Panel I of a Hearing of the House Int. Rel. Committee-U.S.-Russia Relations
Federal News Service March 18, 2004 Thursday
Copyright 2004 The Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
March 18, 2004 Thursday
HEADLINE: PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: U.S.-RUSSIA RELATIONS
CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-IL)
WITNESS: BETH JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
LOCATION: 2171 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
REP. HYDE: The committee will come to order. (Gavel.)
Our hearing today concerns the evolution of relations between the United States and Russia in President Putin's second term. Our countries share many interests, and our ability to cooperate will bear directly on our fortunes.
The admirable record of cooperation to date has recently come into question as President Putin has taken actions that unfortunately appear to have undermined democratic institutions, practices and guarantees in his country. Today we'll hear from two panels of very distinguished individuals on this subject. I, for one, am looking forward to what I assume will be omniscient analysis and predictions, but first I would like to directly address the question of democracy in Russia.
The mere fact that we can speak of the possibility of democracy in Russia as a reality in the present and not as some dim prospect in the hazy future is one of the many wonders of the past two decades with which we've grown familiar and which many now take for granted. However uncertain, its existence is a testament to the deep commitment to fundamental values shared by people all over the world.
The United States and the West as a whole owe an immense debt to all the men and women of Russia who have struggled to establish and defend a democracy in their country and thereby create a new era of freedom after a thousand years of autocratic rule. The benefits of that freedom, of course, are most directly felt by Russia's own citizens. But the West has benefited enormously as well. A half- century of effort by the U.S. and its allies to contain and undermine Soviet imperialism enjoyed many successes. But it was only with the advent of democracy in Russia that the Soviet empire was finally destroyed. The emergence of democracy in Russia must be counted as one of the great achievements of the past century. However, for all of its accomplishments, that democracy is not yet firmly established. The civil society on which all democracies ultimately rest remains weak; much of the legacy inherited from Russia's authoritarian past is still to be overcome; the institutions of democracy are largely untested; the habits of freedom have yet to become universal.
Given these and other concerns, the government's stated goal of creating a guided democracy, where the parameters of permitted dissent are significantly narrowed, is very troubling. Why is this our concern? Because the strengthening of Russian democracy and advancing Russia's integration into the West are unquestionably in the long-term strategic interests of the United States. These are necessary if we are to make permanent the gains we have derived from the liberation of Europe, a commitment that stretches unbroken for half a century, from the landings on the Normandy beaches to the final dissolution of the Soviet empire.
To this an even broader motivation can be added. By helping other peoples share the benefits of liberty, we demonstrate a continuing commitment to the universal principles on which our country was founded and the promise these represent to all who endure oppression. Thus, our own interests, together with our hopes for the world, argue that we should provide direct and ongoing assistance to securing democracy in Russia. If we are wise, we will focus our attention and assistance on the establishment of the prerequisites of a free and prosperous society, including the creation of a resilient civil society, the strengthening of an independent press, and the establishment of the rule of law.
Yet even as we assist Russia's democrats in their unfinished tasks, we must recognize that the building of a free society in that country can only be accomplished by the Russian people themselves. We cannot do it for them, and neither do we need to. Although there are many in this country and elsewhere who would despair of the fate of democracy in Russia, I am certainly not among them. Its course may occasionally surprise and concern us, but the ultimate destination aimed at by Russia's democrats should not be in doubt. The depth of their commitment to freedom has been demonstrated by the enormous obstacles they have already overcome. Freedom was not handed to the Russian people; they freed themselves. Lacking direct experience of liberty in their past, they nonetheless have continued to lay the foundation necessary to secure it for themselves and their countrymen, even as they have encountered the inevitable setbacks.
It is for these reasons that their efforts to strengthen democracy in their country deserve our assistance and our respect, and it is my hope that Russia's assumption of its rightful place among the free nations of the world shall prove to be a permanent one.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. : Mr. Schiff.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Ambassador, I want to --
REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman --
REP. SCHIFF: -- thank you for your testimony today. I wanted to ask you about --
REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Schiff, I believe --
REP. : Hold on Mr. Schiff, just one second. Mr. Sherman, you have a question?
REP. SHERMAN: Yes, I thought I was here before Mr. Schiff --
REP. : I understood from staff that Mr. Schiff preceded you.
