U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

72–102PDF 2011

CONFRONTING DAMASCUS: U.S. POLICY TOWARD

THE EVOLVING SITUATION IN SYRIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 14, 2011

Serial No. 112–98

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

Mr. Frederic C. Hof, Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs, Office of the 

U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, U.S. Department of State ............ 6

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Frederic C. Hof: Prepared statement .............................................................. 9

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 30

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 31

(1)

CONFRONTING DAMASCUS: U.S. POLICY 

TOWARD THE EVOLVING SITUATION IN SYRIA 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST

AND SOUTH ASIA,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. I want to wish everyone good morning. I want to 

welcome all of my colleagues to this hearing of the Subcommittee 

on the Middle East and South Asia. I am Steve Chabot, the chairman. 

As has been well-documented, the human rights abuses being 

perpetrated by the regime in Damascus are simply horrifying. The 

Report of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic documents some of the 

most appalling and widespread human rights abuses that have 

been witnessed in recent memory. 

The commission explicitly notes extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence, and, perhaps most disturbingly, the abuse and murder of children. Witnesses interviewed 

by the commission are reported to have witnessed the torture, rape, 

and murder of children no older than 15 at the hands of the Syrian 

security forces. 

One military defector, the report noted, stated that he decided to 

defect after witnessing the shooting of a 2-year-old girl by an officer 

who affirmed that he did not want her to grow into a demonstrator. 

The English language does not have words strong enough to adequately condemn the horrifying abuses that have been committed 

by the Assad regime and its allies against the Syrian people. 

Beyond questions of legitimacy, these despicable acts are proof 

that the Assad regime is morally depraved and it is my belief that 

we and all other responsible nations have a moral imperative to ensure that Assad and his ilk are removed from power as soon as possible. 

According to Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human 

Rights, the civilian death toll in Syria now exceeds 5,000 and the 

number of children killed is more than 300. No responsible nation 

can sit by and allow this detestable display of depravity to continue. 

2

Today’s hearing, however, was called to examine U.S. policy. Several months ago, this subcommittee had the privilege of hearing 

Assistant Secretaries Feltman and Posner discuss the Obama administration’s human rights policies toward Iran and Syria. Since 

that hearing, the administration has taken a number of steps on 

Syria for which it deserves credit. 

Although it took far too much time and at least 1,900 dead Syrian citizens, the administration has finally come out and called for 

Bashar al-Assad’s departure from power on August 18. It also implemented sanctions against the Government of Syria and various 

high-ranking Syrian regime authorities, many of which have been 

mirrored by our allies abroad. 

Unfortunately, I fear this is not enough. Syria currently stands 

on the precipice of full-scale civil war. Recent reports suggest that 

the ranks of the Free Syrian Army—the main armed opposition—

continue to swell, likely fueled by a rise in defections and the intensified violence being perpetrated against the Syrian people by 

Assad and his band of thugs. 

As a result, the number of confrontations between the regime 

and the armed opposition is on the rise. The longer Assad remains 

in power, the more likely this conflict is to degenerate into a prolonged conflict that risks splitting the country along ethnic and sectarian lines. 

To date, the administration has strongly discouraged all armed 

opposition in Syria. In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central 

Asian Affairs, Assistant Secretary Feltman stated that ‘‘We do not 

want to see the situation descend into further violence. The best 

way forward is to continue support for the non-violent opposition 

while working with international partners to further isolate and to 

further pressure the regime . . . While we understand the Syrian 

people need to protect themselves, violent resistance is counterproductive. It will play into the regime’s hands. It will divide the 

opposition. It will undermine international consensus.’’

This policy of encouraging non-violence in the face of the brutal 

tactics of the Assad regime grows more untenable by the day. It is 

not our prerogative to tell the Syrian opposition to eschew armed 

resistance against the Assad regime when it is that very regime 

that continues to torture, rape, and murder the very citizens who 

comprise the opposition’s ranks. It must be pointed out to those 

who maintain that only non-violent opposition is legitimate that it 

was the Assad regime and not the opposition which initiated the 

violence. 

The Syrian people, like all people, have the right to defend themselves against the brutality of an illegitimate and repressive regime. Moreover, I challenge any who would defend the Assad regime by declaring that Assad is merely quelling an internal insurrection to show the Syrian people by what free and fair means 

Bashar al-Assad, or his father, attained and maintain power. 

This regime has declared war on the Syrian people and the Syrian people have a right to fight back; we must stand with them in 

this struggle. As helpful as international consensus may be, the 

outrageous and indefensible veto by Russia and China of a U.N. 

Security Council resolution against Syria does not inspire hope that 

3

the broader international community will be galvanized to any kind 

of consensus in time to stave off more death and the outbreak of 

civil war. 

When this uprising began, many in Washington were fond of 

pointing out that, unlike his father who murdered over 20,000 of 

his own citizens to quell an uprising, Bashar al-Assad does not 

have the stomach for such brutality. They were wrong. It is time 

for us to face the fact that there are no depths to which Assad and 

his regime will not resort to remain in power and to crush all legitimate opposition. 

Asking Syrian protestors to remain peaceful in the face of 

Assad’s brutal crackdown is tantamount to asking them to commit 

suicide and I fear that doing so may eventually pit us against a legitimate opposition instead of against an illegitimate regime. 

When this uprising began, many in Washington were fond of 

pointing out that, unlike his father who murdered over 20,000 of 

his own citizens to quell an uprising, Bashar al-Assad does not 

have the stomach for such brutality. There were wrong. It is time 

for us to face the fact that there are no depths to which the Assad 

regime will not resort to remain in power and to crush all legitimate opposition. 

Asking Syrian protestors to remain peaceful in the face of 

Assad’s brutal crackdown is tantamount to asking them to commit 

suicide and I fear that doing so many eventually pit us against a 

legitimate opposition instead of against an illegitimate regime. 

I now yield to the gentleman from New York, the distinguished 

ranking member from New York, Mr. Ackerman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Chairman, very much for calling this 

very, very important hearing and selecting our excellent witness 

today. 

I, too, think it is worth considering how far U.S. policy has 

moved in the right direction since late July when we met with 

Obama administration officials to discuss the situation in Syria as 

well as Iran. 

