

longest hunger strike on record- 300 days. 

Today, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, 

Dzhemilev and the Crimean Tatars face renewed persecution. The Russian 

annexation has been accompanied by numerous human rights violations, 

including beatings and kidnappings of civic activists. Crimean Tatar activists such 

as Dzhemilev have been singled out for persecution. As historical leader of the 

Crimean Tatar National Movement, his new struggle can serve to draw attention 

to the poor human rights situation in Crimea. 

NED welcomed J organ Andrews, Director for Eastern European Affairs at the 

U.S. State Department to make remarks about the current challenges in Ukraine 

m1d Crimea. NED also welcomed Ms. Tamila Tasheva from CrimeaSOS, a 

grantee that received NED support tor the production of the documentary 

film, Mustcifa. Ms. Tasheva introduced the film and set the stage for an important 

and memorable conversation between :vlustafa Dzhemilev and Paula Dobriansky. 

NED President Carl Gershman presented Mr. Dzhemilev the Democracy Service 

Medal to recognize his significant contributions to the progress of democracy 

around the world. 

Speakers: Mustafa Dzhemilev, Commissioner for the Affairs of Crimean Tartars, Office of 

the President of Ukraine 

Paula Dobriansky, Senior Fellow at the Future ofDiplomacy Project, Kennedy 

School, Harvard University 

Jorgan Andrews, Director for Eastern European Affairs, U.S. Department of State 

Tamila Tasheva, Co-founder and Chairwoman, CrimeaSOS 

Title: Post-Maidan Rcfmms In Ukraine 

Date: October 13, 2017 

Description: Following the 2014 Rtwolution of Dignity, Ukrainian civil society has engaged in 

an ongoing campaign for institutional reforms that enhance goverm11ent 

accountability and increase tmnsparency. This campaign produced several early 

victories, such as government agencies tasked with investigating, prosecuting, and 

preventing corruption. Yet progre;s has slowed, leaving major goals unfulfilled. 

The system is fundamentally unaltered. Despite some improvements, Ukraine 

remains the most corrupt in Europe, according to Transparency International's 

Corruption Perception Index. 

6 

Civil society was the main driver of anti-corruption refmms, which were among 

the most prominent demands of the Maidan. Recently activists have been 
100


30423e-11.eps

experiencing increased government pushback and persecution, which threaten to 

stall the process permanently. Kaleniuk and Shevchenko will discuss the role civil 

society has played in the reform process, pariicularly in designing and deploying 

anti-con·uption tools that have markedly increased government transparency. 

They will also discuss prospects for furthering reforms and maintaining Ukraine's 

pro-democratic course. 

Speakers: Daria Kaleniuk, Executive Director, Anti-Comrption Action Center 

Taras Shevchenko, Executive Director, Cenler for Democracy and Rule of Law, 

Co-chair, Reanimation Package of Reforn1s, 2016-2017 

Joanna Rohozinska, Senior Program Officer, National Endowment for Democracy 

Title: Continued Human Rights Suppression in Crimea 

Date: June 20, 2017 

Description: Despite the hopes raised by the Euromaidan movement and a decrease in the 

number of civilian causalities in Ukraine, the last two years have shown 

backsliding in many areas. The report of the United Nations Human Rights 

Monitoring Mission in Ukraine highlighted that "the situation in the east of 

Ukraine remains volatile and may develop into a 'frozen conflict', creating a 

protracted environment of insecurity and instability." 

In Crimea, restrictions on public demonstrations, civil society organizations, and 

the media are routine. This situation is exacerbated hy concerted efforts to prevent 

Ukrainians and international human rights monitors, journalists, and others from 

traveling to Crimea. Govermnents, international organizations, and human rights 

organizations must take steps to bear witness to the on-going tragedy in Crimea 

and do their best to put a stop to it. 

This public evenl aims al raising awareness a bout the continued human rights 

suppression in Crimea since the Russian annexation. 

Speakers: Tetiana Pechonchyk, Human Rights Information Center (Ukraine) 

Olga Skrypnyk, Crimean Human Rights Group 

Olga Tarasov, National Endowment for Democracy 

Title: Ukraine: Can Trustworthy Media Win? 

Date: April28, 2017 

Description: Since the 2014 Maidan Revolution, the media environment it1 Ukraine has 

navigated a treacherous path, from countering disinfonnation campaigns and 

propaganda to hard-won reforms in public broadcasting and privatization of stateowned local media. Earning and maintaining trust of the public, however, remains 

a serious obstacle as the state continues to implement media rcfon11S. 

7 

With trust in the press going from bad to worse following coverage of 

Euromaidan demonstrations, a July 2015 report found lhal66 percent of 

Ukrainians were sure that media content was imposed by the media's owners or 

by the government. Another report found that a full 75 percent of that ownership 

is non-transparent. Can current reforms win the trust of the Ukrainian public with 

the promise of independent, objective news coverage? And will it be enough to 

counter rampant disinformation and propaganda campaigns on both national and 

local levels? 
101


30423e-12.eps

Speakers: Tetyana Lebedyeva, Chair of the Supervisory Board, National Public 

Broadcasting Company 

Katerina Myasnykova, Executive Director, Independent Association of 

Broadcasters 

Joanna Rohozinska, Senior Program Officer, National Endowment for Democracy 

Roman Shutov, Program Director, Detector Media 

Mark Nelson, Senior Director, Center for International Media Assistance 

Title: Pushing Back: Next Generation Of Journalists In Eastern Europe And Eurasia 

Date: April 21,2016 

Description: ln a media environment characterized by rapid changes in technology, a collapse 

of the business model for independent media, and growing censorship from 

authoritarian governments, youngjoumalisls,face seemingly overwhelming 

challenges. Yet, a steady group of brave and innovative champions continues to 

be drawn to the profession, driven by the same pursuit of truth, transparency, 

human rights, and the sense of adventure that has motivated generations of 

journalists before them. 

Join us for a conversation with some of the leading young journalists of Eastern 

Europe and Eurasia about their experiences, their perspectives on the role of 

journalism in their home countries, and what they see in the future oftheir 

profession, What motivates them to continue in this increasingly difficult 

profession? How do they confront the growing lhreab meted out by hostile 

governments? How do they deal with the risk and financial uncertainty that goes 

with being a journalist today? 

The Vaclav If a vel Journalism Fellowship is an initiative of Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic 

and is generously supported by the Dagmar and Vaclav Havel Foundation 

VIZE97. Inspired by the late Czech leader's belief in the transformational power 

of free speech and building on RFE/RL's legacy of promoting more open 

societies through journalism, the Fellowship is targeted at young journalists from 

countries within RFEIRL' s broadcast region. 

Speakers: Safie Ablyaeva, Ukraine 

Knar Khudoyan, Armenia 

Ihar Losik, I3elarus 

Diana Munasipova, Russia 

Josh Machleder, USAID 

Czech Embassy Deputy ChiefofMisison Jaroslav Zajicek 

Title: Election Observation: How Authoritarian Regimes Muddy The Waters 

Date: February 18, 2015 

Description: Since the onset of the post-election popular uprisings known as "color 

revolutions" that took place in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, authoritarian 

governments have adopted a range ofteclmiques to uncletmine credible election 

assessments by established observation organizations, The methods employed to 

"muddy the waters" include the suppression of citizen integrity efforts, the 

mobilization of pro-government NGOs to communicate dis information about 

8 
102


30423e-13.eps

Speakers: 

elections, the creation of authoritarian-backed ·•zombie" election monitors, and 

the geopolitical manipulation of intergovernmental election monitoring 

organizaiions. Patrick Merloe, Thomas 0. Melia, and Jan Surotchak discussed 

how authoritarian regimes are devising new ways to impede authentic election 

observation as part of a wider authoritarian effort to create anti-democratic 

counternonns around the world. 

Patrick Merloe, Senior Associate and Director nfElectnral Programs, National 

Democratic Institute 

Jan Surotchak, Regional Director for Europe, International Republican Institute 

Thomas 0. Melia, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Democracy, 

Tluman Rights and Labor, United States Department of State 

Chri:.lopher Walker, Exc:cutive Director, International Forum for Democratic 

Studies 

Philippines 

Title: From Crisis To Governance: Reclaiming The Philippines' Democracy Narrative 

Date: January 10, 2018 

Description: Riding a strong populist wave and exerting a brand of crisis, Rodrigo Duterte was 

elected to power in the Philippines in mid-20 16. More than a year into his 

presidency, Duterte' s authoritarian tendencies threaten to undo core democratic 

gains made in the years following the 1986 People Power Revolution, a peaceful 

uprising that drew upon the strength of many different groups and helped ignite a 

wave of similar movements around the world. Capitalizing on popular frustrations 

over the incremental pace of change, Duterte has attacked a central piece of 

People Power's main product, the 1987. Freedom Constitution, blaming it for the 

continuitlg ills of the country. He has now commandeered the People Power 

narrative, sounding crisis after crisis and calling for revolution, to serve a core of 

interest groups close to him, rather than Filipino democracy as a whole. 