REP. SHERMAN: That may be, and I look forward to hearing his remarks. (Laughter.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Sherman-the overanxious Mr. Sherman.
REP. SHERMAN: Yes. First, I'd want to comment that I believe it's the Pew poll that indicated that support for America and the war on terrorism is down everywhere in the world except Russia. So, we must be doing something right. I would urge us in every opportunity to show great modesty and respect for Russia. For example, you mentioned political prosecutions of one particular oligarch. That does trouble me because I do think he was singled out because he was financing opposition parties. But we should also-we would also have difficulty explaining why Martha Stewart is doing the perp walk, and Mr. Lay, a.k.a "Kenny Boy," is living in luxury in Texas. And our criticisms of other countries should begin with the confession of our own idiosyncrasies.
I also think it's important that we show incredible deference and respect to Russia because the entire world would be more comfortable if they view the world as more bipolar or multipolar. Only Russia can match us in terms of nuclear weapons, and if they are treated as a triviality by the United States, or a nation whose concerns are limited to its own borders and maybe immediately adjoining countries, that sends a message to the entire world that it is a unipolar world, and the natural tendency of human beings is to unite in opposition to one person at the top of the hill.
My focus in every matter of foreign policy is the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons development program. I'd like you to comment briefly about whether Russia is playing any major role in the talks, the six-party talks dealing with North Korea. But the real focus for Russian involvement is Iran. How much money are they getting? Do they view it was good foreign policy to help Iran develop nuclear weapons because they get to tweak us, and naturally they, as perhaps the entire world, gets some joy out of that, versus do they see a geopolitical risk to themselves? After all Iranian nuclear weapons could just as likely end up in the hands of Chechen terrorists as in the hands of al Qaeda. So, if you could address Russia's role with regard what I think is the key problem facing the United States in our national security?
MS. JONES: Let me address first the question of court cases. We have addressed the Khodorkovsky case in terms of the rule of law, application of the rule of law, application of the rule of law, and equal application of the rule of law to him or any other potential indictee. I think that is something that frankly applies completely in the United States. I don't have any hesitation whatsoever in defending that the rule of law pertains in the United States on these cases. All we're asking is that the same kind of strong judicial system apply in Russia as well.
REP. SHERMAN: Excuse me. Are you saying that you have no problem admitting that we have huge problems in this area or not problems --
MS. JONES: On the contrary.
REP. SHERMAN: Oh, my God, if you know-when it comes to enforcement of tax and securities matters, I mean, I was the number-I headed the number two tax collection agency in this country. The idea of setting an example is an established part of tax enforcement. The fact that Ken Lay is being treated one way and Martha Stewart is being treated in an other way is at least anomalous. And for us to assert that there are no anomalies when it comes to business crime in how we deal in the United States is to misunderstand our own country, and to assert a level of perfection or near perfection that is both false and I would assume irritating to others.
MS. JONES: I'm not asserting perfection, I'm asserting that the rule of law applies, and that it's applied without political overtones.
REP. SHERMAN: Perhaps those in the State Department need to spend more time studying our own country. But, perhaps you should go on.
MS. JONES: On the question of Iran and North Korea, I don't understand the question. You asked how much money are they getting, I don't know what you mean by that.
REP. SHERMAN: What are the economic benefits to the Russian government and Russian enterprises in payments made in return for nuclear information, technology, materials, whether they are characterized-or mischaracterized-as civilian, military, energy or bomb related?
MS. JONES: The Russian government is not involved in the development of nuclear weapons in Russia (sic). That is something we discussed earlier in the hearing.
REP. SHERMAN: You mean not involved in developing nuclear weapons in Iran.
MS. JONES: Yes, in Iran.
REP. SHERMAN: But I'm-for the purposes of this question, if you could just-anything nuclear they're doing for Iran I just put in the category of nuclear, and I'm not willing to regard it as exclusively civilian.
MS. JONES: And President Putin has halted the shipment-has pledged not to ship fuel to the Bushehr reactor. We have good cooperation with Russia in the IAEA and the board of governors on putting pressure on Iran to end its nuclear program, to suspend enrichment, and to do the kinds of things that Mr. El Baradei and the IAEA has demanded.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT