[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

OVERVIEW OF U.S. RELATIONS WITH EUROPE AND EURASIA

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EURASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MARCH 10, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-20

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

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

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-054 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------

Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TED POE, Texas

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

WITNESSES

The Honorable Robert O. Blake, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Central and South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State...... 9
The Honorable Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State........ 21

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe and
Eurasia: Prepared statement.................................... 4
The Honorable Robert O. Blake: Prepared statement................ 12
The Honorable Philip H. Gordon: Prepared statement............... 24

APPENDIX

Hearing notice................................................... 48
Hearing minutes.................................................. 49
The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas: Questions submitted for the record............. 50

OVERVIEW OF U.S. RELATIONS WITH EUROPE AND EURASIA

----------

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Burton. The subcommittee will come to order.
The Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia is holding its first
oversight hearing entitled Overview of U.S. Policy Toward
Europe and Eurasia.
First I would like to welcome our witnesses: Assistant
Secretary Philip H. Gordon, who is the State Department's
Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs; and
Assistant Secretary Robert O. Blake of the State Department's
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. I want to thank you
for your service to our Nation. And I want to thank you for
your patience today, because we were stuck in our office
without any idea of when we would get started.
As chairman it is my desire to work with the administration
and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address
security and economic challenges facing the United States and
our allies in Europe. I sincerely look forward to working with
my good friend from New York, Ranking Member Greg Meeks, if he
ever gets here. And I also want to recognize Tim Griffin who is
going to be the vice chairman of the subcommittee. Tim is
meeting with the Speaker right now but he will be here shortly.
It is a real pleasure to work with these gentlemen and I
think the committee is going to have a lot to do over the next
few months. I think we have four scheduled trips throughout
Europe and Eurasia and we will look forward to working with you
folks.
Today, I will ask both witnesses to identify what they see
as the most pressing issues and relationships that they believe
require and deserve the most attention in Europe, Eurasia, and
Central Asia. Last week, Secretary Clinton told the committee
that the President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request proposes
to cut economic assistance to Central and Eastern Europe, the
Caucasus, and Central Asia by 15 percent. I applaud the fiscal
spirit of eliminating wasteful spending and encourage the
Department to look at ways to trim more because of the economic
situation this country faces.
In the upcoming months we will hold many oversight hearings
and we will focus on ways to reduce spending and make aid more
productive. In particular, we will look at reasons for reducing
assistance to some countries while increasing aid to others. It
would help to understand your plans to engage the countries
which might receive less assistance in the future, but still
have pressing issues.
History has taught us that when the United States
disengages, others fill the void. And we are very concerned
about who might do that. This becomes a problem if other actors
don't share our values. However, we can't just continue to
throw money at a problem and think it is going to solve it.
Although we do not agree on every issue, the transatlantic
community has worked together for decades to address matters of
mutual concern. Even as the security environment and economic
conditions have changed, we continue to cooperate to foster
prosperity in the Balkans, fight terrorism through the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Afghanistan, halt
proliferation of missiles and nuclear weapons in Iran and North
Korea, and promote democracy and human rights to the east of
the European Union's borders as well as around the world.
This subcommittee will champion a similar agenda. We would
be interested in your brief assessment of what opportunities
exist to do better on these issues with the governments and
societies in the region under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
In addition to being interested in what the
administration's priorities in the region are, it would also be
illuminating to know how the administration is reaching out to
Europe to achieve all of these goals. Between the bilateral
ties, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
NATO, and the European Union, one could spend too much time in
meetings and await consensus that may never be attained.
To avoid that, what is the status of the State Department's
adjustments to our mission to the European Union to work more
actively and effectively with the post-Lisbon European Union
institutions, as called for on page 47 of the State
Department's first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review.
Given our fiscal constraints, the United States should
better coordinate with the EU to develop economic opportunity
and the rule of law in Central Asia. The ranking member and I
met with Kyrgyzstan's President earlier this week. We discussed
their transition to democracy, the importance of the U.S.
Transit Center at Manas as well as the enormous resource
potential of the Central Asian region. Now it would be great to
find out how the administration is assisting the business
community to foster opportunities for business development
there while balancing human rights and security.
Other countries important to the U.S. interests are in the
Balkans where our work is not finished until they are
integrated into the European Union and NATO. I just got back
from the Balkans and I know we still have problems there, but
we are anxious to solve those. I think once they become part of
the EU, it will be a lot better as far as making sure we don't
have conflicts in that region.
I see Mr. Meeks has arrived. Had to start without you
because we may have some votes here, my buddy.
We believe that the Baltics deserve more attention as well.
Many feel that the administration has pursued the policy of
resetting relations with Russia at the expense of allies like
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia and we don't think that is
acceptable.
The Caucasus are still a security concern and the tensions
between Georgia and Russia have not rescinded. The Winter
Olympics are to be held in Russia, a short drive from the
tension zone, and will take place in early 2014. I know our
witnesses have worked tirelessly to reassure governments in the
Baltics and Caucasus. And I am less certain about the value of
the reset policy to the long-term U.S. national interest
globally and in the Europe and Eurasia region.
As we move forward, we will examine these and other
strategic issues in greater detail through a robust hearing
agenda, we are going to have a robust traveling agenda as well,
we will work to restore our proper oversight duties and to
engage the Obama administration on the challenges and
priorities of U.S. policy toward Europe Eurasia, and Central
Asia,
I believe Congress should not simply rubber-stamp State
Department policies, no reflection on you guys, but you know
what I mean. And I look forward to working with the ranking
member, Mr. Meeks, on these issues I have mentioned and the
items he is interested in.
And with that, I recognize Mr. Meeks for his opening
statement. Great to have you here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]

Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again in our first
meeting, I look forward to working with you and traveling with
you as we go about doing our work on the subcommittee, and I
think we can do some good work together.
Mr. Burton. Well, we have traveled together before and we
get along pretty well.
Mr. Meeks. Absolutely.
Let me first of all welcome Assistant Secretary Gordon and
Assistant Secretary Blake for being with us today and providing
basically what I believe will be a tour of Europe, Eurasia, and
Central Asia and the priorities and challenges that the State
Department policymakers and implementers will confront in the
year ahead.
I also want to thank you for your unflagging efforts to
advance U.S. interests abroad. Both of you cover such a broad
swath of the world and manage complex bilateral and
multilateral relationships. It is by dint of your nimble,
skillful diplomacy, and that of the teams of officers and
specialists you lead, that the U.S. maintains the productive
relationships throughout these vast regions. Even with
countries, sometimes neighboring countries, that have serious
points of conflict with one another, such diplomatic successes
often requires to us take part or even take the lead at
mediating disputes or negotiating resolutions to conflicts from
far away.
It is clear to me that the State Department's skilled
leadership in building alliances, resolving conflicts and
crises makes the world a safer place. As Secretary Gates says,
though, our investment in diplomacy not only achieves results,
it does so on the cheap compared to the cost of military
intervention to keep or restore peace.
Our dynamic relationship with the countries and
institutions of Europe are complex, to say the least.
Transatlantic trade and investment bind us together in mutually
beneficial relationships, creating jobs and wealth. Europe and
the United States depend on one another's political support and
leadership to address natural and political crises,
participating through the EU and NATO or bilaterally to address
concerns for our field.
Not surprisingly, therefore, of particular interest to me
is our transatlantic partnership and how we and NATO and the EU
members are coordinating efforts and influence to resolve
crises that threaten global security. I will also be interested
in hearing your views on the prospects of the frozen conflicts
in the regions you cover.
As the world watches with both excitement and trepidation
of potential transformation of Northern Africa and the Middle
East, questions arise about the effect that the movement for
freedom and open societies might have in a place like Belarus,
where Europe's last dictator still holds sway. We want to
assure our partners in Europe that they continue to be
important to us and that we need each other to prosper and that
we need one another to ensure global stability.
Turning briefly to Central Asia, I accept the argument that
Central Asia matters to the United States. This is most obvious
in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And we appreciate all that Central
Asian countries do to support the Northern Distribution
Network.
In my role as the ranking member, I look forward and know I
will work together with Chairman Burton and do my best to
deepen these relationships through engagement with
parliamentarians and government officials.
Finally, in the course of advancing the U.S. interests and
securing peace and stability and in opening markets for U.S.
trade and investment, in the past we sometimes forged unholy
alliances. That is, we looked the other way at a government's
domestic policies regarding human rights, particularly minority
and women's rights or freedom of speech. We need to be sure,
going forward, that the reliable partners with whom we seek to
do business are also respectable partners; that along with our
economic and political agenda, we advance and insist on respect
for human and civil rights.
So this committee has broad jurisdiction and indeed we are
living history today. The camera of history is rolling on us.
And I look forward to working together again with my colleague,
Mr. Burton, on the other side of the aisle and my colleagues on
our side, working together to make this place we call Earth a
better place because we work together with our allies in Europe
and Central Asia.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.
Do any of the other members have opening statements they
would like to make? You are recognized.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me
compliment the staff for getting this room together in such a
short period of time. They ran around pretty good to try to get
this done.
Thank you very much for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman,
to assess American relations with Europe and Eurasia. Europe
has and will continue to be a vital partner of the United
States in addressing critical global challenges. On practically
all major U.S. economic and foreign policy concerns, we have
European allies for cooperation and leadership, U.S.-European
cooperation in countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle
East and Russia, and on counterterrorism will play an important
role in our decision regarding future policies affecting these
areas.
While we may not agree on every aspect of every issue, our
transatlantic partnership thrives due to our shared values,
overlapping interests and similar goals. For this reason, the
U.S. has long supported European efforts of political and
economic integration. A stronger European Union is both in the
best interest of America and the greatest way to force a stable
and prosperous Europe.
Moving forward, I think it will be critical for this
subcommittee over the course of this Congress to evaluate such
topics as transatlantic secured relations in respect to NATO
and the effectiveness of such Europe-Atlantic security
institutions, as well as focus on developments within Europe
that undoubtedly have a profound effect on transatlantic
relations such as the Eurozone debt crisis, the evaluation of
the EU and reform efforts in the Balkans and states of the
former Soviet Union. And I thank you.
Mr. Burton. Eliot?
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to take the
opportunity to congratulate you and welcome you as chairman. I
am glad that I am serving on this panel. You and I have had
many years together on this committee and, in fact, on the
Western Hemisphere Subcommittee where you were the chair and I
was ranking, and then I was the chair and you were ranking, and
we worked together. And one of the things that has always been
the case is that we have shared so many common goals in terms
of the way we would like to see the United States relate to our
friends and neighbors, and even our adversaries as well. So I
know you are going to do a great job.
I want to welcome our Secretaries, both of whom do
excellent jobs and both of whom I have had the pleasure of
working with. And, you know, every region is important, but if
there is a region that the United States has had a special
relationship with through the years, it certainly has been our
allies in Europe. And that is why we care so much about what
goes on in Europe, we care so much about what happens in the
European Union, even though we are obviously not members of the
European Union. And I firmly believe that without the strong
United States presence in Europe, we can't always count on
everyone, without us, to do the right thing.
You know, as I have had discussions on one of my particular
areas of concern, Kosovo and the Balkans, and I really just
want to stress how important it is that I believe the United
States has a presence at these meetings with the Kosovo-Serbia
talks every step of the way. I think if the United States is
not involved--I am not so sure we saw in Bosnia years ago, and
then in Kosovo in 1999, when the United States didn't get
involved, things tended not to go right.
I also want to mention something that is on everyone's
mind; of course, that is Libya. And we know that anything that
the United States does or doesn't do in Libya should absolutely
be coordinated with our allies in the region. It can't be the
United States doing something and looking again like it is off
on its own.
So I would be interested in hearing your comments which I
am sure you will have on Libya, and also on the Balkans, with
Kosovo in particular.
Mr. Chairman, again I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chair--I want to call you Mr.
Chairman again, Eliot.
Mr. Engel. Well, once was and hopefully will be again, you
know.
Mr. Gallegly. We are still looking for a few good people.
Mr. Burton. All right. Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary
for South and Central Asian Affairs. His term of appointment
was from May 2009 to now. He is a career Foreign Service
Officer. Ambassador Blake entered the Foreign Service in 1985.
He served at the American Embassies in Tunisia, Algeria,
Nigeria and Egypt, those troubled areas. He held a number of
positions at the State Department in Washington, including
senior desk officer for Turkey, Deputy Executive Secretary and
Executive Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political
Affairs. Ambassador Blake served as Deputy Chief of Missions at
the U.S. Mission in New Delhi, India, from 2003 to 2006; as
Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives, from 2006 to 2009; as
Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian affairs, from
May until now. Mr. Blake earned his B.A.--why didn't you go to
a Big 10 school instead of Harvard? You have to settle for
second rate?
Ambassador Blake. Oh, dear. The oversight is starting
already.
Mr. Burton. He went to Harvard and got his B.A. in 1980 and
an M.A. in international relations from Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies in 1984. And we will start with
you Mr. Blake.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT O. BLAKE, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CENTRAL AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ambassador Blake. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. I am really delighted to be here
today to talk a little bit about our policy in Central Asia. At
the outset, let me say that we really welcome both of your
comments about working with us to deepen our engagement in
Central Asia, which is such an important region for us in the
world.
Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement, and I will just
make a very short one and I will submit the longer one for the
record.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has an important interest
in promoting a stable, secure, democratic and prosperous
Central Asia. These interests shape our core U.S. policy
objectives which are encouraging Central Asia's help in
stabilizing Afghanistan, protecting democracy, combating
narcotics trafficking, promoting balance to energy policies in
nonproliferation, and fostering competitive market economies.
Over the past 2 years we worked to broaden the atmosphere
of trust and strengthen relations with the governments and
people of Central Asia through annual bilateral consultations
that we have instituted with each country. These constitute
face-to-face structured dialogues based on a jointly developed
comprehensive agenda that addresses the full spectrum of our
bilateral priorities.
We have conducted a thorough review of our assistance
programs in Central Asia to ensure that they are closely linked
with our priorities. The President's fiscal 2012 budget request
includes a 6 percent decrease in funding for the Central Asian
region compared to budgeted levels for Central Asia in Fiscal
Year 2010.
Mr. Chairman, Central Asia plays a vital role in our
Afghanistan strategy. The Northern Distribution Network is an
important route for getting nonlethal supplies into Afghanistan
for U.S. and coalition forces. In addition, the great majority
of our troops in Afghanistan pass through the Manas Transit
Center that you discussed with President Otunbayeva.
This year we have focused on expanding the capacity of the
Northern Distribution Network to offer multiple alternate
routes for transiting our cargo into Afghanistan.
Several Central Asian countries have also maintained their
own assistance programs such as Kazakhstan's effort to educate
Afghan students and Uzbekistan's and Turkmenistan's provision
of much-needed electricity to Afghanistan.
Let me briefly highlight key issues in each of these
countries.
Starting with Kazakhstan, our relationships with Kazakhstan
are perhaps our deepest and broadest in Central Asia, with
cooperation across a broad range of fields as diverse as
nonproliferation, support to Afghanistan, energy and health.
Kazakhstan has been a global leader on nuclear nonproliferation
since its earliest days of independence and as Central Asia's
economic powerhouse. Kazakhstan will account for one of the
largest increases in non-OPEC supply to the global market in
the next 10 to 15 years as its oil production doubles to reach
3 million barrels a day by 2020.
We continue to encourage the government to enhance
democracy, human rights and the role of civil society.
Kazakhstan will hold early Presidential elections on April 3,
2011, and we in the international community see these elections
as an important opportunity to strengthen the electoral process
there.
In Uzbekistan, over the past 2 years we have worked hard to
build stronger relations with that important country.
Uzbekistan remains a valued partner for its participation in
NDN, its role in exporting reasonably priced electricity to
Afghanistan and its construction of an important railway link
into Afghanistan.
We continue to encourage the Uzbek authorities to address
significant human rights concerns, including ending forced
child labor in the cotton harvest, opening up the media
environment, curtailing abuses by security forces, and ending
harassment of civil society and international NGOs.
Helping Kyrgyzstan consolidate its successful transition
last year to a parliamentary democracy remains a top priority
for the United States. People around the region and beyond are
watching closely and will make future judgments about the
efficacy of democratic governance based on the success or
failure of Kyrgyzstan.
As you mentioned, President Otunbayeva just concluded a
very productive visit to the United States this week, during
which Secretary Clinton presented her and nine others with the
International Women of Courage Award. We continue to monitor
the potential for renewed ethic violence as tensions remain
following violence in the south last June. In our actions with
the government we have encouraged accountability, equal access
to justice, respect for human rights and reconciliation.
Tajikistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and
a very fragile state in a volatile neighborhood. U.S. policy
there is to support the country in maintaining stability and
creating the conditions for economic and democratic
development. With the resources that we put into our
partnership with Tajikistan, we seek to help improve law
enforcement and border security capabilities, increase food
security, improve the health and education of its citizens, and
build good governance.
As our reports on human rights and on the investment
climate and religious freedom have made clear, we have concerns
about the pace and direction of political developments there,
as well as restrictions on religious and media freedoms. These
continue to be very important parts of our dialogue.
Lastly, Turkmenistan is a country of growing importance as
well to the United States. It has important hydrocarbon
resources and is seeking alternative routes for distribution.
One such project is the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-India-
Pakistan, or TAPI, pipeline, which President Berdimuhamedov is
taking a leading role in getting off the ground.
We also appreciate Turkmenistan's humanitarian help to its
neighbor Afghanistan by providing discounted electricity,
housing and other assistance. We continue to encourage the
Turkmen Government to take concrete steps to fulfill its
international obligations on human rights, and we have offered
assistance to help advance those goals.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion we see a future in which the
United States and the countries of Central Asia will work
closely together for peace, security, economic development,
democracy and prosperity. Again, I thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear today and look forward to working closely
with you and your colleagues.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much Secretary Blake. I
appreciate you giving us that comprehensive report.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake follows:]