In her presentation, Maxine Tanya Hamada spoke from her twenty years of 

experience--working in both the government bureaucracy and civil societyabout the cycles of moving from crisis to governance and the importance of 

reclaiming the narrative of People Power that has been hijacked by Duterte. 

Hamada also discussed gains made by People Power and what the international 

community can do to help safeguard Filipjno democracy. 

Speakers: Tanya Hamada, Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellnw 

9 

Brian Joseph, Senior Director of Asia and Global Programs, "'ational Endowmenl 

for Democracy 

Indonesia 

None. 
103


30423e-14.eps

JRI Events in Response to Questions for the Record 

• Colombia: None 

• Guatemala: None 

• Democratic Republic of the Congo 

o August 12, 2016: "A Conversation with Congolese 

Diaspora." On Friday August 12, 2016, !Rl, with the 

Department of State's Bureau of African Affairs hosted a 

roundtable event with memhers nfthe diaspora tram the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The event was the 

opportunity to discuss the political and situations in the 

DRC just months before the end of President Kabila's term. 

• Nigeria 

o july 6, 2016: "Nowhere to Run: Nigeria's Climate and 

Environmental Crisis." On Wednesday july 6, 2016, IRI, 

with the Sheu Musa Yar'Adua Foundation, hosted the 

screening nf Nowhere to Run: Nigeria's Climate and 

Environmental Crisis, a documentary examining the everchanging state of the environment in Nigeria and the 

failures in effective, accountable governance exacerbating a 

dire situation and leading to continued pollution and failure 

to respond to changing environmental circumstances. A 

discussion with Jacqueline Farris, Director of the Shehu 

Musa Yar'Adua Foundation, Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., journalist 

and author, and Amara Nwankpa. director of the public 

policy initiative atthc Sheu Musa Y<1r'1\dua Foundation, 

followed the screening, which members of the diaspora and 

representatives of domestic non-governmental 

organizations attended. 
104


30423e-15.eps

o March 7, 2018: "A Year Out: Examining the Role of Women 

in the 2019 Nigerian Elections." !Rl hosted several experts 

to provide a brief context of Nigeria's upcoming elections. 

They focused on women's political participation in Nigeria 

and IRJ's previous political party work Panelists also 

reflected on the 2015 elections and dissected the parties' 

platforms. 

Ylacedonia: None 

• Ukraine: See NDI response for events co-hosted by IRI and NDI 

Philippines: None 

• Indonesia: None 
105


30423e-16.eps

NDI 

NATIONAL 

DEMOCRATIC 

INSTITCTE 

NDI Events in ~esponse to Question for the Record 

• Events co-hosted with IRI are noted in bold 

a. Colombia: None 

b. Guatemala: None 

c. Democratic Republic of the Congo: None 

d. Nigeria: On Thursday, November 19,2015, NDI, with the Center for Strategic 

International Studies (CSIS), held one DC-based public event on Nigeria. With 

former Ambassador Johnnie Carson moderating, former President Goodluck 

Jonathan discussed "Presidential elections and democratic consolidation in Africa: 

Case studies on Nigeria and Tanzania." Aside from NDI staff, representatives of 

domestic and intemational non-governmental organizations, journalists, 

diplomats, civil servanta, researchers, members ofthe Nigerian diaspora, and 

university professors and students attended the event. 

e. Macedonia: In November 2017, NDI hosted a working dinner at its Washington 

headquarters on Macedonia's democratic reform process, teaturing the Speaker of 

the National Assembly of Macedonia (lJUl party, which is in governing coalition 

with the ruling SOSM party), and a leading member of parliament (representing 

the opposition VMRO-DPM~E party). Other guests included approximately 

one-dozen representatives of the State Ucpartmcnt, USA[]), and 

Washington-based non-governmental organizations. 

f. Ukraine: Tn Apri12018, NDT hosted an event at its Washington headquarters 

titled "Ukrainian MP Roundtable on Election Law." The purpose ofthe event was 

to update participants on election reform legislation under consideration and the 

political state-of-play on election law reform. Speakers included three Ukrainian 
106


30423e-17.eps

MPs from different parties. Other participants included representatives trom 

USAJD, NED-funded organizations, NED, think tanks, NGOs, NDl stafl~ and 

consulting firms. 

In March 201&, NDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled 

"Briefing on new research on disinfcrmation in Ukraine." The purpose of the 

event was to brief participants on new disinformation research by country senior 

director Mary O'Hagan. The speaker was Mary O'Hagan, NUl Ukraine Resident 

Senior Country Director. Other pa1ticipants included representatives from NUl 

staff, 1\Dl board members, think tanks, and foreign embassy staff. 

