SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
43–264 CC
1997
DEMOCRATIC CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN SOUTH ASIA
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARCH 12, 1997
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN McHUGH, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
MATT SALMON, Arizona
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
WALTER H. CAPPS, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MIKE ENNIS, Subcommittee Staff Director
RICHARD KESSLER, Democratic Professional Staff Member
DAN MARTZ, Counsel
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HEIDI L. HENNIG, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
The Honorable Robin L. Raphel, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Department of State
The Honorable Robert D. Oakley, National Defense University
The Honorable Howard B. Schaffer, Georgetown University
Mr. Eric Bjornlund, National Democratic Institute
APPENDIX
Prepared statements and biographical sketches:
Hon. Robin L. Raphel
Hon. Robert B. Oakley
Hon. Howard B. Schaffer
Mr. Eric Bjornlund
Additional material submitted for the record:
Answers by Robin Raphel to questions submitted to the record
DEMOCRATIC CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN SOUTH ASIA
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m. in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Douglas Bereuter, chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Mr. BEREUTER. The Subcommittee will come to order. I apologize to the witnesses and to the people assembled for starting late. We have had votes on the floor and we will have some more. I hope not soon.
Today's hearing is an attempt to look at the state of democracy in South Asia. Supporting democracies and promoting democratic ideals are major goals of U.S. foreign policy. As Americans, we have long believed that it is in our national interest and in the interest of countries around the world that there be more rather than fewer democracies, and that those democracies that exist be given all the help possible so they and their citizens can thrive.
In many ways, this hearing celebrates the countries of South Asia for the resilience of their democratic political systems over the decades. Today we also will review the state of democracy in South Asia in order to determine what the United States might be able to do to strengthen democratic institutions there.
While democracy has been a relatively recent phenomenon in some parts of the world—I am thinking of Eastern Europe, the States of the former Soviet Union and parts of Latin America—democracy has yet to come to other parts of the world—parts of East Asia and large parts of Africa. And South Asia includes countries such as Indian Sri Lanka that have been vibrant and functioning democracies for decades, and South Asia's democratic tradition continues. The past year has seen national elections in India which led to an orderly transition of power from the Congress Party led by the government of Prime Minister Rao, to today's United Front Government led by Prime Minister H. D. Deve Gowda. Interestingly, the right of center Hindu BJP which won the most seats in last year's Indian election was unable to form a government. We will be interested to hear from today's witnesses about the strength of the Deve Gowda Government, and the extent to which it relies for its survival on the tacit support of the Congress Party and the apprehension among many of the BJP Governments.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One issue of special interest to the United States is whether the United Front Government can meet the challenges, economic and political, that India faces domestically and in its dealings with the world at large. Some have argued that only a strong Indian Government can make significant progress in resolving India's problems, such as those involving its South Asia neighbors. That assertion clearly has not been borne out by the Deve Gowda Government's performance. Yesterday the House passed, by recorded vote, House Concurrent Resolution 16 commending the Government of India, as well as the Governments of Nepal and Bangladesh, for the recent agreement on sharing and developing the region's water resources. The agreements can be seen to do much to improve the livelihood of more than 400 million desperately poor people living in the Ganges and Brahmaputra River basins.
Last month national elections took place in Pakistan, a country which has had a difficult time sustaining a democratic political system since its independence in 1947. This past February 3, former Prime Minister and Pakistan Muslim League leader, Nawaz Sharif, won an overwhelming victory over former Prime Minister and Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto, whose government President Leghari had dismissed last November. The magnitude of the win and the margin of victory reportedly stunned even the candidate. The question is whether his government can use its mandate to forge solutions to Pakistan's difficult problems, especially in the economic area. I was pleased to see that in one of Prime Minister Sharif's first statements following the election, he underscored his commitment to improve Pakistan's relations with India, and senior officials of both countries will meet in New Delhi March 28 through 31. I hope that the spirit of compromise and good-neighborliness that produced the water agreements between Bangladesh and India, and India and Nepal will encourage the Governments of India and Pakistan to also make progress in resolving issues that divide them.
Although India and Pakistan are South Asia's largest countries and tend to garner most of the attention, important events are taking place in other countries of the region. Just last week, on March 6, the Government of Nepal lost a vote of confidence in its House of Representatives, leading to the resignation of Prime Minister Deuba. Former Prime Minister Chand has put together a new coalition government that will include representatives of Nepal's right, center and Communist parties. Nepal has only become a functioning democracy since 1990, so democratic traditions are not deep. We will be interested to hear about the prospects for Nepal's Government in dealing with the challenges facing this country.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sri Lanka and Bangladesh face challenges as well. Although Sri Lanka has been a democracy for decades, Sri Lanka's very unity, if not its democratic system, has been threatened for over a decade by the separatist militancy of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eeelam. Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga has come up with a plan that would devolve government powers to Sri Lanka's regions, including those with a Tamil majority. Here the question is whether any devolution plan will be enough to reduce the power of a terrorist group like the LTTE. Many observers see local elections scheduled for later this month as a key test of popular support for the Prime Minister's devolution challenge and for his package.
Challenges of a different sort face Bangladesh. Last June for the first time in 21 years, a government led by the Awami League came to power. Sheik Hasina won the Prime Ministership following an election in which 73 percent of the electorate voted. Since independence from Pakistan in 1971, Bangladesh's path to democracy has been a bumpy one. The army ruled the country for two decades, but in the years of 1991 and 1996, Bangladesh has succeeded in holding democratic elections that were judged by observers to be generally free and fair. Sheik Hasina surely knows that she and her party need to deliver on her promises to bring economic growth and political stability.
Bhutan and Maldives are less democratic than the other States in the region. Afghanistan, unfortunately, appears to be in chaos, with most of the country under the control of the Taliban which is a group that does not appear to hold democratic values in much regard.
Madam Secretary, we would appreciate hearing your views on the prospect for democracies in these three countries, if there is time for you to do so.
I hope my colleagues will understand that when I start these hearings, I try to give what I hope is an unbiased assessment of where we stand in a region, and that is what I have accomplished today. Your differences, of course, are free to be noted.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased that we have been able to assemble a distinguished group of witnesses to help us answer these questions today. The Administration will be represented by the Honorable Robin Raphel, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs. Assistant Secretary Raphel, a career foreign service officer, has lived in both India and Pakistan. She appeared before this Subcommittee several times during the 104th Congress and so we are very pleased to welcome her back. Welcome.
Our second panel includes the Honorable Robert Oakley. Ambassador Oakley held many important positions in the Department of State and National Security Council during a 34-year career, including that of U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan. He is currently a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the National Defense University. Ambassador Oakley has just returned from a visit to South Asia.
The Honorable Howard Schaffer is Director of Studies and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh from 1984 through 1987 and was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State responsible for South Asian Affairs on two occasions.
We are also pleased to have with us today Mr. Eric Bjornlund, Director of Asia Programs at the National Democratic Institute for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Bjornlund has written numerous books and articles on democracy and elections worldwide. At NDI, he has developed and directed election monitoring, voter education, political party building and parliamentary development programs in many countries, including several in South Asia. Mr. Bjornlund also has returned from a recent trip to South Asia.
Assistant Secretary Raphel and gentlemen, your entire statements were made a part of the record, but I would ask you to summarize your comments in approximately 10 minutes to permit time for questions.
First, I would like to turn to the distinguished gentleman from California, the ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Berman.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing and for your excellent opening statement, which I think was an unbiased and objective review of the situation in the region. Since Secretary Raphel testified last April, I think we have seen a huge change in this region. We have had elections in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. This morning there is a new government in Nepal, as I understand it. There are great problems in each of these countries but it is interesting to note that in the region as a whole, with a few exceptions that the Chairman pointed out, we see pluralistic democracies flourishing in India and Sri Lanka and Nepal and Bangladesh. And in Pakistan recently, despite low voter turnout, something that we are familiar with here, parliamentary democracy continues. I think a number of us are worried about the tendency of both India and Pakistan to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missile systems to deliver them, although at the same time I note that they have exercised some restraint in their non-deployment of those systems up to this point. But there is a lot we should be focused on.
I am pleased that so many of our colleagues are here for this hearing, including an auditor of this course, Mr. Pallone, who probably knows more about it than the Members of the Committee and that is good to have Frank here and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Berman. We do welcome Mr. Pallone, and, if you wish to stay around for the questions, we will call upon you in a proper procedure under Committee rules.
Are there other Members that would like to make an opening statement?
Hearing none, if there are Members who wish to submit statements, without objection, that will be acceptable.
Secretary Raphel, as I mentioned, your entire statement will be made a part of the record. Welcome. You may proceed as you wish.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBIN L. RAPHEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. RAPHEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me to be here today to talk about South Asia, which, as I am sure you all know, is an area that I have great interest in and affection for, and particularly about democratic change and continuity in South Asia.
This year, India and Pakistan celebrate their fiftieth year of independence. Although South Asian democratic institutions remain imperfect in many places, they have weathered some serious challenges. Democracy continues to be the system of choice in the region. We believe strongly that democratic advances can and should occur hand-in-hand with free market reforms. Significant economic and fiscal reforms have taken place in almost all of the South Asian countries during the past several years and are broadly accepted by most of the major political parties there. These ongoing changes have significantly increased opportunities for U.S. trade and investment, helping our own economy while positively influencing conditions in the region.
South Asians need to support and consolidate their democratic and economic advances in an atmosphere of greater security and safety. All of the countries of the region face some internal unrest. Longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan have poisoned their relationship. They color ties with all other regional States and have retarded their aspirations for greater influence outside the region. Yet South Asian countries are assuming more prominent roles on the world stage. India is now a full dialog partner with ASEAN and a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum. Pakistan, Nepal, India and Bangladesh continue to be major troop contributors to U.N. peacekeeping. Ties between China and South Asian States are improving—a significant development given that country's growing importance to the region.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Within South Asia, India has concluded important water and power agreements with Nepal and Bangladesh. We hope long-standing discussions between Nepal and Bhutan on refugees from Bhutan can at last bear fruit. Most important, India and Pakistan will soon resume senior-level talks.
India, by far the most populous and heterogeneous democracy in the world, has strengthened and expanded democratic rule on the national, State and local levels. Indian courts are increasingly active in combatting political corruption. A strong election commission has reduced abuses and the 3-year-old Human Rights Commission has carved out an important role in improving human rights accountability throughout the country.
In last year's parliamentary elections, no party came close to a majority. Prime Minister Deve Gowda's center-left United Front Coalition of 16 parties is constrained by its diverse political composition. But the government has been able to launch a successful effort to improve relations with its smaller neighbors and presented a budget supportive of more international trade and investment.
In Pakistan after the dismissal of the government of Benazir Bhutto, parliamentary elections were held on schedule February 3. They were observed by domestic and international groups, including the National Democratic Institute. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has promised to address Pakistan's serious economic crisis brought on by the classic combination of overspending and revenue shortfalls. We hope that Prime Minister Sharif and the opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, will work together to end the confronta-tional political culture which has helped sustain political turmoil in Pakistan over the last several years.
We remain concerned about discrimination and violence based on religion in Pakistan—most recently, the vicious attacks on Christian villages in Punjab State. We are encouraged by the government's move to investigate and to provide compensation to the victims. But this incident underscores the need for Pakistan to repeal discriminatory religious legislation which helps sustain an environment conducive to these kinds of abuses. I know that there is considerable concern shared by the Department of State about this issue in Congress and in this Committee and I would be happy to expand on it during the question period.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A year ago in Bangladesh, a serious political impasse had virtually paralyzed the country. Bangladeshis overcame this impasse to hold elections last June, bringing the opposition Awami League to power for the first time since 1975.
We have established a good working relationship with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Her government has continued most of the market-oriented policies of its predecessor and made a particular effort to attract foreign investment, especially in energy. However, the intense partisanship that has plagued Bangladesh perpetuates a contentious and difficult political environment there still.
Mr. Chairman, knowing your particular concern about living standards in the Ganges and Brahmaputra River basins, I am happy to note that Bangladesh and India recently concluded a water use agreement. This can help pave the way for further agreements on areas of common concern to both countries. I also hope your resolution will encourage further progress on these issues in the region.
Nepal's new democracy has seen three peaceful changes of government in the last 5 years. Last week, Prime Minister Deuba lost a confidence motion. The opposition Communist party has proposed a new government in coalition with the centrist conservative National Democratic Party. But this government also will face a confidence vote within the next month.
Tensions continue with Bhutan, largely due to the fact that over 90,000 Bhutanese refugees are still in camps in Nepal.
Last year's treaty with India for the development of the Mahakali river basin sets the stage for more rapid harnessing of Nepal's impressive hydropower resources. Again, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your personal interest in encouraging such initiatives.
In Sri Lanka, democracy remains resilient after 50 years, but the country is embattled by ongoing ethnic conflict. While the government's human rights practices have been generally strong in recent years, we are concerned about indications that human rights standards have slipped because of the intensified military conflict. With local elections due to take place later this month, there has been an upsurge of election-related violence.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The government's proposals for constitutional reform are a solid basis for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. But, unfortunately, thus far, the opposition has not really engaged in a debate about these proposals. The LTTE, for its part, dropped out of talks with the government in 1995. The United States has long supported a negotiated solution to the Sri Lankan conflict that would protect minority rights while preserving the country's unity.
The glaring exception to the region's positive picture is, of course, Afghanistan. Its continued discord is a source of concern and potential instability for its neighbors. The United States seeks an end to the fighting and establishment of a broad-based government that can provide for respect for basic human rights, including women's rights and the rule of law, an end to narcotics production and trafficking and the harboring of terrorists, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of that war-torn country. All of Afghanistan's ethnic and religious groups must be a part of a process leading to national reconciliation and a broadly inclusive government. As a neutral facilitator, the United Nations remains best placed to help the Afghans and deserves the active support of the international community for its efforts.
The United States does not support any group or any individual in the Afghan conflict. Through continuing contacts with all Afghan groups, we are urging them to work together to restore peace to their country. Other outside powers genuinely interested in peace in Afghanistan should do the same. We are disturbed by the persistent indications that supplies of arms are flowing into Afghanistan from neighboring countries.
Our major security concern in South Asia remains the continuing tension between India and Pakistan. Thus far, strong domestic political pressures have made it difficult for either country to compromise sufficiently for a promising dialog. Outsiders may see South Asian countries' fears of their neighbors as overblown. However, both India and Pakistan believe they face severe threats to their national security from neighboring States.
The core issue dividing India and Pakistan, Kashmir, is complex and deep-seated. The United States continues to believe this issue must be resolved through negotiations between Pakistan and India, taking into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir. Elections last fall in Kashmir provide an opportunity to begin a real dialog between the Indian Government and the Kashmiri people—an opportunity that we have urged all sides to seize.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Indo-Pakistan tensions have led both countries to pursue active nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs that have the potential to destabilize the subcontinent. But neither country seems willing to change course unless it believes its doing so will genuinely enhance its security. We believe that global non-proliferation agreements like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a convention to ban the production of fissile material offer countries like India and Pakistan tools to enhance their security. We also urge both countries not to test a nuclear device, not to be the first to deploy ballistic missiles, nor to take any other escalatory steps in these programs which would raise regional tensions.
We were encouraged by Pakistani and Indian moves toward dialog, starting with the upcoming March 28 foreign secretaries meeting. We and many other well-wishers hope both countries will take full advantage of this opportunity to resume a serious high-level dialog.
For India and Pakistan, building a mature, thoughtful dialog will take patience, increasingly confident leaderships and the political will and imagination to look ahead instead of backwards. Modified slightly, this prescription can be applied to many of the other security problems in South Asia. Closer U.S. relations with each of the countries in the region can help this process and we will develop and nurture those relations as best we can in the months and years ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Raphel appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much for your testimony. We will proceed under the 5-minute rule.
Madam Secretary, this is a little unusual but I wonder if you could give us any reactions or advice on U.S. aid assistance to the South Asian region. Are there any comments you might have about the impact of recent cutbacks in American diplomatic presence, including USIA?
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RAPHEL. I think the Subcommittee is very well aware of the position of the Administration on the need to sustain the level of 150 account expenditure and the need to sustain, and in some cases expand, our level of engagement worldwide. This certainly goes for South Asia.
Let me just give one example. This year, we are facing a severe cutback in our aid program in Sri Lanka. In fact, I had to fight myself very hard not to find that program totally cut and closed out. The reason—competition for resources. If you look at statistics in a country like Sri Lanka, you see social indicators that are certainly higher than others in the region. But if you look beyond the surface, you also see a country that is engaged in a civil conflict that needs assistance on a range of issues from basic help on participating in the democratic process, to bringing women into the mainstream, and to help with their stock market so that their economic reform process can move more quickly. We also need to maintain a capability for disaster relief assistance, given the fighting that is going on in the north. There are all kinds of reasons for which there is still a role for our assistance program, and we are going to preserve it in a modest way. But to walk away from a country that has been a democracy for 50 years, is struggling with internal problems and has been a friend of the United States, makes it look like we are not as serious a player as we want to be on the global scene.
