[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING DEMOCRACY DURING COVID-19 IN
EUROPE AND EURASIA AND THE DEMOCRATIC
AWAKENING IN BELARUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, ENERGY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-118
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-703PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Democrat Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and The Environment
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts, Chairman
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois, Ranking
GREGORY MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
THEODORE DEUTCH, Florida ANN WAGNER, Missouri
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
DINA TITUS, Nevada BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
DAVID TRONE, Maryland RON WRIGHT, Texas
JIM COSTA, California MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
Gabrielle Gould, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Rutzen, Douglas, President and CEO, International Center for Not-
For-Profit Law................................................. 8
Laanela, Therese Pearce, Head of Electoral Processes,
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. 19
Rohozinska, Joanna, Resident Program Director, Europe,
International Republican Institute............................. 35
Fly, Jamie, Senior Fellow, Senior Advisor to the President,
German Marshall Fund of the United States (Former President of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)............................... 44
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 73
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 74
Hearing Attendance............................................... 75
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Additional materials submitted for the record from Representative
Keating........................................................ 76
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record.................. 89
PROTECTING DEMOCRACY DURING COVID-19 IN EUROPE AND EURASIA AND THE
DEMOCRATIC AWAKENING IN BELARUS
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and the
Environment
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC,
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., via
WebEx, Hon. William Keating (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Mr. Keating. The House Foreign Affairs will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the committee at any point, and all members will have 5 days
to submit statements, extraneous materials, and questions for
the record, subject to the length limitations in the rules.
To insert something into the record, please have your staff
email the previously mentioned address or contact the full
committee staff.
Please keep your video function on at all times even when
you are not recognized by the chair. Members are responsible
for muting and unmuting themselves, and please remember to mute
yourself after you have finished speaking.
Consistent with House Resolution 965 and the accompanying
regulations, staff will only mute members and witnesses as
appropriate when they are not under recognition to eliminate
background noise.
I see that we have a quorum present. Thank you all for your
participation.
Pursuant to notice, we are holding a hearing today
entitled, ``Protecting Democracy During the COVID-19 in Europe,
Eurasia, and the Democratic Awakening in Belarus.''
We will begin, without objection, by submitting several
documents for the record regarding the current situation in
Belarus, including reports that document the horrors inflicted
by the Belarusian people--upon the Belarusian people including
a statement by a Belarusian victim that we just received today
of the abuse by the police where she details the violations of
her rights and the harm inflicted by security forces on her and
others who were detained by security forces.
Additionally, there are statements by multinational
institutions condemning the violence and electoral fraud to
underscore the broad consensus around the flagrant abuses of
power that exist and that we are all watching with great
concern the government's actions and with the support of the
Belarusian people.
One of the leaders of the movement, Maria Kolesnikova, was
kidnapped earlier this week, and just yesterday, yesterday, two
members of the Coordination Council, Maxim Znak and Ilya Salei
were kidnapped as well.
Ranking Member Kinzinger and I are introducing a resolution
condemning these actions by the government of Belarus and
recognizing the incredible bravery and efforts of the
Belarusian citizens to move toward democracy and holding their
government accountable.
I hope that our members will join us in that resolution as
well.
To begin with, I would like to start by showing a couple of
images from the protests. Since there are limitations with the
video system we are using in terms of being able to show these
videos, we are showing a few still pictures in lieu of that,
and you can see from these pictures some of the incredible
scenes that are occurring in Belarus right now.
They underscore how critical it is for journalists and the
press to have access to and record moments like this around the
world and, importantly, they show the remarkable commitment and
bravery of the Belarusian people in the face of oppression by
the State.
These are peaceful demonstrators, women-led protests.
Students, children, a Nobel Prize winner. These are not
security threats requiring foreign intervention. They are
citizens demanding accountability for their government and the
freedom to express themselves.
With that, I will now make an opening statement before
turning it over to Representative Yoho, who will stand in
Representative Kinzinger today as the ranking member.
We begin today with a focus on Belarus and everything
transpiring there.
First, because the sacrifice, bravery, and solidarity of
the Belarusian is coming together for a shared future in their
country it is nothing short of heroic and it deserves to be
part of the congressional record to mark this incredible moment
in their country's history.
And, second, because Belarus must serve as a reminder to
all of us about the incredibly difficult work required to live
in a democracy. We see it here, too, and realize that democracy
cannot be taken for granted. It takes a commitment by the
people to keep their democracy healthy and it takes time and
often support from friends and partners along the way.
Democracy is not just a result of replacing a corrupt
leader at the top. It is embedded in the mundane processes,
institutions, and rules and the daily actions by citizens and
government officials alike to ensure the system works so the
rights and freedoms of all people are guaranteed. There are no
quick fixes to democracy.
In Belarus, so many people have risked everything. Hundreds
of thousands risked being detained by the police and suffering
horrible abuse. Some, tragically, have sacrificed their lives.
The first part of holding a criminal government accountable
to its crimes is in no way over.
Yet, it must still be followed by a crucial second part: to
develop the institutions, the bureaucracies, and have new and
greater accountability in the government so that these
sacrifices do not exist--did not go in vain and so they will
never be relived again and again.
The world is watching Belarus now because this movement and
this moment in history is an opportunity. It is an opportunity
that has been captured and it has captured our attention and
our support as well.
However, what happens is no less important and demands no
less of our attention if we are truly to honor everything that
Belarusians have done to get to this moment today.
What comes next, the hard work of democracy, is really at
the heart of this hearing today. We have been having
discussions about democratic backsliding for some time now, and
we held a hearing in this subcommittee on this subject last
fall, where former President of Poland Lech Walesa, who is no
stranger to what it takes to lead a movement, to build a
democracy, he warned us that we must do the work necessary to
keep it, not take it for granted.
Across Europe and Eurasia, we see recent democracies
struggle in corruption, partisan bickering that prevent that
government from truly serving its citizens, really, the one and
only purpose of a government and a democracy.
We see laws that simply grant governing officials more
power instead of making their countries more productive for the
benefit of all their citizens.
Democracies require fair elections. Undermining elections
does not only entail the--of holding secret balloting, and
having ballots thrown out of windows of polling locations, just
as undermining trust and accountability in democracy does not
require the most egregious of crimes.
Today, in the midst of all these challenges to democracy,
we also find ourselves in a global pandemic. Communities and
government are being tested in unprecedented ways.
The pandemic has been terrifying, deeply saddening,
exhausting, and uncertain in so many ways, and it affects
democracies in ways that we should be very attentive to, make
sure--making sure that elected officials are chosen by the
constituents to chart paths forward that strive to keep all of
us as safe as possible but that does not necessarily sacrifice
their rights in the process.
Unfortunately, yet predictably, what we see is that where
democracies are ailing before the pandemic, the pandemic only
provided more opportunities for curtailing rights and
restricting freedoms, and we also tend to see a less effective
response to the pandemic itself with more people dying and the
spreading of viruses to others.
This is hard daily work we all need to do to maintain a
democracy, all the way from everyday citizens being informed
about what their government is doing and demanding, and that
they receive accurate information back, to every elected
official from your school board all the way to the head of
State doing everything in their power to protect people from
the threats of COVID-19 alongside protecting their rights. It
can be a difficult balance. But there are guideposts we can
follow and lessons we have learned to inform how that can be,
in fact, done.
So I am pleased to be joined today by our expert panel to
discuss these issues and how they have played out across the
region, sharing their experience, what can we learn from those
experiences.
And thank you for being here and I look forward to the
discussion. I now yield to Representative Yoho for his opening
statement.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Chairman Keating, and it is always
great to see you, and I want to thank Ranking Member Kinzinger
for allowing me to fill in for him and for you calling this
hearing, and thank you for the panel joining us today.
Since the final days of the cold war, the United States and
its trans-Atlantic allies and partners have been motivated by
the vision of Europe, whole and free.
That vision foresaw a united continent built on a
foundation of lasting security, peace, shared values, freedom,
prosperity, and the respect for the basic human rights, held
together by the rule of law.
While we have made many tremendous progresses in realizing
that vision, it is under threat. Today's timely hearing
addresses two key challenges that undermine this vision: the
violence from the post-election crackdown in Belarus and the
COVID-19 pandemic.
As Europe's last remaining dictatorship under the rule of
Lukashenko since 1994, Belarus has long seen--has long been
seen as a final barrier to a Europe whole and free.
There is no question that the August 9th election in
Belarus was flawed and corrupt. The Belarusian people have
flooded the streets to demand that their voices be heard.
It has now been over a month since the election and,
despite the violence and terror inflicted upon them by the
Lukashenko regime, the Belarusians continue to peacefully
protest.
They have refused to back down and their calls for free and
fair elections as well as respect for the human rights are only
getting louder. The Belarusian people bravely--their bravery is
truly inspiring.
This was most recently exemplified earlier this year when
one of the leading opposition activists, Maria Kolesnikova,
ripped up her passport when Belarusian authorities attempted to
forcefully deport her from her own country.
That shows somebody that is strong on freedom and liberty,
and will sacrifice whatever it takes to have that for her
country and I admire that.