Back in July the central policy questions regarding Syria were, 

when would the United States finally and explicitly call for Bashar 

al-Assad to step down, when would we finally impose the sanctions 

available to us, and when would American leadership work to move 

the international community to recognize and respond to the vast 

horror of the Assad regime’s oppression. 

The answer to those questions came in August when the Obama 

administration moved decisively on all three elements. Later than 

some of us wished, but with more effect than many expected. 

The international sanctions organized by the administration in 

consultation with allies in Europe and with Turkey, together with 

subsequent sanctions by the Arab League, have made it clear that 

the Assad regime’s days are numbered. 

The Assad gang’s rule, which has been characterized at home by 

unparalleled brutality and endemic corruption, and abroad by support for Iranian hegemony, the subversion of Lebanon’s independence, state support for terrorism against Israel, and illicit efforts at 

nuclear proliferation, is doomed and deservedly so. 

Clearly, the people of Syria have embraced their fundamental 

right to determine not only who will govern Syria, but the form of 

4

government as well. We wish for them what we desire for ourselves; a democratic government circumscribed by law, accountable 

to the public and bound to respect the fundamental rights of the 

people from whom its powers are derived. 

In Syria today there are sharp divisions between ethnicities and 

religions, between believers in non-violence and proponents of violent resistance to tear down the Assad regime. There are splits between internal activists and external dissidents, between Army defectors and civil society leaders. 

I would say to all those Syrians distraught by the lack of unity 

and common purpose, welcome to the wonderful world of democratic self-government. Your freedom will not come easily and certainly not without a great struggle to create a common front in 

throwing off the Assad tyranny. 

And it won’t get easier. It just won’t. Self-government is the 

hardest form of government and the most complex. But if you want 

simple and easy, stick with what you have. Bashar al-Assad and 

his piggish band of crooks, killers and torturers of children will 

gladly go back to the way things were. 

As we in the United States contemplate the end of the Assad regime, events in other parts of the region are giving many here 

some pause in their enthusiasm. The Syrians who replace the 

Assad tyranny may not be Jeffersonian democrats. 

As in other Arab countries, the most politically coherent and 

well-organized forces in Syrian society are apt to be those who are 

organized around religious beliefs. These men and women are not 

likely to consider themselves our natural allies. This fact does not 

necessarily imply that they are, or need to be, our enemies. 

In the years to come, a great experiment will likely take place 

throughout the Middle East to determine whether Islamic and 

democratic norms can comfortably co-exist. Some may doubt it. 

It often seems to me that many of those most insistent that the 

conflict between mosque and state is irreconcilable seem to also be 

among the most enthusiastic when it comes to lowering the wall 

between church and state here in America. Perhaps they know 

something the rest of us do not. 

I believe there is reason for hope as well. Democratic norms that 

are won by the people who have championed these principles in 

their own voices, and who have won their freedom with their own 

courage, may prove difficult to set aside, in the Middle East as 

much as anywhere else. 

Moreover, we see in a number of other Islamic nations outside 

of the Arab world the development of governments that while not 

perfect, are recognizably legitimate, democratic and bound by the 

rule of law. 

Just as we cannot assume success, it would be equally unwise to 

assume that the Arab revolutions cannot ultimately flower into 

democratic forms. These new Arab governments will likely take different forms than we would desire for ourselves, but may still remain legitimate and acceptable to their owners. It is, at any rate, 

too soon to tell. 

Our role in these momentous events is to lend what aid we prudently can and to remain consistent advocates of the truths declared to the world on July 4, 1776: That all people are born free 

5

and equal; that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that each of us is endowed with inalienable rights. 

If we believe these things are as right and true today as they 

were on that glorious July 4th, we must also believe they are right 

and true everywhere, and not least where the bloody hand of oppression lies most heavily. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

The chair will now recognize members for 1 minute if they would 

like to make an opening statement in the order that they arrived. 

Mr. Rohrabacher from California, the chair of the Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First of all, I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Chabot, for holding this hearing. I think that we have 

many jobs as Members of Congress and one is to make sure that 

the word gets out to the American people about things that are 

happening overseas that are dealing directly with out values as a 

people. 

As we have just heard from the ranking member, that there is 

an uprising going on in Syria that goes right to the heart of what 

our ideals are as Americans. I am anxious to hear the details. This 

has been one conflict that I have actually been looking at from a 

distance and have not really been able to determine what those details are. 

I am looking forward to the witness. Let me just note that when 

we talk about the Assad family, the dictatorship they have had, 

that is a secular dictatorship, something that we oppose. The 

mullah dictatorship in Iran is also something we oppose even 

though that, of course, is a totally religious mullah dictatorship. I 

guess what Americans are all about is that we are against dictators 

and dictatorships and brutality and want to hear the details. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

The gentlemen from Kentucky, Mr. Chandler, is recognized if he 

would like to make a statement. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that these hearings will encourage a defined and proactive U.S. policy toward the 

removal of Assad. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. I am pleased to see that President Obama and leaders around the world have called on Bashar al-Assad to step down. 

The oppressive Assad regime has terrorized the Syrian people for 

far too long. The brutal actions threaten humanity and they need 

to be stopped. 

Our country, along with the European Union, has the right to 

issue strong sanctions against Syria to deny them revenues that 

are used to finance their abuse of the Syrian people. We must remain steadfast in our efforts to give the Syrian people what they 

want and deserve. 

6

That being a government representative and responsive to the 

people. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses 

today and engaging them in how we can help the Syrians who have 

been oppressed for too long to finally have the government they 

want and deserve. I held back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of 

time I will yield back but I would like to thank the witness for appearing today and for your willingness to hold this hearing. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Looking forward to the testimony today. I think we have learned a lot of lessons over the past decade about the difference between unilateral 

action and multilateral action. With the cooperation and willingness of Turkey and the Arab League to join with us in whole or 

in part in some of these actions to put pressure on the Assad regime. 

Looking forward to comments today from a witness as to how we 

can move forward with partners in seeking an outcome that is best 

for the region and best of the people of Syria and the United 

States. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

I will now introduce our distinguished witness here this morning, 

Frederic C. Hof. He is the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs. 