I know that we have all worked hard to do more with less—not only in my bureau but in others. But there comes a point beyond which it is very difficult to do that and I think we have long since reached that point—certainly in the South Asia Bureau.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Second, I would like to ask you to focus some remarks upon the new Indian Government. There were concerns in this country and elsewhere that the new government would reverse some of the economic liberalization actions and business development actions of the previous government. On the surface, that does not seem to be the case. But I would like to have your assessment of the situation.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, India seems to be improving and repairing relationships with their neighbors, or making efforts to improve them with other neighbors where they are not yet successful. What would you say, for example, have been the developments and what would be the prospects for Sino-Indian affairs?
Ms. RAPHEL. The Indian Government, which came into power last summer, is getting older with each passing month. It is a coalition of 16 parties. I think there is a tendency on all of our parts, when seeing a government that has that many diverse parties in a coalition to think: ''Good heavens, it must be fragile,'' or ''How do they manage?'' So there was a great deal of skepticism in the beginning that this government could hold together. But, in fact, by all appearances, from the outside looking in, it has done quite well. At various points the political rumor mill has suggested, ''Well, someone might walk out,'' or ''Some realignment might take place.'' In fact, it seems for the moment to be stable. It is hard to project how long that will last, but there is something to the view that none of the major parties in India today wants to face another election any time soon so they have accommodated to one another.
On the policy side, there are two good examples of this government's achievements. First, the budget of February 28 was very much a solid pro-economic reform, pro-economic liberalization budget. It cut tariffs, it cut taxes, and the business community seems very happy. It does have some subsidies and social welfare programs in it as well. But it looked like a very sensible, forward-leaning budget and I can only say that most everyone in India that we talked to was very happy with it and, particularly on the commercial side. So the idea that they could not sustain economic reform is, I think, simply not true. In this, their first budget, they proved that they could.
The second example relates to what you alluded to in terms of India's relations with their neighbors. Under what has now come to be called the Gujral Doctrine, Foreign Minister I.K. Gujral has set about very deliberately trying to improve India's relations with its neighbors. Now, they did not start with the hardest case, understandably, with Pakistan—that is coming up now. But they have concluded the treaty with Nepal that we discussed—the Mahakali River Treaty, as well as the water-sharing agreement with Bangladesh. The Foreign Minister also visited Sri Lanka, resulting in some new economic arrangements going. And the very deliberate desire to be able to improve relations with Pakistan, which is reciprocated by the Pakistanis, at this point, I think, speaks very well not only for this individual Foreign Minister but also for the government's desire to adjust its policy and look forward.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. I think my time has expired, although I am not sure the clock is working. So we are going to do this the old-fashioned way with a watch and we will come back to the Sino-Indian discussion later.
The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, for the record, I was not able to catch exactly what is our total AID program to South Asia. Do we have a figure on that?
Ms. RAPHEL. Let me just add up what I have here. For India, roughly $140 million a year. For Nepal, roughly $20 million a year. Sri Lanka, it is going down but for 1997, it was $13 million—Fiscal Year 1997, $13 million. And Bangladesh, roughly $70 million.
We, of course, do not have programs in Pakistan, except for a modest program through non-governmental organizations.
In Afghanistan, we contribute, through the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations, roughly $40 to $45 million a year for humanitarian assistance.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So a total of about—I am sorry, I did not mean to get you to have to calculate—but, anyway, I am just trying to get an idea. I am curious of the fact that here we have——
Ms. RAPHEL. OK. It would be about $280 million, including Afghanistan.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.
How does that contrast with the help that we are giving to the new Eastern European countries? Is South Asia getting a fair percentage or is it way below what it should be? I am talking about 1.3 billion people that live in this region of the world, which is roughly one-fifth of the world's population, and I am curious, what determines how much you get in this pot while another region gets something else? Do we factor in population? Or do we have a lot of security interest in this region? Or because of our love for humanity? Or is it because we do not have as much economic interest in this region? Can you give us an idea how the Administration goes about divvying up the pot?
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RAPHEL. It is a complicated formula. It really is.
And, clearly, it has to do with need, with ability to use assistance well. It has to do with political and security interests. All of the above. I do not have the numbers for newly independent States, but there are needs there as well. And I think the important overall point is to recognize that we need to stay engaged, and that our aid programs do very useful things in this part of the world and others. And you cannot stay engaged for free.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I understand that, Madam Secretary. But I was just curious. If we are making priorities, how do we go about structuring them? I am sure that we are all asking for a sense of fairness and an even playing field in terms of how we go about extending our aid programs to the different regions. Do we do it as a matter of justice, or a matter of fairness, or a matter of because we do not like this region? This is what I am trying to determine.
I happen to find a lot of merit in the argument that India has urged, during the recent negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for Nuclear Weapons to the nations involved in the negotiation process. The fact of the matter is that India can explode a nuclear device, as it did in 1974. It was the only time that it did so, for the simple reason, as I read the late Prime Minister Gandhi's statement before the United Nations, that India does not have to prove itself through nuclear capability. What he was trying to do was plead with the world, ''Why don't we just get rid of these weapons of mass destruction?'' Yet, of course, since 1974, we still have a nuclear club of five countries. If we don't address India's concern, why limit nuclear capability to five countries of the world while denying the rest of the world?
I do not know if I am making my point here about India's position, but I seem to find it a very fair point of argument that India makes not only to the members of the nuclear club but to the rest of the world. How serious are we, really, about getting rid of these weapons of mass destruction?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Is my time over?
Mr. BEREUTER. I am sorry. The time of the gentleman has expired. But the Secretary may answer, if she wishes to.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. RAPHEL. We are very serious about the issue of weapons of mass destruction, missiles and so on, which is why we worked so hard on the very treaty that the Indians recently chose not to support, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The details of the Indian position, certainly, you can get from them. Basically they thought the treaty was discriminatory and this troubled them. But I think the underlying point is, if you are interested in setting out on a path that will ultimately lead to the end of nuclear weapons in this world, then expanding the size of the nuclear club does not seem a very logical thing to do. Similarly, it does not make sense to bring everyone up to the level of others, but rather everyone, from their own level, should be trying to constrain their——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I do not think that was the point India was trying to make, expanding nuclear weapons capability. The fact of the matter is that we already have a nuclear powers club in existence and India's point is that we should bear on these nuclear countries, including our own country, to work out some kind of a timetable to get rid of nuclear weapons. That is the argument that India makes and I think it has a very valid point.
Ms. RAPHEL. We are going in the right direction.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK, thank you.
Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings, is recognized.
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, Madam Secretary, thank you so very much.
I use as a segue your closing statement to the effect that closer relations with each of the countries that you talked to us about in the region can help this process and we will develop and mature those relations as best we can in the months and years ahead. None of us can disagree with that.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
May I please offer a suggestion and ask your advice?
India is going to celebrate 50 years of democracy in August. India is attractive to the United States on a number of levels—first, politically, their being a democracy and economically and for security purposes, especially, they weigh in. Given these factors, I am concerned that perhaps we are not—''we'' meaning generically, the American people and our government—not paying sufficient attention to India and developments in South Asia. And India is not the only one that I include.
In December, Sandy Levin, Carolyn Maloney and Neal Abercrombie and myself visited India and when we returned, all of us set about trying to impress upon the President the importance of visiting India, hopefully during their celebration and to date I have spoken first with Secretary Albright and indicated same. Sandy, Neal and Carolyn and I have joined in a letter requesting the President to set foot on India.
May I offer this suggestion and, again, ask your advice? Would it not be possible for Bill Clinton to go to India first, stop at some point in the itinerary in Pakistan, and come back by way of Sri Lanka? The symbolism from such a visit and the importance of such a visit would allow that a greater understanding would come about.
Now, what can you tell me to do that can make somebody hear my plea? I am not one of those that goes around talking about I am some big guy and I can pick up the phone and call Bill Clinton. I wrote to him. I called the different people. I talked to the Secretary of State. I am telling you that it is something that ought to occur and it seems simple enough to me. Let me stop before I lose my time.
Ms. RAPHEL. I hear your plea. Everything you say, particularly about the importance of the region and India, accords with things I have said from this chair, and other similar chairs, several times. There is no doubt that South Asia is a region of the future for the United States. It is also a region of the present but, even more so, a region of the future, and we need to continue to stay engaged and be even more engaged.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We should not forget what happened in the earlier part of this administration. The Prime Minister of India did come here. We had the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Energy going there. We had visits back and forth as we launched into the first Clinton Administration. There is a lot of thought now going on as to how to follow up on that and we have not got all the plans and schedules and so on down, obviously, at this point. We all recognize that there are other urgent issues on the foreign policy agenda—and I say ''urgent'' as opposed to ''important'' because this is clearly an important one. But I do hear you. I know Secretary Albright does. I know that the President would love to go to South Asia and particularly to India. So it is a question of managing this all.