We must support the Belarusian people as they assert their
right to chart their own destiny. We must also hold the
Belarusian authorities who are responsible for the post-
election crackdown accountable.
Toward this end, I am glad to hear that the administration
is actively working on individual sanctions against additional
members of the Lukashenko regime.
Those sanctions must remain on the table until at least two
conditions are met: all of those unjustly detained are
released, including American citizen Vitaly Shklyarov, and the
Lukashenko regime engages in meaningful dialog with the
Belarusian people.
As for Russia, the United States must ensure there is no
question in Vladimir Putin's mind that a Russian military
invasion of Belarus would be met with severe consequence.
As Deputy Secretary Biegun made clear in his recent
meetings in Russia, this is not a contest between East and
West, but one between the Belarusian people, their ruler, and
the rule of law.
I hope to hear more of all the witnesses today on how we in
Congress can support the democratic aspirations of the people
of Belarus. And as you said about Lech Walesa talking about the
struggles of Poland, and he has been through that, it reminds
me--and that is a truism that is true throughout history
because Benjamin Franklin said that coming out of the Hall in
Philadelphia when asked, ``What form of government did you give
us, sir?'' And he said, ``A republic, if you can keep it.''
And we know these are messy, but they are worth it because
they empower the people and protect those basic human rights. I
hope to hear more from all the witnesses today on how we in
Congress can support the democratic aspirations of the people
of Belarus.
The other threat to Europe whole and free that will be
examined today is COVID-19 and the democratic setbacks we have
seen in some countries in Europe and Eurasia amid the pandemic.
Democracies around the world have put in place
unprecedented safety measures from emergency declarations to
restrictions on free assembly to protect their people from the
deadly virus.
However, we must ensure these restrictions on civil and
political rights are not abused by the governments looking to
consolidate power. I am particularly troubled by the
restrictions on press freedoms being implemented in certain
countries under the pretext of preventing the spread of
disinformation on the virus.
While the spread of false information on COVID-19 has
serious potential health risks, the exploitation of these
restrictions cannot be ignored. I am sure we will hear more on
this from the minority's witness in the form of the president
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Jamie Fly.
The pandemic has already caused too much pain and
suffering, and the United States' like-minded allies and
partners must work together to ensure our shared democratic
values and rule of law are not another casualty of this virus.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and I
yield back.
Mr. Keating. Thank you very much, Representative Yoho. I
think your remarks indicate a strong bipartisan concern going
on in Belarus and what is going on in the region, and I will
take this opportunity now to introduce our witnesses.
And I want to thank you for being part of this here today.
Mr. Douglas Rutzen is the president and CEO of the
International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. He also teaches at
Georgetown Law Center and serves on USAID's Advisory Committee
on Voluntary Foreign Aid and the advisory boards of the OSCE
Civic Space Observatory, and the U.N. Democracy Fund.
He previously co-chaired the State Department's Global
Philanthropy Working Group and served as a legal advisor in the
Czech parliament. Thank you for being here, Mr. Rutzen.
Ms. Therese Pearce Laanela leads the Electoral Process Unit
in the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance. She served as the founding staff member at
International IDEA and as assistant director for the Democracy
Program at the Carter Center.
She served on elections across Africa, Europe, and Asia for
organizations including OSCE, the EU, and the Carter Center.
Thank you for being here.
Ms. Joanna Rohozinska is the resident program director for
Europe for the International Republican Institute. She
previously served as senior program officer for Europe at the
National Endowment for Democracy. Again, thank you for your
participation here.
Mr. Jamie Fly is a senior fellow and senior advisor to the
president at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
He's the former president and CEO of Radio Free Europe and
Radio Liberty.
Prior to these roles, Mr. Fly served as counselor for
foreign and national security affairs to Senator Marco Rubio
and was Senator Rubio's foreign policy advisor during his 2016
Presidential campaign.
I will now recognize the witnesses for 5 minutes, and
without objection, your prepared written statements will be
made part of the record.
Mr. Rutzen, you are now recognized for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS RUTZEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNATIONAL
CENTER FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT LAW
Mr. Rutzen. Thank you, Chairman Keating, Congressman Yoho,
members of the committee.
It is a privilege to join you today.
In April, Lukashenko declared that no one in Belarus would
die of coronavirus. To allay concerns, he advised Belar
Russians to drink vodka, go to saunas, and drive tractors.
In Hungary, Orban took a different approach. He admitted
there was COVID, and he used this as a pretext for an emergency
law that allowed him to rule by decree.
Meanwhile, China is using the pandemic to project its
political influence. When China sent a plane to Belgrade with
COVID aid, the Serbian president was on the tarmac and kissed
the Chinese flag. Billboards then appeared in Belgrade with the
words, ``Thanks, Brother Xi'' written in both Serbian and
Chinese.
COVID-19 is not the root cause of Lukashenko's deceit,
Orban's power grab, or China's projection of political
influence. But the pandemic exposed and, in some countries,
exacerbated underlying challenges to democracy.
In my testimony I will summarize these preexisting
challenges, I will discuss how COVID accelerated democratic
decline, and I will conclude with recommendations.
First, preexisting challenges. According to Freedom House,
2019 marked the fourteenth year of decline in democracy around
the world. The challenge is particularly acute in Eurasia,
where Freedom House classifies zero countries as free.
And for years at ICNL we have seen considerable pressure on
the core civic freedoms of association, assembly, and
expression. For example, in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, it is
essentially a political decision whether citizens can form a
nonprofit.
So in Turkmenistan, for example, only a handful of
nonprofits have been able to form in the last decade. Or
consider Belarus, where it is a crime to publicly insult the
president, and this has used to arrest activists. This is a
dictator's dream.
So democracy was already in fragile health in various
countries, and once COVID struck the condition worsened because
of emergency laws and other measures.
A few vivid examples. First, a number of countries enacted
fake news laws. For example, Russia criminalized false
information about the pandemic, which has been used to restrict
and stifle independent reporting about the pandemic.
Second, countries have begun using invasive surveillance.
In Poland, for example, people suspected of having COVID are
required to download an app so the government will know their
location at all times.
Third, governments are repressing peaceful protests.
Consider Belarus. Students peacefully protesting are abducted
by masked security forces and beaten, and this week Lukashenko
told prosecutors they have all the laws they need to crack down
on protests. Just like other authoritarians, Lukashenko has
converted the rule of law into the rule by law.
Meanwhile, China is working hard to convert a public health
crisis into a political opportunity, everything from so-called
mask diplomacy in Serbia to the provision of surveillance
equipment throughout the region.
So there are challenges to democracy but there are also
good practices, and we have seen this in the region in
countries including Denmark, Germany, Georgia, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and others, and there are specific ways the U.S. can
help.
Three recommendations from my written testimony. First, the
House should enact H.R. 6986, the Protecting Human Rights
During Pandemics Act, including provisions to protect
democratic institutions, civil society, and independent media.
Two, let us lead by example by enacting reform to our laws
governing national emergencies and digital surveillance. And
third, let us focus on Belarus. Let us grant diplomatic support
bilaterally and multilaterally to forge a path to free and fair
elections, the release of political prisoners, media freedom,
and the protection of those courageous activists on the front
line.
In closing, democracy is in fragile health in many parts of
the world. When exposed to COVID, many of these countries
became high risk for democratic decline.
In Belarus and elsewhere, authoritarian leaders seem scared
of the will of their people. They do not want to count every
vote. They do not want to address why people are protesting.
Rather, they resort to suppression and repression.
But there is time to protect democracy and that time is
now.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rutzen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Rutzen.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Pearce Laanela for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THERESE PEARCE LAANELA, HEAD OF ELECTORAL
PROCESSES, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY AND ELECTORAL
ASSISTANCE
Ms. Laanela. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you so much for this opportunity to address you about the
impact of COVID-19 on elections in Europe and Eurasia, and by
choosing this topic and hearing what you have already said you
are really signalling that you see this pandemic not only as a
health and economic crisis but also as a governance one.
And we agree. Together, with other leading democratic
organizations, including some in this panel, we have issued a
call to defend democracy and we argue that this pandemic risks
more than lives and livelihoods. It is threatening liberal
democracy itself.
At International IDEA, we are tracking the impact of this
pandemic through a series of global indexes and I can only
confirm the previous speakers. We are seeing evidence of
further democratic backsliding exactly as you have laid out so
I will not repeat it.
I will focus on the impact on elections. Since March,
countries, actually worldwide but also in this region, have
been scrambling to determine whether to postpone or when to
hold scheduled elections and how to do so legally,
legitimately, safely.
COVID-19 is a stress test for elections. Across Europe, the
pandemic has placed tremendous pressure on authorities and
challenged public trust, and that is in the West and the East,
North and South.
In response to these pressures, we are seeing examples of
resilience and resourceful authorities and citizens adapting to
radical new conditions at breakneck speed.
In Bavaria, they introduced all-postal elections in 2
weeks. We have seen examples of voters turning out even more
than usual in Poland and Montenegro.
We have seen acceptance of close results in Poland and
Montenegro as well, and even in North Macedonia. We have seen
inspiring examples of how special voting arrangements have
helped at-risk citizens vote safely across Europe.
But we are also seeing COVID elections creating controversy
and confusion, and this undermines public trust. We saw anger
in Poland when the initial plans for an election with an all
mail-in ballot was introduced without consultation or due
process.
We saw the opposition boycotts in Serbia and we have seen a
decrease in turnout in most of the region except for those
exceptions I said above.
Turnout, acceptance of results, and cooperation--these
indicators of public trust they matter. Organizing an election
is difficult even under ordinary circumstances: brutal
logistics, ruthless deadlines, an army of temporary workers all
under intense political scrutiny.
Now add a pandemic with the sudden need to introduce
untested or scaled up voting and health measures, all under
very tight timeframes.
These pressures are exposing gaps and weaknesses in legal
frameworks, incapacity, and in infrastructure, and this is a
problem because if election authorities fail to deliver the
elections that people believe in, if the authorities fail to
safeguard the elections from harm, they lose public trust.
They lose the legitimacy that is really such a precious
commodity, because once it is lost it is exceptionally
difficult to regain again.
And in Belarus, we have seen how elections without
legitimacy can be a tinderbox that ignites underlying problems
of past injustice or deep-seated societal grievances.
Now, there is no one-size-fits-all answer as to whether a
country should postpone or proceed with elections or how, and
there is no one precise mechanism or regulation to ensure that
elections are safe or fair or credible, because building public
trust, which has been severely challenged by this pandemic,
requires not only operational excellence but also a common
platform where the rules are fair and clear, and most
importantly, fostering a sense of shared purpose for political
consensus and consultation.
We need American leadership right now and we support the
bipartisan or we encourage the bipartisan congressional
earmarks for democracy assistance to support the courageous
people on the ground who are doing it tough right now: the
election managers, the observers, and the advocates for reform.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Laanela follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Rohozinska. Thank you for
being here.
STATEMENT OF JOANNA ROHOZINSKA RESIDENT PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
EUROPE, INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE
Ms. Rohozinska. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to address you at this dynamic
time.
The following is a summary of my written testimony.
The COVID-19 pandemic and attendant infodemic exposed and
exacerbated transparency and governance gaps across Europe and
Eurasia.
The pandemic was and continues to be and unprecedented
stress test for democratic resilience, one that the Belarusian
regime has failed spectactularly, demonstrating the impotence
and lack of sustainability inherent in authoritarian
structures.
President Lukashenko is opting for repression and
retrenchment over engagement and dialog. Yet, despite this, the
Belarusian nation has been borne and we are all in awe.
What distinguishes democracies is their ability to
critically self-examine, learn lessons, adapt to become more
resilient to better serve the interest of the people. Distrust,
like disinformation, thrives when there is a perceived lack of
transparency and accountability, and ultimately paralyses the
State.
As the number of infections rose, European authorities
found that they not only had to deal with an evolving public
health crisis but also with a surge of dis-and misinformation
that actively undermined efforts to ensure public compliance
with continued measures.
By mid-March, the EU's External Action Service concluded
that the disinformation could have a direct impact on public
health and security and began more closely tracking and
reacting to the infodemic, particularly narratives coming from
Russian and Chinese official and State-backed actors.
However, there is a positive. There is new impetus to
improve accountability and transparency, to increase public
trust in institutions on the national and EU levels.
The pandemic caused disinformation to jump the proverbial
fence from a security issue to being understood as posing a
physical threat to the whole of society and thus requiring a
whole of society response.
Crucially, there is an even greater appreciation for the
need to engage nongovernmental actors both in efforts to push
back against disinformation as well as to engage them and civil
society as an important partner.
Authoritarian regimes like to present themselves as more
resilient. Yet, COVID-19 likewise exposed governance gaps
Belarus was unable or unwilling to acknowledge and remedy.
By continuing to deny the existence of COVID-19 and
advising the use of vodka as a preventative treatment while
people were becoming gravely ill and dying, Alexander
Lukashenko lost public trust and undermined his image as
benevolent father of the Belarusian. It also directly
contravened one of the core pillars of his social contract
whereby State-sponsored benefits are offered in exchange for
political apathy.
After 26 years in power, Lukashenko, clearly, lost touch
with the source of his legitimacy, the Belarusian people. He
failed to appreciate that human society by its nature is not
stagnant.
Belarusian society has transformed, as have its
expectations toward its leaders. Though the State eventually
rallied its considerable resources to contain the virus, it was
too little too late.
His failure to act created the impetus for civic society to
civic engagement by nontraditional actors, drawing in the
business community, notably, the IT sector, and united society
in common cause.
Belarusian citizens, for the first time, took to the ballot
box as a means of political expression. The 80 percent margin
of victory was too much to swallow. The blatant falsifications
of official election results as well as every move away from
post-election dialog further chips away at the regime's
legitimacy and options.
The ongoing protests are historic for their size, scale,
constancy, and duration. The violent crackdowns on protestors
have exposed the brutality that the regime has been keeping in
check as it courted the U.S. and the EU.
Previously, violence and arrests effectively cowed dissent.
This time it has fuelled it_drawing more people into the
streets. The role and prominence of women both in the election
and protests has been a game changer.
As candidates, muses, and as protestors, Belarus's women
have shown they are a force to be reckoned with, another
challenge to Lukashenko's misogynist culture.
We are witnessing the birth of a new form of civic
nationalism, rallying around calls for good governance,
transparency, and accountability as well as State sovereignty
and independence.
Though it is not clear how the protests will end, there is
no going back. The EU and the U.S. must above all respect and
support the will of the Belarusian people.
Lukashenko must be held responsible for his choices and
actions. Coordinating strategies with trans-Atlantic allies
should be a priority and include calls for dialog, immediate
release of political prisoners, and support for the political
opposition's demands for holding new elections under
international supervision and beginning negotiations on a post-
Lukashenko transition, also increasing long-term support to
democracy building efforts and introducing targeted economic
sanctions.
Support for democracy requires patience as well as long-
term commitment to a vision. This has been made possible with
the support of Congress to IRI and the family.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rohozinska follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you for your testimony and for
highlighting the role of women. It is, indeed, a game changer,
not just in Belarus but around the world, and we need look no
further than Afghanistan and see the role of women and how that
has changed their society, how important that is as well.
So the chair now recognizes Mr. Fly for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE FLY, SENIOR FELLOW, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT, GERMAN MARSHALL FUND OF THE UNITED STATES (FORMER
PRESIDENT OF RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY)
Mr. Fly. Thank you, Chairman Keating, Representative Yoho,
and other members of the committee. I am glad you are holding
this hearing today and I appreciate you inviting me to testify.
I am going to briefly summarize parts of my written
testimony. The other witnesses, I think, have already done a
good job of describing the way that authoritarians across
Eurasia have responded to the pandemic and tried to exploit it,
as well as the efforts of external actors including China and
also Russia to take advantage of this moment. So I will skip
over that.
I am going to talk a lot about the role of independent
media during this moment that we are in. In the 21st century,
the information domain is where powers are attempting to shape
their narratives.
It is where authoritarians are fighting to retain their
power and where masses, as we are now seeing in Belarus, are
going to organize and overthrow illegitimate rule.
Given the centrality of information in all of our modern
societies, it is more important than ever to the fate of
democracy that we in the United States modernize the tools that
helped win the cold war and achieve victory over Soviet
communism.
And I was reminded by the chairman's comment about Lech
Walesa about his quote about the organization that I recently
led, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, when he was asked about
Radio Free Europe's role in supporting solidarity.
And he said, ``Would there be Earth without the sun,''
which I think is very true today in terms of RFERL's role in
fledgling democracies across Eurasia.
Until June I was honored to serve as president and CEO of
this organization, which is a congressionally funded
broadcaster that reaches 38 million people across 23 countries
in 27 languages.
RFERL and its sister networks play an important role during
normal times, and during the pandemic have been central to
providing objective news and information to citizens across the
region as they try to hold governments accountable for their
actions.
What I witnessed while at RFERL was governments from Russia
to Belarus to Hungary to Central Asia using the pandemic to
attack the work of an independent press. They attempted to
criminalize free speech and journalism about the pandemic
through emergency legislation under the guise of public health
controls.
Regimes attempted to justify mass--investments in mass
surveillance technology. They developed new accreditation
requirements for journalists, and in countries like Russia,
government regulation of media content was expanded.
To counter these renewed threats to the free flow of
information across the region, I outline in my testimony
several recommendations.
First, I think we need to do more to push back against
authoritarian restrictions on media. We should prioritize this
issue in bilateral engagements with governments across the
region and use punitive measures such as sanctions to back up
our engagement when necessary.
Second, I spend a significant amount of time in my written
testimony discussing potential reforms to U.S. international
broadcasting. The organization that I led, RFERL, is just one
of several networks that are congressionally funded.
The taxpayers currently spend about $800 million a year on
these outlets. Yet, unfortunately, I believe we are still
falling behind other actors in this space.
The recent leadership changes at the U.S. Agency for Global
Media and the arrival of a new CEO of that agency, which
ultimately led to the removal of all of the network heads,
including me from RFERL, have put journalists at risk of
political interference and greater pressure from the
governments that they are attempting to cover on a daily basis.