Mr. Burton. We probably will have votes here in an another
15 minutes. I want to apologize because we will have to break
for votes. We will go ahead and go as far as we can, and then
we will come back as soon as we get through the issues on the
floor.
Phil Gordon. Philip Gordon is the Assistant Secretary for
the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. He was appointed
in 2009, May. He was nominated as Assistant Secretary on March
6th of 2009 and took the office in May. From 2000 to 2009 he
was a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington
where he focused on a wide range of European and U.S. foreign
policy issues.
Prior to joining Brookings, Dr. Gordon was director for
European affairs at the National Security Council under
President Bill Clinton. At the NSC, he played a key role in
developing and coordinating NATO policy in the run-up to the
Alliance's 50th anniversary summit in Washington, DC. He has
also held teaching and research posts at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies in London; the Johns Hopkins
University School of Advanced International Studies in
Washington; INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France, and Singapore; and
the German Society for Foreign Affairs in Bonn.
Dr. Gordon has a Ph.D. and an M.A. in European studies from
Johns Hopkins University and a B.A. in French and philosophy
from Ohio University. His working languages include French,
German, Italian and some Spanish.
You are going to have to help me with some of that. My wife
speaks four or five languages, and when she gets angry at me I
never know what she is saying.
He has published a number of books and articles on
international relations and foreign policy and has been a
frequent contributor to major publications such as the New York
Times, Washington Post, International Herald Tribune and
Financial Times. Welcome. Dr. Gordon you have the floor.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHILIP H. GORDON, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am also
delighted to be here and I want to thank you and the rest of
the committee for holding these important hearings. I have in
the past, my bureau worked very closely and well with this
committee, and I look forward to doing so under your
chairmanship. I have also submitted a longer statement for the
record.
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Gordon. With your permission, I will just make a few
brief remarks to kick us off here. I will start with a very
simple point, which is that our engagement with Europe begins
with the idea that the United States has a very daunting
international agenda and we cannot possibly deal with it alone.
And as we meet the challenges that we face, we have no better
partner than Europe, where we work with democratic, prosperous,
militarily capable allies who share our values and share our
interests. As President Obama recently put it, Europe is ``the
cornerstone of our engagement with the world.''
There are three basic objectives that stand out in our
efforts for Europe. And I would like to talk a little bit about
each.
First, we work with Europe as a partner in meeting global
challenges. No matter what the issue, whether it is the war in
Afghanistan, efforts to contain the Iranian nuclear challenge,
the situation in Libya that is evolving before our eyes today,
Europe is a critical partner.
Second, we are still working with Europe on Europe. That is
to say, working to complete the historic project of helping to
extend stability, democracy, and prosperity to the entire
continent. Our work in promoting European integration is not
yet done and the effort continues today in the Balkans, in
Europe's east, and in the Caucasus.
Finally, we have sought to set relations with Russia on a
more constructive course. Our goal has been to cooperate with
Russia where we have some common interests, but not--let me be
clear--at the expense of our principles or our friends.
When I look back at the last 2 years, the 2 years of the
Obama administration, I think we can point to some significant
developments and progress in each of these priority areas. On
working with Europe on global challenges, we have pulled
together as never before with our European partners.
Just some specifics. In Afghanistan European countries now
provide nearly 40,000 troops and the total European financial
contribution to Afghanistan since 2001 comes to around $14
billion.
In Iran, we have maintained unity in our efforts to engage
and, at the same time, seen the strongest set of sanctions
adopted by the U.N. Security Council and even more robust set
of follow-on sanctions adopted by the European Union.
On missile defense, NATO allies decided to develop a
capability that will provide full coverage and protection from
ballistic missile threats for all NATO European territory,
population and forces.
In North Africa and the Middle East, we are consulting and
cooperating very closely with our European partners on a daily
basis as the situation rapidly evolves. Working together in
multilateral fora, we have joined with others to impose a U.N.
arms embargo on Libya, to suspend Libya from the Human Rights
Council, and we have closely coordinated at NATO, and we have
coordinated additional sanctions on Libya with the European
Union and its member states.
In the second area, extending the European zone of
prosperity, stability and democracy, we have had some important
successes but we are cognizant that important challenges also
remain.
In the Balkans, the United States and Europe strongly share
the view that Europe will not be complete until all of the
countries of the Western Balkans are fully integrated into
Western institutions. On all of the issues in the region,
including the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo that began
this week, but also on the question of the future of Bosnia, on
Croatia's path to the European Union, we continue to consult
closely with Europe on what really is a joint project.
In Belarus, we have had a joint response to the recent
crackdown. Together, we have made very clear that business as
usual will not continue as long as the suppression of civil
society, the opposition, and independent media continues. The
United States and the European Union have called for the
immediate and unconditional release of all detainees and we
have tightened sanctions, while at the same time reaching out
to support the aspirations of civil society and the people of
Belarus.
In the Caucasus, our efforts with the European Union in the
region have resulted in some progress, but disputes over
territory remain and there is an ongoing need for further
political and economic reform.
In Georgia, steadfast engagement and generous assistance
have aided in transforming Georgia into a developing democracy
and an important partner to NATO in Afghanistan. Together, we
will maintain our support for integrity and sovereignty within
internationally recognized borders.
Finally, in one of the most important parts of our European
agenda, our reset with Russia, the policy has paid significant
dividends. We think the results speak for themselves. We have
completed a new START treaty, advancing our goals in the area
of nonproliferation. We have signed an agreement for the
transit of troops and materials across Russia in support of our
efforts in Afghanistan. We have secured Russia's cooperation in
dealing with Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. We have
done all of this, I will stress again, without compromising our
principles; in particular, our steadfast commitment to the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of all of the nations of
Europe.
Clearly there remains much work to be done on all of these
issues. None of them is easy, particularly at a time of
budgetary austerity. I am confident that the partnership
between the United States and Europe, which has achieved so
much and has received such welcome bipartisan support over the
past decades, will achieve even greater things in the decades
to come. I look forward to discussing it with you here today.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Dr. Gordon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

Mr. Burton. I want to confine everybody to 5 minutes,
including myself, because of the time constraints we are under.
You just indicated, Secretary Gordon, or Dr. Gordon, that
allies like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia haven't been hurt
because of our relationship with Russia. And there is a great
deal of conjecture about that. So I would like for you to
respond to that question.
I would also like to know if you could give us an update on
the tension between Georgia and Russia, since that whole area
is of great concern to us. And with the Olympics coming up, we
would like to see what the future holds.
Mr. Gordon. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I mean, the Baltic states should obviously speak for
themselves and their views of the reset and our relationship
with Russia, but our sense is that they are satisfied that as
we pursue a better relationship with Russia, there are benefits
to their security as well. And I said in my statement that we
have pursued this relationship with Russia out of our common
interests. We feel that we do have some overlapping interests
with Russia on nonproliferation, terrorism, containing Iran,
Afghanistan, and that is to our mutual benefit.
The part of it that we are equally insistent on is that
none of it compromises in any way the view that Vice President
Biden outlined when he first publicly used the word ``reset''
at the Munich Security Conference in 2009; that the states of
Europe have the right to join the security alliance that they
choose, and that the Baltic states have chosen to join NATO;
there should be no spheres of influence within Europe. And we
have exercised that policy through our strong support for
Georgia.
I mentioned our support for Georgia's sovereignty and
territorial integrity through our determination to continue to
support the defense of Europe through missile defense
deployments and NATO enlargement.
Mr. Burton. Your meetings and the Secretary's meetings with
the Russians, have they gone specifically into the issues that
we just outlined? I mean, because the information that I get is
there is continued tensions and pressure there, and that Russia
continues to push these countries pretty hard.
I just wondered, is the administration doing anything to
let Russia know, especially in exchange for some of these
treaties that we have made--some are questioned by many of us
in Congress--that they do not try to expand their sphere of
influence like they did back in the old USSR days.
Mr. Gordon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can assure you that both
publicly and directly, privately with the Russians, we make the
same points.
Mr. Burton. Are you making any progress?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, I think so. I think that the overall
atmosphere with Russia is better. I think there is less of a
zero-sum attitude among Russians. I would encourage you to look
at some of the very interesting public opinion polling coming
out of Russia about Russian views of the United States and
Russian views of NATO.
Mr. Burton. Well, since I want to ask you some more
questions during my time, if you could forward any information
like that, that I could read, I would really appreciate it.
Russia continues, as I understand it, to give Iran
technology that is of great concern to us and has been doing it
for a long time, and, you indicated, that Russia was working
with us in a more compatible way. It still bothers me that they
are doing business with Iran at a time when we have got
sanctions against them and most of the free world does.
Mr. Gordon. I did note that cooperation of Russia with Iran
was one of the things that we felt was moving in a positive
direction over the past year or so.
Mr. Burton. What does that mean?
Mr. Gordon. Well, it means that they supported and voted
with us on the Security Council Resolution 1929, which is the
most aggressive set of sanctions that the international
community has ever put on Iran; that whereas in the past, my
bureau they had signed a deal to send S-300 air defense systems
to Iran, which we have considered a potential threat, they
stood down on the sale and publicly announced that in the wake
of the U.N. Security Council Resolution that they joined us in
supporting, that they won't do that. We feel that is very
important progress.
Mr. Burton. Well, it does sound like progress. Are they
still doing business with and selling technology to Iran and
other materials that might be of interest to us?
Mr. Gordon. In terms of anything that would assist the
Iranian nuclear program, we believe that they have absolutely
abided by Resolution 1929.
Mr. Burton. You believe; you don't have any guarantee of
that?
Mr. Gordon. We don't have any evidence that they have----
Mr. Burton. Does our intelligence indicate that--our
intelligence agencies indicate----
Mr. Gordon. We don't have any evidence that they have not
been abiding by----
Mr. Burton. Well, if you do have any, could we have that
forwarded to the committee, especially if it is classified.
I have one more question and then I will yield to my
colleague. What is the status of the no-fly zone regarding
Libya as far as our allies are concerned? Are they willing,
able, and ready to assist us if we need to impose that kind of
a situation on Libya?
Mr. Gordon. As Secretary Clinton has pointed out, this is
something that has been under active consideration both within
the United States and with our allies. Just today in Brussels
was a NATO Defense Ministers meeting. Last week NATO agreed to
proceed for planning for a potential no-fly zone should our
leaders decide that it would be effective in our interest to
pursue, and Secretary Gates and his counterparts discussed that
at NATO today. No decisions were taken and no decisions were
meant to be taken.
Mr. Burton. Well--I will yield to my colleague. Let me just
end by saying people are getting killed over there every day
because they are fighting against Ghadafi for freedom. So I
hope we will speed up the process.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you. Again, thank you for your testimony,
and you have a very ambitious, I think, agenda and priorities.
And one of the questions I have: Are we able to provide the
support to strengthen these developing democracies, especially
in Central Asia, or to encourage the democratic initiatives in
Belarus and others; especially given what had been proposed in
cutbacks through the CR and in the budget next year?
One of the things that we have noticed is that our allies
in Britain have done, and they are suffering from the same kind
of fiscal problem that we have, they have not cut their foreign
budget at all and continue to move forward. So how are we going
to do all of these things we are talking about given what the
budget realities may be that we are looking at right now?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Meeks, for raising that
question which is vitally important, and it allows me to say
how important it is that we maintain our assistance programs to
these parts of Europe.
As the chairman pointed out in his opening statement, we
have indeed proposed for the 2012 budget a 14 percent cut. The
President has asked all agencies to tighten their belts. We
know how rigorous the budgetary picture is and we have done
just that and are really looking very carefully at our
assistance across the board in Europe, Eurasia, and Central
Asia, and we have proposed what we think is a significant cut.
But we also need to underscore how important it is to
maintain these assistance programs. It is not simple
generosity, but it is in the core U.S. national interest to
sustain the democracies that we have promoted for 20 years and
who are now our partners.
If you just take the countries in the part of Europe that
are receiving our assistance in Central and Eastern Europe,
they are contributing some 10,000 troops to Afghanistan because
they are now more stable, democratic and capable allies who
have joined the EU and NATO, and that investment is paying off.
It is also part of the world where there are ongoing risks of
narcotics trafficking, trafficking in persons,
nonproliferation, and our assistance there helps secure our
national interest by helping us to fight those problems as
well.
And finally, our assistance to these areas as they
contribute to stability and prosperity helps create the growing
economies that end up buying our goods and allowing us to
export. So we want to be careful, even as we do tighten our
budgets and make sure that all assistance is well spent, that
at the same time we don't sacrifice long-term interests for the
sake of short-term cuts.
Ambassador Blake. Let me just add on Central Asia, I think
it is just to echo what Phil said, I think it is absolutely
critical that we maintain our assistance to Central Asia at
this particular moment.
Let me give you a few examples of how our aid is really
helping. First, as I mentioned in my testimony, all of these
countries are providing assistance. Many of them are helping
the Northern Distribution Network. Others are providing
electricity in Afghanistan, which is a very, very important
part of the stabilization effort. And then others are providing
things like scholarships and so forth.
Secondly, several of the central Asian countries are quite
unstable and face internal threats, particularly Tajikistan.
That is our second largest form of assistance in Central Asia,
and our assistance directly addresses the roots of poverty and
the roots of instability and the isolation, the poverty, the
degraded health and education systems, the poor governance,
corruption. I think all of these will really make a difference.
It is very, very important to continue those programs.
Lastly, I think our assistance was quite important in one
of our signature democratic successes, which was the emergence
of a parliamentary democracy last year in Kyrgyzstan. And our
assistance, I am really proud to say, played an important role
in that. We funded candidate debates, we helped the police to
understand how to better manage the whole process so that they
could do this in a way that peaceful democratic elections would
result. That did happen.
We provided extensive training and monitoring in vote
tabulation. As a result of that, these elections came off very
peacefully and they were judged free and fair. Our assistance
is well spent, well targeted, and definitely should be
maintained.
Mr. Meeks. Let me just ask this question real quick in the
time I have left. And I think, as Mr. Engel has stated earlier,
one of the things that I think is important when we talk about
what is happening in Northern Africa is that previously we got
stuck with going it alone and disregarding our allies. In fact,
that is the last time that we had trouble with a number of our
longstanding allies in Europe, because we didn't consult them
and they looked at us as though we don't consider them or they
became valueless to us.
So my hope is, and I think that as we are doing this, have
we talked with our NATO allies now, trying to figure out what
they are doing and what we can do together for the betterment
of all of us?
Ambassador Blake. Well, let me just speak for the Central
Asia. Last year, when we ramped up our democracy assistance to
Kyrgyzstan to help prepare for the elections, we closely
coordinated with the EU, with the OSCE, the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, and with other key donors
to make sure that we weren't duplicating efforts and, in fact,
we were all working together as one team. I think that was
very, very effective. And we are doing that across the board.
We are doing that in Tajikistan as well, where we found that in
fact Tajikistan on a per capita basis gets less assistance than
many of the sub-Saharan African countries.
Mr. Burton. If you could send additional information to
Congressman Meeks, it would be helpful.
Ambassador Blake. Sure.
Mr. Burton. I am trying to make sure everybody gets to ask
questions.
Go ahead.
Mr. Bilirakis. I have one question. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you so much for your important testimony today.
As cochair of the Hellenic Caucus and as a strong advocate of
the State of Israel, I have been working enthusiastically to
enhance the bonds between the two countries. As such, I was
pleased that Cyprus and Israel signed an agreement delineating
the exclusion of economic zone just last year. The agreement
allows these two neighbors to forge ahead in the search for
energy sources in the eastern Mediterranean.
Recently discovered evidence of major gas finds off the
shores of Israel and Cyprus have been very promising. Given the
importance that we all attach to the need for the
diversification of sources and routes of energy supplies, this
is a significant and timely development. I am sure you will
agree.
Not everyone was pleased, however, after the EEZ was made.
Turkey expressed dismay and suggested that such a bond between
Israel and Cyprus was not lawful. Will you confirm that it is
the right of the two countries to proceed with exploration
without interference from a third party?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you. We are also encouraged by the
development of ties between Cyprus and Israel. I was in Athens
just this week and heard about those positive developments, and
I was in Nicosia the week before and heard much about the
energy developments, which we think are a positive thing.
We are also encouraged that an American firm is playing a
major role in renewable energy in this development, and we
support such development to promote energy diversity in Europe
and relations between Cyprus and Israel.
Mr. Bilirakis. The two countries have the right to proceed;
is that correct?
Mr. Gordon. As far as I understand the two countries have
the right to proceed.
Mr. Burton. We have been 7\1/2\ minutes on the clock. Do
you have a question?
Mr. Sires. Could you describe to me to what extent European
countries are implementing their sanctions on Iran?
Mr. Gordon. As I noted in my testimony, Iran is one of the
examples of how our cooperation has progressed. As I noted, in
addition to supporting the additional--the U.N. Sanctions on
Iran, UIVSCR 1929, the EU separately passed complementary
sanctions. And all evidence we have is that they are
implementing those sanctions vigorously and cooperating with
our own national legislation in terms of sanctions on Iran.
Mr. Sires. Can you talk about the impact that the EU
defense budget cuts are going to have on NATO and our
relationship? Many people are concerned it will wind up on us
to carry NATO. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Mr. Gordon. We have consistently underscored the importance
of maintaining significant defense spending as we face all of
these challenges. We talk about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran,
Libya, Egypt. The world faces significant instability and it is
not a time for countries to be getting out of the defense and
security business.
We have encouraged NATO allies to spend around at least 2
percent of their GDP on defense. And I have to say not a whole
lot, or many of them, are falling short of that goal. So we are
in constant discussions with them, and I can assure you that
Secretary Gates, today in Brussels, will have raised that issue
as well.
Mr. Sires. Is there concern about the U.K. and Germany to
carry the brunt of it?
Mr. Gordon. Even some who have traditionally been in the
forefront, everyone is facing tight budgets, and obviously we
understand that. We are, too. We are looking carefully at our
defense budget. But we are also collectively reminding
ourselves that in this unstable world, countries need to
maintain capabilities.
Mr. Burton. We have about 5 minutes. We will come back
after the votes. I hate to keep you gentlemen here. We will
probably be about 25 or 30 minutes. I apologize for that, but
we shall return.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton. First of all, I apologize because we had so
much going on over there. There is one thing about being in the
Congress, like being in the agencies of government, your life
is not your own. Why does everybody want this job? I don't
understand it.
While we are waiting, maybe you can elaborate on where our
allies stand on the no-fly zone. I know there has been
discussions. But every day that we wait, those people are
firing into the air with weapons that won't reach a jet. And I
also would like to know where those planes are coming from. I
have been told by some people in the military that those planes
are coming from Syria, that Syria is providing some of the jets
that are doing the attacking of the civilians on the ground. If
you could give me a little enlightenment on that, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Gordon. Picking up on what we were discussing earlier,
I did say that this was something under active consideration
both here and with our allies. At NATO today, defense ministers
agreed on certain principles as we think about options before
us, and they agreed that for NATO to act there would have to be
a demonstrable need for NATO, there would have to be a clear
legal basis for action, and there would have to be regional
support. And that is one thing that we have put a significant
emphasis on as well. We want to do this together with partners
and we don't want to go it alone. The regional partners and our
NATO allies would be critical in any type of enforcement
operation.
So on the specific question of the no-fly zone, as I said,
it is something we are actively studying and NATO is actively
planning for so that our leaders, if they choose to move in
that direction, will know what the options are.
As for Syria, I have no information of outside planes, but
I would defer to colleagues covering the Middle East and North
Africa on that question.
Mr. Burton. We will check on that. When we talked the other
day, Secretary Blake, about Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and all
the area out there, there is only one democracy, true
democracy, and that came about as a result of the revolution. I
think it was last April.
Ambassador Blake. Correct.
Mr. Burton. Eighty-nine people were killed. And the
President was very engaging, the lady.
Can you give us an update on those other surrounding
countries? I think next week I am having a meeting with the
Ambassador from Kazakhstan and that certainly doesn't appear to
be anything like a democratic country. And I would like to know
your analysis of that while we are waiting on my colleagues.
Ambassador Blake. I would say that, as you say, Kyrgyzstan
is definitely the country that has made by far the most
progress with these free and fair elections that took place and
now has a parliamentary democracy there. I think Kazakhstan is
the next furthest along in terms of progress they have made.
Mr. Burton. What do you mean furthest along?
Ambassador Blake. I think they have a pretty active civil
society that we meet with regularly. The civil society has a
role now and is consulted on, for example, draft legislation.
And there are elections that do take place. But the opposition
is very weak.
Mr. Burton. What is the percentage that the winner gets?
Ambassador Blake. Exactly. Very high.
Mr. Burton. 98 percent?
Ambassador Blake. I don't know if it is that high. We will
see. President Nazarbayev could have an election coming up now
on April 3rd. So we will see. But we and the OSC and others
will be sending monitors there to try to ensure a fair
electoral process. And I think there is a reasonably good
chance there will be a fair process.
In other countries, I would say there are considerably more
concerns. All of these countries are still led by leaders who
were part of the ex-Soviet Union. They are frankly suspicious
of democracy in some cases. And many of them were, I think,
concerned about what happened in Kyrgyzstan and afraid that it
was going to cause unrest in their own countries. We didn't see
that.
But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that democracy and
human rights and religious freedom and trafficking in persons
are all very important parts of our dialogue with each one of
these countries. I think now we have gotten to the point where
we have very good conversations about these things. They don't
resist having those talks. But I have to say we haven't made
too much progress other than Kyrgyzstan. And partly that is
because they are afraid of the situation in Afghanistan as
well. They feel that they need to maintain very tight controls
because of the situation there.
So this is hard. This is something that we are working hard
on. We have tried, frankly, to try to leverage the situation in
Tunisia and Egypt, to make the case to them that all leaders
around the world need to study very closely what has happened
in Egypt and Tunisia. And all of them need to be sure that
their political and economic systems respond to the aspirations
of their young people and that they address things like
corruption.
Mr. Burton. Well, one----
Ambassador Blake. This is again a very important part of
our dialogue.
Mr. Burton. One more thing and then I will yield to my
colleague, Mr. Engel. You know we are going to go over there
because at your suggestion, we really need to get over in that
area, which is 9 million miles from here, but we are willing
to----
Ambassador Blake. It is worth it.
Mr. Burton. I hope the food is good.
Now, you talk about Kazakhstan. Can you tell me a little
bit about Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, as well as Tajikistan as
far as the totalitarian aspects of those governments? And the
other part of that is, do the radical fundamentalist Muslims,
like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, do they have any influence in
those areas? And if so, how much?
Ambassador Blake. I would say that there are groups that
are affiliated with al-Qaeda, like the IMU, the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan. They very much target these
governments, particularly Uzbekistan, but also to a more
limited extent Tajikistan. And there are other groups that are
based in Pakistan particularly that are actively seeking to
undermine these governments. So an important part of our
dialogue also with these countries is to help with border
security, counternarcotics, and other forms of counterterrorist
assistance. Because as they are helping us in Afghanistan, they
have become more of a target in terms of retribution from some
of these groups. So this is an important part of our
cooperation with these countries and you will see that
reflected in our assistance priorities.
Mr. Burton. One more thing real quick. And that is Iran
borders Turkmenistan and Afghanistan as well, as you know. And
that to me sounds like it may be one of the first targets, if
it isn't already a target, of the Iranian Government. Do you
see any indication that they are moving aggressively north
there?
Ambassador Blake. I don't see any indication of that, in
part because Turkmenistan has maintained a policy of what they
call positive neutrality and they try to again stay very
neutral in all of these various territorial disputes and
maintain good relations with all of these countries. They do
implement the U.N. sanctions against Iran. But at the same
time, since they have a very substantial border with Iran, they
have to maintain a dialogue with them. And for that same
reason, they are more careful about what they do with respect
to Afghanistan. As I say, they have been providing electricity
and things like that. That is mostly what they do in terms of
support for efforts there.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Engel, do you have some questions?
Mr. Engel. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you
very much. In my opening remarks, I mentioned the ongoing talks
between Serbia and Kosovo. I frankly am happy. I hope that
these talks will eventually be a basis where the two countries
can reconcile. Last month I wrote a bipartisan letter to
President Obama, cosigned by many members of this committee,
bipartisan--I think Mr. Burton signed it as well. I may be
wrong, but I think he did--urging that the United States make
Kosovo and the southern Balkans a priority. The letter said it
is important that we play a leading role in any talks between
Serbia and Kosovo and that we work with our friends in the EU
to ensure that Kosovo has a future which will allow integration
into the key Euro-Atlantic structures. I have no objection to
Serbia joining the EU. I just want Serbia and Kosovo to join
the EU. And I don't want Serbia to go into the EU before Kosovo
because then Serbia could block Kosovo, as is happening in the
United Nations now.
So could you please talk about that, Secretary Gordon? The
Serbia-Kosovo talks just started and Deputy Assistant Secretary
Countryman is there. So tell us all about that.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much for raising this issue, and
I think I can confidently tell you it is indeed a priority of
the administration, something we have focused very heavily on.
You mentioned the talks that are underway this week. And like
you, we are encouraged by this. This is the first time that the
leaders--that representatives of these countries have sat down
at a table since the conflict and started to work practically
on the issues that they need to sort out to move forward. Some
fundamental differences obviously remain. But the first step in
the process is to engage and to start to take steps and improve
the lives of people in both countries.
So we are encouraged by that. We are also involved. You
said you thought it was important for the United States to be
involved. We have been very much engaged from the start. These
are EU-facilitated talks. And that is appropriate, as you said,
the big factor in this, an incentive for both countries to move
in the right direction of EU membership. We find that
appropriate.
But as I said, in my opening statement, we work very
closely with the EU across the board and certainly on this
issue, as you noted, Deputy Assistant Secretary Countryman is
there now.
It is worth underscoring the background to these talks as
well, which stem in part from the results of the International
Court of Justice opinion last summer that ruled consistent with
what we argued before the Court, that there was nothing in
Kosovo's declaration of independence that was inconsistent with
international law. And in the wake of that opinion, which we
wholeheartedly agreed with, the European Union took the lead
and we were pleased that Serbia agreed in the context of a U.N.
General Assembly resolution to have these EU-facilitated talks
with strong support from the United States.
So that is pointing in the right direction. We are not at
all naive about the difficulties that remain. But getting the
countries to sit down and start working the practical issues
together is a very positive thing.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Engel. Certainly.
Mr. Burton. Because I don't want to get off this subject
since you have already raised it. We were just over there and
we were in Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia. And one of the big
concerns that the Serbs have is that in the northern part of
Kosovo and the southern part of Serbia, you have some real
flash points. There is a lot of Serbs who live in northern
Kosovo and the monasteries and churches there have been
attacked in the past and destroyed as they have been in Bosnia.
And the reason that the Serbs have been so concerned is the
gentleman who is in charge of security there for Kosovo, as I
understand it, was one of the leaders of the movement that did
some destruction of churches and monasteries. And the only
reason I bring this up is because stabilizing that region is,
as my colleague has just said, is extremely important. And I
would just like to know if there has been any progress made
between the two.
I know the Serbs don't even want to recognize Kosovo yet
because that is still an undecided area, it is still in
question. And if Serbia is going to become a member of the EU,
there is going to have to be a resolution of that problem. And
Serbia is scared to death that those people who live in
northern Kosovo are going to be under attack and those churches
and monasteries will.
So as a follow-up to my colleague--and I will yield back to
him--I would like to know what we are doing and what can be
done to make sure that there is stabilization in that area?
Mr. Gordon. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an
important issue to us and to the parties. You are right that
there are significant numbers of ethnic Serbs who live in
northern Kosovo. It has always been our view and it is the view
of the Government of Kosovo that there should be a significant
amount of self-government and also--and this was critically
important from the start--that all of the Serb religious and
cultural sites should be preserved and protected. And we have
played a role, the international community in our presence has
played a role in that process, but we also think the Government
