Review of the FY 2022 State Department Budget Request — Senate Hearing 117-60 (June 8, 2021)
Summary
The printed record of S. Hrg. 117-60, "Review of the FY 2022 State Department Budget Request," a hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Tuesday, June 8, 2021. The witness is Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, with statements by Senators Robert Menendez and James E. Risch. The Chairman states that the budget proposal, if enacted, would represent the largest increase to the regular international affairs budget in more than a decade. The record includes Secretary Blinken's responses to questions from senators including Rob Portman, Rand Paul and Cory Booker, and a letter from Senator Chris Van Hollen about a former U.S. Consulate employee's pension marked "No Response Received."
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Review of the FY 2022 State Department Budget Request — Senate Hearing 117-60 (June 8, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/review-of-the-fy-2022-state-department-budget-request-708ccb0d3e/
, SHA-256 28a467e84caff6d0e8491c42cf2a8692818a7c37a0f938af3b4d6d3c53980973.Full text
[Senate Hearing 117-60]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-60
REVIEW OF THE FY 2022 STATE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 8, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-439 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
Jessica Lewis, Staff Director
Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey.............. 1
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 3
Blinken, Hon. Antony J., Secretary of State, U.S. Department of
State,
Washington, DC................................................. 6
Prepared Statement........................................... 8
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez........................... 53
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator James E. Risch............................ 60
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin........................ 73
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Rob Portman............................... 74
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Edward J. Markey.......................... 75
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Rand Paul................................. 76
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Cory Booker............................... 76
The Committee Received No Response From Secretary of State Antony
J. Blinken for the Following Request by Senator Van Hollen..... 80
(iii)
REVIEW OF THE FY 2022 STATE DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, and via Webex, Hon. Robert
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Young, Barrasso, Cruz,
and Hagerty.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee will come to order.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I am pleased to see you before the
committee again. It is nice to see the Secretary engage on a
regular basis, and we appreciate that. Even though we may not
always agree on everything, I appreciate your proactively
making yourself available to discuss the budget. It sends an
important signal about the value of transparency and our two
branches of Government working together on behalf of the
American people.
I am also pleased to note that after 4 years in which this
committee, on a bipartisan basis, greeted the Foreign Affairs
budget proposals with various tones of incredulity, today we
have a serious budget proposal that, if enacted, would
represent the largest increase to the regular international
affairs budget in more than a decade.
That is not to say that we will see eye to eye on all the
specific components, to be sure, but we are looking forward to
a robust and substantive discussion.
After a year during which the international community has
been shaken to its core by the COVID pandemic, it should be
clear to everyone that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure in both public health and in international affairs, and
especially where the two intersect.
I was pleased to see the Administration's recent
announcement that we will be leading on the world stage by
providing vaccines to countries desperately in need, although I
believe we should prioritize countries who embrace fundamental
democratic freedoms and rights.
For the international community to work for Americans, for
fundamental, universal values of human rights, democracy, and
equitable prosperity, the United States must invest in and lead
international institutions and stand up for international law.
We must invest in smart economic development and free and fair
trade. We must invest in meeting the challenges of climate
change, and we must invest in our diplomacy and development
professionals, for when we do not, we find that others with
different interests and values have the space to act in ways
that threaten to upend the global order and undermine our
interests.
The Administration's proposal to significantly increase the
budget for State and USAID and other international programs
reflects the investments we need to be successful in furthering
our nation's interests and values, and I want to commend you
for seeking to rebalance the budget away from overseas
contingency operations and to restore base funding.
Today's hearing is not just about numbers. It is about how
we invest those numbers. So let me take a few minutes to
highlight a few issues and areas of concern.
Broadly in the Middle East, we need to rebalance a heavily
military and arms sales-oriented policy to one that focuses
more on strategic, diplomatic, and development investments.
While not directly related to the budget, we certainly want to
hear about the Administration's efforts to reach a
comprehensive diplomatic agreement with Iran that goes far
beyond the JCPOA. What is the definition of ``stronger''?
In Europe, many of us were disappointed by the
Administration's decision to waive sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
As I know that when you leave us today you are heading to
Europe, I look forward to hearing your perspective about how
the U.S. can work to assure Ukraine of our commitment to its
security; and critically, in advance of President Biden's
meeting with Putin, I hope the Administration sends a very
strong message to Moscow. Putin only understands strength.
On Afghanistan, the security situation is increasingly
dire, and we have to start thinking about our contingency
planning. The committee needs to hear beyond big promises of
commitment to the Afghan people what we are going to do.
In Africa, the Administration faces a raft of diplomatic
challenges. China and Russia continue to act in ways inimical
to our interests and those of the majority of the people in
Africa. Tensions between Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan over the
Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam could destabilize the entire
Horn of Africa. Al Shabaab poses a continuing threat, while in
Mozambique another robust terrorist threat has emerged. Coups
in Mali and Chad have undermined international counterterrorism
and development efforts, and Nigeria requires a fundamental
rethink of the framework of our overall engagement.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the COVID-19 pandemic
is exacerbating social and political pressures, with serious
implications for regional stability. We are also seeing a
fraying of democratic consensus with deeply flawed elections
and far-too-common attacks on the separation of powers, with
the potential results of democratic decay all too apparent in
the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela or the irregular
migrations streaming from Central America.
I also look forward to hearing what we are doing to get to
the bottom of apparent attacks on U.S. personnel and family
members that have left many with ongoing and debilitating
injuries, and the steps that State is taking to ensure our
personnel are protected.
Beyond the immediate health impacts of the COVID pandemic,
I also look forward to hearing from you how the United States
will address secondary impacts of the pandemic, given that 36
countries and 130 million people could now experience famine
this year.
I am also eager to understand how the Administration plans
to address the needs of the 235 million people worldwide that
require humanitarian assistance and protection, a near 40
percent increase over 2020. Across the globe, authoritarian
regimes and non-state actors have impeded humanitarian access
to devastating effect, and how the Administration intends to
address the horrific trend of sexual and gender-based violence
in Tigray, Ethiopia, Burma, Xinjiang, and elsewhere, where
governments use sexual violence as a weapon of war against
religious and ethnic minorities.
Finally, as the Senate continues with consideration of its
China package, including the Strategic Competition Act this
committee voted out on a bipartisan basis, I am interested in
your views on how to resource and posture ourselves in the
Indo-Pacific and successfully compete with China across all
dimensions of power.
It is a long list of concerns, Mr. Secretary. You well know
that. It is hardly comprehensive, even. That is the world that
we have, the challenges that we face as a nation. So we look
forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas for how we meet this
signal moment in our country and our planet's history, and the
role you envision for the Department of State in helping our
nation to do so.
With that, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Risch.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
the expression of frustration for the tremendous number of
issues we have and the minimal time we really have to deal with
them here, but it is what it is and we are just going to have
to triage and deal with what is most important.
Mr. Secretary, I understand that you are off to the G7
summit immediately after this meeting, and so I would like to
start on a positive note. There are some bright spots in the
President's international affairs budget request. I was pleased
with the emphasis on advancing U.S. global health security.
Chairman Menendez and I continue to work on legislation to
improve pandemic preparedness and response. It is a high
priority for myself, and I think I speak for the Chairman in
saying it is a high priority for him also. It is something that
this committee really needs to do in light of the things that
have happened over the last year and a half. I look forward to
seeing how we can align this effort with the Department of
State, which obviously plays and will play a large role as we
go forward.
Overall, the request is consistent with a troubling pattern
where Congress is asked to provide more and more, and the
Administration does not respond in kind, and we would like to
see that improve. We see this plainly in the partisan American
Rescue Plan, which provided $10 billion to help combat the
COVID-19 pandemic overseas 3 months ago, and I still do not
feel that I have an understanding of how this plan will put
those resources to good use on the ground.
The President also pledged to share 80 million surplus
doses of U.S.-approved COVID-19 vaccines over a month ago, and
just last week it provided a snapshot of where they will go. I
do not feel I have a comfortable understanding of the
information that should be provided with this.
Also, I would really like to see how the Administration
will ensure that U.S. financial contributions to COVAX, which
are important, are not used to purchase and distribute the
substandard Chinese vaccines. We have all seen how those have
worked out in the field.
The President has now asked for a 12 percent increase in
foreign assistance spending for Fiscal Year 2022. Here again,
Congress is asked to provide more money. We need more
transparency and more accountability, of course.
The challenges we face overseas are immense, but throwing
good money at bad problems has not solved much in the past and
will not solve anything today. Increasing foreign aid absent a
clear strategy that emphasizes efficiency, effectiveness, and
ultimately self-reliance will not advance U.S. strategic
interests. Nor will a budget that proposes to throw hard-earned
U.S. taxpayer dollars, or worse, our kids' and our grandkids'
money, into wholly unaccountable international institutions,
including the Green Climate Fund or U.N. agencies in dire need
of reform, like the U.N. Human Rights Council and, of course,
the World Health Organization, which itself admits that reform
is needed.
I believe that advancing an effective strategy to compete
with the People's Republic of China must be the United States'
top policy priority. I expect to hear today about how this
budget addresses this strategic imperative, and we need to
fortify U.S. engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. The
Strategic Competition Act which recently passed out of this
committee on a 21-1 vote provides a roadmap. I had hoped, and I
think the Chairman had hoped, that we would get a standalone
vote on this on the floor. When a bill comes out that is as
important as that is and deals with the complexity that it did
and comes out on a 21-1 vote, it really should get
consideration. Instead, of course, it has been placed in the
other bill, which obviously is uncertain where that will go.
The bill that we had authorizes funds to provide strategic
direction for countering Chinese influence. It mandates
increases for diplomatic engagement, foreign assistance, and
security assistance for the Indo-Pacific. Finally, it will help
countries better organize infrastructure deals without falling
into a Chinese debt trap or compromising their sovereignty.
I am hoping that whatever happens with the large bill, if
it does not pass, that we get a vote on our bill, this
committee's bill.
With regard to the Iran deal, I am deeply troubled by the
direction negotiations are headed. This is no surprise to you,
Mr. Secretary, as we have talked about it over and over again.
While your negotiators are in touch with the committee, they
are like their predecessors on the original JCPOA, totally
unresponsive to congressional objections. These are not
consultations, but simply notifications. Not one of the
suggestions I have made has been accepted, either in the first
JCPOA negotiations or in the ones that are ongoing now.
It is clear that it is intended that we, the United States,
rejoin the failed nuclear deal unchanged after the Iranian
elections. Your promises to lengthen and strengthen them will
come later, but the idea of follow-on agreements is unrealistic
and, I would argue, delusional. I cannot understand why anyone
would think that if the Iranians will not agree to the things
we want them to agree to up front, why in the world would they
agree to it after the fact when they get everything that they
have asked for in the negotiations? The Iranians will never
agree to return to discussions without the threat of continued
sanctions.
Additionally, the Administration's plan to pursue sanctions
relief not consistent with the original nuclear deal are deeply
concerning, especially as you consider rolling back terrorism
and other sanctions not covered in the original deal.
Moving to Israel, I applaud the Administration for refusing
to bow to progressive demands of our closest friend and ally as
they face down a terrorist organization. This is a matter of
Iran-backed terrorism against Israel, a sovereign nation, and
that is being done by a designated terrorist organization,
Hamas, using its own people as human shields. I am disappointed
that some of my colleagues in Congress would call this enduring
partnership into question.
At the same time, I am concerned that the Administration is
rushing to normalize relations with the Palestinian Authority
without gaining elimination of the pay-for-slay program and
other Palestinian actions that glorify and actually reward
violence and terrorism.
On Afghanistan, I have long called for a responsible end to
the war, but by doing so in a manner that keeps Americans safe.
I believe that what appears to be a rush to a political
decision to withdraw without consideration of our
counterterrorism priorities will allow Afghanistan to serve as
a future platform for terrorist attacks against the United
States and our partners. I have concerns that the despicable
attack on the girls' school in Kabul is a sign of more to come.
I am also concerned by the President's submission to Putin
and abandonment of our European allies by waiving sanctions on
Nord Stream 2 AG. You testified in January that Nord Stream 2
was a bad deal, yet this Administration is allowing it to be
completed. I understand that you have some thoughts on that
that you are going to tell us about today. This decision is
really an affront to us. I totally do not understand how the
President, within a very short time after being inaugurated,
within hours, put a pen to a piece of paper, shut down the
Keystone Pipeline, put Canadians and Americans out of work, and
yet we do not have that same enthusiasm to shut down the Nord
Stream pipeline.
As the President heads to Europe I hope to see the
emergence of a real strategy for dealing with Russia, not just
more dialogue. Give Putin an inch and he will take a mile, and
I agree with the Chairman wholeheartedly that all he
understands is power.
Lastly, in regards to the U.N. this fall, the United States
will renegotiate the scales of assessment for U.N.
peacekeeping. Currently, the U.N. is assessing the United
States at a rate of 27.9 percent. As you know, this is not
congruent with U.S. law. No country should pay more than 25
percent, and in 1994 Congress enacted a bill that imposed a 25
percent cap. I would hope the Administration would follow this
law. It remains in effect today, and it must be used as the
negotiating position.
I look forward to hearing your testimony on these and other
items that are a concern.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Your full statement will be included in the record, Mr.
Secretary, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTONY J. BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much. Chairman Menendez,
Ranking Member Risch, and all the committee members here today,
I very much appreciate this opportunity to talk about the
proposed budget and how it will help us achieve our national
security priorities and deliver results for the American
people, which is our common responsibility and common cause.
This is a critical moment for the United States and for our
global leadership. We face major tests, including stopping
COVID-19, rising to the challenge of climate change, supporting
a global economic recovery that delivers for American workers
and their families.
We need to revitalize our alliances and partnerships, out-
compete China, and defend the international rules-based order
against those who seek to undermine it; renew democratic values
at home and abroad; and push back against malign activity by
our adversaries.
In a more competitive world, other countries are making
historic investments in their foreign policy toolkit. We need
to do the same thing. That is why, in this budget, we have
requested $58.5 billion for the State Department and USAID for
Fiscal Year 2022.
Just to touch on some of the specifics, the budget will
strengthen global health. The United States has been a leader
in this field for decades in Africa and around the world. We
are asking for $10 billion for global health programs,
including nearly $1 billion for global health security to help
us prevent, prepare for, and respond to future global health
crises so we can stop outbreaks before they turn into pandemics
that put our safety and prosperity in danger.
The budget would accelerate the global response to climate
change and the climate crisis by providing $2.5 billion for
international climate programs, including $1.25 billion to the
Green Climate Fund to help developing countries implement
climate adaptation and emissions mitigation programs, which is
directly in our interest.
We would double down in this budget in the fight for
democracy, which, as we all know, is under threat in too many
places. People talk about a democratic recession around the
world. Our budget request includes $2.8 billion in foreign
assistance to advance human rights, to fight corruption, to
stem the tide of democratic backsliding, to strengthen and
defend democracies. For example, technical training for
elections and support for independent media and civil society.
We also request $300 million for the National Endowment for
Democracy.
The budget would support a comprehensive strategy to
address the root causes of irregular migration from Central
America. It would invest $861 million in the region as a first
step toward a 4-year commitment of $4 billion to help prevent
violence, reduce poverty, curtail endemic corruption, and
expand jobs and educational opportunities.
The budget would reestablish our humanitarian leadership,
with a request of $10 billion in assistance to support
refugees, victims of conflict, and other displaced people, and
to rebuild our refugees admissions program.
The budget would support our partners in the Middle East by
fully funding our commitment to key countries, including Israel
and Jordan, and by restoring humanitarian assistance to the
Palestinian people.
It includes a budget request of $3.6 billion to pay our
assessed contributions in full to international organizations,
initiatives, and peacekeeping efforts, including to restore our
annual contributions to the World Health Organization.