Returned to government service in 2009 to lead the Special Enjoy 

for Middle East Peace efforts to achieve Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli peace agreements, and to advice the Secretary of State 

and other senior U.S. officials on Levantine political and security 

issues. 

Since early 2010 he has coordinated the Department of State’s 

and broader U.S. Government’s response to the crisis in Syria. Mr. 

Hof previously held senior positions at the Departments of State 

and Defense before serving as present and CEO of AALC, an international consultancy. He is a Vietnam War Veteran and holds a 

Purple Heart along with other military decorations and civilian 

awards. 

We want to particularly thank you for your service to our country, Mr. Hof. Without further ado, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERIC C. HOF, SPECIAL COORDINATOR FOR REGIONAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE 

Mr. HOF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ackerman, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am deeply 

honor to have this opportunity to discuss Syria with you this morning and I greatly appreciate the invitation to do so. 

You have my statement. I will dispense with reading it. I have 

a few comments that I hope sincerely will help us frame the discussion we can have this morning. 

7

Nine months ago the President of Syria elected to respond to 

peaceful protest with violence and brutality. For 9 months he has 

stayed on course, a course featuring death, incarceration, torture, 

and terror. Is it any wonder that peaceful protest threatened to 

morph into violent resistance? Is it any wonder that a regime and 

its death throes trying to save itself would rather risk civil war 

than implement the modest steps called for by the Arab League to 

restore the peace. 

In his recent interview with Barbara Walters, the person who 

slings to the title President of the Syrian Arab Republic disclaimed 

any personal responsibility for the regime’s war on the Syrian people. ‘‘They are not my forces’’ he protested. ‘‘They are military 

forces belonging to the government.’’

It is difficult to imagine a more craven disclaimer of responsibility. Perhaps it is a rehearsal for the time when accountability 

will come. For now, however, it is a clear message to all who serve 

this regime. Your President claims to see, hear, and know nothing. 

Whether you are a private in an infantry squad or a minister of 

government, your President will place the blame for crimes committed squarely on you. 

In another sense, however, President Assad performed an important, if accidental, service in drawing a distinction between himself 

and the Syrian state. It is a distinction that the Syrian opposition 

led by the Syrian National Council is making as it draws up detailed plans for Syria’s transition from dictatorship to rule of law. 

It is the distinction between a corrupt and competent, brutal and, 

yes, dying regime and the state to which it has attached itself like 

a barnacle. 

It is the distinction between a family enterprise that has exploited the labor of over 20 million Syrians to enrich itself and a 

state structure which at least in theory is suppose to provide basic 

services to its citizens. 

The Syrian National Council is making it clear that the regime, 

the Assad-Makhlouf family clique, must go. Yet, the state for all of 

its warts and weaknesses, must stay to provide basic services and 

to help facilitate the transition. 

By drawing this distinction, Syria’s opposition is performing two 

vital services. It is helping to guarantee that if the regime leaves 

peacefully and quickly there will be no prospect of state failure. No 

prospect of chaos. It is reaching out to Syria’s minorities who fear 

the prospect of wrenching change even as they despise the corruption, incompetence, and brutality of the regime. 

Still, there is scant evidence that this regime has any intention 

of saving Syria as it tries to save itself. The longer this regime remains in power, the greater the chances are that Syria will dissolve 

into bloody sectarian conflict. This would be disastrous for Syria. 

It would be disastrous for its neighbors. 

How to avoid it without the voluntary stepping aside of a reckless regime is problematical. No one, least of all the United States, 

is seeking to militarize the situation. The closest we have to international consensus at the moment is that the regime must implement the steps called for by the Arab League immediately and unconditionally. But it will not likely do so. 

8

One of our most urgent tasks is to work with others to try to prevent this peaceful uprising from morphing into armed insurrection 

that would discredit the opposition, reinforce the regime’s narrative, complicate international support, and most likely lead to a 

bloody and protracted conflict. 

Therefore, my bottom line is this; Bashar al-Assad’s policy of violent repression will run Syria’s economy off the rails. If he is willing to preside over Pyongyang in the Levant and if he keeps what 

the Gulf Cooperation Council has labeled his killing machine intact, he may hang on for a period of time. We will certainly keep 

up the pressure and try to peal away his apologists and enablers 

in the international community but the nightmare of the Syrian 

people may be far from over. 

Their nightmare will, however end. Our job is to try to ensure 

it ends sooner rather than later and with as little damage to the 

institutions of the Syrian state and the unity and the well being 

of the Syrian people as possible. 

Bashar al-Assad and his inner circle can best contribute to the 

welfare of their countrymen by stepping aside now without delay. 

When the regime is gone, the Syrian people can be assured that 

they will have plenty of help in rebuilding and reforming their 

state and recovering the honor and dignity squandered by those 

who have served themselves at Syria’s expense. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to comments and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hof follows:]

9


72102a-1.eps
10


72102a-2.eps
11


72102a-3.eps
12


72102a-4.eps
13


72102a-5.eps
14

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Hof. We appreciate your 

testimony here this morning. We will now each have 5 minutes to 

ask questions and I recognize myself for 5 minutes for that purpose. 

In my opening statement I had raised my concern about the administration’s continued calls for all opposition to remain peaceful. 

There is a logic to the administration’s policy which I do understand. By resorting to violence the administration fears that the 

opposition may lose some international consensus and also give the 

regime fuel with which to drum up support. 

I do not, however, agree with the logic. First, it supposes that 

countries like China and Russia, the latter which recently delivered 

over 70 antiship cruise missiles to the Assad regime, would ever 

break with the regime. My sense is that given the brutality we 

have witnessed, if they have not already broken with Assad, they 

are unlikely to be swayed by more dead bodies. 

Second, this puts us in a difficult position insofar as it brings 

into question whether we could continue to support the opposition 

if it were to fight back against the regime’s brutality. 

In your written testimony you state that we ‘‘Urge against the 

violent resistance not because we are naive but because we firmly 

believe the effort to extract this regime from the Syrian state will 

succeed more quickly and bloodlessly if the revolution remains entirely peaceful.’’