Mr. HASTINGS. All right.
Ms. RAPHEL. And I appreciate your support in that regard.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thanks.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
I am going to call next Mr. Capps, but then we will go to Mr. Pallone for questions he might like to ask.
Mr. Capps, the gentleman from California, is recognized.
Mr. CAPPS. Thank you.
I learned a lot from listening to your remarks and reading your paper. I want to say that I am a freshman Congressman and I am on this Committee. I am sitting on this side of the room but I think I belong on the other side.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We are not prejudiced.
Mr. CAPPS. Being originally from Nebraska, I think I can go both ways.
I am worried about the places in the world where there is conflict and where that conflict is fed, nurtured, supported by religious conflict and we certainly have that in this situation with respect to most of the countries you referenced but certainly between India and Pakistan. I also, being something of a student of these traditions in a former life that ended about 3 months ago, I know that all the religious traditions advocate peace. They advocate getting along with one another.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, I am coming around now to my question. I noticed the word ''dialog'' in your remarks, also in your testimony. I do not quite know how to ask this. I will ask it in two different ways. Is there a way that an appeal can be made to the leaders of the traditions to help accelerate the process of dialog? Or maybe another way of asking the same question would be, in these countries, as you know them, as I do not know them—I know other countries pretty well but I do not know these countries—is religious extremism on the rise or is the tendency in the other direction? I guess the overall question is, what role strategically can religious understanding play in mediating conflicts between these nations as we see them in your testimony and as we know them by assessing the world situation at the present time?
Ms. RAPHEL. That is an interesting, important and difficult question and let me just make a few remarks. I cannot pretend to really answer it properly.
Is religious extremism or consciousness in a negative way on the rise in this part of the world? Overall, I would say no. But that is not to say that there are no troubling incidents or events here and there. Take a look at India, for example. In 1992, there was an event, an incident, where a mosque was pulled down by Hindu extremists because they believed that there was a Muslim temple underneath it. This sparked off communal riots, Muslim-Hindu riots, particularly in Bombay but also in some other places. And, at that time, people were really wondering if this was a return to the time of partition when there was such bloody conflict between Muslims and Hindus. In fact, it was not. It passed.
The opposition party, the BJP, in India, which at times has had a Hindu chauvinist plank to its platform, has not prospered in terms of that particular plank. And now they are looking for other drums to beat, as political parties do.
In Pakistan, look what happened to the Christians, as I mentioned in my testimony. Again, an isolated but troubling incident. There are certainly, we believe, some things in the constitution of Pakistan which bolster a kind of separatism—blasphemy laws, for one—that would really best be repealed in our view because they highlight sectarian differences. But it is hard to conclude from all of this that there is a direction and a trend. Nevertheless, I understand the question and it is something that we constantly have in the back of our minds as we analyze events and as we look at how developments in the rest of the world might play in South Asia.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CAPPS. Thank you.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pallone is recognized.
Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just wanted to thank you initially for allowing me to participate. I wanted to just start off by reiterating what my colleague from Florida said because I was in India last month and when I met with the Prime Minister, he stressed again the need and how he would like to have President Clinton come to India, particularly because of the 50th anniversary of independence celebration. And I know several of us have sent letters to the President asking that that be done. And I was just talking to Mr. Hastings again and I think what we will do is we will have our caucus perhaps collectively send a letter and try to follow up on that because the Prime Minister really stressed the necessity of it and also stressed the fact that he continued to be disappointed with the fact that even though India was the greatest democracy, or at least the largest democracy, and there was so much that the two countries shared that he felt that the United States continued to tilt if it was away from India or toward Pakistan and that that really did not make sense given the democratic process and the achievements that India has made.
I wanted to just ask a question, though, with regard to Punjab because I also had the opportunity when I was there last month to meet with the new Chief Minister. And it was just about a week or so after they had had their very successful election, in my opinion, where I guess 69 percent or so of the population turned out and, of course, I call it the Sikh Party but I guess the term is the Akali——
Ms. RAPHEL. Akali.
Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. actually obtained a majority and had worked in unison with the BJP. And I was very impressed with the fact that they had a very successful election, particularly by comparison to what had happened in the past, and the fact that Hindus were now elected as part of that coalition. That they were actually in the government in Punjab. And I thought it sent a very clear message that the separatist movement, if you will, or the notion that somehow there was support for a separatist movement in Punjab, had been rejected by that election. The Chief Minister made it clear that that was not the way that his administration intended to go, that they rejected separatism.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I guess what I wanted to ask you, if I could, is basically how you see this election in Punjab. I mean, do you see it as a repudiation of the separatist movement? And if you could just restate for the record, really, U.S. policy with regard to Punjab and what I see, obvious Indian sovereignty over Punjab, and what you feel about the democratic process and its working in Punjab as a result of that election.
Ms. RAPHEL. Well, I think there is no doubt the insurgency effectively has been over for some time now. In our view, Punjab has always been an integral part of India. As we have seen it from the outside looking in, there was never a great deal of support that we could see, broad-based support for Khalistan or a separate Sikh State. This election was a perfectly normal election and I think everybody expected that the Akalis, since they were participating, would do well, and they did. Punjab is economically a very successful State—it has marvelous farmland. So I think the period of the insurgency was anomalous and seems, touch wood, to be over although there is the odd problem here and there. But, basically, peace has returned, which is a very healthy and positive development.
Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to say also, in regard to what my colleague from California had mentioned before, I was amazed in Punjab at the cooperation between the Hindu and the Sikh community. The impression I had before I went there was that these people were enemies; that they do not cooperate; they do not like each other. And I got just the opposite impression.
Ms. RAPHEL. I am not surprised. Some of these kinds of issues, do not have to do with enmity between Hindus and Sikhs, or Hindus and Muslims, or Muslims and Christians, or whomever. It has to do, to a large degree, with power and politics when it all comes down to it.
Mr. PALLONE. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings asked some questions before that were really for the good of the order, so I have invited him to offer another, if he has one.
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As a sort of a followup to what my colleague from New Jersey is saying, in Amoritza, up around the Waga Border, I saw some of the same kind of interplay between Sikhs and Hindus and I agree with the Secretary's suggestion that it is politics sometimes that causes bridges to come about.
Madam Secretary, I have heard reports that the Bangladeshis have not been particularly hospitable to Muslim refugees from Burma. I am really asking for information because I do not know much about this particular area and would appreciate so very much if you could give me the benefit of your thinking and knowledge in the area on that subject.
Ms. RAPHEL. This has been an issue off and on. I am happy to report that at this particular point, many of these refugees have been returned with the help of the UNHCR. I think there are roughly 25,000 still left in Bangladesh. And it is thought that they will be able to repatriate those who voluntarily wish to return in the next couple of months and close out their program there.
There have been allegations over the last few years, now and again, that in the areas where the refugees are staying, local authorities were frustrated at the pressure on economic resources, jobs and——
Mr. HASTINGS. Sort of like Florida.
Ms. RAPHEL. ——And were sort of encouraging these people to go. One of the goals of the UNHCR when they get involved in these kinds of repatriation programs is to ensure that people are not forced out and that they know their rights. And I think they have done a very good job on the Bangladeshi side and on the Burmese side. So, at this point, I think that issue is in hand. But you are right. Historically, there have been moments when people have had legitimate questions.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BEREUTER. As you go, I would like to request that you give us a response to one set of questions. We are interested, of course, in democracy in South Asia, and I would like to know if the role of the NED (National Endowment for Democracy), in Bangladesh, provides any election monitoring or help with party building? Have any U.S. Government-funded agencies like the Asia Foundation or USIA provided assistance to political parties in Bangladesh or to their election authorities? If you could give us a response to that question we would like to know if we had any positive contributing role in those elections.
Ms. RAPHEL. I would say in a word, yes, we did. One of the things that USAID supported, was the Bangladeshi umbrella organization for NGO's called the Free Election Monitoring Association—FEMA, I think. FEMA was a group of Bangladeshi NGO's which got together and did a remarkable job of fanning out in the countryside, with training and support from USAID and I think from NDI as well, to be part of the domestic element in monitoring elections. NDI was also there and I am sure you will hear about them in your next panel. They have become a very experienced group. I know the Bangladeshis were very appreciative on both sides of the political divide of that effort. They cooperate very well with other international observers and altogether are a very clear, concrete demonstration of our interest in democracy.