As China and other countries work hard to bend
international organizations to their worldview, we need to do
our best to ensure that these organizations instead remain
grounded in the values, principles, and rules of the world that
have made our shared progress possible for so many decades.
Finally, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, to deliver in all
these areas, this budget will reinvest in our most vital asset,
and that is our people. It will provide new resources to
recruit, train, and retain a first-rate, diverse global
workforce, with nearly 500 additional Foreign and Civil Service
positions, the largest increase for the State Department
staffing in a decade. Critically, it would modernize our
technology and cybersecurity; protect our embassies and
consulates; and include a direct appropriation of $320 million
for consular services worldwide, so we can continue to provide
these vital services to Americans and those who seek to travel,
study, or do business with the United States.
Our national security depends not only on the strength of
our armed forces, but on our ability to conduct effective
diplomacy and development. That is how we solve global
challenges, that is how we forge cooperation, advance our
interests and values, protect our people, and prevent crises
overseas from becoming emergencies here at home. That is why
diplomacy and development are smart investments for American
taxpayers.
A final word, Mr. Chairman. A top priority for me as
Secretary is to restore the traditional role of Congress as a
partner in our foreign policymaking. That is the spirit that I
bring to today's conversation, and I am grateful for this
opportunity and the opportunity to have a dialogue and to
answer your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Blinken follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Antony J. Blinken
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and all committee members,
thank you for this opportunity to talk about the Biden-Harris
administration's proposed budget--and how it will help us achieve our
national security priorities and deliver results for the American
people.
This is a critical moment for the United States and our global
leadership. We face major tests, including stopping the COVID-19
pandemic, rising to the challenge of the climate crisis, and supporting
a global economic recovery that delivers for American workers and
families. We must revitalize our alliances and partnerships; out-
compete China and defend the international rules-based order against
those that seek to undermine it; renew democratic values at home and
abroad; and push back against malign activity by our adversaries.
In a more competitive world, other countries are making historic
investments in their foreign policy toolkit. We must do the same.
That's why, in this budget, we've requested $58.5 billion for the State
Department and USAID for Fiscal Year 2022.
Here are some specifics.
This budget will strengthen global health. The United States has
been a leader in the field for decades, in Africa and around the world.
We're asking for $10 billion for global health programs, including
nearly $1 billion for global health security, to help us prevent,
prepare for, and respond to future global health crises so we can stop
outbreaks before they turn into pandemics that put our safety and
prosperity in danger.
This budget will accelerate the global response to the climate
crisis by providing $2.5 billion for international climate programs,
including $1.25 billion to the Green Climate Fund, to help developing
countries implement climate adaptation and emissions mitigation
programs--which is directly in our own interest.
It will double down on the fight for democracy, which is under
threat in too many places. Our budget request includes $2.8 billion in
foreign assistance to advance human rights, fight corruption, stem the
tide of democratic backsliding, and strengthen and defend democracies--
for example, through technical training for elections and support for
independent media and civil society. It also requests $300 million for
the National Endowment for Democracy.
This budget will support a comprehensive strategy to address the
root causes of irregular migration from Central America. It will invest
$861 million in the region, as a first step toward a 4-year commitment
of $4 billion, to help prevent violence, reduce poverty, curtail
endemic corruption, and expand job and educational opportunities.
It will reestablish U.S. humanitarian leadership, with a request of
$10 billion in assistance to support refugees, victims of conflict, and
other displaced people, and to rebuild our refugees admissions program.
It will support our partners in the Middle East by fully funding
our commitments to key countries, including Israel and Jordan, and by
restoring humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.
It includes a budget request of $3.6 billion to pay our assessed
contributions in full to international organizations, initiatives, and
peacekeeping efforts, including to restore our annual contributions to
the World Health Organization. As China and others work hard to bend
international organizations to their worldview, we must ensure that
these organizations instead remain grounded in the values, principles,
and rules of the world that have made our shared progress possible for
decades.
Finally, to deliver in all these areas, this budget will reinvest
in our most vital asset--our people. It will provide new resources to
recruit, train, and retain a first-rate, diverse global workforce, with
nearly 500 additional Foreign and Civil Service positions--the largest
increase for State Department staffing in a decade. And it will
modernize our technology and cybersecurity; protect our embassies and
consulates; and include a direct appropriation of $320 million for
consular services worldwide, so we can continue to provide these vital
services to Americans and those who seek to travel, study, or do
business with the United States.
Our national security depends not only on the strength of our armed
forces but also our ability to conduct effective diplomacy and
development. That's how we solve global challenges, forge cooperation,
advance our interests and values, protect our people, and prevent
crises overseas from turning into emergencies at home. And that's why
diplomacy and development are smart investments for American taxpayers.
A top priority for me as Secretary is to restore the traditional
role of Congress as a partner in our foreign policy making. That's the
spirit I bring to today's conversation, and I'm grateful for this
chance to answer your questions.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. We look
forward to engaging in that.
We will start a round of questions, and let me first start
on the budget. I have been a robust defender of the State
Department's budget in years in which we received budgets that
clearly could not meet the mission of the State Department or
the interests of the United States. So I am glad to see, as I
said in my remarks, a budget that is real and that would be the
single most significant increase in a decade, and in general, I
support the effort. I may have some suggestions to make as we
move forward in the refinement of elements of it, but I do want
you to know I support it.
Having said that, I would like to explore with you some
regional issues for which this budget is ultimately going to be
put to work.
Is it fair to say that when we had the JCPOA, Iran
continued to pursue ballistic missiles, Iran continued to
destabilize the region, Iran continued to be the single most
significant sponsor of terrorism in the world?
Secretary Blinken. I think it is fair to say that, Mr.
Chairman, although I think, unfortunately, those activities in
those areas have only gotten worse.
The Chairman. I agree, it has gotten worse. I agree with
you on that.
Is it fair to say that when we had the JCPOA, that Iran did
not seek to change its ways in these areas and others, or seek
to get greater relief from sanctions in order to change their
ways on these various issues?
Secretary Blinken. During the time the JCPOA was enforced,
to the extent we were a participant in it, I think that is a
fair assessment.
The Chairman. Yes. So here is the concern that I and others
have: the Iranians have gotten onto the fact that when they
want relief, they accelerate their programs. Now, I was not a
supporter of the JCPOA. I think everybody knows that. I also
was not a supporter of President Trump arbitrarily and
capriciously leaving the agreement without allies at the end of
the day, or a strategy to achieve a goal. In fact, Iran has
advanced its nuclear program since President Trump left the
agreement. It has greater capacity. It has enriched more
material. Of course, none of its other malign activity have
stopped. They have gotten worse.
So the question is if all we return to is a compliance for
compliance basis, which is my takeaway from the conversations I
have had with your negotiators, and if we have a history that
Iran never sought to get more relief in return for dealing with
its other malign activities, what is going to make us believe
that, in fact, a return to compliance for compliance is going
to produce anything stronger than what we had?
Secretary Blinken. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Compliance for
compliance, if we get there, and that remains a big if that we
can come back to, has to be a first step, not a last step. I
agree with that. We have an immediate challenge, which is that,
to your point, Iran's nuclear program is galloping forward. It
is enriching at higher levels, 20 percent, even 60 percent. In
small cases it is using more advanced centrifuges. The breakout
time that the agreement established, an agreement that on its
terms was working as verified by our intelligence folks, as
well as the international experts, pushed the breakout time to
a year. We are now down, based on published reports, to a few
months. If this continues, if they continue to enrich at the
levels and in the ways that they are doing, it will get down
eventually to a few weeks.
So that is a concrete problem. We have an interest in
putting that nuclear problem back in the box, because an Iran
with a nuclear weapon or with the ability to produce the raw
material on very short notice to get one is an Iran that is
going to be an even worse actor in terms of its impunity in all
of these other areas.
Having said that, I agree with you that, again, this would
need to be a first step, not a last step, and we would seek to
build on it.
The Chairman. What does ``stronger'' mean? Your
Administration and you, yourself, in testimony before the
committee has said we seek a ``longer'' --that I get--and
``stronger,'' but what does ``stronger'' mean?
Secretary Blinken. So, I think we have to look at specific
aspects, whether there are areas where we can get even stronger
commitments from Iran. Of course, if we do that, we can expect
that Iran would ask for things in return. So we would have to
gauge whether whatever improvements might be made in terms of
stronger would be worth whatever Iran would seek.
The longer piece, as you know very well, is important
because a number of the provisions in the agreement sunset,
although I would point out that the most critical provisions--
that is, the ability to enrich beyond 3.67 percent, the ability
to have a stockpile of more than 300 kilograms of enriched
uranium--these go until 2030. So there is still some time built
in if we come back. I think we need to look at those.
The Chairman. I hope, Mr. Secretary, that as we are
assuaging our European colleagues and cohorts in this effort,
that they are truly committed to the ``stronger'' part, because
my experience with them is they want to solve the immediate
problem, but getting them to follow on, on the longer-term
problems is a much more difficult proposition.
Let me turn to Russia. I am sure many other members will
ask you this, but I want to give you an opportunity.
I think many of us on a bipartisan basis were deeply
concerned about the Administration's decision to waive
sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG and its CEO last week. As the
President heads to his meeting with Putin, I will reiterate
from my perspective; we know what Putin is. As the President
himself has said, he is a murderer, he is KGB, and he only
understands strength.
I would have thought that one of the most significant ways
to show strength is to ensure that the pipeline is killed. Now,
you all from your analysis may come to a different conclusion,
and I certainly understand the importance of Germany. If you
want to give somebody a very strong blow, to send a message,
Nord Stream would have been it.
So why don't you share with us the thinking that went
behind on the waiver?
Secretary Blinken. Sure, and I appreciate that very much.
First, as you know, construction on the pipeline began in
2018. By the time we took office, it was over 90 percent
complete, the physical construction of the pipeline. On May 19,
under the legislation, we sanctioned 13 ships and 4 companies,
the largest number of entities sanctioned under that
legislation since it was put into effect. We also, to your
point, issued a national interest waiver under the law with
regard to the parent company, Nord Stream 2 AG, and its CEO.
That waiver can be rescinded at any time.
Why did we do that? The worst possible outcome from our
perspective would be to have construction of the pipeline
completed, our relationship with Germany poisoned, no incentive
for Germany to come to the table to make good on working to
mitigate the serious negative consequences of gas flowing
through this pipeline.
The Germans have now come to the table. We are actively
engaged with them, and there are a few things that absolutely
would need to happen by going forward, as you know and as we
have had an opportunity to discuss. Ukraine needs to be made
whole if this pipeline is going to go into operation. It will
potentially lose transit fees as a result of the pipeline going
around Ukraine. That needs to be dealt with.
We must make sure that Russia cannot use gas or energy as a
coercive tool in its relations with Ukraine or any other state
in Europe. There are ways of doing that, making sure that there
is backup so that if gas is denied, we can provide it. Other
ways of strengthening and securing Ukraine, various snapback
mechanisms so that if Russia acts in an inappropriate way,
there is some automaticity in the actions that are taken by us
and by Germany. So we are engaged with them on that.
At the same time, as you know, even when the pipeline is
physically complete, for it to go into operation, it still
requires insurance, it still requires various permits, and we
are looking very carefully at all of that.
So what we need to do now is--and it is exactly what we are
doing--engage with the Germans to see if we can deal with the
negative consequences of this pipeline going into operation.
There is a distinction between the physical completion of the
pipeline, which in our judgment we simply could not stop. It
was too late to stop the joining of those pipes. Its operation
is another matter. What we can do for Ukraine and others is
also another matter.
Parenthetically--last point--the President spoke to
President Zelensky today, invited him to the United States. We
are in very active engagement as we go forward on this.
The Chairman. Well, we are happy to see you did that, and
we look forward to seeing what you do as it relates to the
potential operational capacity. We don't care what you want. As
a last point, I would commend your attention to a Washington
Post op-ed that we did on Iran and a different pathway
forward--a positive different pathway forward.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
associate myself with your questions regarding that.
Look, Mr. Secretary, I do not think there is anybody here
who would suggest that the dealings you are going to have with
Iran are not tough. They are tough. It is not easy.
What is easy is to say no and push your chair away from the
table if you cannot get them to where you need to be, and the
JCPOA did not come anywhere close on that.
One of the biggest problems I had was the tremendous amount
of cash that was given to the Iranians. There is no doubt in my
mind that part of that cash wound up paying for the munitions
that were dropped on Israel in recent days. There is no doubt
in my mind that part of that cash was paid to arm the Houthis
in order to continue their attacks against Saudi Arabia. There
is no doubt in my mind that part of that cash was used to
construct and deliver missiles into Lebanon that we all know
are there and aimed at Israel.
This business of just handing cash over to these people is
a bad, bad deal. I suggested last time that if indeed cash is
allowed to flow into Iran, that it be put into some kind of a
lock box or have some kind of oversight over it so that it
cannot be used for the nefarious purposes that Iran wants to
use it for. I suggested that last time and I was told, oh, no,
they will not agree to that. Well, if they will not agree to
that, you know where that money is going to go.
I do not know how somebody could ask us to vote for it when
we know that that money is going to be money that causes blood
to flow. So I would hope you would take a look at that. As you
know, there are billions in South Korea and other countries
that the Iranians want freed up and that I have heard
discussion would be freed up if indeed another JCPOA deal was
reached, and I am very concerned about doing this again. We
have seen exactly what happened, and that is going to happen
again. It is troubling. It is really, really troubling when you
give money to these kinds of people.
So, I do not know, I have irreconcilable differences with
the Administration on simply going back into the JCPOA that we
were in before. It seems to me that we have gotten ourselves
into a position, whether you agree or disagree with what the
prior Administration did, it has gotten us to a position where
they are deeply weakened compared to when the Administration
took office. So I would hope you would take advantage of it and
just say no.
That is just the beginning. I mean, they are testing and in
development of missiles in absolute violation of resolutions of
the U.N. That should not be tolerated. Why sit at a table with
people who are going to look you in the eye and say, look, we
do not care what you say, we do not care what the U.N. says, we
do not care what the rest of the world says, we are going to
develop missiles and you can go pound sand? Then we hand them
billions of dollars. It does not make sense.
Well, in any event, I wish you well in it. I wish you would
say no and keep the sanctions in place. We will be willing
partners, at least this Senator will, as far as ratcheting up
more of those sanctions against that country.
Let me ask a specific question. On the money that I looked
at in this budget that is going to other countries for
addressing global warming, I am really lost as to what that is
going to go for. It is really vague in there. Can you help me
out, what it is going to be used for?
Secretary Blinken. Sure. Thank you.
Here is the challenge for us with dealing with global
warming, dealing with climate change. We are taking significant
steps to curb our emissions. Even if we do everything right, at
least in the way that we see it, we are 15 percent of global
emissions. So we do everything right, we still have 85 percent
of the problem left, and other countries have to come along.
Of course, we do not want to be the ones doing all of the
work. We have to get others to do what they need to do, as
well, to get----
Senator Risch. Well, we cannot be, can we? I mean, if we
are only 15 percent, we cannot finance the other 85.
Secretary Blinken. It is not financing the other 85. There
are some countries that need to take meaningful actions to curb
emissions that will need assistance in developing and adapting
technologies that can help them curb those emissions.
So the Green Climate Fund, for example, is a way of helping
countries without the means to do it to adapt technologies that
will curb emissions and also build resilience against some of
the challenges posed by climate change right now.
Senator Risch. So is there a plan that we can look at in
that regard and identify the countries that are going to get
this money and how much they are going to get?
Secretary Blinken. I believe there is, and I am happy to
share that with you.
Senator Risch. Please do. Go ahead.
Secretary Blinken. I was going to say we will be happy to
come back to you with the details on that.
[Editor's note.--The committee received no response from the
witness for the information requested above.]
Senator Risch. Thank you. I did not allow you to respond on
the Iranian situation.
Secretary Blinken. Yes, and we have had the opportunity to
talk about this----
Senator Risch. We have.
Secretary Blinken. --a number of times.
Senator Risch. Appreciate you.
Secretary Blinken. First, all of the egregious actions,
which we share condemnation of with you, that Iran is engaged
in are happening under maximum pressure, and more. It has
gotten worse, not better. So that effort did not solve the
problem, a problem we all acknowledge.
Whether we like it or not, and we do not like it, Iran has
been engaged in these activities, including support for Hamas,
including support for other terror groups, including support
for proxies engaging in destabilizing activities across the
board. It was doing that before the JCPOA; it continued to do
that during the JCPOA; and it has gotten worse since we got out
of the JCPOA.
Our challenge now I think is threefold. One is we have the
problem that its nuclear program--and now that it is not
abiding by the constraints of the JCPOA--is literally galloping
forward, and we talked about that a few minutes ago. The
magnitude of their enrichment, enriching more at higher levels,
is putting it in a position where the breakout time is
inexorably getting down from a year to months, to eventually
weeks, and that is a problem for us.
Also, if this continues, what it is learning, what it is
able to master in the time that it is doing this is going to be
very hard to pull back. So we have that incentive. That is one
piece.
The second piece--and I agree with both you and the
Chairman--that is a necessary step, put this back in the box,
but an insufficient one, and we have to build on it. Not only
in terms of the agreement itself, in terms of these other
actions that Iran is taking that we all profoundly object to.
We will retain all of the tools to do that, to push back on
them for these actions. I think we will have greater
cooperation and coordination from partners who over the last
few years have been focused almost entirely on preserving the
nuclear agreement, not actually working with us to help curb
some of these other actions.
So we have to be able to do all of that, and what I can
tell you is we are determined to do that, but we need to put
this nuclear problem back in the box that it was in and move on
from there.
Senator Risch. Well, my time is up. Thank you. Let me just
conclude by saying that we both know, and the world knows, that
there is another entity that is going to do something about
this. Whatever the JCPOA says or does not say, whatever
everybody else agrees to, there is another entity that has
taken a solemn oath that they will never have--Iran will never
have a nuclear weapon. I guess the biggest question would be
what happens when you get the call? Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Secretary Blinken, welcome. I see you have
been very busy. It's a challenging world.
I certainly agree with Senator Menendez, our Chairman, that
we welcome the budget that has been submitted for our foreign
policy issues. It certainly reflects the commitment that we
have a value-based foreign policy.
I was particularly pleased by your statements here about
your commitment to good governance. The press statement for
your FY 2022 budget says it includes a significant increase to
resources to advance human rights and democratic values, fight
corruption, stem the tide of democratic backsliding, and defend
against authoritarianism.
Then in the INL budget you have a particular focus on the
anti-corruption activities.
So you mentioned some of that during your opening
statement, but I would like to drill down to one aspect of
fighting corruption which I believe is desperately needed
within the State Department, and that's the capacity in each of
our missions to understand the circumstances in the host
country to get the best intelligence information about their
system and what can be done to fight corruption, and then
impressing upon the host country our interest in helping them
in dealing with anti-corruption measures.
Do we have enough resources in this budget to be able to
develop that type of capacity within the missions?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, first of all, for putting a
spotlight on that. Thank you for all of the work you have been
doing over many years. I think of all of the bad things out
there that we are dealing with, corruption in terms of the
corrosive impact that it has on democracy has got to be very
near the top of the list. Parenthetically, I think if we look
at virtually any popular movement over the last decade or 15
years, whether it is the Tunisian troop bender or whether it is
Tahrir Square or whether it is the Maidan in Ukraine, whether
it is the protests in Brazil, the common denominator each time
is revulsion at corruption. Sometimes it is the reason. It is
certainly a reason that we see people at some point just get
fed up.
So we are determined to make sure that we have the
resources to do exactly what you are talking about in a couple
of ways, and we would welcome working with you going forward to
make sure that this is as sharp as possible.
First, we need the human resources, the expertise in the
Department and the ability to support and deploy that
expertise, to your point, to our embassies. So people who have
the training, have the background, have the skill set to work
on these issues.
I think part of our request that is so significant to me is
the additional almost 500 positions, but this is not just
asking for 500 positions in a vacuum. There are specific areas
where we know we need to build up our capacity that we will
look to use this and other flexibilities to address, and this
expertise on economic matters, on corruption, is one of them.
Technology is another. China is a third. Global health is a
fourth. So we are very focused there.
Second, we have to do this in close collaboration and
coordination with the other expert agencies in our Government,
and I think there is a real commitment to do that. The national
security advisor, Jake Sullivan, brings all of us together and
is very focused on this. So we have to do that.
Third, I think you saw Vice President Harris just today
announce the surging of experts to some countries in Central
America to help them, to the extent they are willing to be
helped, deal with endemic corruption. So we have some ability
to surge expertise.
The long and short of it is, though, I would very much
welcome working with you on this to make sure that we do have
what we need, and we are certainly very open to ideas for how
we can do this more effectively, and then make sure we are
resourced appropriately.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. It also helps us, if we
then have the information we need to impose sanctions, such as
Global Magnitsky, by having that capacity in each of our
missions.
The Administration has talked about multinational
approaches, and I certainly support multinational approaches.
So let me talk about the sustainable development goals that
were created in 2015. Goal 16 deals with good governance, which
is the areas that we are talking about here and getting our
international support for efforts to make significant
improvements in governance.
The prior Administration failed to support the U.N. Joint
SDG Fund, which is the sole U.N. funding vehicle to energize
private sector and other resources to support the SDGs. Given
President Biden and your renewed commitment to American
multilateralism and sustainable development, what steps will
this Administration take in order to advance the SDG goals,
particularly Goal 16?
Secretary Blinken. I think we need to make sure that we are
dedicating our appropriate share of resources to advance these
goals. This is one of the reasons we want to try to make right
by our commitments to international institutions and to various
programs in those institutions that advance the interests of
the United States. Parenthetically, when we do not do that, our
influence and our ability to shape how these programs are
carried out is diminished or lost. So we have an interest in
making sure that the focus that these institutions bring to the
problem is appropriate and effective.
The long and short of it is we believe we need to fund our
commitments and then be at the table, in the room, to help
carry them out.
Senator Cardin. I would just add in multinationalism, the
Organization of American States, the OSCE, and other
international organizations where the United States leadership
can play a critical role to focus those organizations in
addition to the United Nations in these values that are
critically important to our national security, I would just
urge you to work with us to see whether we can't be more
effective in getting multinational focus on dealing with
corruption.
I want to add my view in regards to the Iran circumstances.
I agree with Chairman Menendez. He and I had similar views on
the JCPOA and President Trump's decision to leave the JCPOA. I
would just make one point. The JCPOA was a lifetime prohibition
about Iran being able to have a nuclear weapons program.
Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
Senator Cardin. So we had sunsets that now would be
irrelevant to that lifetime commitment. So when you talk about
whenever we get back into an agreement, it's got to make sure
that there is a lifetime prohibition about Iran ever becoming a
nuclear weapons state, and you have functioning agreements that
you can identify to make sure they never get within a year of
breakout.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I was part of the effort led by Senator Cruz
and Senator Shaheen to impose sanctions to stop the building of
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and I have to admit honestly that I
was surprised at how unbelievably effective those sanctions
were, and it stopped it.
When you came before this committee about 5 months ago, I
thought you were completely on board with the continued halting
of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. I have to
admit I am shocked that now the fact that yesterday and today
you are conceding the fact that it is going to get built. That
would have been really nice to know 5 months ago.
When did your thinking change on that?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator. Again, as we
discussed then, unfortunately, construction started on this bad
idea in 2018, and when we last spoke the pipeline was well over
90 percent complete as a physical----
Senator Johnson. Yes, when we imposed sanctions and halted
it last time. Why not continue to pause the sanctions? I am
sorry, your explanation literally makes no sense. So now we are
conceding the building, we are going to have it constructed,
and now we are going to somehow impose serious consequences
when Germany does not live up to providing the revenue relief
for Ukraine when Russia does use it as a weapon?
Secretary Blinken. As a practical matter, as we looked at
this, we all agreed this pipeline is a bad idea. We have
opposed it. The President has been clear about that for a long
time. As a very practical matter, with inheriting a pipeline
that was 95 percent complete----
Senator Johnson. We stopped it the last time.
Let us move on to Iran.
Secretary Blinken. No, in fact, we did not, by definition.
Senator Johnson. Let us move on to Iran. During the debate
over the JCPOA, I offered an amendment to deem that a treaty.
From my standpoint, that amendment should have passed 100 to
zero. Had it passed 100 to zero, the JCPOA would have been,
first, a far better agreement, and you would not be in a
position where from one Administration to the next a President
can just cancel another's executive agreement.
Now you are engaged in further discussions with Iran. I
have my doubts that you will end up with a better agreement. It
is going to be worse. It will embolden Iran.
First of all, what justification is there for something
that is that significant--and again, if you take a look at the
State Department's own manuals in terms of how it defines a
treaty, I think it is quite clear that the original JCPOA was a
treaty. Do you not think any agreement that you enter into with
Iran should be deemed a treaty and should be ratified by the
United States Senate?
Secretary Blinken. Senator, as you know, numerous arms
control and non-proliferation agreements reached by the United
States were not treaties, and there are benefits--you are
right--to enshrining something in a treaty. There are also
downsides in terms of some of the constraints that it would
actually place on us. It is also more complicated when you are
dealing with a multi-party agreement, which was the case with
the JCPOA. We had, of course, the European partners. We had the
Russians, the Chinese, not to mention the Iranians. So looking
at the history of arms control and non-proliferation
agreements, looking at what would give us maximum flexibility,
this was the most effective way forward.
Senator Johnson. Okay. Well, I respectfully disagree.
Real quick, I did send a letter together with Senator Scott
inquiring as to why the State Department ended its
investigation regarding the gain of function and the lab leak
origination of the coronavirus. I think your response is due on
June 10th. I am hoping you will respond and provide us the
information we are requesting. Are you aware of that letter?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. Thank you, Senator, I am. We will
certainly respond to that in a timely fashion. Just for what it
is worth to try to clear this up, because there has been,
unfortunately, a lot of erroneous reporting on this, the study
in question, the work in question was by the Trump
administration. They hired a contractor within the State
Department to do an internal inquiry into the origins of COVID-
19, with a focus on the lab leak scenario.
That work was completed. It was not terminated.
Senator Johnson. Okay. So just explain that. I want to move
on to another issue, so just respond to my oversight request.
Finally, I want to talk about the budget as it relates to
what the Biden administration is proposing to spend I guess to
fix Central America. My first trip down to Central America, it
was interesting what the presidents of those countries talked
about in terms of what they are dealing with. First it was
corruption, and then impunity. Obviously, I understand
corruption. Impunity, I thought that is odd; what are you
talking about there?
The fact of the matter is they are talking about the fact
that the drug cartels are untouchable. By the way, the drug
cartels in Central America, through our drug interdiction
efforts, we stopped or we certainly redirected the flow through
the Caribbean and up through Central America, destroying those
societies in many respects.
So I do not know what amount of money we can spend in
Central America to really address the drug lords. I keep
hearing the root cause of this problem is the violence in
Central America. I would argue the root cause of the violence
in Central America is America's insatiable demand for drugs.
So the border crisis, the current crisis, is completely the
result of the actions that President Biden took when he first
entered office, ending the successful migrant protection
policy, the agreements with those countries and, quite
honestly, not completing the 250 miles of border wall that is
bought and paid for. I listened to Vice President Harris
talking about, oh, we are going to steer the border. I see no
evidence of that.
So tell me how you can expect a few hundred million, or I
do not really know the exact amount you are really proposing
over the next couple of years during this Administration, of
pouring into Central America to try and fix the push factor
when the push factor is caused by our insatiable demand for
drugs, and the flow of migrants--by the way, the presence of
those countries were pleading with me and on a bipartisan basis
with other Senate colleagues, please fix your laws. This is not
good for us to lose our future, to have this outflow of people
we need to rebuild our economies.
So please explain how these policies are going to result in
anything and how that money is not going to be just completely
wasted in Central America.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. There are a number of things
that we need to do, and do it at the same time. We have to
have, and we are determined to have, and we will have, a secure
border. We have to have rational immigration policies. We have
to deal with these drivers.
I think it is fair to say that folks do not just wake up in
the morning in Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador and say,
boy, it would be a lot of fun to just give up everything I
know, my family, my language, my culture, my community, take
this incredibly hazardous journey, put myself in the hands of
coyotes, come to the United States, and the border is closed in
any event, and that would be a great thing to do.
We know that there are very, very serious things in their
lives that are pushing them to take these chances, and these
are things that I think we can help address.
To your point, you are right, I think there are a number of
factors involved, the corruption and lack of good governance,
the impunity in terms of violence. The single biggest driver in
most places in my estimation, though, is fundamentally a lack
of opportunity, a lack of a job, a lack of a paycheck, being
able to put money on the table, feed their families. This is a
place where I think we can have a real impact, working
primarily with the private sector, which has to be the engine
for these kinds of investments. The Government can help and be
a catalyst.
We need to see that, of course. Governments need to do the
work to put in place some of the laws and structures that make
private investment more possible, so we are working on that as
well.
Senator, if we do not also deal with these drivers, it is
just very hard to overcome the choice that people make to put
their lives in someone else's hands to try to come here.
We have to be able to do all of that, and that is where the
President is going to go. I would be happy when the time
comes--this is not just throwing money at the problem. There
are and will be serious metrics, serious oversight, serious
benchmarks to what we are trying to accomplish.
The last thing I would mention on this, if I can, part of
the challenge is that you have governments that we cannot work
effectively with because of corruption and because of gross
mismanagement. Well, we will be working with others, with the
private sector, with civil society, with NGOs, with
organizations that do this work, with local communities, as the
case may be, to try to make sure that any funds that we ask our
taxpayers to dedicate to this are used wisely and effectively
and are not wasted, and I really welcome an opportunity to work
with this committee on that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
For the information of all members, there is a vote that
started at 3:07. It is the Chair's intention to continue to
work through and rotate as members come in and out, because we
have time finite with the Secretary, and we have members who
want to ask questions. So I am going to work through these
votes.
With that, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and for the hard
work that you are doing to restore America's credibility in the
international community.
In New Hampshire we have a short border with Canada, but I
have a number of constituents who have relatives in Canada, we
have a number of businesses who do business in Canada. There is
a lot of cross-border traffic, and the border closure has been
a real hardship for so many of our citizens.
My office heard from a man whose mother had passed away in
January in New Brunswick. He wanted to go to the funeral
because they could not delay it any later than May 31st. The
Canadian Government told him in order to do that, he would have
to quarantine for 5 days. He could not take the time off from
work. He could not get a waiver.
So I appreciate that this has been a joint agreement
between Canada and the United States, but at this point, given
the increasing vaccination rate on both sides of the border, I
hope that you will commit to doing everything you can to get
that border opened so that the hardship that my constituents
and other constituents are experiencing will end and they can
resume normal relationships with their families and business in
the way that will benefit them.
Secretary Blinken. I very much appreciate, Senator, those
hardships for all of the border states with Canada. This is
something that I have engaged my Canadian counterpart on
multiple times. We are trying to work through these challenges,
and I have gotten some relatively more positive feedback from
him recently that I am happy to share with you.
It is a work in progress. If there are specific instances
or cases, please bring them to my attention, to our attention,
so that I can also share them with our counterparts.