of Kosovo is committed to that as well, ensuring that these
sights--that Serbs have access to these sites and that, as I
say, they are preserved and protected. That has been a
fundamental premise of ours going in and it remains so.
Mr. Burton. If I might follow up just real quickly and then
I will yield back to my colleague. I think it is important that
while we are involved in negotiations, even though we are not
part of the EU, we do have some influence and we are going to
be going over to Brussels before long to talk to our
counterparts in the EU. But it seems to me that there ought to
be a provision that is raised by the EU members that if there
is violence--and there has been attacks on the Serbs in
northern Kosovo and more destruction of churches and
monasteries--that will weigh heavily on the decision to become
a part of the EU.
I yield back to my colleague.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I would just like to mention that I
agree with Mr. Burton and I disagree. First of all, attacking
anybody's religious institutions is abhorrent and should be
condemned by everybody. I have been a supporter of Kosovo
independence for the 22 years I have been in Congress. And
early on, I was talking about monasteries in Kosovo have to be
protected just the way frankly mosques needed to be protected
when Milosevic, the head of Serbia, ruled Kosovo because you
can point out tit-for-tat that is the Balkans. I think that
these should all be preserved. And just the way there are Serbs
in northern Mitrovica, which is at the northern part as you
mention, Mr. Burton, there are also a number of Albanians in
the Presheva Valley, which is in Serbia, which is just below.
Unfortunately, in the Balkans, you always have a situation. And
my feeling is once you start transferring authority in the
Balkans, where does it end? You have got Republika Srpska, you
have got the Croats together in Bosnia, you have got a huge
Albanian presence in Macedonia. And where does it end? I would
hope that Kosovo will remain a multi-ethnic community with an
Albanian majority, of course with minority rights. And the new
government that was formed in Kosovo just recently, the Serb
parties are an integral part of that majority in that
government. And we have found that the majority of Serbs in
Kosovo don't live on the northern stretch. They actually live
throughout the country and they are participating more and more
in the fabric of Kosovo's democracy.
So I would hope that would be true ultimately for the Serb
population in North Mitrovica, that they would see that there
is room for them to participate democratically in Kosovo
because after all that is where they live. But when we talk
about the Balkans, it always goes back generations and
generations.
So the point I wanted to make, Secretary Gordon--you and I
have talked about this. And I really just want to commend you
and the administration for being on top of it--is that I have
felt--and I know Mr. Burton agrees with me because we have
talked about this--that when the United States is sort of not
totally engaged suddenly in Europe--it happened in Bosnia, as
far as I am concerned because we weren't engaged until we had
the bombing, and it happened in Kosovo in 1999. And our strong
presence just needs to be there. And again, I want fairness for
Serbs and fairness for Albanians and fairness for Croats and
everyone else. But I think we have to be there. Because if we
are not, we are not going to get fairness.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much. I would like to say, first
of all, thank you for your support on these issues. We have
made progress on the issue of international recognition, in
part, thanks to your vigorous efforts, which match ours. I also
want to say that what you have described in terms of
representation for the Serbs in Kosovo is our policy. We were
encouraged when Kosovo--because we want to support a multi-
ethnic democracy in Kosovo and elsewhere--when Kosovo moved to
organize voting in municipalities that were majority Serbs, as
you know very well, there was a lot of skepticism about whether
the Serbs would vote. They did vote. They elected mayors. And I
have had the chance to meet with those mayors, as has the Vice
President and the Secretary of State, on trips to Kosovo. And
it was very encouraging to see that in this country, a minority
ethnic group can feel it was represented and have a voice in
the democracy. And that is exactly what we wanted to see. And,
so it is what we would like to see in North Mitrovica as well.
My last point, if I might just again agree with you on the
question of engagement, even with lots of other important
things going on in the world, the United States needs to be
present. And I made a reference to the Vice President traveling
there, the Secretary traveling there, to Deputy Secretary
Steinberg, a number of times and I have been there multiple
times, including with them, we are very much focused and
engaged.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I am wondering if I could switch to
another topic. And that is Turkey. I know it was mentioned
before by--Mr. Bilirakis had mentioned some concerns. And I do
have a concern about Turkey's switch when it comes to Israel.
Turkey at one time, as we know, was aligned very strongly both
in terms of military and other ways with Israel, and lately
Turkey has been very hostile. I wondered if you could just
comment on that. We all know what has happened. Some of us met
with the Turkish Foreign Minister a couple of months ago. It
was very unsatisfying, I must say. And it just kind of annoys
me with what I view as hypocrisy--it is not a very good
diplomatic word. But Turkey condemns Israel for attacking
terrorists in Gaza when Turkey feels it can just go over the
border into Iraq and get at what they feel are Kurdish
terrorists. They condemn Israel for what they view as
occupation of lands. Turkey has occupied Northern Cyprus since
1973. And that Turkey talks about apologies for the flotilla.
They want apologies from Israel. We can't get Turkey to
apologize for the Armenian genocide.
So I think that the policies of Turkey and their actions
are very troublesome, particularly since they are a NATO
member.
Mr. Gordon. Congressman, we regret the recent deterioration
in relations between the two countries. A positive development
in relations between Turkey and Israel in the 1990s is one of
the more encouraging things we saw in the Middle East
throughout that period. The majority Muslim country, the Jewish
state reaching across and expanding military cooperation,
intelligence cooperation, economic cooperation, tourism was all
flourishing. And that was a real signal throughout the reason
that countries, regardless of the majority of religion or
ethnicity, could cooperate.
Relations have taken a significant turn for the worst. They
were already afraid somewhat over differences in the region and
on Turkish position on Gaza and on Iran, but they really took a
turn for the worse, as you pointed out, over the Mavi Marmara
incident. And we have encouraged both sides to talk directly.
They have a very different view of what happened. But they
shouldn't let that different view stand in the way of--as I
say, it was a historic relationship. And we have encouraged the
two sides and they have had direct talks, which they need to
do, to not let this incident stand in the way of a critically
important relationship in the region.
Mr. Engel. My last question, if I might, involves--when the
Soviet Union fell, I was one of the people on the committee,
and again as was Mr. Burton, because I remember talking about
it, that we encouraged NATO to expand. And I thought that the
sooner NATO did that, the better because in X amount of years
you don't know, with Russia, whether it would be possible. And
it seems like the last two countries that have been talked
about possibly getting in NATO were the Ukraine and Georgia. I
know there has been changes in Ukraine and Georgia. And, of
course, now with the situation with Russia, it seems almost
like an impossibility. If we hadn't brought the Baltic
countries, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO when we did,
does anyone think that we would have been able to bring them
into NATO now? It would have been impossible.
So I just wanted to ask you for your assessment of both
Georgia, I just met with the new Georgian Ambassador, and
Ukraine, and what is going on there. I know Georgia is helping
us in a lot of different ways. I believe in Afghanistan and in
other ways. And the Ukraine seems to be a country that is sort
of ripped in half. I wonder if you can comment on those two.
Mr. Gordon. Looking back, I couldn't agree with you more
that NATO enlargement is a positive thing. We did the right
thing. We brought these countries into the alliance. There were
questions about it at the time, but I think we can confidently
say, first of all, it didn't, as many feared or speculated,
ruin our relationship with Russia. But on the contrary, it has
helped stabilize and consolidate democracy throughout Europe's
East. It is true for the Baltic states, for the Central
Europeans and those who have joined NATO since the end of the
Cold War, most recently Albania and Croatia expanding NATO's--
under this administration--expanding NATO's reach into the
Balkans.
Ukraine and Georgia, I think, are very different cases.
Both have relationships with NATO. There is a commission for
each, and we have a process going on with both countries to
help them with defense reform and strengthen their relationship
with the alliance and their contributions, particularly in the
case of Georgia, to Afghanistan, which we very much welcome.