Some of your colleagues—Bill Richardson was involved there. Not explicitly with the NDI effort but he had come out. He had taken an interest in the country and had been very helpful during the period of political impasse there in talking to both political parties and their leadership. The last time I was there, people constantly came up to me and said, ''Thank you very much for the U.S. Government's effort to help us with this democratic effort.'' So it was good.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, of course, our very sincere reply to Bangladeshis is that ultimately it was the Bangladeshi people who participated, who got together with their own monitoring, and demanded a free and fair election and went to the polls. So more power to them as well. But I am equally proud of the part that our government played in supporting this process.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. That is very good to hear, Madam Secretary. If there are other things that you wish to add to that, please do it in writing [see appendix]—the Asia Foundation U.S.A., for example. I did not mention Bill Richardson. We just assumed he would have been involved there.
I turn now to the ranking Democratic Member for any questions he might have and you will be the last one, so take your time.
Mr. BERMAN. Oh, the implication of being the last one is, ''So move it along.'' No, I appreciate that and I apologize for having to leave for an appointment.
If you have answered this—and the odds are probably very good that you have—then I will just find out what the answer is. But in your testimony you said, ''While elections last fall in the Indian State of Kashmir will not resolve the dispute, they do provide an opportunity to get a real dialog between the Indian Government and the Kashmiri people. We hope that India and the Kashmiris will take full advantage of that opportunity.''
If you have not already addressed this fully in terms of your answers, could you flesh out a little bit what you meant by that? What happened in that election that you think provides an opportunity and how do you see the parties being able to fulfill it understanding you are just giving your own ideas here? You are not trying to engineer it.
Ms. RAPHEL. Thank you. In fact, there is some significance to the fact that nobody else had asked about Kashmir before—positive significance. But that is an important question.
Mr. BERMAN. I am stunned.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RAPHEL. The main point now is that there was an election in Kashmir. It was an election in which a significant number of people participated. There is now a State government which needs to go about the business of governance, of re-establishing the credibility of government, re-establishing services—health services, schools and so on, of re-starting the economy, providing jobs, giving people a sense that there is government there that is accountable to them and that can help them with their daily needs and help them think that they have a decent future for themselves and for their families. That after so many years of an insurgency, is not an easy thing to do.
The State government and the civil service there have been decimated. You need to get people back into Kashmir, into the rural areas not just the cities. So there is a lot of work to be done on that basic issue.
There is also the promise of autonomy, maximum autonomy, that the Indian Government has made to the Kashmiris. That is a longer-term issue. It is an issue about how Kashmir fits into the Indian union. There were political parties in Kashmir that did not participate in this election because they do not accept the premise automatically that the election should have occurred under the Indian constitution. It is hard, since they did not participate in the election, to know for whom or how many they speak. But, nonetheless, it is a group that needs to be engaged in the political process. That needs to happen.
Mr. BERMAN. By your answer, should I conclude that you believe significant turnout includes some significant percentage of the Muslim population as well?
Ms. RAPHEL. Oh, certainly. It is a majority Muslim State.
Mr. BERMAN. Right, but——
Ms. RAPHEL. Absolutely.
Mr. BERMAN. All right.
And that the election was a fair election in the sense that the ballots were counted and you think the people who had the most votes won.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RAPHEL. Yes. Yes, that is what observers reported. We had no observers in the formal sense, but people from our mission did go out and observe the voting. Other people and organizations did, too. Now, I do not think there are any serious allegations of massive rigging of that election. But you do need to bear in mind that there are some people who did not run.
Mr. BERMAN. Oh, yes. Oh, no, I know.
Ms. RAPHEL. Parties who did not run. But I do not think fraud is an issue.
Mr. BERMAN. All right.
Turning to Sri Lanka for a second, basically we have a very longstanding conflict there with a huge loss of life and a group there that is the LTTE, the Liberation Tigers, who are fighting for a separate State for the country's minority. Do you believe this organization threatens Sri Lankan democracy? What is the status of any proposed negotiations between the two sides? Is there any end in sight to this conflict?
Has this been covered?
Ms. RAPHEL. No, it has not.
I wish I could be more optimistic. But I cannot, given how long this conflict has gone on, and how there has been not only a tremendous loss of life but a particular viciousness to some of what has occurred there. The conflict has left real scars. As I said in my testimony, in terms of the underlying issue, we believe that the government has put on the table a very reasonable devolution package. Obviously, it is not for us to judge whether it should be accepted in this form or not. But at least, from our point of view, it is a very serious effort.
The LTTE stopped talking most recently in April 1995. And while the government has made significant gains on the battlefield—they have taken the Jaffna Peninsula, which they had not held for 13 years or so—the LTTE maintains an ability to wreak real havoc. A year ago, they exploded a huge device at the Central Bank and that area is still a mess. Last summer, they overran a military encampment, Mulliativu, and essentially butchered 1500 Sri Lankan security forces there. It is very difficult to predict and, frankly, to understand the mind of the LTTE and predict when and whether they would be serious about negotiations. What the government, I think, would like to see happen—and we quite agree—is that people who are not associated with the LTTE take a serious look at this devolution proposal.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. That gets to my last question, which is whether, under the new powers that you have under the anti-terrorism law that we passed last year, is there consideration of whether LTTE constitutes a terrorist organization which would put constraints on its ability to raise funds in the United States?
Ms. RAPHEL. Well——
Mr. BERMAN. And is there such a process? What are the factors in making a decision about that and do you have a timeframe for a decision?
Ms. RAPHEL. There is no question that the LTTE has committed horrific acts—I mentioned one, the bombing of the Central Bank building where dozens of people were mutilated or killed—and that they have undertaken political assassinations and all sorts of things. So that is clear.
With regard to this legislation, it is still under review, under very close review, by the legal experts. I honestly do not know the outcome yet because it is still under review on the legal side of our building. There are many ramifications to this legislation and people have strong views about some of its aspects. So it is more complicated, as I understand, than meets the eye and I do not know what the schedule is in terms of the review. I honestly do not know.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
I have a followup question. Do you know if the LTTE is on the terrorist list? We have provided an opportunity for organizations to be placed on the terrorist list so they can no longer fund-raise in the United States.
Ms. RAPHEL. That is what we were just talking about and I was saying with regard to the law of last year, it is all still under review and all of the potential candidates for inclusion on this list are under review.
Mr. BEREUTER. That is good. But let's not review too long. It should be pretty obvious.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. That is my point. It would be understanding that it is being done on the other side of some building and by the lawyers——
Ms. RAPHEL. I take your point.
Mr. BERMAN. Is there a way of getting a sense of when even the lawyers think they might reach——
Ms. RAPHEL. Let me take that question.
[Ms. Raphel's answer is in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. There is a sense of urgency.
Secretary Raphel, thank you very much for your testimony here today. We very much appreciate it. Thank you.
Ms. RAPHEL. Thank you.
Mr. BEREUTER. I would like now to call the second panel to the witness table.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for appearing today. If you were here earlier, as I imagine you were, I read your biographical statement about all three of you. So I would like now to proceed.
Ambassador Oakley and gentlemen, your entire statements will be made a part of the record and, Ambassador Oakley, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT B. OAKLEY, DISTINGUISHED VISITING FELLOW, INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES, NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
Mr. OAKLEY. I am going to make a very, very brief statement, Mr. Chairman.
It is an honor to participate as a member of this distinguished panel, even though they are really experts and I am an imposter when it comes to South Asia. My real experience in South Asia came a few hours after the plane carrying President Zia al Haq and Ambassador Raphel crashed in Pakistan on August 17, 1988. That evening I was telephoned by the Secretary of State from the Republican National Convention in New Orleans and he said, ''I am leading the delegation to the funeral tomorrow morning. You are coming with me but you are not coming back. You are the new ambassador.'' And that was my preparation for a very interesting 3-year period.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first task was to calm the country down and to make sure, or at least encourage them, to hold the elections which President Zia al Haq had promised but which people were very doubtful were actually going to be held. And the new President and the new chief of the Army staff decided the election should be held. They were supported in that by the Supreme Court which has played a fairly important role in Pakistan, even though one that is not much noted. Elections were held and Mrs. Bhutto came to power. Unfortunately, there is a tradition in South Asia, I think, of authoritarian exercise of power, even if it is a democratic government. And she fell into that trait, if you will, and at the end of not quite 2 years she was ousted by the President on grounds of corruption and other things.