To your point, I think we are, hopefully, getting to the
point--we certainly are. Canada is a little bit behind where we
are, but we are getting to a better point.
Senator Shaheen. Well, good, I appreciate that,
particularly as we are getting into the tourism season and
there is a lot of cross-border traffic between Canada and the
United States and it is critical to our states and others along
the border.
I want to follow up with the questions that have already
been asked about Nord Stream 2 because, as you know, this is
something that I have been very concerned about. I just
returned from a trip to Kiev with my colleagues, Senators
Murphy and Portman, who were also along, and one of the things
we heard very loudly from our Ukrainian partners was just how
devastating the loss of revenue will be once Russians stop
using Ukraine as a transit route.
Also, the concern about giving Russia another weapon to use
against Europe, and the other potential ramifications of the
fallout from completion of Nord Stream 2.
You talked about trying to make the Ukrainians whole in
terms of the transit fees, but can you also discuss what else
we can do to support Ukraine if this pipeline becomes
operational, and what the Germans might be willing to do in
that regard?
Secretary Blinken. Certainly. I think there are a number of
things that we are looking at that we need to look at and, of
course, need Germany and others to look at and ultimately take
action on. One is the possibility of actually extending the
existing transit agreement for many years into the future so
that Ukraine would continue to benefit from the transit fees.
If that does not work, I think finding ways to make Ukraine
whole for the lost transit fees is something that the Europeans
would need to step up to.
The other side of the coin that you just alluded to is
making sure that we have in place and Europe has in place
appropriate reserves and appropriate means to counter any
attempt by Russia to use gas or oil as a coercive political
tool so that they cannot be subject to blackmail.
There is another thing that is really important here which
sometimes gets missed in the equation, which is Ukraine's own
energy potential and efficiency potential is very, very much
unrealized, and if Ukraine used energy more efficiently than it
does, a lot of the leverage that Russia might acquire will be
diminished significantly. So there is a lot of work to be done
there.
Finally, I think that when it comes to Russian misbehavior
in general in that part of the world, we are looking to our
allies and partners to commit up front to taking action, to
taking steps in response so that we do not have to scramble if
Russia does something bad to try to bring people on.
All of that and more is on the table, and we are looking to
Germany in particular to make good on some of these things.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. As you have heard, this
is a very important bipartisan issue for this committee and for
Congress, and we will be watching closely and trying to be
helpful in any way we can as we figure out how to negate the
potential weapon that Russia could have against not just
Ukraine, but all of Western Europe.
I want to go back to Afghanistan. You alluded to some of
the challenges there in your opening statement. We saw on May 8
the bombing of a school in Kabul, a girls school, which
resulted in about 80 deaths. Many were the school girls, and we
know what the Taliban's position is on women and girls. We have
seen the assassination, deliberate assassination efforts
against women who are working.
So, what steps is the State Department taking to provide
for the safety of women and girls after our military has left
the country? Do we have a focal point in the State Department
for someone who is working on these issues who we can continue
to talk with as we hear from the women leaders in Afghanistan
who are so worried about what is going to happen?
Secretary Blinken. First, just with regard to the attack
that you referenced, I mean, we have witnessed horrible things
happening every single day in places that we are all focused
on. I have to say, that one in particular, I think it is hard
to think of anything more horrific, the deliberate murder of
these young girls in a school. That hit me profoundly, as well.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I would just point out that
this committee and the Senate just passed a resolution
condemning that attack, which I hope sends an important message
not just to the Taliban, but to the women of Afghanistan.
Secretary Blinken. Well, I think it is important, and it
does, because here is what is important. First, even as we
withdraw our forces from Afghanistan, and NATO withdraws its
forces, we are not withdrawing from Afghanistan. We are
determined to sustain a strong embassy and a strong diplomatic
presence. We are working with other partner countries so that
they do the same. We are trying to put in place what is
necessary to sustain that, and we will look forward to actually
sharing that with the committee in the weeks ahead.
As a result, to continue most of the programs that we have
had in place, we have committed over the years, as you know
better than I do, nearly $800 million to programs for women and
girls in Afghanistan. We plan to sustain that programming, and
even more broadly economic development, humanitarian security
force support. I acknowledge it is not going to be necessarily
a simple proposition. It comes with real challenges. I believe
that with the right embassy presence and the right team, we can
sustain these programs, and we can provide appropriate
oversight to make sure the money is being well spent. That is
one piece.
The other piece is a future Afghanistan that does not
uphold these basic rights, including the gains made for women
and girls, is going to be a pariah internationally. It is not
going to have support from anyone, certainly not from the
United States. That also, I think, is going to have to get
factored into the thinking of future governance in Afghanistan.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I am out of time, but I
certainly hope that is the case and that the United States will
continue to lead the charge on getting support from the
international community to hold the Taliban accountable for
what they are doing.
The Chairman. Senator Romney.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. I appreciate the work
that you are leading and applaud many of the initiatives that
you described today and that you are carrying out.
One thing you said today that I wanted to make a comment
about, which is that looking at Central America to try to deal
with some of the illegal immigration crisis that we are seeing
at the border and attempting to deal with some of the root
causes, as you described it, of illegal immigration, and some
funding provided to the Central Americans to help deal with
some of those root causes, I am concerned that a lot of that
funding is going to end up in corrupt hands. I would also note
that fighting crime and poverty there is quite a task because
we have crime and poverty here that we have not been able to
solve. How we are going to be able to solve them in someone
else's country is beyond me.
I also believe that the great majority of people who come
here illegally come here for better opportunity, which is part
of our free enterprise system, as opposed to the socialism they
are living under, and for freedom from autocracies. So I would
note that I think the best solutions to this crisis are
completing the barrier, mandatory E-Verify. These are the kinds
of things I think will make a difference.
Let me go to another topic. I am concerned about what I
read about Mexico and about the number of assassinations that
have occurred in Mexico leading up to their elections. I mean,
I do not have the sources of information that you have,
obviously, but it read as if it was almost a failed state. We
are not just talking about a few. I think the number was like
over 80 people had been assassinated leading up to the
elections.
This is extraordinary. This is a country that is apparently
being ridden with crime lords taking over the Government. How
bad is it, and is there an effort that we can help support the
Government in trying to bring stability to that country?
Secretary Blinken. Senator, I very much share your concern
about that, about insecurity in general, about this political
violence as well in particular; and, of course, the violence
being perpetrated by these drug gangs, transnational criminal
organizations that are involved.
One of the things that we have done is reengage with the
Mexicans to restart and hopefully really reenergize the work
that we had been doing together on security. So we have a high-
level dialogue on security issues that is now restarting, as
well as one on economic issues.
So I believe that we can be helpful to the Mexicans in
getting a better grip on some of this violence. I acknowledge
it is not easy at all, but necessary. There, too, I would
welcome working with this committee on good ideas to try to
advance that. The bottom line is we are reengaged with the
Mexican Government on security issues to see if we can be
helpful.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
Another topic, going across the world, in Taiwan, I am very
concerned that what the Taiwanese are hearing from the Chinese
is harming our interests there and the interests of freedom.
According to the Ambassador from Taiwan, she indicated that she
received social media that said that Americans have so much
vaccine that we are using it to provide vaccines for our
animals, our pets, our dogs and our cats, and that the lives of
Taiwanese are not worth as much as an American dog.
Clearly, it is in our interest in a very critical nation in
the world to see vaccinations that we have available going to
Taiwan. I am concerned, if COVAX is the source of providing
those vaccines, that COVAX will be, if you will, pressured by
China, will not give the Taiwanese what they need.
Are we giving directly the vaccinations that Taiwan needs,
and can we make the number large enough? I understand it was
announced at 750,000 doses. If that is a Pfizer or Moderna
dose, that is half that number in terms of vaccinated people.
They need something much closer to 2 million.
I just hope that you will bring extra attention to that
issue.
Secretary Blinken. Senator, in short, yes. We are making
sure that vaccines do get to Taiwan. Just to be clear about
what we are doing and how we are doing it, the President
announced, as you know, that we would be pushing out between
now and early July 80 million vaccine doses to include a
combination of AstraZeneca, but also Pfizer and Moderna, and we
are doing some of that in coordination with COVAX. Even in
coordination with COVAX, we can direct where the vaccines go,
and some of it just directly.
The first 25 million doses is what we describe the
allocation for those to include doses for Taiwan. There are
another 55 million to follow between now and early July, and
then beyond that, two things are very important. One is we will
continue, after the 80 million, to provide excess doses in the
months ahead as we have them, because we will have them.
Parenthetically, the 80 million doses, we will be, by a
factor of 5, the leading country in sharing vaccines with the
world, by a factor of 5. China has sold a lot to other
countries, but in terms of actually giving them to other
countries, by a factor of 5.
Equally important, we are working very hard right now on
significantly increasing production capabilities so that we can
make sure that more vaccines are produced more quickly and that
we can be the leader in vaccinating the world. Of course, as
you know, it is not just the right thing to do, it is
profoundly in our interest, because as long as this virus is
replicating somewhere, it is going to be mutating. If it is
mutating, it could come back to bite us.
So we have a strong incentive to get ahead of this, and I
believe that with the work that we are doing, that the
President is doing on this, we will be the leader in making
sure that the world is vaccinated, including Taiwan.
Senator Romney. I have very little time, and that means you
have very little time for this answer. Coming back from Europe
and that meeting with the G7, to what extent are you
comfortable with or have confidence in the reaction of our
other G7 members to the threat that is posed by China?
Secretary Blinken. I think, Senator, quickly--and I am
happy to go into more detail at another time--I think there is
a rising appreciation for the challenges posed by China,
including, for example, when it comes to technology and their
various networks. We have spent a lot of time talking about
that, about resilient supply chains. That concern is rising
across the board.
Now, there are differences among certain countries. I think
the work the Senate is doing, including I believe this
afternoon, is going to have a very meaningful impact, and we
appreciate that.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Mr. Secretary, good to talk with you again
following this morning's Appropriations Committee hearing.
Just following up on what Senator Romney and you were just
discussing, I think this is an important moment for bold
vaccine diplomacy by the United States. We have long been a
world leader in public health. We have, because of the efforts
of this Administration and the previous one, developed the
world-leading, most effective vaccines. Because of President
Biden's relentless focus on vaccinating the American people, we
are now on the threshold of 70 percent vaccination in a number
of states, and I do think it is time for bold vaccine
diplomacy.
What more could we be doing in the Senate on a bipartisan
basis to send a strong signal of support for taking decisive
steps? I think the announcement last week was terrific. What I
heard in both Taiwan and South Korea, as well as from other
countries, was very encouraging. What else would be helpful for
you to hear from Congress about this initiative?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you for putting a spotlight on
that, because I could not agree more with you and Senator
Romney on the importance of this, and also, honestly, the
opportunity to show our leadership.
So, I think the next most important step beyond the
vaccines that we have available to share is increasing
significantly production capacity in the United States, as well
as in other parts of the world. If we stay on the current
trajectory in terms of the vaccines produced and the pace at
which they are being administered, we are not going to get to
global herd immunity, roughly 70 percent, as you know very
well, until 2024. That is unacceptable, or at least it should
be.
We do, I believe, especially if we manage to significantly
increase production and then share that production, we can get
there a lot faster. I think the President will be coming back
to you on this in the relatively near future, things that we
can do to boost production.
Senator Coons. As you know, I had a hand in the BUILD Act
and in standing up the DFC. I think it is a tool that, in
partnership with some of our key allies, could be critical.
While in South Korea, I had a number of conversations about
vaccine partnership in terms of manufacturing. We would be
excited to work with you on that.
Let me move on to the questions that have been raised a
number of times today about the Northern Triangle. I will add
to that the Sahel, two areas of the world where we have
significant fragility, a band of several states in West Africa,
a grouping of three states in Central America where corruption,
impunity, widespread insecurity, the impacts of climate change
are having a dramatic impact.
The Global Fragility Act is a bill that was signed into law
that Senator Lindsay Graham and I worked hard on that provides
a framework for accountability, for metrics, and for a State
Department-led partnership between State, USAID, and DoD on
dealing with fragility.
How do you see the Global Fragility Act framework being
relevant to places like the Sahel or the Northern Triangle, and
how can that help focus the difficult work the Vice President
is currently leading in terms of investing and stabilizing
three countries that have a very troubled current status, but
where successfully stabilizing them is essential to our
security and stability as well?
Secretary Blinken. A couple of things. First, thank you for
mentioning the Sahel, and thank you for your work there as
well. I think we have a deep concern about spreading
instability in the Sahel. We have roughly 20 million people who
are in need in that area--Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Niger,
Mauritania--and that, of course, becomes a breeding ground for
violent extremism, as we have seen.
We are partnered with a number of other countries to act on
countering violent extremism, on governance, on humanitarian.
We are the largest humanitarian donor in the neighborhood, as
you know. In March, we had an additional $80 million or so.
To the more specific point, I think the Global Fragility
Act is a very important vehicle for us to be able to advance
this work. The budget request that we have before you includes
$185 million to help implement the Global Fragility Act. There
is $125 million for the Prevention and Stabilization Fund, I
think $25 million above the Fiscal Year 2021 enacted budget;
$60 million for the Complex Crises Fund, which I think is
roughly $30 million above the Fiscal Year 2021 enacted.
So the resources would support the actual implementation of
the Act to try to do what you set out to do, which is to
actually anticipate and prevent a conflict, because an ounce of
prevention beats a pound of cure. Also, to support these
inclusive, locally-driven political processes to try to
stabilize some of these conflict-ridden places, working with
our external partners to integrate our capabilities.
So right now where we are is we are finalizing the
selection of five priority countries or regions based on our
assessment of the data, the opportunity for impact, and
national security priorities, and we are doing that across the
Administration with the relevant departments and agencies. Then
as we get that settled, we want to come to you and consult on
that, share our thinking, and then refine it and go to the
President for final approval.
Senator Coons. Wonderful. My last question I do not mean to
seem churlish because you have just dedicated a huge amount of
time to testifying in front of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, House Appropriations, Senate Appropriations, and the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the context that many of
us have worked in, your two predecessors appeared once, and we
had enormous difficulty getting them back to testify in front
of Foreign Relations or Appropriations and to engage around
their budgets. That was at a time when they were proposing
dramatic cuts in spending.
I am very encouraged by the budget that the Administration
is putting forward for the State Department, for AID, for a
number of other critical international functions. Can we count
on you to come back? Because you are such a good advocate for
the State Department as someone who served for decades here in
the Senate and in foreign policy. I just want to make sure that
we are going to have another opportunity for you to engage with
the Appropriations Committee and Foreign Relations Committee as
we try to enact a robust budget that meets the needs of this
moment.
Secretary Blinken. I am committed to engaging this
committee, as well as the Appropriations Committees, in a whole
variety of ways, whether it is in hearings, in private
conversations, in individual conversations. I made a commitment
to the Chairman during the confirmation process that I would do
that, and I will be held to that.
Senator Coons. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
The Chairman. To the Secretary's credit, he has kept his
word on that.
Senator Portman is with us virtually, I understand.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here.
I will get right down to my questions. As you know from
Senator Shaheen's comments, I was on the congressional
delegation recently to Lithuania, to Ukraine, and to Georgia.
We spent quite a bit of time talking about the Belarus issues
and Lithuania, including meeting with the opposition leader.
I want to start by just saying it will not surprise you to
hear that I strongly disagree with the Administration's
position on Nord Stream 2, which is a reversal of a previous
position, and waiving the congressionally mandated sanctions on
Nord Stream 2 is going to have a detrimental impact on these
other countries in the region, particularly Ukraine, where the
pipeline apparently goes through Ukraine, where there is about
a $3 billion fee that is badly needed in Ukraine these days and
that is in our interest.
One issue that has come to my attention that I had not
fully realized is the threat they are feeling not just from
their eastern border, where Russia has recently sent 110,000
troops and left equipment there, by the way, and left most of
those troops, but also on the northern border with Belarus,
where Russia's military presence is increasing.
So more and more pressure on them, and again something that
is not perhaps fully understood is that the pipeline itself in
a way was a way to encourage the safety of Ukraine in that
Russia would be unlikely to want to destroy its own pipeline
should it make a mistake and engage in further aggression
towards Ukraine.
So can you comment on why you changed your mind? I see that
you have already talked about this today. I was not able to
listen to all the testimony. How do you answer Ukraine when
they say, among other things, that no one even bothered to talk
to President Zelensky about it before this decision was made?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Senator. Yes, we
did have an opportunity to talk about this a little bit before.
Just to focus in on it again, first let me just say President
Biden spoke to President Zelensky today. He invited him to
Washington in the coming weeks, and they had a very good
conversation.
Also, for the record, we did share with our Ukrainian
partners our intentions when it came to the pipeline, and maybe
that information did not get directly to President Zelensky; it
certainly should have.
Senator Portman. Well, I think it certainly should have
been communicated to him. By the way, I do appreciate the fact
that that phone call was made. Thank you. I am sure you played
a big role in that. Not as good as having Georgia and Ukraine
present, at least for a 10- or 15-minute session with the NATO
summit. That is what I think is really needed, because
otherwise it just sends the wrong signal to Russia, and this is
something that I know you understand well. These signals are
important. It is the narrative and the disinformation that
Russia will now engage in that makes it even more difficult for
Ukraine.
I will not ask you to go into your explanation. I will find
it from the previous questions, but I must say I am
disappointed. I know that you yourself had a strong view on
this at one point, that Nord Stream 2 was not something that
was in our interest.
With regard to an ambassador to Ukraine, we have a good
career team there, as you know. You were there recently, and
thank you for making the trip. We need an ambassador. I assume
you heard this from all the folks in the Government in Ukraine,
as we did. I have been there with an ambassador and without an
ambassador, and it is a big difference. As you know, we came
very close to getting General Dayton through the process last
time. Why have you all not nominated someone, and what is your
plan on nominating an ambassador for Ukraine?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator. We are trying to
move forward on that as quickly as possible, and we have a
process that I am sure you are familiar with at the State
Department in terms of putting forward ambassadors. We are in
the midst of that process now, and I anticipate that that will
happen in relatively short order.
Let me just say, that is a priority for us and for the
President. I want to make sure that we have the strongest
possible person leading the strongest possible team in Ukraine.
Senator Portman. Well, Mr. Secretary, when you nominate
someone, I assume it will be a career person who has a good
background, and I am glad you are looking to someone who has
experience because it is a critical post. I will be one of
those who will be very eager to help you get that through the
process as quickly as possible.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Senator Portman. I think both the Chairman and the Ranking
Member will agree with me.
On the NATO MAP issue, in 2008 then-Senator Biden
introduced a resolution calling for a NATO membership action
plan for Ukraine and for Georgia. By the way, that was the same
year, as you know, that NATO said they were going to have both
Georgia and Ukraine come into NATO, just a question of when.
That resolution passed the Senate easily. It had the support of
a lot of members, including a senator named Obama and one named
Clinton, and one named McCain, totally bipartisan.
Does this Administration still support a membership action
plan for Ukraine and Georgia?
Secretary Blinken. We support Ukraine membership in NATO.
It currently has all of the tools it needs, because since the
membership action plan was created, a number of other very
important tools were developed to help countries prepare for
possible NATO membership, including an annual program that
Ukraine benefits from. In our estimation, Ukraine has all the
tools that it needs to continue to move forward in that
direction, and we are working with it on virtually a daily
basis.
The MAP itself would have to be done in full consensus with
other NATO members. I think there are some countries that are
less supportive than others of that right now. Irrespective of
that, Ukraine has the tools it needs to move forward toward
being ready for membership in the future.
The other piece of this, though, as you know, given all the
time and investment you have made on this, as important as its
preparations militarily and strategically is the preparation
when it comes to having good governance and dealing with the
aggression that is eating at Ukraine from within, and that is
corruption and a system that works effectively to deal with it.
So what we also need to see from Ukraine is continued progress
on that level, as well.
Senator Portman. No question there has been enormous
progress made. We need look back only to 2014 when they began
and the electoral changes, the judicial reforms, and others,
some of the economic reforms, have been substantial. I agree,
more needs to be done, and more has to be done, frankly, in
order for NATO membership to be completed. I would hope, as I
said earlier, about the narrative, that we are not backing off
on membership action plan, understanding that you have to
convince the other NATO members to go along.
The United States tends to have a significant influence in
NATO. We are their champion. We are the country they look to,
and they are under enormous pressure right now. This build-up
on the eastern border is something that mystifies everybody
except that Russia must have some designs on continuing their
aggression and holding on to Crimea and the Donbas. Then again,
what is happening in Belarus is an additional very serious
concern.
My time is probably over, but the Global Engagement we
talked about, and we look forward to following up with you
about the Global Engagement Center in the budget request.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. This has been very helpful.
Because members have been putting down their views about
the JCPOA, I am going to do the same thing. I was one of the
largest proponents of the JCPOA on this committee, and I
continue to be, and I believe it was disastrous for the Trump
administration to back out of it.
The first sentence of the first paragraph, as I recall,
said that Iran reaffirms that it will never seek to purchase,
acquire, or develop a nuclear weapon.
Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
Senator Kaine. An enforceable agreement.
Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
Senator Kaine. Signed before the entire global community,
not only with allies of the United States, with adversaries of
the United States, Russia and China.
Permanent, enforceable, would give the U.S. grounds for, I
think, defendable military action should Iran have violated it.
Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
Senator Kaine. The agreement contained many other
provisions with respect to limitations on Iran's nuclear
program.
Now, many of those provisions were temporary. Some expired
in 5 years, some expired in 10, some expired in 15, and some
expired in 25. There was one other permanent part of the
agreement. At year 8 in the agreement, the Iranian legislature
was required to permanently embrace the additional protocol
inspection requirements of the IAEA, which at the time and
today was state-of-the-art in terms of inspection. So a
permanent agreement never to purchase, acquire, develop nuclear
weapons, and a permanent inspection regime that would enable us
to determine if they were violating their agreement.
What did we give up to get that? What did we give up? The
Ranking Member said we gave them a lot of money. We gave them
their money. Great work by Chairman Menendez and others in
putting a sanctions regime in place had led us to be able to
freeze money that was not our money. It was not American
taxpayer dollars. It was Iranian money.
So they got their own money back and in exchange agreed to
permanently pledge to the entire world that they would never
have a nuclear program.
Why the Trump administration would want to tear up that
agreement and allow Iran to go back to, okay, I guess we do not
have to abide by our side of it anymore. I just am continuously
flummoxed by it.
So if you could return to compliance for compliance, it
would not turn Iran into a good actor, but they would be a bad
actor without a nuclear program rather than a bad actor rushing
toward a nuclear program.
I will never forget as a member of this committee going to
Israel in January of 2015 with the then-Chairman, Republican
Bob Corker, to sit in Prime Minister Netanyahu's office and ask
about what Israel thought about our nuclear negotiations. The
Prime Minister was completely against it.
We had a meeting scheduled the next day with Tamir Pardo,
the head of Mossad in Tel Aviv. The Prime Minister told us that
meeting was canceled, that we were not going to be able to go
do it. Our Republican committee chair had the backbone to look
him in the face and say if you cancel that meeting, we are
canceling all the rest of the meetings here in Israel, we will
leave tomorrow, we will not have a single other meeting.
Hastily, the meeting suddenly reappeared on the schedule,
and we went to Tel Aviv and we sat down in the offices of
Mossad with Tamir Pardo and others, and what they told us is,
look, we do not like Iran, we do not know whether this is going
to work, but what we do know is that the maximum pressure
campaign is not working. We are hurting Iran's economy, but we
are causing them to floor it in terms of developing a nuclear
weapons program.
So if you could return to compliance for compliance and get
Iran once again to say we will never seek to purchase, acquire,
or develop nuclear weapons ever, and we will permanently agree
to the additional protocol of the IAEA, I would be strongly
supportive, on one condition. There is a ``but'' to this long
intro. Get American hostages out of Iran. I do not think doing
the deal with American hostages still in Iran is a good idea,
and I would say that would need to be a pre-condition for me,
and I would hope that the Administration would take that
seriously.
We had a hearing this morning in Armed Services, Mr.
Secretary, about the U.S.-China relationship, and obviously
this has dominated much of the discussion too. I could not help
bring up a wonderful quote of George Kennan in Foreign Affairs,
1947, ``The Sources of Soviet Conduct.'' Here is his quote. He
basically says the way that the U.S. needs to be strong in any
bilateral competition of this kind is to be strong internally.
``Exhibitions of indecision, disunity, and internal
disintegration within this country have an exhilarating effect
on the whole Communist movement. At each evidence of these
tendencies, a thrill of hope and excitement goes through the
Communist world. The most important thing we can do to be
strong vis-a-vis China is to be strong internally.''
They celebrate when they see us in chaos. They celebrate
when they see an attack on the U.S. Capitol by domestic
insurrectionists. They celebrate when they see the Congress of
the United States fighting over whether we even want to analyze
what happened in order to prevent it from happening again.
So you have a big job to go out to the world and get good
work done with respect to shoring up China, but we have a lot
of work to do here to demonstrate unity of purpose and resolve.
I think the bill that we are about to pass on the Senate floor,
which is built largely on this committee's nearly unanimous
work on a China bill a month or so ago, is a really good piece
of this.
The other thing we need to do with respect to China--and
then here is my last question for you--is what they most fear
about us is not our military, not even our economy. What they
most fear about us is our network of allies, because they do
not really have them. People understand China is predatory,
self-interested, and they are not an ally or a partner in the
traditional sense. They do not like NATO. They do not like the
Quad. They do not like U.S.-India cooperation. They hated the
idea of a Trans-Pacific partnership with the U.S. more engaged
in Asia. They hate the network of alliances.
So tell us about the Summit for Democracy and what the
Biden administration and the State Department are going to do
in planning this gathering of the global democracies to share
best practices, to look in the mirror and be self-critical, and
to try to improve and strengthen democratic ties. That will be
the thing that will most rattle the cage of Chinese leadership.
Secretary Blinken. Well, first, Senator, I do not think I
have a word to add or to change based on what you just said.
Actually, your description of planning for the summit is also
right on. I think we are actively doing that. We look forward
to hopefully the participation of members of this committee;
but well before that, to sharing our thinking in more detail
about what we are doing.
To the point that you just made, I think this is an
opportunity for countries, democratic countries, to come
together to look at the different challenges to democracy that
we are each facing, including internally, because there are a
lot of common denominators that manifest themselves in
different ways. We want to have that conversation, as well as
looking at what we can do to strengthen, to shore up, to make
more resilient democracies around the world, as well as have a
common agenda on a number of the most critical issues, dealing
with autocracies being right at the top of the list.
I am looking forward to an opportunity in the relatively
near future to starting to share some more detailed thinking
and to get thinking from this committee about how we can make
this--and, by the way, not just a one off, but part of an
ongoing process and an ongoing dialogue among democracies to
deal with the challenges we face.
Senator Kaine. I am over my time. Thanks for your
indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Hagerty.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to be with you again today.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to applaud you for your support
of the Abraham Accords. As recently as April of this year, you
were at the Israeli Embassy here in the United States speaking
in a very positive vein about what the Abraham Accords have
done to bring peace and stability to a very important region of
the world in the Middle East. I would also applaud our national
security advisor, Jake Sullivan, who talked about this in late
January, specifically saying that the Abraham Accords brought
about greater security for the region, greater economic
prosperity for the region, and it was in America's interest,
and I agree with those statements.
I was just in Israel, as I mentioned to you this morning,
and I met with a number of Israeli business leaders while I was
there. They have every interest in seeing the progress that was
underway, that is underway, continue. I was encouraged by the
fact that they are doing business right now. I met with two
businessmen who are doing business in the UAE and trying to
continue this momentum forward.
I think that it is a very positive development that is
undertaken. I think the momentum in that direction has been
very positive. I look forward to your comments on how you would
continue to move us down that lane.
Secretary Blinken. Senator, I could not agree with you
more. I think two things that we are working on. One is with
those countries that are already a part of the Accord. That is,
they are moving forward on normalization in one way or another
with Israel. We are engaged with them as well as with Israel
and looking to see how we can be supportive, how we can help
move that process forward. If there are any moments when things
get a little bit stuck, maybe we can help unstick things.
To your point, I think people are extremely receptive, and
this is going to have, I think, very concrete, positive
manifestations in people's lives, in particular because of the
increased business, trade, economic relationships, among other
things.
Second, though, is we are also looking to see if there are
countries that are not yet part of the Accords that might be
interested in joining. We are very actively looking at that and
talking to countries that may have an interest and encouraging
them in that direction.
Senator Hagerty. I appreciate Senator Coon's comments in
this regard, and I would join him to say we look forward to
working with you and utilizing the tools that have already been
developed with the Development Finance Corporation and others
that we can utilize to continue to move down this path, because
I think prosperity will breed peace, and I think the momentum
is important there.
Another side of this, though, is Iran. Those same people
expressed to me a concern about our appeasement of Iran, and
were we to continue to move in this direction, it is going to
make it more difficult for us in the Middle East. I appreciate
the reasons why the Europeans are there in Vienna trying to
encourage this, but our partners and our allies in the Middle
East are very concerned about our posture toward Iran.
I mentioned this to you earlier this morning. To the extent
that Iran were to receive sanctions relief, I am very concerned
that those dollars not find their way back to proxies like
Hamas and Hezbollah. I just witnessed the devastation on the
ground of what that Iranian technology and Iranian funding can
do and can deliver in terms of the havoc and death of civilians
through that.
I also am concerned about the aid to the Palestinian
Authority. With Hamas' involvement in the Gaza Strip, the
efforts to rebuild, the Israeli leaders that I met with were
very clear to me that those funds find their way into tunnels.
They described a water project that had been funded for the
Gaza area. The pipes for the water project got converted into
weaponry that landed in Israel.
I think it is going to take a tremendous amount of
diligence. I would prefer to not do this until Hamas, their
grip on the area has been changed, and I am going to be very
focused on, again, seeing that we be very good stewards of
taxpayer dollars and not allow these dollars in any way or
respect to get into the hands of terrorists again.
Iran has, again, restated its willingness and desire to re-
arm Hamas and help them build their terrorism infrastructure.
So I am extraordinarily concerned about any move that would put
more financial capability into the hands of Iran.
I would like to turn our discussion for a bit to the East
Asia Pacific region. You and I have discussed this. I think
that the Indo-Pacific strategy is absolutely critical to
American safety and prosperity. The Biden administration's own
plans underscore the fact that China is the only nation that is
really capable of mounting resistance to America and becoming a
greater and greater threat, not only to America, but to the
world every day. The State Department plays a very important
role in this region, and looking at the budget, the allocation
of resources there, we put more resources in Africa, we put
more resources in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
than we do in the East Asia Pacific region, and I just wanted
to get your thoughts about the resourcing of the State
Department in this area and where you see it going.
Secretary Blinken. I very much appreciate that, and I
appreciate as well all of the work that you have done,
including in prior capacities in this area.
Look, to your point, the Indo-Pacific is the front line of
the competition with China. China dedicates about 50 percent of
its assistance and 50 percent of its economic diplomacy to the
Indo-Pacific. We have asked for in the budget resources to help
contend with that, but this has to be a whole-of-government
enterprise.
We talked a little bit earlier, for example, about the DFC,
something I know you know very well, and other instruments that
we have to compete more effectively and that we are determined
to bring to bear. I think we are looking at this politically;
and, of course, I think it was very important that the
President convened the first-ever leaders-level meeting of the
Quad, and we are moving forward on that. We actually have
working groups among the Quad countries--the United States,
India, Australia, and Japan.
Senator Hagerty. I applaud that effort.
Secretary Blinken. Then at the same time there is, of
course, the economic aspect to this, where things like the DFC
and others come into play. There is the military and deterrent
piece that is very important and that we are working on. In
other words, we have to work this across the entire Government.
Just to assure you in terms of our focus and our resources,
we believe, as you do, that the Indo-Pacific is a critical
destination for them.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you. I would just close with one
comment. I was very encouraged by your report from the G7 that
your counterparts are appreciating and understanding the threat
from China, particularly from a technology standpoint, and you
and I have talked about this before. The Clean Network
Initiative I think is a great piece of work that has been
undertaken. I want to continue to encourage you to undertake
that effort, however you decide to name it. I think that it can
have a terrific impact in terms of bringing our allies together
to support a clean network around the world.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Markey.
I am going to ask Senator Schatz, would you preside here so
I can go vote? Thank you.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you again, Mr. Secretary. When you were here
last, you committed to oversee an interagency process to
determine whether the atrocities committed against the Rohingya
minority in Burma constitutes genocide. Since then, the same
military leaders who orchestrated atrocities against the
Rohingya have seized power in a violent coup against the
elected Government, and it is estimated that more than 800
people have been killed in this ongoing crackdown.
Could you update us on what the status of the genocide
determination process is and when you expect to make a
decision?
Secretary Blinken. It is ongoing and actively ongoing. I
cannot put a date to it. I need to actually check with my
colleagues to see exactly when they expect to complete it, but
I can tell you it is very much actively ongoing. At the same
time we are doing other work, including supporting the work of
the U.N. investigative mechanism to try to collect and preserve
evidence that will be very important as well. I am happy to
come back to you with a timeline.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Again, I think the more that can
be done on an expedited basis would be the better. Justice
delayed is justice denied for these people, so I think it would
be very helpful to know that the U.S. Government is on their
side.
The Burmese military junta continues to attack peaceful
citizen protesters and denies its citizens basic human rights
and democratic rule. The recent arrests of foreign journalists,
including Americans Danny Fenster and Nathan Maung, highlight
the urgency of cutting off this brutal regime's financial
flows.
Can you tell us what steps are being taken by the U.S.
Government to secure the release of Danny Fenster and Nathan
Maung?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. We are very concerned with their
detentions, journalists doing their jobs, Americans. We had
actually consular access to Nathan Maung. We have not had that
access to Daniel Fenster, which in and of itself is a violation
of the Vienna Convention, among other things. So we are
pressing in every way that we can not only to get the access in
the first instance, but to get them released and get them home.
It is challenging because, of course, our contacts and ability
to engage the military regime are extremely limited, but we are
working this through other countries, other partners as well.
Senator Markey. So whether it is journalism being practiced
in the United States or in Saudi Arabia or in Burma, I think it
is absolutely imperative that the United States Government
stand up to make sure that their names are known and that they
know that they are going to have the United States Government
on their side. So the more that can be done, I think the better
for every journalist in the world sending that signal.
In March, I called for the United States to take steps to
sanction the Myanmar oil and gas enterprise, whose revenues are
an estimated $1.5 billion annually and make up one of the
largest remaining streams funding the junta. Will the United
States take steps to cut off the flow of oil and gas revenues
to the military junta? Some companies have suspended payments,
but there is still no comprehensive regime in place to ensure
these funds do not continue to support the military.
Secretary Blinken. Yes, we are looking at the most
effective means we can bring to bear to deny support to the
regime. That includes, by the way, engaging other countries
that have investments in enterprises that support the regime to
consider ending those investments and that support. We will
look at anything that can meaningfully do that. We also have to
factor in the impact that any step would have on the people of
Burma to make sure we are not doing harm to them in the
process.
Senator Markey. I think it is important for us not to do
harm, but I have had extensive conversations with the Burmese
activists, members of the national unity Government, and NGOs
who argue strongly that we can cut off this funding to the
military without major negative impacts to the people of Burma,
who are already suffering so much. So I just urge you to use
all the tools you have to cut off that funding. Oil revenues,
unfortunately, in too many countries of the world is the stream
that goes to the plutocrats, the autocrats that run these
countries. The more that we deal with the oil and gas issues in
all these countries I think the better off we are.
I want to applaud you for prioritizing LGBTQI rights in the
first 100 days. As we celebrate Pride Month all around the
world, the Pride flag hangs across U.S. embassies, sending a
message of tolerance and love. Back here in January, you said
that you were going to swiftly appoint an LGBTQI envoy. Could
you give us an update on what the status of that promise is?
Secretary Blinken. The best update is to say stay tuned. We
are actively working on that. We have to, as you know, run
through a lot of traps when it comes to making vetting, et
cetera. We are actively working on that, and I hope to have a
name for you in the near future.
Senator Markey. If I may, in terms of international law, it
is legal for asylum seekers to present themselves at the United
States border for processing. Could you clarify what the
Administration's position is on that? Because the number of
refugees and asylum seekers who need help is larger than ever,
and it will probably increase. So what is that message to those
who are seeking asylum in our country in terms of presenting
themselves at our border?
Secretary Blinken. You are correct, but I do not want to
get out of my lane and make sure that I am deferring to my
colleagues who are responsible for these issues, starting with
the Department of Homeland Security and the secretary there. As
a basic proposition, our entire practice and history up until
recently had been that, yes, people have the right to present
themselves for asylum and to have that request considered and
acted on. I think one of the very significant challenges that
we faced over the years is that we have not had the resources
in place to deal with that effectively and efficiently. As a
result, people presenting themselves for asylum would not have
their case evaluated and adjudicated in a short period of time,
and that led to a series of other problems and concerns.
So one of the things I think that would need to be done in
order to make good on the long tradition of having people
present themselves for asylum is to make sure that there are
actually resources in place to do that. For example, judges or
others who are able to quickly assess and evaluate whether
there is a legitimate claim, because if there is not, people
need to return.
Now, as a practical matter right now, the border is not
open. We also have Title 42 that is in effect as a result of
COVID. In the future we need to reform the system for asylum.
Senator Markey. We do not want to change our policy on
asylum. We want to make sure that the funding is there so that
those who do present themselves are given the protections of
American law.
I cannot thank you enough, Mr. Secretary, for the great job
you are doing. Thank you.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Schatz [presiding]. Senator Young.
Senator Young. Welcome. Good to see you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, where a department decides to allocate its
resources suggests what its priorities are. We see this clearly
in the State Department's allocation of foreign military
financing. The Department requests $6.1 billion in FMF for the
upcoming year, of which a mere $129 million is allocated for
partners in East Asia and the Pacific at a time of increasing
Chinese military aggression across the region.
The China legislation that this chamber is currently
considering for the U.S. Senate, and that I hope passes today,
includes a provision from this committee which would more than
double the availability of FMF to the Indo-Pacific over the
next 5 years, more than $650 million in total. What would be
your priorities for directing these funds, the $650 million?
Then relatedly, more broadly, maybe you could speak to the
State Department's priorities for increasing conventional
military assistance; that is, foreign military funding, as well
as training.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much. Let me just say, we
welcome working with you on that going forward to make sure
that we are directing and dedicating our resources in the most
important places and as effectively as possible.
I think we have to look at this in a couple of ways. One,
in some instances, particularly in the Asia Pacific, we benefit
from already extremely capable allies and partners, including
allies and partners that have the means to further make
necessary investments in their defense and in our collective
security. So that is an important factor.
Of course, as you know, with both Japan and Korea, we have
been working very hard to extend the host nation support
agreements that we have, as well as make available technology
to them and to other partners. Similarly, we have a long track
record of doing that with Australia.
Having said that, I would actually welcome an opportunity
to think with you about how we can most effectively direct that
kind of assistance and support.
Senator Young. I appreciate that. I will follow up with you
and your team in that regard.
Earlier this year, Mr. Secretary, the previous commander of
INDOPACOM, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, called for consistent
arms sales to Taiwan and for the United States to help to
encourage Taiwan on their investments, including investments
which are critical to deterring China.
What capabilities, Mr. Secretary, are most important for
Taiwan to possess?
Secretary Blinken. I think there are a few things. First
and to your point, I think we have had about $18 billion in
foreign military sales since 2017. So there is a strong
foundation, and indeed a number of sales have gone forward just
within the last weeks and months.
One of the things I think we should focus on is helping
Taiwan strengthen its asymmetric capabilities like reserve
force reform. There is some focus countries often have on these
large weapons systems. That can be important in defense, but
the strategies, the asymmetric capabilities, these are I think
increasingly important.
Senator Young. How can we build and support a robust
foreign military financing agreement with Taiwan so that we
might give them greater flexibility in increasing their
conventional capabilities?
Secretary Blinken. I would certainly be interested in
hearing where there are problems, constraints, challenges, and
looking to see if there is more we can do and more effectively
consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and our commitment to
make sure that Taiwan has the means to defend itself.
Senator Young. I think we are going to have to make some
difficult decisions there moving forward. I look forward to
working with you.
Related to difficult decisions and problem sets, let us
pivot to Iran. I know many of my colleagues are deeply
concerned about the Administration's hurry to reach a nuclear
agreement with Iran, even as the regime provides material
support to groups that just spent 2 weeks raining rockets into
our ally, Israel. I hope you can appreciate the tension that
some see or feel there.
Why does the Department believe that relaxing sanctions and
providing more resources for Iran to fund their proxy network
would improve the security of the region?
Secretary Blinken. Senator, I think what would improve the
security of the region would be to start with making sure that
Iran cannot continue to gallop forward with its nuclear
program, which unfortunately it is doing since we pulled out of
the agreement and it decided as a result not to abide by the
constraints. As we were discussing a little bit earlier with
our colleagues, what we have seen Iran do under maximum
pressure is to significantly increase its capacity when it
comes to its stockpile of enriched uranium, more than tenfold
what it had during the agreement, when it comes to spinning
more advanced centrifuges, enriching to 20 percent and in some
cases to 60 percent. All of this means that Iran is now moving
inexorably to a place where the breakout time to produce
fissile material for a weapon will move from a year or more
under the agreement to now probably a few months, and if this
keeps going to a matter of weeks.
As we were discussing earlier, that means that Iran is
going to act with even greater impunity in all these other
areas where we all agree we need to stop what it is doing.
Beyond that, I would say that, unfortunately, Iran's
support for terrorism, for groups like Hamas, destabilizing
actions in the region, that was happening before the JCPOA, it
was happening during the JCPOA, and it has accelerated since we
pulled out of the JCPOA and Iran has lifted not only
constraints on the nuclear side, but apparently constraints on
its actions in other areas.
Senator Young. I will just end with a couple of sentences,
with the Chairman's indulgence here, because I am over my
allotted time.
I will just indicate that it remains unclear to me how the
Administration intends to reach a longer and stronger nuclear
deal. If you spoke to that today, I am unclear how you get
there. I know the President campaigned on that, but I am
unclear how we get there. I would also indicate that if any
deal is struck between the Administration and our negotiators
and the Iranians, that that needs--Senator Johnson has
indicated that needs to be submitted to this body as a treaty
so that we can give sanction to it so it might be more enduring
as we look into the future. Thank you.
Secretary Blinken. Thanks, Senator.
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank
you, Mr. Secretary.
The previous Administration and State Department under
Secretary Pompeo found that China was engaged in genocide in
its treatment of the Uyghur community, and under your
leadership I believe the State Department has reaffirmed that
China is engaged in genocide.
Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
Senator Merkley. So right now we have a bill on the floor,
a competition bill with China, and lots of Chinese issues are
getting attention, including this. The sanctions that are in
Senator Rubio's and my Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act are
in the underlying bill, and also attention to the fact that
China is hosting the 2022 Olympic Games while engaged in
genocide. The underlying bill has Senator Romney's amendment
from committee. I think it had substantial bipartisan support,
a sense of Congress that diplomats should not attend.
So I just wanted to ask you today, do you support diplomats
from the United States not attending the 2022 Olympics while
China is engaged in genocide?
Secretary Blinken. Senator, what we are doing right now is
consulting closely with allies and partners to define the
common concerns that we have about China, and ideally to
establish a shared approach, which I think would be much more
effective than everyone going off in their own direction. So we
are in the process of those consultations, and I would be happy
to share more as we move forward.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. As you engage in those shared
approaches, I just want to remind you--but I do not need to do
it because I know you know this--that this has echoes of 1936
when Hitler, when the Nazi regime hosted the Olympics in
Germany while they were already engaged in egregious brutal
treatment of Jewish Germans and other political opponents
within Germany, and that was considered a massive propaganda
victory for Hitler and distracted attention from that brutal
treatment.
That is the point about a diplomatic boycott. I think even
if our allies end up not agreeing, I think the U.S. should take
that stand, and I think the majority of the members of this
committee--maybe it was universal in adopting Senator Romney's
amendment. So I just want to encourage you to ponder that frame
in that conversation with our allies. I think it is an
important frame also for our stand on human rights more broadly
and advocacy around the planet.
On another China topic, they are financing some 200 to 240
coal projects around the world at the same time that we are
already in deep trouble. I was struck by the map that came out
in the New York Times 2 weeks ago that showed the last 30 years
compared to the previous 30 years, so 1990 through 2020
compared to 1960 to 1990, in terms of both the temperature
patterns average and the drought patterns. It was a dramatic,
dramatic change between those two periods. We are already
approaching 1 to 1.5 degrees Centigrade across parts of the
United States.
So I was concerned when the Administration greenlighted the
Willow project. That is 160,000 estimated barrels per day,
producing as early as 2024 on the North Slope, for an estimated
30 years, so a massive extraction.
I was concerned in part because when you extract that oil,
it gets burned somewhere and it has a massive acceleration of
the impacts. The big irony is they are having to freeze the
permafrost, which I guess we will have to stop calling
permafrost, in order to support the equipment to extract the
oil which will accelerate the melting.
I am also concerned on the diplomatic front, that if we
engage in this type of extraction, new projects--and, by the
way, the pipelines that are being greenlighted through this,
hundreds of miles of pipeline, are considered to be essentially
the pathway for other projects that will follow the Willow
project. If we do that, how do we have the standing in the
world to talk about Canadian tar sands, to talk about Chinese
coal plants, and to lead this world in the biggest challenge
humanity has faced, which is a fast pivot off fossil fuels?
Secretary Blinken. Senator, I very much agree with the
general proposition that leading by the power of our example is
important. When it comes to climate, I cannot comment on
domestic internal issues. It is not my brief, but let me say
this. I think that we have made very significant commitments
when it comes to curbing emissions going forward, and that in
turn has helped us leverage much more meaningful commitments
from other countries, which are absolutely essential if we are
going to solve this problem, as you know better than I do. We
are 15 percent of global emissions. So even if we do everything
right at home, we have to bring the other 85 percent along,
plus we should not be the only ones tackling this problem.
So what I have seen at least internationally so far--this
is all I can attest to--is that rejoining Paris, the summit
convened by President Biden of world leaders just a couple of
months ago, and the raised ambitions of our own efforts have
had a meaningful impact of bringing others to raise their
ambitions and to do more, and that is at least what I am seeing
so far.
Senator Merkley. Well, I do think there have been a lot of
actions of the Administration that have been very helpful in
that regard. I also feel this decision, and the Nord Stream 2
decision, both involving more fossil fuel infrastructure, more
extraction, slow down the pivot that is essential, and I do not
think that humanity addresses this challenge without really
fierce, determined American leadership.