My question is why? One recent report suggests mass attacks on 

army defectors and pro-democracy activists. Do we honestly expect 

the opposition to stand there and be murdered? Has the administration met with the free Syrian army and, if not, why not? 

And does it have any plans to? If, indeed, the wider opposition 

decides that it can no longer remain nonviolent in the face of the 

regimes onslaught, will we abandon support? At what point would 

the Obama administration reconsider its policy of eschewing support for armed opposition? 

Mr. HOF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Neither you nor the members of this committee, nor the members of the Syrian opposition, 

nor the Syrian people, are going to hear any sermons from me or 

anybody in this administration about self-defense. 

It is clear what the strategy of the Assad regime is. It is to attempt to channel peaceful resistance which it cannot handle. It has 

no clue how to handle peaceful resistance. Channel it as best it can 

in the direction of insurrection because it believes it knows how to 

handle insurrection. This is the kind of language that regime understands quite well. 

What we are hoping may still happen mainly by virtue of the 

Arab League initiative and there is going to be a key meeting this 

weekend. Somehow the Arab League will be able to persuade the 

Syrian regime to accept monitors, witnesses on the ground. Our 

view is that it is much less likely that this regime will do its worst 

is there are witnesses present. 

Our view is that the best scenario for Syria’s future, the best scenario for a stable transition that preserves stability in the region 

is one that would be peaceful. But, Mr. Chairman, this regime has 

a vote in how all of that turns out and I am not about to tell people 

trying to defend their houses and their families that they shouldn’t 

15

do it. I am not about to tell Syrian soldiers who are ordered to commit crimes that they should follow those orders so it is a real dilemma we face here and there are no easy answers to this, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. I hope you are right. I fear you may not be. Certainly when you have opposition who is being peaceful and they are 

being gunned down and their children are being tortured, there is 

a natural inclination, of course, to fight back. I guess you could 

look at Egypt as one example where violence wasn’t necessary. 

The regime did come down. Libya, on the other hand, was a different situation and had there not been an armed uprising, I don’t 

see a clear way that Gaddafi could have been overthrown so only 

time will tell. We certainly appreciate your insight and you are certainly an expert in this area. Thank you again for your service to 

our country. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, for 5 minutes as well. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the chairman. I just wanted to personally recognize the witness myself insomuch as he grew up on Long 

Island and Port Washington, very much a part of my constituency. 

He is also a graduate of Shriver, one of the most prestigious public 

schools that we have. Is there any chance that the Assad regime 

survives? 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, our view is that this regime is the equivalent of Dead Man Walking. The real question is how many steps 

remain. I think it is very, very difficult to predict or project how 

much time this regime has. The more time it has, the worse for 

Syria, the worse for the region. That is very clear. No, I do not see 

this regime surviving. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would strongly agree with you. My view has always been in the end the street wins but how long it takes to get 

to the end is sometimes measured in a lot of blood. What is there 

that we or others could be doing to speed up the demise of the regime that we are not doing right now? 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, one of the tasks that has been assigned 

to me by the Secretary of State is outreach to the Syrian-American 

community. Outreach to Syrian-Americans of various faiths, various political beliefs. I think one of the things that members of this 

committee can do, I am sure each and every one of you has SyrianAmerican constituents. Each and every one of you is aware of what 

Syrian-Americans have contributed to the United States of America 

to the extent you are willing and able to reach out to these communities, to engage them in dialogue and, if necessary, point them in 

my direction. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. What do we tell them to do? 

Mr. HOF. I think what we tell them to do, particularly in the case 

of what are in Syria minority communities, Christians, I think we 

need to assure them, Number one, change is coming and, number 

two, their government, the United States Government, is absolutely committed to seeing Syria’s minorities playing a central role 

in the new Syria. 

This is part, a big part, of our ongoing discussion with the Syrian 

opposition. The need to make absolutely sure that all communities 

in Syria are (a) comfortable with the fact that change is coming, 

and (b) knowing that they are going to play a central role in this. 

16

The Syrian opposition holds very strong cards and is really the 

determinant factor of what is going to happen ultimately in Syria. 

I think it was very important that Ambassador Ford did return so 

that among the many things he has to do is build our ties with the 

next generation in Syria with the Syrian leaders. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. What can you tell us in our very public setting 

here about contacts that we have made with the Syrian opposition 

that would assist them in their struggle and are we doing everything that we can specifically with regard to determining what the 

attitudes are and helping shape those attitudes under a new regime, specifically toward the Christian community which seems to 

be in grave danger in so many parts of the Arab world? 

Mr. HOF. I think, Congressman, that is an extraordinarily important point. We are not shy about the fact that we reach out to the 

Syrian opposition. It is a major part of Ambassador Robert Ford’s 

mission in Damascus. It is a major part of my mission on the outside. It is a major part of the mission of the Assistant Secretary 

Jeff Feltman. 

We have sustained contacts with the opposition. The opposition, 

obviously, is not a creature of the United States of America. It is 

very independent. It is made up of a coalition of extraordinarily 

independent people. They have their own thoughts on how to proceed. They have their own thoughts on what the transition from 

dictatorship to rule of law should look like. 

One of the points we have made to the opposition, and I must 

say they get it, is that they really do need to do a more sustained 

steady job of outreach to Syria’s minorities, to Christian, Alawis, 

Kurds, Druze. The list goes on because it is the concerns of these 

minorities, particularly Christians and Alawis, I think, that the regime is hiding behind right now. 

It is probably the key reason why the central parts of cities such 

as Damascus and Aleppo have remained quiet while the rest of the 

country is experiencing protests on a daily basis making sure that 

Syrian Christian and other minorities understand that they are 

part of the solution here. That the Assad regime is not only part 

of the problem, it is the problem. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I didn’t quite get the point that you were just 

making. Why is it that those areas are quiet? Because what? You 

were just saying areas in Damascus are quiet and that was some 

sort of success of something. I wasn’t quite sure what point you 

were making. 

Mr. HOF. No, Congressman. My point is that to a very large degree this regime is both stalking and hiding behind the fears of minorities in Syria. Fears about what their role would be in the future of Syria. And that this tactic, this, if you will, strategy on the 

part of the regime helps account for the fact that central parts of 

Damascus and Aleppo have been relatively quiet. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does that mean——

Mr. HOF. One more point. By the same token what our Embassy 

is seeing is a great deal more in the way of security presence in 

17

downtown Damascus so the regime is clearly worried about what 

the future holds. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And you are saying about these neighborhoods that they are the Christian and the minority neighborhoods? 

Is that what you are saying? I am just trying to get the understanding. 

Mr. HOF. Yes. These are areas where there is a heavy minority 

population. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you are suggesting that perhaps the minority communities, the Kurds, the Druze, the Alawis, the Christians in this insurrection may be attracted to support the Assad regime? 

Mr. HOF. What I am saying, Congressman, is that there is virtually no one in Syria who has any illusions about the corruption, 

the incompetence, and the violence, the brutality of this regime. No 

one. Not even the people in the inner circle of the regime have 

those illusions. But minorities in Syria do have some concerns 

about what comes next. A major mission for the opposition is to address those concerns and do it satisfactorily. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How does the opposition address those concerns? 

Mr. HOF. It is coming along, Congressman. It is a work in 

progress. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You have a regime that is supposedly a secular regime. The greatest ally of Syria is the most religious of all 

the regimes, the Mullah regime in Iran. They are the most fanatical and you have this alliance so you are suggesting that perhaps 

the insurrection hasn’t made it’s position clear on whether or not 

people of other faiths will have more freedom under a democratic 

government? 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, the opposition is saying all the right 

things. If you read the statements, you read the proclamations, you 

read the text of speeches that have been given, it is all fine. What 

we have suggested to the opposition is that its messaging into 

Syria needs to be more disciplined, more sustained, more powerful. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope that if there is any ambiguity 

about whether or not the minorities’ rights will be respected under 

a new democratic government I would hope that would be cleared 

up. 

Let me ask you about one point that seems to be a central point 

that you are making here today, and that is we in some way are 

opposing an insurrection. I don’t know. Maybe the State Department burned their history books over there. I don’t see where tyrants have ever gone down without a fight and, if they are, I mean, 

the United States we had an insurrection. I mean, our revolution 

was an insurrection. 

Mubarak and these others that we have seen where there 

weren’t insurrections, these people were tied to the west. Yes, they 

were less than free governments but they weren’t the brutal dictatorship that we see in the countries that do require insurrection to 

get rid of. 

Frankly, from what you are saying, I think we are sending the 

wrong message. We should be sending the message that yes, we 

18

support the brave people who are struggling for their freedom. If 

guns come to play, which they will, we hope they win. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. You may go 

ahead and answer the question if you wish. 

Mr. HOF. Thank you, Congressman. I take your point. I take 

your point. What we have seen from the beginning is this regime 

as its central strategy pushing events in the direction of insurgency. That is what we have seen. It appears that they may be succeeding. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Chandler, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Hof, for your testimony. I think this is an incredibly important subject. Nobody, I think, in this country is a fan of 

the Assad regime and I think we would all like to see it leave. 

If you look at the history of the regime, they have done a number 

of things to maintain power. I know what you are saying about the 

minorities. They have for many years caused the minorities to live 

in fear of rule by the Sunni majority. I know that they are continuing to scope that sort of feeling amongst the minorities. 

They have also, of course, used Israel as a boogie man for a long 

time to, again, maintain their position at the top of a country as 

a minority, the Alawite minority. With all of that in mind, what 

leads anybody to believe that they would agree to some kind of settlement or to leave voluntarily? What is in it for this regime to 

leave voluntarily? They are guilty of a lot of crimes obviously so 

there is going to be a desire to prosecute leading members of the 

Assad regime. 

I have a hard time seeing that this thing will go anywhere but 

the direction of a fight to the finish because I don’t see that there 

is anything in it for Assad and for his henchmen, who are in charge 

of the regime, to leave without a fight and no benefit for them to 

leave. 

The second thing that I would like for you to address, if you don’t 

mind, give us some idea where Turkey is. I know that they are 

sheltering some of the opposition, but just how far along in that effort are they? Are they looking at the possibility at some point of 

armed intervention across their border? What is going on with Turkey’s efforts to remove the Assad regime? 

Mr. HOF. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, on the scenario 

of the fight to the finish, there is plenty of historical precedent that 

substantiates your view on this. I think Syrians across the board 

recognize that the cost of a fight to the finish will be really prohibitive. It will be prohibitive for the country. It will be prohibitive for 

the region. 

Nevertheless, we cannot discount the strong possibility that this 

is the direction the regime is going to choose to go in. The Syrian 

opposition in coordination with the Arab League is trying to pull 

out all the stops as we speak to try to prevent that scenario from 

taking place. The opposition will be going to Cairo with a transition 

plan that it will discuss in some detail with the Arab League. 

It is a plan that involves deep Arab League involvement in offering some kind of protected asylum to the regime. I think from the 

19

point of view of the opposition it owes itself. It owes the Syrian people the opportunity to try to run that to ground. It may not work 

but they are going to try and I think they should. 

With respect to Turkey I think the big thing that has happened 

over the past several months is a basic change in how Turkey analyzes the central nature of the problem here. Turkey has gradually 

but irreversibly come to the conclusion that Bashar al-Assad is not 

part of the solution. He is part of the problem. He poses an unbelievable national security threat to Turkey. 

As you mentioned, Turkey has provided shelter to the free Syrian 

army. What the Turks tell us, and we have no reason to disbelieve 

them, is that they are not arming these folks and sending them 

across into Syria. That is their position and we have no reason to 

disbelieve it. 

I am sure that Turkey is examining many, many, many different 

options and contingencies right now based on a variety of scenarios 

that could come up. I am not aware of any near-term plans to establish safe zones, or whatever, on Syrian territory. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Turner, is recognize for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think this regime is a lot closer to Libya and Iraq of 10 years 

ago. I don’t think either of these there would have been a regime 

change without some outside help, clearly in Iraq. Do the insurgents or rebels hold any territory? Is there any method or support 

they are getting in terms of arms or equipment? Is there any outside help? Would we be, the United States, adverse to supplying 

some of that, or NATO? 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, as far as we are able to tell, the Syrian 

opposition does not hold territory in Syria. Of course, there are opposition people located in various urban neighborhoods. There are 

opposition people who move back and forth across various borders. 