New elections were held. Nawaz Sharif came in. He had problems. The Pakistani system is a unique one, which allows for the President to dismiss the government if there is sufficient grounds. It happened again and Bhutto came back, fell into the same trap of authoritarianism and corruption, and was dismissed by a second President. Yet another set of elections have been held and Nawaz Sharif has come back with an overwhelming majority.
Now, this sounds bad but in some ways it is good because what I saw there 3 weeks ago was a considerable improvement in the overall political atmosphere, perhaps borne out of desperation that democracy might actually die. Nawaz Sharif has learned a lot in the past 2 years, it seemed to me, and the mood of the Pakistani voters and the population as a whole has become adamant saying, ''We have to clean up. We have to get rid of corruption. We have to have more of a voice in our own affairs.'' The Supreme Court, again, is playing an important role in encouraging this and I am optimistic that we are going to see some real progress in Pakistan.
There has been a parallel in India. Indira Gandhi, at one stage, was voted out because she was too autocratic in her management style, even though she had a democracy. And last year the Supreme Court in India decided that enough was enough and that the executive branch was not really getting into corruption the way it should, so they demanded an accounting from law enforcement agencies, got it, publicized it. It produced a big change in the elections in that country—as Robin Raphel said, a devolution of power toward the States, a decrease in the long dominance by a single party. So there was further progress toward an improved democratic system in India. Even though the form has been there, in both countries, the substance sometimes has been lacking but I find there has been progress in both countries.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Both governments, newly elected, have very tough problems ahead of them. On the economic side, India has made some progress. But they have some very difficult decisions to make if they want to sustain the rate of growth which they have achieved and if they want to begin to fulfill totally their economic promise. Pakistan, on the other hand, is in such disastrous shape after 2 years of mismanagement that they are almost on the rocks. So they have a tremendous amount of belt-tightening to do in a hurry. Increase taxes, decrease the size of the government, privatize State industry—very, very difficult decisions.
Both governments have agreed to start talks again on some of their knotty bilateral issues. There has been an absence of any conversation for 2 years. And, there again, they both seem prepared to take the political heat, which is an improvement over the past. We hope that this dialog will be sustained because, as Ms. Raphel said, there is a tremendous potential in that part of the world, as you all know as well as I. The number of people, the economic promise.
On the other hand, the threat—if restraint which has been applied to utilization of nuclear capabilities should fail is also very real, for the region and even more widely. I think, myself, that in both countries, India and Pakistan, the governments are on the right track. The people seem to be demanding more and more of their governments than they had before, which is to the good, and the governments are responding. And we hope it continues that way.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Oakley appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
Ambassador Schaffer, we would like to hear from you now.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HOWARD B. SCHAFFER, DIRECTOR OF STUDIES AND ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF DIPLOMACY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be back before this Committee again. I would like to focus today on the prospects for democracy in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and what the United States can do to further them.
Democratic institutions have been difficult to establish and maintain in Bangladesh. For much of its 26-year history, Bangladesh has been ruled either by military leaders under martial law or by the same military men who doffed their uniforms to head constitutional but firmly authoritarian regimes. These regimes and even the more genuinely democratic governments that have infrequently come to power have often been unable to win broad acceptance from opposition parties and others. This denial of legitimacy to the government of the day has been a major obstacle in the effort to develop sound and stable democratic institutions.
Although this seemingly endemic problem is unlikely to go away soon, the present political situation has important encouraging elements that can, if carefully built upon, lead over time to the consolidation of Bangladesh democracy and contribute to the economic and social progress that the country so desperately seeks and requires. The June, 1996 national election was the most important of these positive developments. These elections were conducted by a neutral caretaker government as the then-opposition parties had demanded in a lengthy agitation that had frequently brought the country to a virtual standstill. This unusual arrangement has now been enshrined in the Bangladesh constitution. Regrettable, but apparently necessary.
The caretakers conducted the election in a fair, transparent manner. The presence of many international observer groups, including an NDI team co-chaired by Steve Solarz, one of your predecessors as Subcommittee chairman, in which I participated, helped assure that violations of the electoral law were limited.
The election was noteworthy for the high degree of enthusiastic popular participation, especially by women voters. Watching these women wait for hours in the broiling sun to cast their ballots, I wondered how many Americans would have that kind of patience and fortitude. NGO's persuasion played an important part in getting them to participate.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The victory of the Awami League led by Sheik Hasina, now Prime Minister, and its reluctant acceptance by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and her Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the BNP, marked the first time that one elected Bangladeshi Government had given way to another of a different, opposing party following completion of its full term in office—a heartening development.
The army maintained a neutral position despite predictions that it might intervene and prevent the Awami League from taking over. This commendable attitude was no doubt helped along by its awareness that military intervention could have jeopardized the financially and psychologically satisfying opportunities its major service in international peacekeeping operations has given it in recent years.
The severe drubbing suffered by the major fundamentalist Islamic party, no friend of democracy, and a distinct trend toward a two-party system are other welcome developments that can give the fragile Bangladesh political system greater stability.
Other encouraging developments for democracy in Bangladesh includes steady improvement of its economic situation and the impressive progress that it has made in curbing population growth. The economic empowerment of women through such micro-credit organizations as the Grameen Bank is a helpful step, as is the agreement on water sharing the Hasina Government recently signed with the Indians.
The political situation since the election has offered mixed signals for democratic prospects. Relations between Hasina's Government and the BNP opposition remain flawed. The BNP has absented itself from Parliament for 2 months, only returning when the government promised to look into its grievances and consider ways to give the opposition greater scope in the operation of Parliament. It now seems to be biding its time, looking for opportunities to pull out altogether and bring the government down through agitation in the streets. This is what the Awami League did to it when it demanded the resignation of the government and caretaker-run elections, and to turn the tables would provide sweet revenge whatever dangers it would pose for the country's democratic institutions and prospects.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What can the United States do to improve democratic prospects in Bangladesh? We should encourage compromise solutions to the often bitter differences between Bangladesh's political parties without taking sides. Congressional visits to Bangladesh can serve a useful purpose in this regard. So can the funding of programs designed to make those in the Bangladesh political process at all levels, from the national to the local, better acquainted with democratic processes and norms.
On the economic front, we need to encourage the kind of reform that can lead to higher growth rates and provide the underpinning for political stability in a democratic framework. We should be as generous with our bilateral assistance as our budgetary circumstances permit and use our influence with multilateral institutions and our allies to persuade them to be forthcoming.
We should also remain mindful of the military's potential role in Bangladesh politics. Aside from doing what we can to limit the clashes between civilian contenders for power and thus restrict both the temptation and the need for army intervention, we should encourage the United Nations and others to continue to look to Bangladesh for participation in peacekeeping operations.
Sri Lanka presents a very different picture. Far more than Bangladesh, this island republic enjoys a strong democratic tradition. Adult Sri Lankans have enjoyed universal suffrage since 1931 and elections, often won by the opposition, have attracted heavy turnouts—even at times when political unrest made it dangerous for voters to go to the polls. The country has no tradition of successful military coups. Moreover, its government structure has been supplemented by a network of organizations that have generally strengthened civil society and helped anchor democratic political institutions. Sri Lanka has achieved near universal literacy, low population growth and health statistics that rival Southern Europe.
These strengths are balanced by major weaknesses. Both of the two leading political parties tend to demonize their opponents. The winners have carried out post-election vendettas against their defeated rivals. Since the eighties, ruling parties have trifled with the constitution for their own short-term political benefit. The once non-partisan civil service established by the British Colonial rulers has been largely politicized and shows limited willingness to stand up to its political masters.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But these problems are overshadowed by the grave difficulties created by the country's ethnic divisions. These divisions between the country's 74 percent Sinhalese ethnic majority and its 18 percent Tamil minority—most of the balance is Muslim—have roiled Sri Lanka during much of its independent history. Discrimination Tamils experienced led, in 1983, to the eruption of the insurgency spearheaded by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE, who called for the establishment of an independent Tamil nation in the northern and eastern parts of the island where Tamils predominate.
As the Committee is well aware, this insurgency subsequently became the dominant fact of Sri Lanka's political life. It has enacted a terrible toll on the political, social and economic life of the island.
The present Peoples Alliance Government, led by Chandrika Kumaratunga of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, came to power in 1994 in a sweeping victory. President Kumaratunga's success owed a great deal to her making herself the candidate of peace in a war-weary country.
Since the Tigers broke a cease-fire and ended peace talks early in 1995, her government has pursued a two-pronged strategy. It has carried the war into Tamil areas long ruled by the Tigers. At the same time, it has courageously promoted a major change in the constitution designed to offer Tamil citizens a more generous sharing of power with the Sinhalese and win them away from support for a separate Tamil State. Additionally, it stands ready to resume talks with the Tigers if circumstances make this feasible. But both its military and political efforts are presently stalemated.