In March 2018, NDI and IRI co-hosted an event at its Washington headquarters 

titled "The Fight for Institutional Reform and Inclusive Democracy in Ukraine: 

Perspective ti·om the Sa:mopomich (Self: Reliance) Party." The event was a 

discussion on Samopomich's position with regards to prospect<; for meaningful 

democratic progress, anti-corruption reform, upcoming elections, Okraine's 

security, and U.S.-Ukraine cooperation. Speakers included a number of 

representatives ft·om the Samopomich pmty, including the party's founder and 

several MPs, Other patticipants included representatives from USG, USAID, 

NFD, NED-funded 0rganizations, academic institutions, think tanks, NGOs, 

jomnalists, and foreign embassy staff. 

In December 2017, NDI hosted an event al its Washington headquarters tilled 

"Ukraine-Lithuania Luncheon." The evenl served as a discussion on 

post-Soviet!Euro inlegraliou reform from lwo countries on both sides of Lhe 

process, as well as an exploralion of continued and enhanced cooperation between 

Ukraine and Lithuania. Speakers included NDI's president, KDI Eurasia's 

director, several Ukrainian MPs, and several Lithuanian MPs. Other pat'ticipants 

included representatives from USG, t:SAID, NED, think tanks, NGOs, foreign 

embassy staff, NDI staff, NDI board members, and former US ambassadors. 

In '\fovember 2017, NDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled 

"Democratic Progress in Ukraine: Implications of the Latest Public Opinion 

Research Results with NDI Ukraine Senior Country Director Mary O'Hagan." 

The event was a presentation of'\fDI's research exploring Ukrainians' attitudes on 

politics, political parties, the economy, and security. The speaker was Mary 

O'Hagan, NDI Ukraine Resident Senior Country Director. Other participants 
107


30423e-18.eps

included representatives from NDI staff, USG, USAID, NED, NED-funded 

organizations, think tanks, and NGOs. 

In November 2017, NDI hosted its Annual Award Dinner in Washington titled 

"Democracy vs. Disinformation: Fighting for Facts." The event was a discussion 

on the threat of disinformation to democracy around the world. Speakers included 

NDI Chairman, NDI President, CEO of Rapplcr in the Philippines, Co-Founder of 

Stopf ake in Ukraine, Principal Investigator for the Computational Propaganda 

Project of Oxford Internet Institute, and a U.S. Senator. Other patticipants 

included representatives from USG, :'-!ED, USAJD foreign embassies, think tanks, 

U.S. Congress, media outlets, consulting groups, and former ambassadors. 

Tn November 2017, NDT hosted an event at its Washington headquatters titled 

"Disinformation vs. Democracy breakfast paneL" The event was a panel 

discussion on the challenges that dis information presents to democracy. Speakers 

included senior personnel at POT JTTCO, Co-Founder of Stop Fake in llkraine, 

Oxford Internet Institute, and Rappler in the Philippines. Other patticipants 

included representatives from NDI staff, lJSG, USAID, NED, 'JED-funded 

organizations, and NDI board members. 

In May 2017, NDI and IRI co- hosted an event at its Washington headquarters 

titled "Ukrainian Sec\trity and Democratic Reform: Views from the Samopomich 

(Self-Reliance) Parliamentary Faction." The event was a discussion with members 

of parliament from Ukraine's Samopomich (Self-Reliance) party aboutlhe 

party's trajectory and reform goals. The speakers were Ukrainian MPs and faction 

leaders. Other participants included representatives from NDI staff, USG, 

USAID, NED, NED-funded organizations, academic institutions, think tanks, 

NGOs, journalists, and foreign embassy staff. 

In April2017, NDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled 

"Reinforcing the U.S.-Ukraine Partnership: Views from a Delegation of 

Ukrainian Parliamentarians." The event served as a discussion on developments 

in the Ukrainian parliament, including the status of key reforms, and major issues 

in U.S.-Ukrainian relations. Speakers included several Ukrainian :\1Ps, including 

two Co-Chairs of the U.S. Caucus. Other participants included representatives 

from USG, USAID, NED, NED-funded organizations, NDI, academic 
108


30423e-19.eps

institutions, think tanks, 'IGOs, media outlets, foreign embassies, and consulting 

fitms. 

In February 2017, NDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled 

"Democratic Reform in Ukraine: Implications of the Latest Public Opinion 

Research Results." The event served as a briefing on NDl' s latest public opinion 

research. The ~pcakcr was Mary O'Hagan, NDJ Lkrainc Resident ~cnior Country 

Director. Other participants included representatives from U~G. U~AlU, NED, 

NED-funded organizations, ND!, academic institutions, think tanks, NGOs, media 

outlets, foreign embassies, consulting t1rms, U.~. congress, and foreign 

govcmmcnts. 

In September 2016, NDT hosted an event at its Washington headqumters titled 

"Enacting Snstainable Retorm in Ckraine." The event served as a discussion on 

the prospects for meaningful democratic progress within Ukraine, security issues, 

and anti-corruption measures within the Rada. Speakers included three Ukrainian 

MPs. Other patticipants included representatives from IJSG, USA TD, NED, 

NFD-funded organizations, J'-.il)I, academic institutions, rhink tanks, NGOs, media 

outlets, foreign embassi.es, consulting firms, U.S. Congress, and private 

businesses. 

In September 2016, NDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters tilled 

"Democratic Reform in Ukraine and the Road Ahead: Implications of the Latest 

Public Opinion Research Results." The event served as a briefing on ND!'s latest 

public opinion research. The Speaker was Mary O'Hagan, NDI Ukraine Resident 

Senior Country Direcior. Other participants included representatives from USG, 

USAID, NED, NED-funded organizations, NDI, academic institutions, think 

tanks, NGOs, foreign embassies, and consulting firms. 

In June 20 16, ND1 hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled ''Making 

Democracy Work: The Politics of Reform in Ukraine." The event served as a 

discussion with a group of MPs on the prospects of change in the country. 

Speakers included three Ukrainian MPs. Other participants included 

representatives from USG, USAID, NED, NED-funded organizations, academic 

institutions, think tanks, NGOs, media outlets, foreign embassies, NDI, consulting 

firms, U.S. Congress, and international organizations. 
109


30423e-20.eps

In April2016, NDI and IRI co-hosted an event at its Washington headquarters 

titled "Overcoming Oligarchic Management: Views from the Samopomich 

(Self-Reliance) Parliamentary Faction." The event served as a discussion on the 

prospects for meaningful democratic progress, early elections, and U.S.-Ukrainian 

cooperation with members of the Samopomich party. Speakers included several 

Samopomich 11Ps, including the Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and the 

Faction Leader. Other participants included representatives from USG, USAID, 

NEO, NEO-fundcd organizations, academic institutions, think tanks, KGOs, 

media outlets, and foreign embassies. 

In February 2016, NDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled 

''Where we are now: Women and Democratic Transformation in Ukraine." The 

event served as a briefing on public opinion research findings in Ukraine 

involving attitudes on women, politics, and gender quotas before and after the 

October local elections. Speakers included Executive Director for Georgetown's 

Institute for Peace, Women .. and Security and ~DI Ukraine's Resident Senior 

Country Director. Other participants included representatives from USG, USAlD, 

NED, NED-fundeu urganl%ations, U.S. Congress, academic institutions, think 

tanks, NGOs, media outlets, NDI, and consulting firms. 

In July 2015, KDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters tided "Key 

Findings from New NDI Ukraine Public Opinion Research." The event served as 

a briefing on NDI's latest public opinion research in Ukraine. Other participants 

included representatives from USG, USAID, NED, NED-funded organizations, 

media outlets, l\TII, NGOs, consultants, foreign embassies, and academic 

institutions. 

In July 2015, ND1 hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled "A 

Screening of the film 'Haytanna' (Return)." The event served as a t1lm screening 

with a discussion on the forcible deportation of the Crimean Tatar. Speakers 

included NDI Eurasia's Regional Director, Charge d'Afiairs of Ukraine in the 

USA, and President of the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe. Other 

pa1iicipants included representatives from USG, NED, NED-funded 

organizations, media outlets, NDI, NGOs, consultants, and foreign embassies. 

ln Apri12015, NDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled 

"Breakfast with the leadership of the Equal Opportunities Caucus (EOC) of the 

Vcrkhovna Rada (parliament) of Ukraine." The event served as a conversation on 
110

f


30423e-21.eps

gender issues and the status of economic and political reforms in Ukraine. 

Speakers included several Ukrainian MPs and members of the EOC. 

In February 2015, NDI hosted an event at its Washington headquarters titled 

"C.S.-Ukraine Cooperation: Views from Ukrainian Parliamentarians." The event 

was a conference with Ukrainian Members of Parliament, including key 

committee leaders, on the situation in Ukraine and opportunities for U.S. 