I think the key thing right now before we try to determine how 

we are going to relate to all of this, the Syrian opposition it self, 

particularly in the form of the Syrian National Council, is still trying to figure out how it relates to the free Syrian army and to Syrian army defectors. 

I don’t think we want to jump ahead of that. I think we need to 

see how things play out with the Syrian National Council and its 

own relationship building and the Syrian National Council in relation to the ongoing Arab League initiative. 

Mr. TURNER. Is the pre-Syrian army anything more than a 

name? Are there actual units? 

Mr. HOF. You know, it is very difficult, very, very difficult for us 

to get a good handle on this, Congressman. You know, it does appear that several thousand Syrian soldiers have in essence voted 

with their feet. They have decided that they no longer want to be 

put in a position of having to support criminal activity against 

their own citizens. 

It does not, however, appear that the free Syrian army is the 

kind of organization on which one would do a sort of formal order 

of battle analysis in terms of battalions, brigades and so forth. It 

20

does not appear to be organized at this point in a conventional 

military way. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. I would yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Higgins, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to follow up, unlike Libya, the Syrian rebels don’t appear to 

control any defined or strategic territory. Nor have their been any 

major defections from the Assad government. Who are the leading 

forces in the rebel opposition and who are they aligned with? 

Where is this thing going? If you are an insurgent effort and you 

don’t have momentum, you are not winning. Would you characterize the opposition here as having momentum and able to sustain 

momentum? 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, that is an extraordinarily difficult question for me to give a definitive answer to from my perspective. If 

you had asked me a couple of months ago would there be the level 

of defections we are seeing now, I frankly would not have known 

the answer to that question then. 

It is difficult for me to speculate what things are going to look 

like 60 or 90 days from now. The main thrust of the Syrian opposition today remains that part of the opposition that is absolutely 

committed to peaceful transition in Syria. We are talking about 

mainly the Syrian National Council and other organizations. 

These are organizations that are absolutely determined to do 

their best to avoid civil war. That is the main event right now. It 

is those organizations and it is their relationships with the ongoing 

Arab League initiative. This is the main game in town right now. 

Mr. HIGGINS. So this went from peaceful calls for reform to a 

growing earned insurgency into what could eventually evolve into 

a civil war. The allies of Assad are Russia and China and they 

have blocked U.N. Security Council condemnations of Damascus. 

However, the Unite States is aligned with the European Union 

and the sanctions imposed on the Syrian Government seem to be 

having somewhat of an impact in terms of oil revenues, in terms 

of foreign investment that’s been halted, in terms of deterioration 

of the tourism economy of Syria. Do you car to comment on that? 

Mr. HOF. Yes, Congressman. I think when we are talking about 

sanctions, first of all, truth in advertising. My colleagues in the Department of the Treasury are the real experts on this. We have 

identified over time basically seven categories of sanctions; Central 

Bank of Syria, Commercial Bank of Syria, other financial institutions, government officials, other individuals involved in repression, 

governmental entities, and non-government entities. 

These are the general categories of things to target. In those 

seven categories over time the United States is seven for seven. 

The European Union is six for seven including perhaps the most 

significant of the sanctions which is the cut off of imports of Syrian 

oil. The Arab League if it goes through with sanctions will at this 

stage be three for seven. 

Turkey will be three for seven so I think in the future much of 

our effort will be in working with Turkey and with the Arab 

League to see if additional work can be done in that area. But it 

is having an impact but I hasten to add the impact of sanctions is 

21

dwarfed by the impact of Bashar al-Assad driving that economy 

straight off the cliff through his policies. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you very 

much. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

I so appreciate you being here and I thank you immensely for 

your distinguished military service. Correct me if I am wrong. I 

apologize for walking in a little late but did you say that you were 

hoping that the Arab League has influence on Assad to the point 

where if not stepping down he will change his attitude and his 

mind as to where things are going at this point? 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, it is difficult for me to measure the precise amount of influence the Arab League is going to have on 

Bashar al-Assad calculations. Clearly the steps the Arab League 

has taken to date has sent this regime into a state of shock because 

the message is rather clear. Syria itself is a founding member of 

the Arab League. Syria has always been a central part of Arab 

League deliberations. The message from the Arab League is Syria 

is important. Syrian people are important. 

Mr. MARINO. Let me interject here. 

Mr. HOF. This regime has divorced itself from the Arab world. 

Mr. MARINO. You aren’t suggesting that Assad be granted immunity for all the murderous criminal acts that he’s committed, are 

you? 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, this is not my suggestion. It’s not the 

suggestion of the United States Government. 

Mr. MARINO. How about the Arab League? 

Mr. HOF. The critical vote here will be cast by those who will replace this regime and manage Syria’s transition to something better. They are the ones who are in charge, not us. 

Mr. MARINO. But certainly I would hope that we would more 

than suggest that this man be punished for the crimes that he has 

committed in the name of humanity. I see that the United Nations 

Human Rights Commission wants to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court. 

Practicing criminal law for as many years as I have I have found 

that the International Criminal Court is probably not the most aggressive court and certainly cannot implement any type of punishment that would be satisfactory. Where do you see the International Court coming in on this and to what effect would they 

have? 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, I don’t know whether the ICC plays in 

this in the long run or not. The only thing I think I know is that 

these are basic calls that need to be made by the Syrian opposition. 

I can’t rule out the possibility that the opposition itself could come 

to the conclusion that there is a price to pay. 

Yes, a distasteful price. Yes, a disgusting price even. But if it 

gets this click out of the country before it can take the country 

down, is it conceivably a price worth paying? Again, it’s not a price 

for us to exact. There are people who are going to be responsible 

for running that country when this nightmare is over. 

22

Mr. MARINO. I find it quite ironic that of all countries Russia opposes Syria from going before the International Criminal Court. 

With that said, I yield back my time. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HOF. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for calling this 

very important hearing, very timely hearing. 

Mr. Hof, Syria is in a critical crossroads, as you said, and we 

have an opportunity to do the right thing and take the right steps. 

We may have faltered early on in the so-called Arab Spring, in my 

opinion. I am distressed by what is happening to the religious minorities in Egypt, specifically the Coptic Christians. 

Therefore, I would like to know the nature of discussions the 

State Department may have had with the Syrian National Council 

and other opposition groups. Have any of those discussions centered on developing a constitutional framework that protects Christian—of course, all religious minorities, and allows the free practice 

of religion? As that been the case? Have they had discussions? If 

not, why not? 

Mr. HOF. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for 

your question. The issue you have raised has been precisely the 

focus of every single interaction we have had with the Syrian opposition. We focused on two points in particular. Again, this is mainly 

with the Syrian National Council but it would apply across the 

board to other organizations. 

Number one, it is absolutely essential that minorities whether 

they be Christians, Alawis, Kurds, whatever, be adequately represented on the inside in these organizations. There is significant 

progress being made in that direction. Number two——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Could you elaborate a little bit on the progress 

being made? 

Mr. HOF. Well, there are people being incorporated into the organization, particularly the Syrian National Council. The Syrian National Council is actively recruiting people and it is having some 

success. 

Now, in some cases, and I am sure you will understand why this 

is the case, particularly for Syrian National Council members living 

inside Syria, it is important that their identifies be protected so 

you are not going to see a great deal of publicity about this. 

The second point we have been making is that the Syrian opposition has to be absolutely relentless, absolutely consistent in its 

messaging do all Syrians, but in particular to minorities because 

Syrian minorities are indeed worried about the future even as they 

acknowledge the rottenness of this regime. 

The regime is so bad that Syrian Christians have often been at 

the head of immigration lines to head to places like the United 

States, Canada, France, Australia, places where there can be actual opportunity, places where there can be political freedom. I 

think what the opposition is looking for is a situation where Syrian 

Christians and other minorities don’t feel compelled to leave the 

country. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

23

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. 

We will go through a second round here, although I think it will 

be relatively brief because most of the members have gone onto 

other things. I’ll recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I guess, you know, one of the things that we are struggling with 

here is ultimately whether or not physical force is going to be necessary to remove this tyrant from power or not. Certainly your indications are, your hope is that ultimately won’t be necessary. 

There won’t have to be armed conflict to get rid of this guy. I ultimately think it probably is going to be necessary. 

There are certainly different examples. We have seen examples 

like Idi Amin, maybe Baby Doc, Ben Ali and others that saw the 

writing on the wall and ultimately, you know, fled often times into 

somewhat luxurious exile. 

Then you have other examples holding onto the bitter bloody end 

like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi to name but a few and it is not 

clear at this point which direction this is going to go. I see a nodding so you would agree with that, Mr. Hof. 

Let me go in a different direction. First of all, Lebanon. Syria has 

a long history of intervening in the sovereign affairs of the Lebanese Republic and its problems often become Lebanon’s. Since the 

uprising in Syria began, violence and unrest has spilled over into 

Lebanon to varying degrees. 

Recently a number of accounts have surfaced in Lebanon regarding the violation of Lebanese sovereignty by the Assad regime’s 

army, the mistreatment of Syrian refugees, and the kidnapping of 

Syrian dissidents allegedly with the complicity of the Lebanese authorities. 

Given the close ties between the two countries, there is significant risk that continued unrest and sectarian conflict in Syria 

could spill over into Lebanon. What implications is the unrest in 

Syria having on neighboring Lebanon and in the Lebanese Armed 

Forces, the LAF? Is it capable of confronting the challenge posed 

by prolonged Syrian unrest? 

Mr. HOF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an extraordinarily 

important and difficult question. The Lebanese, of course, are beyond being worried about the potential implications for Lebanon of 

what is happening in Syria. There has been refugee movement into 

northeastern Lebanon. There could easily be more in the future. 

The capacity of the Government of Lebanon to handle this is limited. The capacity of Lebanese security forces is certainly challenged. All I can say at this point is that this is a major central 

agenda item for our Embassy in Beirut and its contacts with the 

appropriate people in the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese 

military and the internal security forces. You are right, Lebanese 

are deeply, deeply worried about this and they should be. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Let me conclude with Russia. Mr. 

Marino had raised Russia but let me follow up a little more and 

expound upon that a little bit. Since the unrest in Syria began, I 

think you would agree that Russia has proven remarkably un-counterproductive. 

Not only has Moscow outrageously thwarted efforts of the United 

Nations to ramp up pressure against the Assad regime, but it has 

24

gone so far as to deliver the regime, as I mentioned before, antiship 

cruise missiles. 

In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs, 

the Assistant Secretary Feltman testified that this is a matter that 

the U.N. Security Council should be dealing with. We would hope 

that Russia and China in looking at how the Assad clique has just 

refused all attempts of mediation from others will not realize it is 

time for the security council to act. 

Is there anything that you believe could persuade Russia or is it 

just simply a hopeless case? If we are not able to get the Russians 

and the Chinese on board, doesn’t this really rule out the U.N. as 

a realistic option? If so, what are the administration’s steps in response to that? 

Mr. HOF. Mr. Chairman, if indeed it is a hopeless case, the one 

thing I know is that we cannot act as if it is a hopeless case. We 

have to redouble our efforts with Moscow to persuade it. Its backing of this regime is not only helping to facilitate a humanitarian 

catastrophe but it is manifestly not in the interest of the Russian 

Federation because change is surely coming to Syria. 

I think there is another important element of this. Something 

that the Russian Federation has to take into account and that is 

its relationship with the balance of the Middle East, particularly 

the balance of the Arab world. 

What we have now unfolding is a very important and unprecedented Arab League initiative to get Syria to accept a series of 

very, very, very reasonable conditions to turn the temperature 

down and create a possibility of a negotiated settlement. 

I think Moscow is watching Syria’s performance very carefully in 

all of this. You know, it is one thing for the United States to keep 

up the effort to persuade Moscow. I think others may have some 

leverage as well and that may be the soundest most hopeful way 

forward. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. My time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it was a couple or 3 years ago the Syrian nuclear program in its very nascent 

form, thanks to a gift from North Korea, was basically destroyed. 