Obviously, the fate of these efforts will play a key role in determining the future of Sri Lankan democracy. Other features that also need to be watched are the upcoming local elections, already badly marred by acts of violence; the future of local political institutions; and the degree of press freedom permitted.
What can the United States usefully do?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Both the Tigers and the Kumaratunga Government have blown hot and cold on the use of third parties to resolve the ethnic conflict. It would make no sense for the United States to seek a role at this time when the LTTE and the government positions are far apart. But the time could come when mediation efforts could be more useful. Indeed, given the distrust both sides have in one another and the long and troubled record of negotiations between them, it may well be that a settlement can be obtained only if an outsider plays a role. We should be prepared to do so or to encourage others to take it on should the situation become more promising. But that is unlikely to happen any time soon and, in the meantime, we must be wary about attempts to inveigle us into a process likely to lead nowhere.
We should make military equipment available to the Sri Lankans in modest quantities on commercial terms or better, if possible, and provide additional training to the country's armed forces.
We should continue to monitor the human rights situation carefully. We need to insist on the strictest respect for human rights, despite Tiger provocations.
We need to encourage continuing economic liberalization, though the clout we once had to persuade the government to move in that direction has been substantially reduced with the cutback in our bilateral economic aid programs.
And we also need to do what we can to encourage a more productive dialog between the contending political parties, difficult as that may be to achieve in Sri Lanka's contentious political culture.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaffer appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Ambassador Schaffer.
Mr. Bjornlund, Director of the Asia Programs, the National Democratic Institute, we look forward to your testimony. Please proceed as you wish.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF MR. ERIC BJORNLUND, DIRECTOR, ASIA PROGRAMS, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE
Mr. BJORNLUND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today to comment on the state of democracy in South Asia and prospects for future democratic development in the region. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize some points I have made in my written statement about democratic development trends in Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, where NDI has been involved.
I commend your attention to democracy in South Asia, a region with diverse ethnic and religious and linguistic traditions. South Asia is home to about one-quarter of the world's population. It is also home to strong democratic traditions. India, one of the world's most populous countries, is, of course, a huge developing nation that, except for 20 months in the 1970's, has maintained a democratic system of government for 50 years. Sri Lanka, as Ambassador Schaffer mentioned, has had universal suffrage since 1931.
When we think of Asia, we often focus on the rapidly growing economies of Southeast and East Asia which have largely democratized after they have developed economically. South Asian countries, however, which have relatively low levels of economic development, seek to consolidate democratic institutions even as they struggle to improve their economic performance. Their success in this endeavor is surely of great consequence to the United States and the rest of the world.
With respect to the overall state of democracy in South Asia, I think we can see some positive signs and some concerns and challenges. Included in the encouraging signs are important democratic advances of recent years, even if democratic institutions seem fragile or threatened from time to time; the existence of formal democratic institutions, including competitive elections and parliamentary traditions and the renewed efforts to strengthen those institutions in South Asia; the presence of independent media, active non-governmental organizations, competitive political parties, free labor unions, numerous professional associations.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In general, with respect to the issue of concerns and challenges to the consolidation of democracy, there are many serious problems in South Asia that are relevant to the consolidation of democracy. These include ethnic and religious problems, oppressive poverty and social underdevelopment, population growth, continuing threats to human rights, excessive partisanship and poor relations between government opposition parties in some countries, problems of campaign funding, lack of accountability of public officials and the problem of corruption. I want to take this opportunity to talk about the accomplishments and some specific challenges in five areas of democratic development—elections, civil society, civil-military relations, political parties and democratic governance.
With respect to elections, there have been a number of accomplishments, including the recent successful elections in Pakistan in February; in Bangladesh and India last year; and in Sri Lanka in 1994. Election commissions—particularly, I am thinking of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—have proven to be independent and strong; have made serious efforts to address concerns about voter registration; have gotten involved in broad voter education programs; and have adopted strict codes of conduct to reduce the problem of violence. Non-partisan domestic election monitoring organizations have played an important role. With respect to elections specifically, they have been able to deter fraud and expose what irregularities existed and to educate voters about the process.
We have seen broad competition among parties and significant participation among the voters. The turnout in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have been extremely high. Ambassador Schaffer mentioned the turnout of women in Bangladesh was particularly impressive last summer, which is something that people had been concerned about in the past. And in Pakistan just recently, we had a delegation there before the elections that noted a number of important election reforms, including some that were recommendations that had been made by our institute and others in the past. We have included our delegation's statement for the record that goes into these more extensively. But they include the extension of universal franchise to the tribal areas, the holding of national and provincial elections on the same day, substantial fiscal autonomy for the election commission and many technical improvements, including improvements on the posting of election results so the public could feel more confident about the counting of the ballots.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time, with respect to elections, there are some concerns. Obviously, elections are not the only solution to political differences. In Pakistan, there is great reason for concern about the frequency of elections and the context in which they take place. The country has had four national elections in 8 years and each of the governments preceding those elections has been dismissed by the President on charges of corruption and other problems. There are continuing concerns in many countries about voter registration and constituency boundaries. There are concerns about women's participation, for example, in the tribal areas in Pakistan where the women's right to vote was not protected. We noted in Bangladesh the concern about intimidation of minority voters, particularly women in some areas, that seemed to be condoned or organized by candidates. That is, of course, a limited situation, not broadly across the country, but something that we were concerned about. And, of course, the role of money and vote-buying are problems in elections throughout South Asia. It is broadly believed that the campaign expenditure limits that exist are unrealistic and are not enforced.
With respect to civil society, I have already mentioned the strength and breadth of civil society in South Asia. I want to take the opportunity to particularly mention election monitoring groups. These are coalitions of civic organizations and citizen networks that contribute to open democratic political systems in two ways.
First, as I have mentioned, they can improve the quality of election processes which enhances public confidence and increases chances that all sides will accept the election results.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, they take advantage of the opportunities that elections provide to energize citizen involvement and empower civic organizations in public affairs and transform the way that many citizens view national politics. Assistant Secretary Raphel mentioned the example of the Fair Election Monitoring Alliance in Bangladesh, a group that performed extremely well as a coalition of about 180 organizations that mobilized 30,000 monitors for the June, 1996 elections. And it also provided a credible voice about the February, 1996 elections which were plagued by many problems.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thirty thousand.
Mr. BJORNLUND. Thirty thousand. This is in the face of significant obstacles as well.
There are other examples. There are two coalitions of non-governmental organizations in Sri Lanka that are mobilizing right now to monitor local elections on March 21 and are preparing to monitor a future referendum that there might be on proposed constitutional amendments on devolution, if there is such a referendum. The Human Rights Commission in Pakistan has been a very effective group that has mobilized election monitors for the recent election and previous elections and is also engaged politically or is in dialog on democratic reforms. There have been similar efforts of NGO's in Nepal and elsewhere.
Governments, political parties and election commissions are sometimes suspicious of these efforts and that is why the FEMA effort in Bangladesh of mobilizing 30,000 monitors is so impressive because it was in the face of obstacles. The concerns that parties and election commissions have are not illegitimate. They are concerned particularly about the ability of these groups to be non-partisan and the potential for disrupting the process. But the laws in South Asia generally give discretion to election commissions to allow non-party monitoring and it is to their credit that the phenomenon is becoming increasingly common and accepted.
The third area—and I will be briefer—is about civil-military relations. As you know, Bangladesh and Pakistan have a history of political assassinations, coups and military influence, martial law and quasi-military government. But they both now have had elected governments for a number of years and have recently had peaceful changes of government. The military refrained from direct involvement in politics in both countries, even during recent periods of crisis, from mid-1994 to mid-1996 in Bangladesh and recently in Pakistan. There is great public respect for the military and appreciation of the military role in keeping calm during elections, in particular, but our organization and our delegation in Pakistan have expressed some concern about the precedent of military jurisdiction over civilians for specified electoral offenses. It is a very technical issue, but just a symbolic one that we have expressed concern about. We have also heard concern about the creation of a council on defense and national security in Pakistan that has apparently formalized the role of military and national policymaking.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With respect to political parties, there is a strong tradition of political competition, as I mentioned. Parties from across the political spectrum participate in politics in South Asia. Parties play an important role in recruiting and training political leaders, educating citizens about government and public policy issues, organizing electoral competition, and providing representation for diverse sectors of society. But, of course, parties in South Asia, as in many parts of the world, have many shortcomings. They are often personalized and geared primarily to contesting elections or opposing the ruling party; elitist, not organized to the local level and not internally democratic; and largely not open to women, which is ironic given the importance of women political leaders in South Asia. Many parties have ties to the military or roots in the military, and they are dependent on very narrow sources of funding.
And, finally, with respect to democratic governance, we have noted that national legislatures have been strengthened in recent years as democratic decisionmaking institutions and there seems to be a commitment, even if it is imperfect, to parliamentary procedures. There is also increasing concern in the public and among politicians about responsible government and accountability. Politicians, for example, in Pakistan recognize the danger of public disenchantment with the perception of rampant corruption and feel the need to at least appear to be doing something about it.
In Pakistan, there is an accountability process that I will mention a little bit more about in a second. But that is largely a positive thing. Nepal has a strong Public Accounts Committee. The Parliament has moved to strengthen that committee's efforts to keep track of expenditure of public funds. In Bangladesh, the turnout and voting behavior of Bangladeshis itself indicates concern about this. The Bangladeshi public is very sophisticated in seeming to vote out leaders that had a reputation for corruption.
In Nepal, the new governments have been able to form within parliamentary rules of the game.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A very important weakness, as I alluded to earlier, is the ill will between governing and opposition parties in Bangladesh and, until recently, in Pakistan. But there have been some encouraging signs in both places on that score. In Bangladesh, there is a bipartisan commission to study parliamentary reform, reforms of the Committee process and things like that. That is very encouraging. And in Pakistan, there has been a commitment at a recent forum of parliamentary leaders from all parties to a similar goal.
With respect to the accountability process in Pakistan, such a process was created after the dismissal of the last government to permit a quick and effective prosecution of politicians and government officials for misconduct. But the establishment of this process at the outset of an election campaign created the perception that it would be used for partisan purposes. It was also impractical to complete the process with due process rights being protected during the short pre-election period. So it is very important for an accountability process to be institutionalized, non-partisan and fair. And, again, I believe that that is recognized in Pakistan.
So, in conclusion, our perception is that there is a deeply rooted commitment to political competition and traditions that honor the rule of law and democratic norms in South Asia. There have been several recent successful elections and, of course, there is a continuing need to level the playing field, ensure adherence to democratic rules of the game, encourage increased avenues of participation and strengthen institutions of democratic governance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bjornlund appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. Among the four of you, you focused on a maximum of four countries in your remarks, which is fine. Let's proceed on that basis.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to ask you if you would each think about the countries you have covered—two, in one instance; four, in another—Ambassador Oakley spoke primarily about Pakistan—if you would think about the U.S. actions that could have a positive effect upon, first of all, democracy in these countries and, second, on improving our relationships with the individual countries in the short term, I would like to have your views on that. Then, if you would try to look at the big picture, what is it that we can do to assist in democracy, maintaining it, stabilizing it, instituting it, increasing the effective use of parliamentary government in the region. But particularly those four countries, or the two that you covered, in your instance, or the four you covered and in particular, you could focus on Pakistan. Or you are welcome to make comments beyond that.
Who would like to be first to give me the immediate and the big picture?
Mr. OAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will speak about Pakistan a little bit. We have, just as Howie Schaffer pointed out that we have lost a lot of our leverage in Sri Lanka, we have lost virtually all of our leverage in Pakistan. We regained a little bit of influence thanks to the passage of the Brown Amendment last year, which gave the Pakistanis in general—and I will talk about some of the specific groups in a minute—the feeling that at least the United States no longer held them in contempt. That it was no longer treating Pakistan as if it were a rogue State like Iraq, or Libya, or Iran, but recognized that Pakistan had been a friend of the United States over the years and that the reactivation of their nuclear program in 1990 by a rogue general did not make them necessarily a rogue State. But that is the impression they have had of our actions and, as long as they have that impression, it makes it very difficult for us to get in there and work with them.
The Brown Amendment had a very important psychological boost, much more than anyone had expected, because the material impact was not so great. But we still have money and equipment for which they have paid. We still refuse to provide any economic, social or military assistance whatsoever and generally treat Pakistan like a pariah. At the same time it is a fairly important country, given what is going on around it. And we just have to work to improve that because what we have done, inadvertently, is to make the United States and the West a target of those who are opposed to democracy—those who are in favor of extremism—and we make it difficult for our friends and we make it difficult for those who believe, like we do, in democracy to work in that direction.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is now a new government in Pakistan—a brand new government—that I think is going to make a genuine effort. They have learned a lot the hard way and I think that we should try to encourage them in every way we can. This does not mean grandiose things, but it means a series of little things—visits, etc. Some of this should go to the Pakistani military in order to help them stay where they are, which is quite respectful of civilian institutions, and quite strongly desirous of not becoming directly involved in politics. This is much more the case than in the past. Renewal of military training would be a big plus for Pakistan as a whole, as well as for the military, and since it would reduce the growing tendency within the military toward Islamic radicalism and opposition toward the United States despite the fact that we had had a long, long, close relationship. So those are some of the things that might be done. One of the other speakers made a suggestion that we might get the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan—starting with the Foreign Ministers of both countries—here for a visit before too long, although there may be many other higher priority things on the agenda of this particular administration. I think it would be a good step.
My feeling is that it is just the proverbial ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. If things go bad between Pakistan and India, economically, internally, that can be a burden for the whole world. But if they go bad on the security side, we will have another big crisis over the possibility of nuclear conflict and everyone will be rushing around putting it up as a top priority and spending a lot of time and effort and perhaps some resources that they would not have to spend if we did a little work now. Thank you.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Ambassador.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have listed a number of things which I think we could specifically do in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. But I think, more generally, what we have got to do, to use Secretary Raphel's phrase, is to be engaged and to be seen to be engaged. There is nothing which indicates to these places that we do not give a damn about them as much as the significant reduction of our diplomatic presence, the lowering of our aid programs, the cutback in information programs, the ignoring of their leaders.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, I know that resources are scarce. But we have got to look at the bigger picture and to figure out ways that we can maintain a significant presence which will suggest to these countries that we care and that we specifically care about their democracy and about the economic growth which, in my view, is so important to fostering it. I would like to see more visits out there, not only by the President—I would strongly endorse the idea of his visiting in the 50th anniversary year of Indian and Pakistani independence—but by Members of Congress as well. Very few Members of Congress, in my recollection, make their way out. More should do so and we should similarly encourage visits by senior people here and to pay attention to them and focus on our big concerns when they get here. It is an important region for us. We have to be seen to be doing things which underline that.
Mr. BJORNLUND. I basically agree with Ambassador Oakley and Ambassador Schaffer. It is very important to make explicit our commitment, the United States' commitment, to democracy in the region. In my experience, the United States is tremendously influential. In Bangladesh, certainly, there is a perception that the United States calls the shots and certainly there is a real sense among government officials and non-government people alike of listening to what the United States has to say. So that alone is significant.
And I can second what Ambassador Schaffer said about visits of Members of Congress. I know there was tremendous appreciation for the visits of Congressman Richardson to Bangladesh. The first time he went was in the early part of the year, I think in early March, because he was in the region and he was only there for a very short time—I think less than a day. He went back again just before the elections, leading a pre-election delegation to try to mediate concerns between the parties. He was taken very seriously, and it was very much appreciated and I think had a very beneficial effect.
Outside of what the government can do on a government-to-government basis, it is important, I think, to continue programs that engage with non-governmental organizations, that engage with the Parliament, that engage on the issues of concern such as ethics and corruption, that work with political parties, and that work with election commissions. These kinds of programs that are carried out by the kinds of organizations you mentioned in your question to Assistant Secretary Raphel, I think, are very important to be continued. In many cases there are too few of them and the resources that have been available are no longer available for them to be continued.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, gentlemen—all of you. We have a few comments here with the Secretary regarding the LTTE and the fact that we had taken action to increase the terrorist list to include organizations and that would have the salutary effect of cutting off fundraising capacity in this country, at least legal fundraising capacity.
Do you have any comments about that subject?
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, I guess if I had been sitting in the Assistant Secretary's place, I would have responded much as she did. But I am not and it seems to me that we ought to do everything we can, including putting the Tigers on the terrorist list, to stop this kind of funding which is so important to keeping the Tigers going. I see them as a ruthless, totalitarian organization. I have no hope, no real hope, that as long as the present leadership of the Tigers remains alive that there is going to be any kind of acceptable settlement in Sri Lanka. And I think we just have to do what we can to undercut them.
Obviously, we are not going to go in there with the Marines and we certainly should not do that. But let's look around for things like this placing the Tigers on the terrorist list and see if that can be helpful.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I very much appreciate your time today. Thank you for your testimony.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]