Ukraine is now less interested, under this government, in
joining NATO than it was under the previous government. And our
view is simple. We are very clear that countries in Europe have
the right to choose their own security alliances. And when they
meet the criteria, if they are interested and NATO would be
strengthened by their membership, they should join. But if they
are not interested, it is the prerogative of the government to
decide not to pursue that.
So we still have a NATO-Ukraine Commission that meets
regularly. It is going to meet in April at the ministerial in
Berlin. And the same is true on Georgia. The NATO-Georgia
Commission will meet in Berlin. We support Georgia's
aspirations. And when Georgia has met the criteria and allies
have a consensus to bring Georgia in, it should be allowed to
join NATO as well.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much. Mr. Engel, you asked some
very good questions and I want you to know that because of your
eloquence, we allowed you triple what the other members were
getting.
Mr. Engel. You are a good man, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. Thank you. It is easy to get accolades
from him, isn't it?
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of that, I
will claim a third less time.
Secretary Blake, I would like to discuss the influence of
Iran--it is widely known they are trying to gain influence--
there was a meeting just days ago, I think, between the Kazakh
Ambassador and the Iranian Prime Minister. Turkmenistan and
Azerbaijan are the places where it has widely been reported
that the Iranians exert some influence. If you could speak to
the extent of these efforts and the extent to which they have
been successful as well?
Ambassador Blake. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutch. I would
say that Iran is actually not a major player in Central Asia.
By far, the more influential countries are Russia and China and
now I would say the United States as well. I think it is partly
because Iran is very focused on kind of challenges inside its
own country. But I will say that all of the countries in
Central Asia share our concern about Iran's potential
acquisition of nuclear weapons, and I think they would consider
that a very destabilizing development were that to occur.
So I think they quietly support what we are trying to do.
Iran has some historical ties to Tajikistan, so you will see
from time to time visits taking place between those two
countries. But again, I think in terms of our own diplomacy, we
are focusing very much on coordinating very closely with the
Russians, and I think that there has been quite good
cooperation between the United States and Russia in Central
Asia.
And then we are trying to do more with the Chinese as well.
I am going out myself to China to have consultations about
Central Asia and South Asia with the Chinese to hopefully get
them to particularly help our efforts in Afghanistan, but also
just to learn more about what their policies and plans are in
Central Asia.
Mr. Deutch. Let me come at it in a different direction
then. I understand that the focus is on Russia and that the
Iranians are concerned about what is going on in their country.
So let us talk, then, about the support we are getting from
those countries and the concern that you expressed, that they
share with the United States about the Iranian nuclear program.
Ambassador Blake. I cannot really say that they are too
actively involved in pushing this issue. I think they are
content to let the P5-plus-1 and others carry the ball on this.
They have a strong view that other countries should not get
involved in the internal affairs of other countries on matters
like this. But again, I think they have been--all of them have
respected and implemented U.N. Security Council Resolution 929.
This is something that we follow very, very closely.
And we are encouraging developments like the Turkmenistan-
Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline because that is a very good
alternative to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. So this is
something that has just come about. You may have heard that the
Turkmenistan President, President Berdymukhammedov hosted a
meeting in December where they had achieved an intergovernment
memo agreement on this pipeline and they are moving ahead on
that. So again, I think that could be a very welcomed
development for the region and can provide a much needed source
of gas for India and its growing economy.
Mr. Deutch. One more question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Gordon, last summer, the EU adopted this series of
sanctions to confront Iran's intransigence. In September, the
Treasury Department sanctioned the Iranian Bank, EIH, which is
incorporated in Germany. To this point, it is my understanding
the Germans have failed to act against EIH.
Can you tell us whether they are pressing Germany to act
and will the United States sanction foreign banks and companies
that continue to do business with EIH?
Mr. Gordon. We have raised this matter with the German
Government, which under its laws has no basis for shutting EIH.
But we believe that as a general matter they are fully
cooperating with us on stopping banking transactions with Iran
and that EIH, while not closed in Germany, has significantly
been contained.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Let me make one real brief comment, and then I
yield for one more question from my good buddy here, Mr. Meeks.
You said Iran is mainly concerned with problems inside of their
borders.
Ambassador Blake. With respect to Central Asia.
Mr. Burton. Well, I don't buy that. They are working with
Chavez. They have got flights going back and forth every week.
Supposedly they are talking about buying uranium from
Venezuela. There is also indications from sources I have--I
talked to Ollie North last night, who is over there all the
time. And there is indications that Syria at the behest and
with Iran's blessing is working over in Libya with their
weapons, with their airplanes. And so it is hard for me to
believe that Iran, who has I think not only regional but
possibly global goals, that they are not concerned about that
entire region.
Ambassador Blake. Sorry. I wasn't clear, Senator--Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Burton. You can call me Senator. Well, I don't want to
be compared to the lower House over there on the other side.
But I was a state Senator. So I will allow that. Go ahead.
Ambassador Blake. Mr. Chairman, I meant that they were not
involved really in Central Asia at all. Obviously, we have
tremendous concerns about Iran's support for terrorism around
the world but particularly in the Middle East. We have
tremendous concerns about their destabilizing efforts in many,
many parts of the world, but not in Central Asia. They really
aren't that big----
Mr. Burton. Well, I am going over there. I hope you are
right and I hope you go with me. Are you going to go with me
when I go over there?
Ambassador Blake. It depends on when you go, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I was going to have you buy dinner. Can he buy
me dinner? I don't think he can. The rules won't allow that.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. One quick question. I just think--and I also
thank you for your testimony and for your time and patience
today. The one area that we may have missed and I just wanted
to ask that quickly is the question of democratization in the
Ukraine. And we know that since the last election, there has
been some selective prosecutions of individuals who were with
the minority at that point. It was a narrowly won election,
some rollbacks of freedom of the press and other things. Could
you just give us a quick update on what is going on in the
Ukraine?
Mr. Gordon. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. It is
something we are watching very carefully. The Ukraine is a big
and important country in Europe and when we talk about our
desire to see democracy and prosperity spread throughout
Europe, Ukraine is a critical piece of that. And I have to say
that we have concerns about the direction Ukraine has been
heading on the democracy front. The government that came in
last year was freely and fairly elected, and it showed that
Ukraine could have a transition of power based on democracy and
the will of the people, which is exactly the right thing. And
that government stressed the priority and emphasis it would put
on democracy.
But there have been questions about reform of the electoral
law, about recent municipal elections and also about the issue
raised which is the perception of potentially selective
prosecutions, and we raised that directly with the Ukranian
Government. We have a good and open and transparent
relationship with them. We just had a meeting of the U.S.-
Ukraine Strategic Partnership Commission, where Secretary
Clinton was able to sit down directly with Foreign Minister
Gryshchenko and have a good and frank discussion of this very
issue. But I can tell you, Mr. Meeks, she did raise it because
it is something we are concerned about and we really need to
see Ukraine doing the right thing on democracy.
Mr. Burton. Well, I want to thank you very much for your
patience, first of all with a broken door and waiting in my
office and then coming over here and having to wait for at
least an hour for us to get back. I want to thank everybody in
the audience for their patience as well. We will be back in
touch with you and really appreciate your testimony.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.

Minutes deg.

QFRs--Poe deg.__

[Note: No responses were received by the subcommittee to the above
questions prior to printing.]