Evidence seems to indicate that the Israelis might have had something to do with that depriving them of that avenue of further terrorist risk and threat to the region and to the world. 

That being the case, it does not take away from the fact that 

Syria is the possessor of large amounts of chemical and biological 

stuff and ballistic stuff that nobody has publicly addressed right 

now. Are we talking to the opposition? Perhaps that is why reading 

the nuance of your statements and responses you have carefully 

steered away from exacerbating the possibility of a civil war in 

Syria. 

Are we discussing with any of the possible future leaders of Syria 

what happens with that material and equipment and have we 

made progress or is this not the venue to discuss that? Maybe the 

chairman can arrange a different meeting with you in which we 

could discuss that unless there is something you can tell us openly. 

25

Mr. HOF. Thank you, Congressman. I think a different venue 

would be appropriate but what I can say in terms of discussions 

with the opposition, this may well be a subject that could come up 

sometime in the future. Most of our discussions with the opposition 

to date have focused on challenges that are right in front of our 

faces right now in terms of getting this transition started. As to the 

substance of your question, I would respectfully suggest a different 

venue. 

Mr. CHABOT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be happy to. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields. We would be happy to work 

with the gentleman’s staff to set up such a hearing. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. That would be great. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The international community has been incredibly 

active on the Syrian issue. Specifically, the Arab League has done 

things and acted in ways that some of us might not have thought 

possible at the beginning of this much to their credit unlike their 

level of activity in some of the other countries that are experiencing 

shifts in power. 

The Russian’s and the Chinese’s bad behavior seem to have created hopefully an understanding on the part of the Syrian street 

that those countries and their blocking United Nation’s activities 

puts them squarely in opposition to the street in Syria. 

One might assume that there is a fissure that has developed between the future leaders of Syria and the current leaders of those 

two large powers. I would think that this presents an opportunity 

for us to take advantage of that. The question is are we so doing? 

Mr. HOF. Thank you, Congressman. I must say that if I were 

given the choice right now I would rather have the full cooperation 

of the Russian Federation in bringing pressure on this regime. I 

would rather see the Russian Federation redo the arithmetic on 

this and come to the conclusion that it’s losing the Syrian street 

and that an adjustment is necessary. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would agree to you in humanitarian terms because that would bring in much quicker, hopefully, resolution to 

this situation. Given the fact looking at the long-term prospect, our 

real competition is going to be China especially. 

I would think that if I had my druthers when we don’t, we would 

take a look at what the real world opportunities are and how to 

take advantage of the fact that this is a very important region, an 

Islamic region with 22 Muslim countries within the Arab world and 

others watching very carefully to show that it is we who are more 

concerned with the people in Syria who are supported by the Arab 

League to prove our bona fides to the humanitarian concerns and 

interests and the well being and future of the people in that region. 

Mr. HOF. I think, Congressman, that from the point of view of 

23 million Syrians there is no question at this point as to who 

stepped up to the plate and who hasn’t. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Keep up the good work. 

Mr. HOF. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The final questioner here this morning would be the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

26

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, 

thank you for holding this hearing. I have often thought about 

writing a book about diplomacy and I think if I ever do, it is going 

to be entitled, ‘‘The Art of Juggling,’’ because I know that people 

like yourself have so many factors that you are juggling in the air 

that it is hard to come up—it is not hard but almost impossible to 

come up with a definitive position that takes into account all of 

those things that you have to take into account. 

Let me just suggest that you have a lot of other things that you 

are juggling that I am not. So when I say that I am disappointed, 

let me just say that I respect and appreciate the job that you and 

other American diplomats are doing, especially in situations like 

this. 

I am disappointed today in the apprehension that I am hearing 

about armed resistance to tyranny. I think one of America’s greatest assets is that people who want freedom and liberty and justice 

in this world see America and Americans as their ally. That is one 

of our greatest assets. 

I think it is disturbing to people who are under attack whose 

children may have been killed and soldiers who were about to 

change sides to the side of democracy and cast their fate with those 

who are struggling for a freer society in Syria and other places to 

hear an American representative being so, how do you say, not opposed to but so conflicted about whether or not violence is justified 

and violence’s way of defending oneself and achieving freedom. 

We certainly would not have achieved freedom in the United 

States, and I don’t know many countries in the world that would 

have achieved their freedom, with this idea that people can go to 

the streets and face down tanks or whatever and maybe hold hands 

and sing Kumbaya. 

That is not what brings about freedom in this world. It is a commitment that people make when the guns start going off that they 

will stand firm for their beliefs. Americans did that and others 

have done that. I would hope that nobody gets the idea from what 

you are saying today that we Americans are in some way hesitant 

to support those who are fighting for freedom in their own countries. 

Mr. HOF. Congressman, thank you very much. As I mentioned at 

the beginning, there will be no sermons from me or from anybody 

else in the administration about people not having the right to defend themselves. This regime has tried from the beginning to 

produce the result that it is facing today. 

The Syrian National Council, the Arab League, and others are 

trying to pull Syria back from the brink because the consequences 

of this getting out of hand can be terrible for the country and for 

the region. Now, it may be inescapable. You have cited some historical precedence. 

These precedence may be the guideposts of the future, but I can’t 

blame the Syrian opposition for hoping that this cup passes for 

hoping that there may be a way to stave off civil war, to see an 

end to this regime, and to see a transition to something decent. 

Please, please, I am not a career professional diplomat. 

I admire people who are. People in the State Department are 

working this night and day and they are sacrificing a great deal. 

27

I am a former soldier. I appreciate the right and the necessity of 

self defense. Please, please don’t see in my words any compromise 

on that principle. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One that note. Self defense is one thing. Conducting a fight for liberty and justice is another. I think we as 

Americans do support the right of people to fight for their freedom 

and to win their freedom against tyranny. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HOF. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you very 

much. 

It was brought to my attention Mr. Connolly is one his way but 

we were wrapping up here and if he doesn’t make it, we are going 

to have to wrap up without him. All right. 

I want to thank the witness particularly for his testimony here 

today. I thought it was excellent. If there are no objections, members will have 5 days to submit statements and questions for the 

record. If there is no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(29)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

30

f


72102n.eps
31

Æ


72102m.eps