Ukrainian partnerships. Speakers included First Vice Speaker of Parliament, two 

Ukrainian MPs, NDJ Ukraine's Resident Director, USAID's Deputy Assistant 

Administrator for Europe and Eurasia, and several representatives from various 

think tanks. Other participants included representatives from USG, USAID, NED, 

NED-funded organizations, academic institutions, think tru1ks, NGOs, media 

outlets, foreign embassies, NDJ, and consulting finns. 

g. Philippines: Public events over the past three years that involve Philippine 

actors arc: the 2017 ~Dl Democracy Award to Rappler (l\ovember 2, 2017-

Washington DC); the t'olitico-NDI Panel Event on TI1e Global Threat of 

Disinformation vs. Democracy (November l, 2017- Washington, DC); and the 

Stop Violence Against Women in Politics Forum (May 9, 2018- Washington 

DC). 

h. fndonesia: None 
111

f


30423f.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Brad Sherman 

Democracy Promotion in a Challenging World 

June 14, 2018 

NOTE: The responses below are provided on behalf of National Endowment for Democracy 

(NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) 

with respect to funding from the NED. 

Over the last several years, in many places around the globe, LGBTQ people have been targeted, 

rounded up, tortured, and even killed, just for being who they are. We've seen it in Chechnya, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and other places. In Africa, we've seen several governments 

attempt to further criminalize same-sex relations, while in Latin America we've seen transgender 

women targeted for abuse with far too few perpetrators held accountable. 

What can the U.S do to ensure that our support for civil society abroad is fully inclusive 

ofLGBTQ people and communities? 

• In what ways are your organization's programs contributing to strengthening democratic 

institutions through the inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable communities such as 

LGBTQ people? 

Democracy is more likely to develop and endure when all segments of a society are free to 

participate without suffering discrimination or reprisal Conflict is often driven by the failure to 

govern inclusively. In many new and emerging democracies, large portions of society are 

excluded from politics based on age, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, and sexual 

orientation. NDI and IRI provide technical support to civil society organizations to enhance their 

operational capacity and ability. Training programs are available to organizations with the goals 

of defending basic rights, opposing discrimination, and promoting tolerance, pluralism and 

inclusion. We work to increase the capacities of these communities so that they can defend their 

basic rights. Likewise, we encourage political parties, elected officials and government agencies 

to reach out to marginalized populations and take their interests into account 
112


30423g-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Ann Wagner 

Democracy Promotion in a Challenging World 

June 14, 2018 

NOTE: The responses below are provided on behalf of National Endowment for Democracy 

(NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) 

with respect to funding from the NED, except where a question is specifically directed to one 

individual. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for their 

informative testimonies. As China exports its soft authoritarian, extractive development model and 

"human rights with Chinese characteristics,'' our democracy-promotion activities are more 

important than ever. America excels at helping our partners build capacity, good governance 

practices, and democratic institutions. And democratizing countries want-and need-us to 

remain an alternative to Chinese capital. 

Mr. Gershman, as co-chair of the ASEAN caucus, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the 

state of democracy in Southeast Asia. 

On the surface, it looks like authoritarianism has made significant gains in Burma, Laos, 

Cambodia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Yet the United States has many staunch allies in the 

region. How can we use our influence to strengthen democratic voices-like in Thailand, where 

the military junta claims, once again, that it's nearly ready to initiate a transition to democratic 

rule? 

I agree that authoritarianism has made gains in in Southeast Asia, though recently there were 

protests in seven cities in Vietnam challenging two new laws tightening cybersecurity and giving 

China new privileges in special economic zones. On Thailand, all four NED institutes (NDI, IRI, 

CIPE, and the Solidarity Center) are active, and NED also maintains a robust small-grants program 

supporting indigenous civil-society organizations. Since the military coup on May 22, 2014, NED 

has more than doubled its programming in Thailand, which now supports 21 projects across the 

country. The groups we support are working despite the crackdown on rights and freedoms, and 

they're also alert to public unhappiness over election delays and corruption scandals. Restrictions 

on media and political parties remains in place, though the parties may have more political space 

in the run-up to elections, which have been tentatively set for February 2019. NED support in 

Thailand focuses on the following areas: 

• Monitoring, documenting, and providing protection against rights abuses. 

Providing avenues for citizens to voice their political views peacefully and engage in 

dialogue about the direction of their country. 

• Fostering civic engagement and political participation by providing mechanisms through 

which citizens can channel their demands constructively and deepen their practice of 

democratic principles. 
113


30423g-2.eps

• Bolstering the capacity of civil society voices that have emerged since the coup by fostering 

more coordination and the sharing of tactics and approaches among the different actors. 

Mr. Wallack, I'm glad you mentioned the connection between autocracy and ethnic cleansing, 

mass atrocities, and state fragility. 

Tam currently working to kickstart improvements to U.S. crisis response mechanisms, and we 

should not forget this connection in our democracy promotion programming. You also mentioned 

Burkina Faso, where the United States has been instrumental in both fostering democracy and 

preventing violence. What lessons on crisis response can we draw from the Burkina Faso 

experience? 

Sudden crises of insecurity tend to involve multiple sectors of society, either as drivers or victims. 

While a military response may be adequate in establishing security in the immediate to short term, 

the ultimate resolution of the crisis and the societal transformation that follows are strengthened 

by political, civic and other social actors. In the notable case of Burkina Faso (a country in the 

Sahel sub-region facing frequent attacks from extremist Jihadists), when a long serving autocrat 

suddenly fell from power in 2014, civilian actors from civil society organizations, political parties, 

progressive minded legislators and professional security officers, many of whom in the past decade 

had exposure to US-sponsored democracy support programming, stepped in to avoid the country 

falling into total chaos that would have further benefited extremists. One lesson that NDI drew 

from the Burkina Faso experience, is the need to take a multi-sectorial approach to crisis response 

management that empowers reform minded individuals who can quickly lay the foundation for the 

impacted country to establish democratic and representative governance. 

We know that China undermines democratic influence in Asia and prevents its spread. 

But I think the strength of young Asian democracies like Mongolia, Taiwan, and Indonesia, and 

democratic gains regionally since 2006, should give us reason to feel optimistic. Mr. Twining, how 

does the International Republican Institute facilitate connections among young and established 

democracies in the Asia-Pacific region for mutual strength against Chinese influence? 

IRI utilizes a variety of channels to facilitate connections among young and established 

democracies and young democratic leaders in the Asia-Pacific. Many of our country programs in 

Asia take advantage of the abundance of experienced democratic leaders in the region, including 

government officials, political activists, and civil society and other community leaders, to serve as 

trainers and mentors for those in closed or newly transitioning countries, many of which are 

vulnerable to China's efforts to expand its influence in the region. It is IRI's belief that this intra-
114

f


30423g-3.eps

regional engagement not only supports democratic development within each country and the 

region as a whole, but also creates linkages amongst like-minded democrats across the region who 

are keenly aware of and prepared to advocate and act against the threats posed by China's 

aggressive influence peddling. Over the coming year, IRI will be launching new efforts focused 

on documenting and raising awareness about China's activities in this sphere, as well as helping 

countries in Asia and around the world develop resiliency to counter China's malign influence. 

In addition to these explicitly China-focused activities, IRI implements several other programs 

focused on cultivating and building connections between democratic leaders in the Asia-Pacific. 

IRI' s global youth network, Generation Democracy, has a strong and growing presence in Asia, 

with 82 members from 17 countries. Generation Democracy provides opportunities for young 

democratic leaders to engage with and learn trom each other at both the regional and global levels, 

as well as providing technical and tinancial support for members to design and carry out projects 

in their communities to increase support for democratic values, foster transparency, and encourage 

civic engagement. In 2017, IRI hosted Generation Democracy regional academies in both Bangkok 

and Jakarta, and continues to strengthen the network of young democrats through alumni 

engagement events and global summits. Through programs like Generation Democracy, IRI is 

helping shape Asia's next generation of leaders, preparing them to be strong advocates for 

democratic principles and build resilient institutions that can rebuff China's attempts to export its 

model of governance and development. 
115


30423h-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Dina Titus 

Democracy Promotion in a Challenging World 

June 14, 2018 

NOTE: The responses below are provided on behalf of National Endowment for Democracy 

(NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) 

with respect to funding from the NED, except where a question is specifically directed to one 

individual. 

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. establishing an embassy in the country, and 

Mongolia, entirely surrounded by Russia and China, now boasts some of the highest Freedom 

House scores in Asia and, according the World Bank, has some of the highest levels of gender 

equality. 

I traveled to Mongolia in 2016, and more recently I have spoken with representatives from the 

Mongolian government about how supporting their cashmere industry could diversity its mining 

industry-dependent economy, reduce economic pressures from China, and strengthen its 

sovereignty. Around 90% of workers in the textile sector are female; and while Mongolia produces 

nearly half of the global supply of raw cashmere, around 60-70% of Mongolian cashmere is 

exported to China, so Mongolian processing facilities remain underutilized. 

Mr. Twining, I know IRI has an active office on the ground in Mongolia. Are you involved in any 

programs connected to the cashmere industry? Can you share some of your activities in Mongolia 

and how you think we can use your best practices as we look at promoting democracy elsewhere 

under the inf1uences of Russia and China? 