My final question. I condemn Hamas' use of the rockets
against Israel, but I am also concerned about Israel
undermining the possibility for peace by continuously
establishing new settlements, expanding those settlements, and
establishing roadways that split the West Bank into a number of
smaller units that make a potential economy in a two-state
solution extremely difficult.
Is this a concern that you share, and did you raise this
concern in your meeting with Benny Ganzt last week?
Secretary Blinken. Yes and yes.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back. I would like to follow up on
some things I asked of you during the confirmation process, and
the first is Nord Stream 2, the pipeline. There is strong
bipartisan opposition on this committee and throughout the
entire Senate to President Biden's deliberate failure to
sanction all of the entities that are involved in the
construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Protecting this Russian trap is not in the U.S. national
security interest. It is a grave mistake. The pipeline
threatens the energy security of our friends as well as our
allies. We know that Russia uses energy as a geopolitical
weapon to coerce, to manipulate. I know you have agreed to that
during our confirmation hearing, and it does seem that
President Biden is now allowing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to
be added to Russia's energy arsenal.
Putin has said essentially the same thing. On Friday he
stated that Ukraine must now show good will if it wants Russian
gas transiting through the country to continue. He said that
Russia is going to further threaten to cut gas to Ukraine. They
have done that over the Donbas conflict. This is even before
Nord Stream 2 has been completed.
So I think it is really critical that we act now. I think
we have a misguided policy right now coming from your boss, the
President. I think it is in our national security interest to
impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 now. Why is it not in our
national security interest to impose those sanctions?
Secretary Blinken. If the sanctions could, in our judgment,
have been effective in actually stopping the physical
completion of the pipeline, that would have been one thing. In
our judgment, they would not have had that effect. We did, as
you know, on May 19, sanction more entities than have ever been
sanctioned under the PEESA legislation.
As you know as well, the pipeline construction began in
2018. By the time we took office, it was more than 90 percent
complete. As we looked at this, it became clear to us that the
actual joining of those last pipes was not going to be stopped
by sanctioning the overall entity, Nord Stream 2 AG, or the
CEO.
Having said that, two things are very important. One, the
waiver that we issued can be rescinded at any time. Second,
what has to happen--there are two things that have to happen,
and they are, I think, happening. Germany is coming to the
table to talk about steps that would need to be taken if
anything starts to flow through this pipeline to make sure that
any damage done to Ukraine in fact is not done, is undone. As
we discussed a little bit earlier, it involves several things.
It involves making sure that Ukraine is whole when it comes to
any transit fees that it might lose as a result of the pipeline
actually going into operation. Second, ensuring that gas, or
oil for that matter, cannot be used as a weapon of coercion, of
blackmail, by Russia, and there are means to do that. Third, to
make sure that countries are acting up front when Russia acts
out to respond.
I would also point out that when it comes to the operation
of the pipeline, there are very significant remaining factors
that have to be taken into account: insurance, permitting. We
are looking very hard at those entities as well.
So we need to see going forward what we can put in place to
prevent, mitigate, and undo any damage that would be done if
the pipeline actually begins operations. As a very practical
matter, when it came to the last few meters of this pipeline,
it was our judgment that sanctioning that entity would not have
had any effect. The worst of all worlds would be a combination
of pipeline physically completed, relationship with Germany
poisoned, and no incentive for Germany to actually come to the
table to engage in trying to mitigate the damage that could be
done by the pipeline actually operating.
Senator Barrasso. I would just point out, Mr. Secretary,
that during your confirmation process, because you just talked
about the last few meters, you reiterated your opposition to
the Nord Stream 2 and you said, ``I am determined to do
whatever we can to prevent that completion, the last hundred
yards.'' So the fact that it was 90 percent complete when you
came into office and the Administration came into office, your
commitment to us was the last hundred yards.
I want to move on to the World Health Organization. While
President Biden and the Administration vowed to reform the
World Health Organization, I think it threw away its leverage
early on by rejoining the World Health Organization and giving
it more than $200 million. The Administration could have
insisted reforms be made. The annual World Health Assembly
meeting on May 24 was another opportunity to demand action, yet
it just reinforced the systemic problems and the inability of
this organization to make real reforms. For example, China
succeeded in that meeting in blocking Taiwan's participation at
the World Health Assembly.
Look, Taiwan only wanted to be an observer, and arguably
Taiwan has one of the world's best records in combatting COVID-
19.
In May you stated: ``There is no reasonable justification
for Taiwan's continued exclusion''--we agree--``from the
forum.'' In addition, the World Health Assembly voted to place
Syria and Belarus in leadership positions at the World Health
Organization.
You claim the best way to reform the World Health
Organization is from within. No reforms are being made. How
will we be able to make any meaningful reforms at the World
Health Organization if we cannot even prevent dictators like
Assad, who slaughters his own people, from having a leadership
role in what is the World Health Organization?
Secretary Blinken. We have only just gotten reengaged with
the World Health Organization. Unfortunately, this is not like
flipping a switch. There is, you are right, work to be done,
work that we are doing to push that body, that institution, to
make the necessary reforms, and we are very intent on that.
I think you saw with the initial phase one report that was
done on the COVID origins the initial impulse might have been
to say ``work done, job complete,'' but a number of us made
very clear the absolute not only inadequacy of that report, but
the fact that its methodology and the engagement by China in
writing the report was totally insufficient and undermined its
credibility, and now the head of the World Health Organization
has basically agreed with that and they are pursuing phase two,
which is vitally important to try to get to the bottom of what
happened.
Senator Barrasso. Let me just conclude. May 12, we had a
committee hearing, bipartisan committee, titled ``COVID-19
Pandemic and International Response.'' Gayle Smith, who is the
State Department Coordinator for Global COVID Response and
Health Security, was here. I specifically urged her to use the
World Health Assembly annual meeting to push for reforms and
get them implemented. That certainly did not occur, and I think
it is fair to say the actions were unsuccessful.
Secretary Blinken. We are working on pushing the
organization to reform. As I said, it is not like flipping a
switch, but we are very much focused on doing that, and we will
come back to you as this moves along to see if we succeed in
moving in the right direction.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary, for being here.
I want to talk about climate. I know what you are doing in
the big picture. I want to talk to you about climate within the
Department, with the Foreign Service officers and throughout.
I worry a bit that climate policy swings back and forth
depending on who is President, and to the extent that it is
possible, I think it is really important for the Department of
State in particular to kind of embed in its work, in its
training, in its day-to-day operations, in your bilateral
conversations, not just at the Secretary level, but at the line
level, conversations about collaboration on climate action,
which is to say transitioning to a clean energy economy, but
also climate mitigation strategies which, in the short run, I
think are the best platform for bilateral good will building,
particularly in Oceania and other places that are immediately
facing those impacts.
So can you talk to me a little bit about what the
Department itself is doing, not at the foreign policy level,
but at the line level?
Secretary Blinken. Sure. A few things. First, we do have
two things at the Department right now. Of course, we have the
work that the former Secretary Kerry is doing as our special
envoy on climate diplomacy around the world. We also have,
critically, a very important bureau that I hope will soon get
confirmed by the Senate, new leadership that is going to be
very important.
In our budget request, both in terms of the resources and
in terms of the human resources, we know that we need to build
up our capacity, our expertise, in a number of areas, and
climate is one of those, and the request reflects the desire to
do that.
So I am hopeful that we get some of these resources to
bring in more expertise to sharpen our training, to bring to
bear technology so that we can advance the climate mission more
effectively.
Senator Schatz. You are looking at some changes in the
curriculum for Foreign Service officers?
Secretary Blinken. Yes.
Senator Schatz. Okay, good.
Let me talk to you about Oceania. I really appreciate the
fact that you gave a message to the Pacific Island Conference
of Leaders last week, and I know how meaningful it is to have
the Secretary of State talk directly with leaders from Oceania
and commit U.S. leadership to confront the climate crisis and
support vaccine deployment.
I introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Murkowski to
elevate all of Oceania in U.S. foreign policy, and the chairman
and ranking member included a number of these provisions in the
bill that we are hopefully adopting today on the Senate floor.
Can you just talk to me about why it is important that the
United States step up its engagement with all of Oceania and
make it a central part of our Indo-Pacific strategy?
Secretary Blinken. Well, I think, among other things, it is
one area where we see China very actively engaged on a whole
variety of levels. Whether it is strategic, whether it is
economic, whether it is environmental, we want to make sure
that we, in fact, are effectively engaged and certainly not
ceding the train.
We also have, as you know very well, in a number of these
countries and territories, very significant climate challenges
that they are going to be on the front lines of having to deal
with, and we want to make sure that we can be effective in
helping them deal with it.
So there are a host of reasons why I think it makes sense
to try to not only sustain, but increase our engagement. It is
also one of the reasons I wanted to make sure early on that I
had an opportunity to engage with these countries.
Senator Schatz. Thank you. A little bit about the South and
East China Sea. Everybody knows we are doing freedom of
navigation operations to keep sea lanes and shipping lanes
open. Everybody understands what China is doing, which is sort
of using these so-called ``fishing fleets'' as proxies for the
Chinese Government.
I worry a little bit about their ability to control
escalation, because they are using these proxies, and right now
we have a rather binary choice between doing nothing and
mobilizing the United States Navy. Now, if it gets kinetic, we
win the engagement, but in a lot of ways, everybody loses that
engagement.
So I am wondering about the use of the United States Coast
Guard or other partners, whether we can start to work in an
intermediate space to be present in the East and South China
Sea without mobilizing the entire United States Navy, which
seems to me to be a little bit of a mismatch in raw power.
Secretary Blinken. Well, a few things. First, with regard
to the Navy, it is important to note that over the last years,
starting back in 2010-2011, we shifted our resource deployment
so that 60 percent of the Navy would be in the Asian Pacific,
again a process that began back in 2010. That is significant
because it is important, obviously, to have the deterrent
capacity. It is important to have the capacity to engage in
freedom of navigation operations, et cetera. So that is a
foundational baseline.
Having said that, I think there are a few things that are
also very important. We have worked very hard just in the last
few months with Australia, with France, with Germany, with
Indonesia, with Japan, with Malaysia, with the Philippines, the
U.K., Vietnam--that is, concerned countries in the region, as
well as concerned countries outside of it--to join in speaking
forcefully and engaging directly when we see China trying to
abuse its actions, whether it is unlawful claims that it is
making, the militarization of disputed features, provocations
with its maritime militia.
So we have a growing group of countries coming together
that are focused on this. In addition, we have made very clear
and reasserted our own defense commitments to countries--for
example, the Senkaku in Japan. We have an agreement, as you
know, with the Philippines. We have reaffirmed and reasserted
those.
We are certainly looking at other means that can help deal
with some of the challenges. We talked a little bit earlier, as
well. My own view--and this is not an administration position
because it is not something that has come up with the President
yet. My own view is that we also very much benefit from
ratifying the Law of the Sea.
Senator Schatz. That was my final question. So, thank you.
You said that this morning. I appreciate that you think it
would be useful to the United States to ratify the Law of the
Sea Treaty, and I understand you have not talked to the
President of the United States about this yet. Can you please
talk to the President of the United States and get back to the
committee?
Secretary Blinken. Absolutely. I would say also that when
he was chairman of this committee and/or ranking member, that
was something that he supported. In fact, we held hearings back
then. I think what is particularly significant is that the
people who feel strongest about this in our Government are our
colleagues who happen to wear uniforms.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I sat through several Law of the Sea hearings that I was
asked to chair, and I have to be honest with you, unless we get
over the ideological problems that some people have about
entering into these agreements--we spent an enormous amount of
time. I think it is incredibly important for a whole host of
both security and economic reasons, but we have got to get some
people to start rethinking what it is to engage in some of
these treaties.
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for being here.
Not since the Jimmy Carter administration has an
Administration had as many serious foreign policy blunders in
such a short period of time. The Biden administration came in
and the first week in office ended the ``remain in Mexico''
policy, which has prompted the worst illegal immigration crisis
in 20 years.
In the Middle East, the Biden administration inherited a
flowering of peace with the historic Abraham Accords, and the
Biden administration came in and began undermining our friend
and ally, the state of Israel, sent over $250 million to the
Palestinian Authority, which is in bed with Hamas, which
announced even this week that they are continuing to fund the
families of terrorists who murder innocent civilians, and they
are now doing so, in effect, because money is fungible, with
U.S. taxpayer dollars. As a result of those foreign policy
blunders, what had been an historic peace became war in recent
weeks in the Middle East.
I think there is no area in which the foreign policy
blunders have been greater than concerning Russia and Nord
Stream 2. You are not surprised that I am making this point to
you today.
I think it is useful to pause for a moment and reflect on
the successes we had as a nation concerning Russia and Nord
Stream 2 and just how President Biden has given those away.
In the summer and fall of 2019, I introduced in this
committee bipartisan sanctions to stop the construction of Nord
Stream 2, the natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. I
did so along with Senator Shaheen. It was overwhelmingly
bipartisan. Indeed, every Democrat on this committee supported
it, and all but one Republican on this committee supported it.
At the time, there was considerable Russian disinformation
being pushed in Europe. The Russian disinformation said the
pipeline is nearly complete. As they said later that year, the
pipeline is 90 percent complete, you cannot stop it, the
sanctions cannot work. The Russians pushed that relentlessly,
relentlessly, relentlessly. We now know that disinformation was
a lie.
The Congress passed that bipartisan legislation into law.
It was signed into law, if my memory serves me correctly, at
7:00 p.m. on a Thursday. At 6:45 p.m., 15 minutes before the
President signed those bipartisan sanctions into law, the
company building the pipeline announced they were immediately
halting construction. So the Russian disinformation was exactly
that, it was a lie, and the sanctions worked.
From that moment, for the next year, the pipeline laid
dormant and fallow and there was no construction. The next
year, in December of 2020, I introduced, along with Senator
Shaheen, a second wave of bipartisan sanctions that passed into
law, ratcheting up the punishment even more. Then,
unfortunately, the Biden administration came in and turned this
incredible bipartisan victory for America into a colossal
failure. It started in November, shortly after the election in
2020, when an individual, Nicholas Burns, who was identified as
an advisor to then President-elect Biden, told a German
newspaper that, ``the Americans must suspend sanctions in
return for a temporary halt to Nord Stream 2.''
Now, that message from the incoming Biden team was heard
loud and clear, which is why the Moscow Times quoted the German
foreign minister as saying of course we are very interested in
discussing the Nord Stream 2 topic with the new Administration
in Washington. That initial sign of weakness was heard, and in
late December the Russians resumed construction. For a year it
had been dormant. In late December they resumed construction in
German waters.
It was not yet done. The second wave of sanctions that we
passed into law still gave them pause. They threatened to
resume construction in deep sea Danish waters on January 15,
but they did not dare. They did not dare because they believed
the outgoing Trump administration would impose sanctions, and
they recommenced construction of the pipeline in Danish waters
on January 24, 5 days after President Biden was sworn into
office. They did so because they were convinced that the Biden
administration would not enforce the sanctions.
You sat before this committee and promised you would use
every tool you have to stop the pipeline. You sat in my office
and promised--you and I discussed this at great length in my
office. You promised you would use every tool you have to stop
the pipeline. You put out a public statement in March that
explicitly warned, ``Any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2
pipeline risks U.S. sanctions and should immediately abandon
work on the pipeline.''
Then, unfortunately, the Biden administration decided to
waive those sanctions for Nord Stream 2 AG, the umbrella group
building the pipeline, and for its CEO. In doing so, the Biden
administration all but ensured this pipeline will be completed
because, I assume, you have made a decision to embrace Angela
Merkel and, in doing so, to allow this pipeline to be completed
even though it puts billions of dollars in the pockets of
Vladimir Putin, it weakens Europe, it makes Europe more
dependent on Russia for energy, and it hurts American jobs.