Third, we should demand reciprocity with adversary funded
and directed media outlets. Kremlin-controlled media like
Russia Today and Sputnik, and increasingly Chinese government
media outlets enjoy significant access to Western audiences.
Yet, U.S.-funded outlets often struggle to get access to
audiences in Russia and China.
Finally, we need to build on recent initiatives like
RFERL's return to Central Europe. Just earlier this week RFERL
launched a digital Hungarian service, which follows on RFERL's
recent return to Bulgaria and Romania last year.
These efforts are important to ensure that the media
landscape in EU member States and NATO allies is not weakened
and subject to external infiltration by countries such as
Russia and China, and I think that the U.S. should do more with
Europe to cooperate on these projects.
In conclusion, the importance of the information space, I
think, has been highlighted, as others have pointed out, by
recent developments in Belarus. We need to do all we can to
surge support for independent media in Belarus just as Russia
is trying to surge support for Belarusian State media.
We should do more to ensure that the people of Belarus and
others across the region have access to basic information about
their government and the policies affecting their lives.
Redoubling our support for them and freedom of the press is key
to ensuring a democratic future for this vital region.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fly follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Fly.
I will now recognize members for 5 minutes, and pursuant to
House rules all time yielded is for the purposes of questioning
our witnesses.
Because of the virtual format of this hearing, I will
recognize members by committee seniority, alternating between
Democrats and Republicans. If you missed your turn, please let
our staff know and we will circle back to you right away. If
you seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone and
address the chair verbally.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. We have heard that
all democracies should critically self-examine and that is true
of our own country and what we are going through.
We had hearings earlier this year. We have had a series of
hearings. But we had one where Ambassador Fried made it clear
that the way to approach the intervention in our elections and
the interference in our elections and the attack on our
elections is to be unambiguous and call people out who are
doing it.
We just passed in our full committee a resolution that,
indeed, did this, pointing out that Russia, not Ukraine, was
responsible for attacks on our 2016 elections.
Now, we also had a whistleblower come forward in our
country from the Department of Homeland Security who raised the
issue that Russian interference in our election as it was an
attack on candidate Biden and his mental health was suppressed.
He was ordered to suppress that.
So we do this knowing that we have a responsibility here in
our own country. But looking at Belarus, it is clear all of the
press has been taken off the board except RT and Sputnik. They
are left with that as their main source of press and they are
encrypting other information.
What can we do to help countries like Belarus, you know,
deal with this from the outside? How can we deal with from a
democracy perspective calling out Russia for their interference
in Belarus and what they are doing and have been doing in
Europe and Eurasia as well?
Maybe, Ms. Pearce Laanela, if you want to start.
Ms. Laanela. I think I am the wrong person to start because
I think my colleagues know--I have been so impressed by my
colleagues.
But let me just--let me tell my perspective and I think
theirs will be even more important. We do not track
interference as such, but what we try to do or what we believe
to be true is to strengthen the institutions that need to
safeguard.
So let me explain what I mean. We create institutions for a
reason in our societies and that is to protect public good,
something that we value, something that we treasure very, very
much.
And so in the case of disinformation, for example, if we
have institutions that can protect the public good of
information that is correct or that is part of good and strong
elections so--I am not articulating this well.
But if--institutions that are strong, what we are seeing,
those that are able to safeguard against disinformation, for
example, they are working in innovative ways because this isn't
a challenge that existed, really, as much before social media,
and one of the things that we are seeing is a kind of
interagency cooperation, a partnership between private and
public that is really--has not been seen before.
Let me just take Australia as a case. But the working
together with social media companies and government agencies
and security agencies and election officials for rapid reaction
to anything that comes in, and that kind of seamless
communication between agencies, that is one of the ways in
which we can protect----
Mr. Keating. If I could interrupt and take your suggestion
and allowing someone else to come in there. The idea of the
rapid response to this is critical, and that came through in
our other hearing.
Would any of our other witnesses like to just amplify their
comments? Mr. Fly, perhaps?
Mr. Fly. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think the challenge we face,
we have tools. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has a Belarusian
language service, Radio Svaboda, which has significant
followers inside Belarus.
The problem is that Lukashenko, like many other
authoritarians, have realized that when they face significant
pressure, they should take the country offline, and Belarusian
authorities have done that on a regular basis, which makes it
much more difficult to communicate and allow information to
spread freely.
So what they really need, outlets like Svaboda and other
independent media or access to internet circumvention tools,
which are also funded by the State Department and the U.S.
Agency for Global Media.
But I have not seen yet from this administration a surge in
financial support. There has, obviously, been moral support
expressed, but you really need those sorts of tools that help
media reach their audience and counteract the Russian surge
that I mentioned during my testimony.
Mr. Keating. Good. I think this theme will be continued
with some of the other questions from our members. But I will
now recognize Mr. Yoho from Florida, the ranking member, for
his questions.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, everybody, for doing this and for the
great testimony.
I think this goes to Jamie Fly. Thank you for being here.
My question to you, are we getting equal access in broadcast
coverage to Belarus and Russia with organizations like VOA and
RFERL as we give RT and Sputnik in this country? Are we getting
the same coverage?
You said there was 38 million people we reach, and that
seems, on a world basis of 7 point some billion people, a very
small percentage, and I just heard you say that we need more
funding.
So the first question is, are we getting the same access to
those countries, Belarus and Russia? I would like to hear your
thoughts on that.
Mr. Fly. In Belarus, as I have mentioned just to the
chairman now, the main problem, I think, has been recently with
the internet shutdowns. The issue of reciprocity is a major
challenge in our dealings with Russia. RFERL has a bureau in
Moscow, some very brave Russian reporters who are trying to
cover what is going on in their country. They do a great job
reaching the Russian audience online.
But for years RFERL has been restricted to only digital
content. It is not allowed to get licenses to go on radio. It
is not allowed to provide our 24/7 Russian language network
current time on satellite packages and these are because of
regulatory decisions made by the Russian government to block
U.S. government-funded outlets from reaching the Russian
people.
Mr. Yoho. Let me interrupt you there and ask you, I mean,
isn't that something we can do diplomatically and say, you
know, we'll allow this, for Russia to come into our country
with RT but you got to have the same reciprocity. Are we not
fighting on that front? Is that what I am hearing from you?
Mr. Fly. I have had these conversations when I was
president of RFE with the State Department and others and
encouraged them to have that diplomatic conversation.
I visited Moscow in January as president of RFE and told
Russian officials directly that my goal as president was to
expand our access to the Russian audience and set up more
bureaus for RFERL and to make sure that we got more Russian
eyeballs on our content.
But, ultimately, I do think it is going to need to be a
government-to-government conversation rather than the networks
making these arguments to Russian officials and, ultimately,
right now, the Russian government is moving toward driving
RFERL and other U.S.-funded outlets out of the country by
tightening the restrictions on their journalists.
Mr. Yoho. All right. Let me go ahead and interrupt there
because I think this is a good moment for Chairman Keating,
with Adam Kinzinger, and I know I would be willing to sign on
to this that we need to put pressure on the State Department,
and I know we cannot use that word quid pro quo but it really
is.
If we are going to allow them to broadcast in this country
because we do have a First Amendment, there has to be a certain
amount of reciprocity whether you do it on a head count or
views or on like media, and I think that is something Chairman
Keating and I would love to followup with you.
And, Chairman Keating, you brought up something and I
really appreciate you bringing it up, and it is the challenge
of media. At some point, there has to be a metric where what
the media is reporting is true, and I know this is going to
rattle some people.
If you have false news going out there intentionally by a
nefarious organization, there has to be a way to rein that in
and I have not found a good way to do that. And, I value our
First Amendment and we have to fight to preserve that.
But at the same time, there has to be a responsibility in
media to report accurately so that we do not have this chaos,
because I know there is organizations that are fomenting chaos
whether it is coming from Russia or China.
And one of the questions that I think I had for Mr.
Rutzer--is that right? Rutner? China's influence you were
showing in Serbia--is China providing the technology, i.e., the
cameras, the drones, the facial recognition programs, to
authoritarian regimes like Lukashenko's to control their
populace?
Real quickly. I have got 30 seconds.
Mr. Rutzen. The short answer is China is providing
surveillance technology to countries including Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Serbia. They also provided a $2
billion loan to Hungary to construct a railway, which Hungary
then classified as a State secret in terms of the construction
contracts.
Mr. Yoho. Wow.
Mr. Rutzen. Suspicious. It should be looked into.
Mr. Yoho. Yes. What about--well, that is not the scope of
this, but I think that is something, really, we need to look at
because we know they are doing this. They are doing it in Iran
and Russia. They are doing it in Venezuela, offering this
technology, and that is subverting democratic platforms and the
rule of law.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Keating. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Meeks from New York.
Mr. Meeks, are you there?
[No response.]
Mr. Keating. And we might be having some technical
difficulties. We might have to circle back to Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Sires of New Jersey? And we can circle back to Mr.
Meeks. Okay.
Mr. Sires. Good morning, everyone. Can you hear me?
Mr. Keating. Yes.
Mr. Sires. Can you hear me?
Well, first of all, I want to thank everyone for this
wonderful testimony, that this is something I have been
fighting for for many, many years--freedom of press, freedom of
expressing yourself in the press--and I see this as a game plan
by these countries.
It is a game plan that they implement in the Western
Hemisphere as well. Some of these dictators now in Venezuela,
in Nicaragua, are doing the same thing. They choke the free
press. The independent press they choke. They do the same thing
in Cuba.
So when we talk about Belarus, and I will be following this
whole thing--this whole election very closely, to me, I think
that was going to happen all along. I think this election, even
though it took place, they were going to do it anyway because,
first of all, I do not think everybody has spoken loud enough
about it.
You have Europe speaking up. The United States has been
kind of wishy washy in some of the comments. What we need is
the entire world, basically, of the free world with one voice,
and some of the voices are not as loud as they could be.
And so, you know, we can do all--we can----
Voice. Mr. Sires, if you could turn your video back on.
Mr. Keating. Yes.
Mr. Sires. Oh, it is not on. I am sorry.
Mr. Keating. Mr. Sires, it had been going in and out, so if
you could just turn your video back on.
Mr. Sires. How is that? You see that red face there? That
is me.
Mr. Keating. Great. You look great.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sires. Too much sun.
Anyway, but, you know, over the years I have had, you know,
many resolutions, bipartisan resolutions, on the Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee--because I know Ted Yoho is also a
supporter and many of the others--about the abuses in Nicaragua
regarding the press.
But this is the same thing that has happened in Eurasia.
All these places, they are just, basically, shutting down the
press and doing whatever they want.
And, obviously, I think behind all this is Putin. I really
think that if anybody was to get out of line he would do the
same thing he did in the Ukraine, because I think he still has
this idea that--of the Soviet Union. Bring some of these States
together.
So where do we go from here when the world, basically, just
says, says, says, says, but they still do whatever they want?
There were no--there does not seem to be consequences to some
of these people that murder and--I mean, you have got Putin
killing people in other countries, poisoning people. Anybody
who is in opposition they get rid of. So I really do not know.
I mean, we can talk and, you know, do all these things. But
I really do not know what exactly is effective that we could
do. You can say yes, we can speak up. Yes, we impose sanctions.
These people are going to do it anyway.
Look, I was born in Cuba. I came here when I was 11 years
old. I saw it when I was there how little by little they
started shutting down the free press, and it got worse and
worse and worse.
So anybody have any comment after my tirade?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sires. And, believe me, I am not giving up on the free
press. I think the free press, it is the only thing that we
have in this world to save democracies and give people a voice,
and I am not about to give it up.
So, Mr. Rutzen, I know you spoke about three things that we
needed to do. Even if we do those three things, I think these
people are going to do anything they want.
I am sorry, but that is just the way I feel. Can you just
comment on what I just said?
Mr. Rutzen. Yes, thank you.
I think your general point is well taken. This is a global
phenomenon. With the ICNL COVID-19 civic freedom tracker we
have identified over 90 countries that have amassed emergency
measures under the pretext of COVID. Many measures overreach.
What can be done? I am reminded of ``Alice in Wonderland''
and that famous passage about six impossible things before
breakfast, and I am an unrepentant idealist in that sense. I
think there are things that can be done.
I think that sanctions are something we should leave on the
table. I think we need the State Department and AID to have a
strategy to address democracy in the aftermath of COVID.
I think we need to work multilaterally and engage like-
minded countries. We need to provide support for the courageous
activists including through visas. I have additional
recommendations in my written testimony.
Mr. Sires. You know, quite frankly, I think in Belarus,
COVID or no COVID this guy was going to do what he is doing,
because they have this--they just--they want to hold onto
power.
I am sorry, Joanna is it? You know, I cannot tell.
Ms. Rohozinska. Sorry, if I can--if I could just jump in
and add something a little bit.
I have been following Belarus for over 20 years and I kind
of liken it that it is, like, it is a pot of milk that just
boiled over. There has been things that have been happening
under the surface for years. You just cannot see it.
But when it goes, they can do all they want to oppress but,
ultimately, sooner or later, the will of the people does come
through. I mean, it might be a romantic notion. But, frankly,
we have seen it over and over again.
I know. You come from Cuba. I come from Poland. So,
eventually, things do--things do come. It is slow and you have
to be patient, and I think that will echo what Mr. Rutzen said.
It has a long-term dedication to programs both working with
political dissidents but also supporting local media, not just
international media. There are lots of local journalists on the
ground. The game changer this time has also been telegrams.
So it has been new technology. It is not traditional media
anymore. Everybody was communicating over their phones and that
got through the internet blockades as well. So it was effective
and is an effective organizational tool. Moreover, civic
activists--probably the most striking thing that I saw in the
footage from the protests was striking gas workers who said
that they were absolutely furious because the police was
beating them using their own money--that their tax dollars were
being paid to authorities that were abusing them.
The sense of accountability, the sense of that the
authorities actually have a responsibility to the citizens, I
have never seen that before and I think that that is probably
the most hopeful thing for the future because you cannot walk
that back. You cannot let that--you cannot put that genie back
in the bottle.
So I would just urge patience and continued support on the
side of supporting the countries themselves. This is not
talking about bilateral or diplomatic ties.
Mr. Sires. Thank you. I am sorry my time is up. But we
could be talking here hours about this.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sires. Good job, Jim.
Mr. Keating. Thank you both for relaying your personal
experiences here.
The chair would like to recognize Mr. Fitzpatrick from
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Fitzpatrick, if you could turn your video
back on prior to your question.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
all of you for participating today.
In 2013 and 2015, you saw large-scale protests in Ukraine
following what many believed to be a falsification of elections
by their Federal officials.
So my first question for the entire panel, do you believe
that Belarus protests could lead to a revolution similar to the
one we saw in Ukraine?
And secondarily, on Tuesday President Lukashenko refused to
rule out the idea of holding new elections and acknowledged
that he may have overstayed his time in office.
Whether or not you see a revolution similar to Ukraine, do
you think that these protests could lead to an actual change in
leadership?
Ms. Rohozinska. So I take it it was a question to me.
I mean, I think that things have been building up and I
would say that the similarity to Ukraine was this, was that
there was also a deep-seated frustration with corruption.
Here, it is less about corruption but it still meets where
you have the accountability and transparency aspect of it that
I was mentioning in my testimony, and I think that the
frustration with the lack of responsive government and being
treated like animals, frankly, is what they say, is what
finally boiled over.
But there has been--there has been an uptick in protests in
Belarus if you watch these kinds of things over the past 2
years, over the parasite tax, for example, which was also--it
was a special tax that was put on unemployment and to penalize
people who were unemployed. It was trying to target civic
activists but it ended up reaching far farther than that.
So you could see things percolating below the surface for
quite a long time now. You never know when it is going to blow.
Here, I think that there was just the COVID underlay everything
and it mobilized such a broad swath of society that the--that
the trigger event was finally the elections which, again, you
know, demonstrating a degree of hubris they decided not to put
off, right.
They figured that holding the elections at the beginning of
August was the best thing to do because there is always a low
turnout in August, frankly, because people tend to go out to
the countryside.
So they simply miscalculated. They did not understand how
the people were feeling, and here you do have a similarity with
Ukraine, I think.
In terms of--in terms of the other questions to going
forward, you know, you have to appreciate that this is a
country that has never experienced democracy, ever, which means
that even the democratic opposition leaders, basically, know it
from textbooks. They do not know it from firsthand practice.
You know, Lukashenko himself, ironically, has been
supporting the notion of sovereignty and independence in the
face of the Russian State for the past couple of years and he
only changed his tune a couple of weeks ago when he started
getting backed into a corner.
In terms of, you know, his promises of holding new
elections, I would be wary. He does not have a particularly
good track record of following through on promises, and so I
would probably take that as a lesson learned and be extremely
cautious.
I, personally, think he is just buying time because he also
said that he would consider holding new elections after
introducing constitutional changes, and the constitutional
changes that he is proposing is to introduce term limits.
So, I mean, he is still looking at the succession. He
understands that this is the end of his time in office. I do
not know if he wants to do that right exactly now.
However, understanding that this would have been his last
term anyway he is probably preparing for an exit strategy. I
think that that is a little bit of a long answer but, I mean,
again, I think you have to be patient. Probably we will see how
this plays out.
I would certainly invest in looking at calling early
parliamentary elections as being much more significant, because
once you turn the House, once you turn the Parliament, then at
least you start building up a degree of political capital that
can start carrying forward into the governance.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you. And with my remaining time, Mr.
Fly, President Lukashenko is often called Europe's last
dictator, and in recent weeks I am aware that you have used
your social media platform to amplify some of the little
footage that we have seen from the Belarus protests.
What has been your biggest takeaway from everything that
you have seen online and heard with regard to human rights
violations?
Mr. Fly. Well, I think it is had--I was in Belarus when I
was president of RFERL last fall. You could sense something was
going on beneath the surface, I think, as was just noted.
But it has just been incredibly impressive to watch people
take their future into their own hands in this massive way for
the first time ever, really, in Belarus.
And so, you know, I think, as freedom-loving people who
live in a republic that was founded on the notion that all men
are created equal with God-given rights, I think it is in our
interest to do everything we can to support them, and I do
think we do need to realize it is going to be rocky and
uncertain even if there is a transformation post-Lukashenko.
As Ukraine has shown us, it is very difficult. And so we
should also be starting, I think, to work with our European
partners to think through what might come next and how do we
help an opposition that might actually be put in the role of
having to try to govern this country, especially given Putin's
penchant for turning to subterfuge and covert tactics to
undermine democracies immediately around Russia.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keating. Thank you. Following a Pennsylvania tradition,
the chair recognizes Ms. Wild of Pennsylvania.
I do not know. People have been coming in and out.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Really
appreciate having this hearing.
I wanted to ask of Ms. Laanela about the effect on
elections. We know that democracy experts have expressed
concerns over the potential effects of COVID-19 on the fairness
and legitimacy of elections.
According to the International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance, at least 70 countries and territories
around the globe have postponed national or subnational
elections because of COVID-19.
Given the need to both protect the public health but to
also continue holding democratic elections, what are some of
the electoral best practices that governments have been
implementing or have implemented to hold elections during the
pandemic while keeping their citizens safe?
And if you could include what has the republic's reaction
been to those new or changed election techniques?
Ms. Laanela. Thank you, and thank you for quoting--that is
our organization that you just quoted. So thanks for that and I
am glad to see that our work tracking the information has been
used.
Yes. So as I mentioned in my--in my opening intervention,
there isn't, like, one silver bullet that fixes everything. But
here is what we are seeing is that the measures come in two
clusters for holding elections safely, and that is special
voting arrangements so that at-risk people can somehow be
participating, but also health and safety measures in whatever
it is that they do.
So those are the two broad categories. That is not so
simple, though, because each of those comes with the--
especially the special voting arrangements comes with
vulnerabilities, and so I am going to give you the biggest
lesson learned, which is political consensus about what needs
to be done.
When you introduce things, you know, quickly, the chances
of going wrong--something going wrong are absolutely there. It
is really not optimal conditions to introduce new types of ways
of voting.
So a political consensus or a sense of this is what needs
to happen, whether it is going ahead with special measures or
whether it is postponing for a distinct period of time.
This is the time for deliberation, for coming together, for
agreeing, but also the time to communicate to the public why
these decisions have been taken and what safeguards are in
place to ensure that things get back on track as soon as the
pandemic is over.
This isn't the time to put in permanent measures. This is a
time to put in temporary measures to get through this crisis
and temporary measures that kind of everybody agrees makes
sense and a kind of acceptance that they may not be perfect.
Ms. Wild. All right. Thank you.
Thank you. That is helpful. I wish I had more time to
explore that but I wanted to ask Mr. Fly about journalists'
ability to continue their work during the pandemic.
We know that social distancing guidelines and policies have
been applied in various forms across Europe and Eurasia, and
journalists and reporters as essential workers have often been
allowed to continue with their work because their function is
deemed necessary for a healthy and democratic society.
But what we are seeing, unfortunately, in some cases is
that increasingly authoritarian governments have used social
distancing policies to target journalists and restrict
citizens' access to information.
What are some examples of countries that have exemplified
best practices in terms of effectively implementing pandemic
response measures that have not impeded the vital work of
journalists and the free media?
That is for Mr. Fly.
Mr. Fly. Thanks. That is--yes, that is an important
question. When I was at RFERL this was a major challenge. RFERL
has 20 bureaus across Eurasia, and some of the coverage in
countries that were in denial about the existence or the
arrival of COVID in their countries involves going to hospitals
to talk to doctors and assess what is happening in medical
facilities and seeing is there a rise in cases that the
government is forcing medical professionals to call pneumonia
rather than diagnosing them as COVID.
And so it puts journalists at risk. So we had to balance
the need for transparency, providing information to our
audience, with the desire to keep our people safe.
When I was there, we had to actually close several bureaus
during that time because the situation in some of those
countries got so bad. Governments also used regulations and
lockdowns to sometimes limit journalists' ability to move
around.
I would say--you asked about best practices. In the United
States and in Europe, it is common practice to exempt
journalists from even a national lookdown, recognizing the
important role they play in society.
And so I would like to see more measures like that by
governments to allow people to--citizens to keep themselves
safe but also to allow journalists to do their jobs and to
report on what is actually going on because, ultimately, that
helps create a broader safe space within society if people have
information about what is actually going on with the pandemic
and know the facts about what is happening in their country.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Fly. I agree with you completely
and I think that they serve a very essential role, especially
in times like these.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Keating. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Trone from Maryland.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let us go right back to Mr. Fly, if we could. On August
29th, over 40,000 protestors gathered in Berlin and many called
it an anti-corona protest. Hundreds, many from the far right,
tried to storm the Reichstag, Germany's Parliament.
These demonstrators say the pandemic-related restrictions
have infringed on their fundamental human rights. Although the
demonstration violated social distancing, it was allowed to
take place. The only folks arrested were those that tried to
storm the Reichstag itself and they were arrested.
How would you assess Germany's ability to balance this
pandemic response versus the protection of fundamental rights
and freedom, and the same thing that could be instructive to
us. We have had exactly the same challenges.
Mr. Fly. Thanks. I am sitting, I do not know, probably less
than a mile from the Reichstag right now.
I was not at the protests here in Berlin but, obviously,
read about them and followed them in the local media. And I
have only been here in Germany for the last several weeks since
moving here from Prague after my time at RFERL.
My sense is the German government, like many of the
European governments, has handled the crisis quite remarkably.
There was a significant lookdown imposed very early on in the
pandemic including in places like the Czech Republic, where
RFERL is based, and that prevented a significant surge of
cases.
What we are now seeing, though, is, obviously, things
opened up during the summer here in Europe. People took their
vacations and travelled, although not to the extent that is
normal here, and I think people got used to that return to
normal life.
And so it has been difficult as the cases have begun to
tick up in many countries in Europe to convince citizens to go
and take the sort of measures that were necessary in the
spring.
And so that is some of the tension that played out here
with the protests and, obviously, the economic impacts of the
original lookdown are having a significant impact on that as
well and my understanding is that those economic rationale were
a significant part of the protests here in Germany where, like
in the United States and many other countries, people are out
of work.
Their restaurants have closed. Small businesses have closed
or they have been laid off by their companies, and even though
the State is trying to do more to support them with
unemployment, it is still not enough.
And so that, obviously, is creating a lot of anger about
the continuance of some of these restrictions, and I assume
that is going to continue.
That frustration will grow as we move into the fall and the
cases continue to increase. And so I think this is going to be
a struggle throughout modern democracies until we see a
vaccine.
Mr. Rutzen. Congressman, may I jump in as well? This is
Doug Rutzen.
Mr. Trone. Go ahead.
Mr. Rutzen. Thank you.
I think that there is also a broader point here. If you
look at the sort of responses in places like Finland, Taiwan,
and South Korea, you find that there is a high level of public
trust in governmental institutions and I think we cannot
overlook the issue of trust in the governmental response, which
goes back to truth and accuracy in conveying information about
the pandemic and so forth.
And second, and maybe even more importantly, trust not only
between citizens and institutions but between citizens. So if
you look at why we have reasonable responses and voluntary
compliance in places like Sweden or Denmark, we see very high
levels of social trust.
In the U.S. you find quite the opposite. You see a run on
ammunition and weapons. It is not about the Second Amendment.
It is a fundamentally different approach toward trusting one
another that we see in certain countries than the United
States.
Mr. Trone. That was my question. We have a severe lack of
trust in what we are hearing.
Quickly, Ms. Rohozinska, in 2018, the Turkish Parliament
passed counterterrorism legislation granting the government
extraordinary powers that it wielded during the state of
emergency following the July 2016 coup.
How has the government used those powers during the
pandemic and to what extent has there been a focus on domestic
political dissent rather than on health and safety?
Ms. Rohozinska. Sorry. The question was on Turkey?
Mr. Trone. Turkey.
Ms. Rohozinska. So Turkey, I would probably ask for--I
would either direct the question to somebody else or I would
ask for time to consult my colleagues who actually work on
Turkey for a response to that because, unfortunately, it is not
a country that I cover.
Mr. Trone. Anybody else have any knowledge about what is
going on in Turkey? Have they used the pandemic to extend their
powers?
Mr. Rutzen. Yes. Turkey has arrested several hundred people
for allegedly posting provocative things on social media. They
are also using the pandemic as an excuse to constrain dissent.
Mr. Trone. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Trone, and thank you for
bringing up Turkey where journalists are being detained and
where you are seeing the free press truly inhibited in trying
to speak out.
The chair recognizes Mr. Costa from California. Thank you
for participating again.
I think you have to unmute yourself, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. How about that?
Mr. Keating. That is great.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the subcommittee. We have been challenged here like every
other part of the country and the world with the pandemic but,
in addition to that, we have had some horrific fires that are
throughout the West coast, Washington, Oregon, and California,
and I got a very big fire that is right adjoining my district
that has no containment. So I have been a bit preoccupied with
that and other zone areas.
I would like to focus, and Chairman Keating and a number of
members of this subcommittee have been very involved with
myself as the chair of the Trans-Atlantic Legislators Dialogue
and working with our counterparts with the European Union and
the Parliament.
And I have two questions to our counterparts or experts in
Europe in looking at, one, how do we do a better job together,
working with the European Parliament in terms of the challenges
in Belarus right now and coming together with a united effort?
I know the chairman is very focused on that we are working
on some resolutions to that degree. But in addition to that, it
is my hope--I smiled when we talked about one of the witnesses'
lack of confidence in institutions in our country. My gosh,
they have really been on the attack for several years now.
But I think there is an opportunity if the elections turn
out in a way in November that we hope that we will have
opportunity to re-establish the bond among the European
democratic countries that today, with individual conversations
that we have, I think there is big question marks.
I saw this morning our colleague, Zarkovsky, interviewed on
a morning U.S. show and, you know, they are wondering where the
American leadership is as it relates to our ability to deal not
only with Russia but the most recent issues with Belarus. And,
of course, we also have other challenges that we face.
So who would care to opine in terms of both those efforts?
Ms. Rohozinska. I mean, I would probably speak to the
first. I mean, the European Parliament is preparing also--they
have come out with quite strong resolutions and statements on
Belarus and I so I think that there is, judging on the--what I
have been hearing from this committee there is a degree of
consensus in terms of censuring the Belarusian State.
I think that it becomes a little bit trickier when you are
looking--when you are looking at the national levels, that
within the national parliaments there is more diversity of
views, I would say, depending on country to country.
But if you are talking about cooperation with the European
Parliament, I think that is actually a wonderful idea and it is
a wonderful opportunity to come together over this because I do
not think that there is an awful lot of dissenting voices
thinking that Lukashenko is doing a good thing and that is
somehow respecting the rights of his citizens. And so there is
an awful lot of common ground on those terms.
I will--I will leave the other question to somebody else, I
think.
Mr. Fly. I would just add from where I sit, in Europe,
following some of the European conversation, you know, I think
the administration has done some good things in this area.
Deputy Secretary of State Biegun's visit to Lithuania, I
think, was appreciated. There is a question about whether that
U.S. engagement should have happened earlier. But I do think
that there have been some attempts by the administration to
engage with the Europeans. I do think there is----
Mr. Costa. How about--how about the movement of troops?
Mr. Fly. The movement in terms of responding to Russian
exercises and things like that?
Mr. Costa. Right.
Mr. Fly. Yes. No, I think the broader sense in Europe is,
unfortunately, they feel that the administration and the U.S.
are letting them lead and on this issue--there may be other
issues where the Europeans are quite happy to lead.
But they want the U.S. to be involved and they want the
U.S. by their side, and it should also be noted that some of
the strongest allies of the U.S. in Europe, like the Baltic
States, like the Central Europeans, have really been on the
leading edge of the European response.
And so I think they would like this to be a joint approach
and right now they kind of feel that the U.S. has been much
more hesitant than many European capitals to engage directly in
supporting the opposition and their demands.
Ms. Laanela. I wonder if I could just--quickly, just
mention the role of the OSCE as something that both Europeans
and the United States are members of and where this
particular--the issues that we are discussing now is a big part
of their work. So I just wanted to mention the role of the
OSCE.
Mr. Costa. Well, thank you. My time has expired. I also
would be interested in the current situation with Ukraine but
maybe someone else will ask that question.
Mr. Keating. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Costa, and our heart goes
out to the people of California who are just----
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Mr. Keating [continuing]. Trying to get through these just
tragic, tragic wildfires that has just encompassed so much of
the State and affected lives. But we are--when we get back I
hope we can work on that. Our hearts go out to you and
California.
The chair now recognizes a leader on the human rights
issues in Congress as well as a strong member of our committee,
Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening this hearing and thank you to our witnesses for your
excellent testimony.
I would like to focus my first question on this area of
data privacy in the digital space. Obviously, tracking and
tracing measures are a really critical part of responding to a
public health pandemic.
But at the same time, of course, there is deep concern
about the collection of an enormous amount of very personal
medical data by governments, particularly governments that are
run by authoritarian leaders.
And so I am wondering, you know, as, I think, governments
and your guys' organizations are sort of struggling with this,
are there some example that you have seen in Europe or Eurasia
that you think should be models for how you can balance both
this public health requirement and protecting governments from
accessing this information long term with all kinds of
potentially devastating consequences?
Mr. Rutzen. This is Doug Rutzen, if I could jump in.
I think that there are two examples I would note, also in
my written testimony. One is Norway, where the authorities have
worked with a private company to develop an app, and use of the
app is voluntary.
Users receive clear information about the purpose, storage,
and nature of the data. There are clear limits on cross
purposes and users can delete their data at any time.
Another interesting example is the Dutch draft COVID-19 app
law, which extensively regulates the use of a COVID-19 app and
it says that use, again, must be voluntary and, in fact, it is
illegal for anyone to directly or indirectly require a Dutch
person to actually use the app.
So there are actually a number of good example in Europe
that I think we can build on.
Mr. Cicilline. Great.
The next thing I want to ask you about is, obviously, the
dissemination of false information has been a real problem in
terms of response to this pandemic and using it both as ways to
suppress the public and dissent but also to promote bad public
health policies.
And, you know, there is tremendous concern about that in
our own country and the role that these platforms have in terms
of preventing or at least reducing the likelihood that, you
know, inaccurate or dangerous public health information is
disseminated.
And, you know, are there some examples where you think the
European Union or other countries that have done a better job
than the United States in helping prevent the dissemination of
false information that is resulting in the deaths of thousands
of Americans that we ought to look at in terms of protocols or
standards?
Ms. Rohozinska. So I will probably--I will probably take
this.
I mean, I think that the first thing was that they got on
top of it really quickly, that it was very quickly recognized
as being a problem that was not limited to a single country.
And so whether on a single country basis or on an EU wide
basis, they quite quickly started tracking and trying to debunk
it. I think that there is a couple of good examples, country by
country, in which they actually did engage the groups that have
been, on the civil society side, either fact checking or
debunking or raising awareness or doing media literacy
programs.
And we actually reached out to this community and engaged
them, on one hand, to help try and track and to nip in the bud
the disinformation that was flowing through and, on other hand,
to actually--and Slovakia was a good example, that the ministry
of health actually paired up with civil society organizations
to help disseminate good information, right, understanding that
they had a farther reach and they had a legitimacy that the
government was shortfall on.
So it definitely has come back to being that all of this is
public trust, frankly--that the countries in which there is
high levels of public trust just simply did a better job
extending this.
The other thing that was important to note with the
infodemic is, again, you know, times of crisis and times of
uncertainty breeds conspiracies and disinformation, I mean, and
it does not matter when we are in history.
We will always find this happening. It is human nature, if
you want. And so, in a way, the more information----
Mr. Cicilline. And I just want to--Joanna, if I can jump in
real quick because my time has run out----
Ms. Rohozinska. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. To ask one more question to
relate to that. You know, we have seen in our own country the
exploitation of the pandemic, the dissemination by our
president of misinformation to voters, the degrading of voting
from home, the undermining of the Postal Service, the calling
in question the legitimacy of our elections, the suppressing of
peaceful dissent by gassing peaceful protesters, attacks on our
independent media.
And I am just wondering whether the behavior of our own
president here in the United States, what kind of impact does
that have in terms of our global leadership to talk about
democracy and elections in the face of that.
Kind of what has been the impact of that? Who wants to--and
I think we have to acknowledge that reality.
[No response.]
Mr. Cicilline. Does anyone have thoughts?
[No response.]
Mr. Cicilline. No?
Mr. Rutzen. You know, I cannot resist.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rutzen. So yes, the short answer is that we need to
lead by example and we find that bad practices in the United
States are regularly replicated overseas.
Whether it is our outdated and no longer fit for purpose
Foreign Agents Registration Act, which was copied by the
Russians and misused against even congressionally funded
nonprofits, whether it is the epidemic of calling legitimate
journalism_fake news, criticizing independent media and so
forth._
We see that, in fact, our bad practices are replicated
overseas as well.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Keating. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Ms. Titus from Nevada. If you could
turn your video on and join us. Thank you for taking part in
this.
Ms. Titus. Good morning.
Mr. Keating. Good morning.
Ms. Titus. Has he called on me?
Mr. Keating. Yes.
Ms. Titus. Oh. Well, thank you--thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
am still a little not so good with this technology.
Thank you for holding this hearing. I really appreciate it.
You know, I serve on the House Democracy Partnership and these
issues are of great concern to me, and we see so much
backsliding all around the world and the U.S. is not setting a
very good example like we have in the past.
I would just ask if there would be a little more
elaboration on the whole situation of elections. Public trust
in elections is so important to securing democracy. The U.S.
used to send observers to elections in other countries. Now
some of those other countries probably need to send observers
to us.
But I wonder if the panellists could address what are best
practices, how do we reinstill trust in elections, what is
happening to election processes in some of these countries
where we see this regression, I guess?
Ms. Laanela. This sounds like one for me so I will pick a
few of the things that you mentioned.
Observation--thanks for mentioning that, and there are two
organizations, very, very reputable, and they are on their way
or so to be observing the American elections in November.
One is the Organization of American States and the other
is--both of which you are members of so--and the other is the
OSCE and their unit which works on democracy and human rights
called ODIHR.
So that is--you will see international observers at the
November elections, and this is excellent practice for building
trust so we are really--it is a very good thing that you are
doing allowing observers to your own elections.
So domestic observation and international election
observation, key aspects for building trust--that kind of
external verification that things are Okay.
But trust is super, super hard to build. I tried to say it
quickly before. But one thing about trust is its--the
predictability.
So it is the ability to do something again and again well.
So when elections have been held consistently well over time,
people get a sense that, OK, these people know that they are
doing. So that is part of it and that is really hard to do if
you are not well resourced.
So resourcing those organized elections is kind of--you
know, even though it is about money but that ties into trust
because when they--it takes a lot to make them happen and when
they fail, which they easily can do because the logistics are
so tough, then that is hard.
But because the stakes are so high elections are really
relational, and what many countries have who do it well who
come from post-conflict, for example, is they discovered they
have to do the hard relational work to make sure that potential
spoilers are kept inside the tent.
So remembering that elections are both operational and
relational is one way of seeing it. I do not want to use up all
the time, if somebody else wants to step in. But I am, of
course, happy to continue with this issue.
Ms. Titus. And I appreciate that, and you talk about
building up those resources. I know USAID does a lot of
election training, candidate training, NGO training about
corruption in elections. Do we need to reassess how we are
doing that now or just continue?
Ms. Laanela. Your people are excellent. I really want to
say that. I am calling in from Sweden. I am not American
myself.
But I have worked in this business for 28 years working in
different countries in really tough situations, and some of the
best experts out there are from organizations that are very
close to those of you when you are normally working in
Washington.
So the United Nations as well, based in New York, but also
organizations like IFES, NDI, our colleagues from IRI, they are
doing excellent work supported by USAID. So and they have kind
of got it figured out how to support institutions for the long
term. So you can trust the people that you are supporting.
Ms. Titus. So you see that as a good investment?
Ms. Laanela. Yes. Unequivocally, yes.
Ms. Titus. They do a lot with very little. So thank you for
that. Thank you----
Mr. Rutzen. May I contribute one thought?
So one concrete proposal, I think in terms of trust in
elections the key issue will be what happens on election night
and shortly thereafter. Americans are used to getting the
results on election night.
Now that we have postal ballots it is improbable that we
will have definitive and accurate results that evening. We need
to inform--this is not a partisan issue--we need to inform the
American public that if they do not have definitive answers on
election night it is not that the election is being stolen.
It is that the process is working well and we may need more
time to ensure that every vote is counted.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative. I would just remind
Mr. Rutzen too that I think maybe with your last remark it is a
good idea that we look a little back, you know, into history.
And my district is the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, and
we did have a Presidential election where the candidate, John
F. Kennedy, went to bed not knowing the results and that we did
not know those results until the next morning.
So it might be good to make people aware of that history.
It is part of our history. It is not that unusual. The most
important thing is to get it right. So a good point and maybe
that is worth remembering during that period.
You know, I would like to just followup on a couple of your
comments with some last questions.
Mr. Rutzen, in your remarks you said that what is needed is
a State Department strategy. So implicit in that, if we have
one at all, that it needs work. So could you expand on that,
your statement that we need a State Department strategy?
Mr. Rutzen. I have enormous respect for colleagues at DRL
and also at AID that are beginning to address this issue, and
they do have folks who are working on it. And I think we need
to elevate it to the level of strategy and we need to look at
policy and programming in a comprehensive fashion from both the
State Department and AID to look at the aftermath of the
pandemic.
We must also build some sort of resiliency because, sadly,
this will not be our last pandemic. We will likely face more in
the future.
So I think this is also an opportunity for information
sharing perhaps by the Legislative Branch, maybe through the
Executive Branch, to share lessons learned on how democracies
can both safeguard democracy and protect public health.
Mr. Keating. And to Mr. Fly, some of your comments revolved
around the necessity of U.S. taking more of a leadership role
than our allies who are hoping for us to take that role more
so.
We have seen Germany step up. Whether it is reacting to the
poisoning by Putin of Navalny, we have seen them take an
increasing leadership role.
Yet, that isn't--you know, I know from my conversations as
well that there is a great desire with our allies to have the
U.S. take a stronger leadership role in this regard.
If you want to comment on that, that would be great, as a
followup to your comments.
Mr. Fly. Yes. I think one positive note about U.S. policy,
even under this administration, I would just start with is that
in the area of international broadcasting I think we should be
very proud of what we do across Eurasia because while there are
European-funded networks like Deutsche Welle, France Medias
Monde, and BBC, the reach of American and congressional-funded
broadcasting is much broader across the region and I think in
some of these countries much more impactful than our European
colleagues.
I think there are areas there that we should work more
together, like I mentioned in my written testimony, in EU
members States like Romania and Bulgaria and Hungary.
But, in general, when it comes to democracy across Eurasia,
I think what we hear from our European partners is they have
good contacts at the working level. They have a sense of what
those individuals they are dealing with are trying to advance.
But across the administration they do not--there is often
question whether democracy is still a key part of American
strategy toward the region because of the varying messages you
hear, especially from the president himself.
And so that gives some of our partners pause and causes
them to question should we really put our own equities on the
line when it comes to the economic relationship we have with
countries like Russia or further afield with China, or is the
U.S. going to change its position 6 months from now because of
a whim at the top.
And so that is, I think, frustrating many of our partners
and making it more difficult to cooperate on some of these
issues.
Mr. Keating. Yes. Without partners, again, and this is open
to anyone, but you brought it up, Mr. Fly, as well. The issue
of working with our allies on sharing intelligence which we do
in so many other respects so well through our NATO allies. It
is seamless. It is strong.
But on these issues of democracy it is not as strong,
frankly, in my opinion, and when, you know, our allies see that
in our own country we are suppressing our own domestic
intelligence, the homeland security intelligence about Russian
interference directly in our election as it affects one of the
candidates running for office, what is the reaction there when
they see this in our own country and are we sharing enough of
that intelligence with them in this sphere, in the sphere of--
the democracy sphere when we are not doing it at home the way
we should?
Mr. Fly. I think that--I did some work on foreign
interference in American elections prior to going to RFERL and
I think there have been significant institutional gains since
2016.
But this issue of sharing information is key because the
actors like Russia, China, Iran that are trying to interfere in
American democracy are also trying to interfere in European
democracy.
And so I think you raise a valid point where the Europeans
do need to have access to information to protect their own
democracies. They want to discuss best practices and lessons
learned, and if there is not trust that information sharing is
not going to happen.
Mr. Keating. Yes. And I think also that intelligence needs
calling out the people that are attacking our democracy in a
very clear and unambiguous way, particularly Russia which, you
know, given what is public what is public knowledge, now
clearly is in a realm of their own in terms of their attacks on
the democratic process in Europe, Eurasia, and in the United
States itself.
And the other common theme I will mention is this, and so
related, and that is the idea of public trust as fundamental to
democracy and that is where transparency, that is where
suppression of our intelligence information, perhaps with our
allied but even at home, is such a disturbing development.
And I must say this. This hearing dealt with democracies,
the fragile nature of democracies, the backsliding, and COVID-
19 pandemic being used as a tool not just by Russia but by
authoritarian regimes to cling to greater power and to usurp
democracy and the democratic process.
So I am pleased that we had this hearing. I think we were
able, sadly, to look at the day-to-day actions in Belarus as to
what has happened and to let Russia know in a bipartisan sense,
as was indicated by today's testimony from members and comments
by members that the U.S. is strongly concerned about what is
going on in Belarus but also the Russian intervention in that
respect.
Our goal as a country is to have Belarus be sovereign, not
to put our influence over them but to have them be sovereign
and be able to make their own decisions.
And putting the whole issue together in terms of the COVID-
19 virus, without public trust, we are not going to be
successful in dealing with this virus. We are making great
efforts at trying to deal with it, many other countries having
much greater success including our allies in Europe dealing
with this issue than we are here in the United States.
One of the comments--I forget which one of our witnesses
said there is maybe a different way of viewing things there
which, to me, sounded an awful lot like there is greater public
trust around these health issues in some of these other
countries than there is in the U.S.
But let me say this. Even if we are successful moving
forward with a vaccine, without that public trust the public is
not going to embrace taking that vaccine and dealing with it.
So it is so critical even when we have breakthroughs, going
forward, to have that trust there. So this is an expansive
hearing, covered a great deal of ground, that put the
microscope on Belarus but also put the mirror on what is
happening here in our own country and what we are doing with
our allies.
So thank you so much for being a part of this. It is a
continuing dialog. It is an important one. Democracy is fragile
and we are naive to think it is not under attack right now in a
very systemic way.
So thank you, and with that, I declare the hearing
adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]