Through its field office in Ulaanbaatar, IRI has conducted programming for the last three years to 

promote Mongolia as a democratic role model in the region. With National Endowment for 

Democracy funding, we implement the COMET (Chronicling Mongolia's Experience in 

Transition) Program, where we document and share Mongolia's experience transitioning to a 

successful democracy and free market economy through publications and exchanges with other 

countries. IRI has published three books on Mongolia's democratic history and has translated the 

first book in the series into Russian and Korean. Under COMET, IRI has hosted Kyrgyz Members 

of Parliament, Bhutanese Election Commission officials, Cambodian Journalists, North Korean 

defectors, and Lao civil society leaders to learn first-hand from the leaders of Mongolia's 1991 

democratic transition, current emerging leaders, journalists, and business owners on topics ranging 

from orchestrating student movements, resisting Chinese and Russian disinfonnation, and 

improving local governance. Through this program, IRI actually partners with the Gobi Cashmere 

factory to present exchange participants a positive example of a locally-owned, locally driven 

business in a post-transition environment. Moreover, not only does Mongolia serve as a model of 

successful democracy while bordering the regions two largest stalwarts for authoritarianism, it 
116


30423h-2.eps

serves as example where democracy has become part of the national identity to distinb'llish itself 

from its neighbors. 

I serve as Co-Chair of the Sri Lanka Caucus, and Sri Lanka has also partnered with HDP. I have 

noticed in working with HDP countries that US. assistance plays a critical role in democratic 

development, especially since foreign assistance to Sri Lanka has focused on strengthening 

governance, democratic reform, rule oflaw, and human rights. 

Unfortunately, the President's budget includes significant cuts to assistance for these activities in 

Sri Lanka. At the same time, a recent independent report prepared for the State Department claims 

China is using "debtbook diplomacy,'' with Sri Lanka identified as being one of the most 

vulnerable countries. 

Is there more that Congress should be doing to counter Chinese efforts to undermine democracies 

in Asia and around the world? How can we continue to promote democratic values in Sri Lanka 

and other areas China is working to exert its int1uence? 

In this era of globalization coupled with resurgent authoritarianism, China has cultivated economic 

leverage as a tool for getting others to play by its rules. A growing number of countries, including 

many democracies, are straining to deal with the projection of authoritarian int1uence through what 

the NED's International Forum for Democratic Studies describes as "sharp power". Such in±1uence 

includes, but is not limited to, the use of manipulative and coercive "debt trap diplomacy'' of the 

kind that is visible in Sri Lanka, and in other settings In such cases, China blends development 

work with its geopolitical aims. The corrosive etTects of sharp power are not limited to the 

development realm, however. It is increasingly evident, for instance, in the spheres of culture, 

academia, media, and publishing. These sectors are crucial in determining how citizens of 

democracies understand the world around them, but they are also vulnerable to self-censorship. 

The challenge of China's sharp power is multifaceted, and so must be any response. To address 

sharp power's corrosive effects, it will require far greater political focus and investment in 

supporting civil society and more generally reprioritizing defending and advancing democracy and 

the principles that underpin it. 

To address China's growing assertion of power, the US. in collaboration with like-minded 

countries, should support democratic models of governance that are responsive to citizen needs, 

while protecting individual liberties. This includes strengthening civil society and democratic 

institutions, such as parliaments and political parties. In Sri Lanka, for example, NDI and IRI are 

assisting the House Democracy Partnership (HDP) by supporting the participation of Sri Lankan 

MPs in HDP programs. The Institutes are also working with Sri Lanka's parliament on developing 

a plan to improve its transparency and enhance citizen participation in Parliament's work, and are 

assisting governance efTorts at the local level. 
117

Æ


30423h-3.eps

The President's FYI9 budget request proposes a 60% cut in funding to the National Endowment 

for Democracy, and the State Department's Congressional Budget Justification says that NED 

grantees will have to compete for federal funding directly from USAID's Democracy, Human 

Rights and Governance Office and the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor rather than receiving sub-grants trom NED. How will this impact NDI and IRI's work? 

This proposed funding cut for FY20 19 would represent a drastic reduction in tun ding for NED and 

its four core institutes and would negatively impact our work globally. More importantly, the 

proposal would dismantle the NED structure itself and would remove the long-standing 

cooperation and coordination among the four core institutes and the NED. Such cooperation and 

coordination has been the hallmark and the foundation of NED and the core institutes effective 

and cost-etTective approach to supporting democracy.