Why did Joe Biden decide to waive the bipartisan sanctions
and give what is in effect a multi-billion-dollar gift to
Vladimir Putin?
Secretary Blinken. Senator, it will not surprise you to
know that I disagree with your assessment across the board.
Just to focus on the pipeline, I think we are apparently not
working from the same fact set because under your chronology,
miraculously, the construction of the pipeline had been not
only halted, but could not have been very far along, and then
somehow suddenly----
Senator Cruz. With respect, it was 90 percent complete in
2019 when the sanctions went into effect. So the statement you
made earlier that it was 90 percent complete, there was nothing
you can do, that was true a year ago, and the sanctions worked.
Secretary Blinken. Well, it was more than 90 percent
complete based on the information we had when we came to
office.
Senator Cruz. That was true a year ago when the sanctions
were passed.
Secretary Blinken. What we saw and what we have seen is the
companies finding workarounds, finding alternatives. As one
company would drop out, another would drop in. The Russians
were able to bring to bear----
Senator Cruz. Prior to the Biden team suggesting sanctions
would not be imposed, had they returned to building the
pipeline?
Secretary Blinken. We did not suggest the sanctions would
not be imposed. I think----
Senator Cruz. Was the quote from Nicholas Burns not
accurate?
Secretary Blinken. Mr. Burns was not a member of the
Administration. There was no Administration at that point, but
beyond that, had the----
Senator Cruz. Was it purely coincidence that it began on
January 24?
Secretary Blinken. Had the Germans agreed to----
The Chairman. The Secretary will suspend.
The Senator used all 7 of his minutes before he asked this
question. I have allowed you two interruptions. We are going to
let the Secretary finish, and then I need to go to another
member who has been waiting for some time.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator, had the idea, for example, of suspension for
suspension--that is, the Germans and others suspend all work on
the pipeline in return for a suspension of sanctions--that
would have been, I think, a positive outcome, and that would
have given us time to work to make sure that the pipeline could
not be completed. It was our judgment, based on the facts that
we had available to us, including from the intelligence
community, that the construction was going to be completed, the
physical construction, regardless of any step that we took in
the last few months.
As you know, we did sanction more entities under PEESA in
this last round, May 19, than had ever been sanctioned before.
We also need to preserve the ability to insist that Germany
work with us if the pipeline is actually going to become
operational, distinction between the physical completion of the
pipeline and it becoming operational, to mitigate and try to
undo the damage that we agree would be done potentially to
Ukraine, potentially to others, and that is what the Germans
are now doing.
I think the worst possible outcome from our perspective
would be physical completion of the pipeline, sanctions that
did not stop it, a poisoned relationship with Germany and no
incentive on Germany's part to actually work to undo or
mitigate the damage that will be done to Ukraine. So that is
what we are working on now.
As I mentioned, perhaps before you came in, we do still
also have some things that we are looking hard at because, as
you know very well, there are permitting requirements, even
with the physical completion of the pipeline, before it becomes
operational. There are insurance requirements, and we are
looking very hard at any entities that might be engaged in
those efforts. At the same time, we need to make sure that if
this does become operational at some point, that Ukraine is
protected, others are protected. There are ways that we are
able to do that, making sure that it is made whole on any lost
transit fees, making sure that gas cannot be used as a tool of
blackmail or coercion, so having a reserve that can come to its
assistance if Russia tried to do that; other steps to
automatically come back at Russia if it misbehaves.
So we are putting all of that in place, and I just want to
come back to another proposition that is important: the waiver
can be rescinded at any time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen is recognized, and I am going to ask him
to preside as I go vote. There is also, still pending, finally
Senator Booker and Senator Murphy, and then we will be
finished.
Senator Van Hollen [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, it is good
to see you again.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen. As I mentioned at this morning's
Appropriations Committee hearing, I support the overall
contours of the budget that you and the President have
submitted. We need a strong Department of State. We need a
strong Foreign Service to meet the challenges that we face
around the world, and the budget you proposed contains
resources to recruit, train, retain a first-rate, diverse
workforce.
I think you would also agree that one of the key tools both
in recruitment and retention is how we treat our Foreign
Service families serving overseas. Four years ago, Senator
Sullivan and I founded the bipartisan Foreign Service Caucus
here on the Hill, and based on our conversations with the
American Foreign Service Association and others, we introduced
legislation called the Foreign Service Families Act. It is a
piece of legislation before this committee right now, and it
essentially provides Foreign Service families serving overseas
the same kind of amenities and benefits that many military
families serving overseas have.
I mentioned this to you in a phone call about 10 days ago.
I am hoping that you can tell the committee today that you have
had a chance to review the legislation and that it is supported
by the Biden administration.
Secretary Blinken. I strongly support the objectives and
the goals of this and want to come back and talk to you about
it. Mea culpa. Since we spoke I have not had the opportunity to
focus on it directly, although I asked my team to do so. I
think with the press of some events in the last few days, I
have not had a chance to catch up with them. So if it is all
right, let me come back to you on that.
Certainly as described and in terms of the objectives, I
could not agree more. By the way, now that I have had an
opportunity to travel a little bit on the job, every place I go
I spend time with our embassy and the embassy community, and I
share your high regard and determination to support the
families of the men and women who are part of our Foreign
Service because, as we both know, they are serving too, but
they do not get the same support necessarily as those who are
actually direct employees of the Government.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. If
your team could just get back to us as soon as possible?
Secretary Blinken. Sure.
Senator Van Hollen. I talked to the Chairman about this
legislation. I think we would like to move it, but obviously we
would like input from the Secretary of State.
Just to flag another topic, today Senator Toomey and I sent
a letter to Secretary Yellen applauding the Administration for
the sanctions it placed on 24 officials in China who had been
complicit in the crackdown on Hong Kong, actions taken under
the Hong Kong Accountability Act. We noted in that letter,
though, that the law which passed unanimously last year
requires that sanctions also be placed on any banks that
facilitate those individuals, and we have asked the Secretary
of the Treasury to report to us. Obviously, these are the kinds
of decisions that involve the Secretary of State, the Secretary
of the Treasury. I want to put that on your radar screen,
because we are going to be pushing to make sure that we fully
implement that law.
Let me turn to Afghanistan, something you and I have talked
about as well in the past, and I appreciate your support to
expedite the visas for Afghan interpreters or Afghan staff who
have worked most closely with U.S. forces and may therefore be
targeted for assassination. That, of course, underscores the
fragility of the situation as the United States withdraws its
forces, and the risks.
We all recognize that a negotiated political solution is
the only way forward in Afghanistan. We have to bring all the
parties together, including the Taliban, and I commend
Ambassador Khalilzad for the good work he has done. My view is
we need to strengthen his hand. We need to show all the parties
involved that there is a real peace dividend if they go in that
direction.
So we have proposed, again, bipartisan legislation to
create reconstruction opportunity zones. These are zones within
Afghanistan and certain parts of Pakistan, the parts of
Pakistan that were really controlled by the Pakistan Taliban
years ago. It would allow the duty-free export from those
regions to the United States for certain kinds of goods. It
gives the President a lot of flexibility to shape the
legislation. When I asked Ambassador Khalilzad about it, he
said he thought this was a very, very worthwhile concept. He
wanted to work on the details.
I have mentioned this to you. I believe time is of the
essence. I think we all remember when the Soviets withdrew from
Afghanistan way back in the day. The United States had, of
course, supported the Mujahideen. We disengaged. We know the
sad end of that story. My view is we have to remain very
engaged, and that means not just supporting the Afghan
military, but making sure people have the tools to try to build
a better future.
This has been a proposal that has actually been supported
by Democrat and Republican administrations in the past. It
passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly years and
years ago. It floundered in the Senate for a variety of
reasons. I think the time is now to get it done, and I do not
know if you have had a chance since we spoke to take a look at
it. We really need the Administration to support this idea in
the interests of providing stability and more opportunities as
the United States withdraws its forces.
Secretary Blinken. Senator, I was seized with this idea
after we spoke. Like Ambassador Khalilzad, I think conceptually
it is a very good idea. Again, I asked my team not only to look
at it themselves, but also to talk to other colleagues, other
agencies that would have equities in this. So there again, I
need to come back to you. I think, to your point, making it
clear that there are real upsides, real opportunity for peace
and to anyone who actually plays into that, as opposed to doing
things that perpetuate war, is fundamental.
I think with regard to Pakistan, for example, they say they
are focused on so-called ``geo-economics,'' which is good, but
I think we need to demonstrate that that can have some real
meaning, and they would then factor that into their thinking
about the steps they are willing to take to make sure that
Afghanistan does not descend into civil war.
So, it is a long way of saying that I really will come back
to you on this because I think as an idea, as a concept, it is
a very good one. We, of course, have to look at the details. I
need to talk to colleagues in the other departments who have
equities in this.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. I do
think time is of the essence here given the schedule. This is,
in my view, an issue that requires a foreign policy/national
security lens. That is the whole purpose of this action. It is
a very limited approach, creating ROZs. So I hope that you will
take the laboring oar in this effort.
Thank you for your answer and your service.
With that, let me recognize Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
I know this has been a very long day. This is the second
committee that Senator Van Hollen and I have had a chance to
talk to you, and I know you are at the end, so I will be very
brief.
Secretary Blinken. What are you doing tomorrow?
[Laughter.]
Senator Murphy. We can be right here. These three have only
covered about one-fifth of the world.
I wanted to just come back to the Iran nuclear deal for a
moment. I think you answered this question in part in response
to some comments from the Chair and the Ranking Member. In
assessing the efficacy of the maximum pressure campaign, I
think we have to have a reckoning with what we got.
The Trump administration put on the table 12 demands. From
what I can tell, none of them were met. The country that I pay
the closest attention to, Yemen, saw an increased amount of
activity from Iran with respect to their proxy forces there.
Our forces in Iraq started getting shot at again by Iran's
proxies there.
I guess I sort of come to the conclusion, as we are
weighing whether to continue forward with the Trump-era
sanctions or waive or release them in exchange for a new
commitment from Iran on its nuclear program, I think it is
important for us to ask what we got for those sanctions. In
fact, is there not evidence that Iran's behavior in many
respects got worse, not better, during that time?
Am I wrong about my assessment here? They broke out of the
nuclear program, they started shooting at our troops again in
Iraq, they upped their support for many of their proxies in the
region, and they refused to come back to the table. It does not
seem like we got a lot for the sanctions that were re-imposed
and the new sanctions that were imposed during the Trump
administration, which calls into question what we would get by
keeping them in place for another 4 years.
Secretary Blinken. Yes, I share that assessment. I think
that is right, and it is, unfortunately, borne out by the
facts.
Senator Murphy. The second topic, and I am surprised
Senator Portman did not bring it up because he normally does.
We were together as part of this delegation in Ukraine. He and
I, as you know, spent a lot of time working on standing up the
capacity inside the State Department to combat misinformation.
I know you have requested in your budget essentially flat
funding for the Global Engagement Center. My read is that there
are more potential partners that the Global Engagement Center
could work with around the world than there is funding. The
Global Engagement Center is not really doing direct counter-
propaganda work. They are going out and making sure that
independent journalists and truth-tellers and folks who are
rooting out propaganda have the support to do so. I know we are
still looking for someone to head up that capacity at the State
Department.
What role do you envision GEC playing in our efforts to
counteract Russian propaganda, but also non-state-actor
propaganda, Chinese propaganda around the world?
Secretary Blinken. Senator, I think it has a vital role to
play and one that we want to see strengthened even further. It
is, as you know very well, engaged in campaigns to educate, to
expose, to mitigate disinformation and misinformation, and it
is already, as it stands, really the premiere platform for
information sharing. I think there are about 400 partners
across 29 or so countries at this point that take advantage of
it. It has worked very effectively, for example, to expose
Russian websites that were removed from social media for
propagating misinformation. Disinformation from the PRC as
well, in third-country elections, it exposed that and put a
light on that. It has done very good open-source mapping of
some of the PRC's use of surveillance and data collection, for
example in Xinjiang. So we are seeing it effective across the
board.
I think that the request that we made is appropriate and
will enable it not only to sustain, but to actually grow its
mission. Having said that, I would welcome working with you to
make sure that it is properly resourced and operating as
effectively as possible. Yes, we are working on bringing a new
leader to the enterprise.
Senator Murphy. Well, I know your personal commitment to
this mission. I thank you for it. I would also commend to both
the committee and to you making sure that we have the right
integration between the counter-propaganda mission at State
through the GEC and the counter-propaganda mission at the
Department of Defense. In the prior Administration, I do not
know that they were coordinating at the level that they should,
something that we can do better on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Blinken. Thanks, Senator.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
We have now had 18 members of 22, so I think they have had
great respect for your attendance, Mr. Secretary, and their
interest.
I just want to close on one or two comments.
I know that Senator Kaine is very good at making the case
for the JCPOA, and it is true that Iran signed and said that it
would never have a nuclear weapon. However, if you allow its
ballistic missile program to move forward and it develops a
delivery system for that nuclear material, and if you lift
sanctions--and, yes, they roll back for the moment, a year, 2
years, 3 years. When they decide, if they decide, to cross the
threshold that they have violated their agreement, the
timeframe for them to develop the capacity for that nuclear
weapon, without any limitations on ballistic missiles and with
their knowledge already as it relates to enrichment, creates a
difficult moment in which sanctions will have very little
benefit at the end of the day. So I think that to be
intellectually honest, we have to recognize that part of it as
well.
I have two final questions. One is on Turkey. It is amazing
to me that what was a NATO ally--is a NATO ally--but we had
great aspirations for. There are more journalists and lawyers
arrested in Turkey today and in jails. Turkey is constantly
violating, from my perspective, international law when it seeks
to threaten Cyprus in its international exclusive economic
zone, when it declares an economic zone going to Libya that is
not recognized at all, but interferes with Greece's exclusive
economic zone, when it engages in the aggression against
Armenia through Azerbaijan, when it is playing a nefarious role
in Libya.
So what are we doing to counter Turkey under Erdogan? I say
Turkey under Erdogan because it is not about the Turkish
people, but it is certainly about its leader.
Secretary Blinken. We share those concerns, and we have
engaged Turkey directly on them, and I can say with confidence
that when President Biden sees President Erdogan in about a
week's time, these will be front and center on the agenda.
Look, I think our differences with Turkey, including the
ones that you have cited just now, are no secret. In many
aspects it is not acting as the NATO ally it should be, not the
least of which with the acquisition of the S400s from Russia.
Beyond that, the actions that have been taken in the
Eastern Mediterranean were deeply disturbing. I think we have
been pleased to see it pull back from some of these efforts,
including removing its ships from waters that Cyprus considers
to be part of its exclusive economic zone and stopping the
drilling action, so that is positive.
We have serious concerns as well with human rights, the
treatment of journalists, which you were very right to put the
spotlight on.
So the President is going to have an opportunity to engage
with President Erdogan directly on all of these issues. I will
say that we also, I think, have an interest in trying to keep
Turkey anchored to the West and aligned on some other critical
issues. We do have important and overlapping interests in
various ways in Syria when it comes to counterterrorism, in
Afghanistan dealing with some of Russia's and Iran's malign
influence. We also have to confront directly these differences
that you rightly spotlighted.
The Chairman. Well, listen, I understand why we want it
anchored in the West, but you cannot be anchored in the West
and drifting in every direction further away on all the core
principles that we believe in as a NATO ally, and also in all
the other elements.
Finally, I have to be honest with you, I was disappointed
that the Administration greenlighted the 907 waiver renewal
despite Azerbaijan's attack on Nagorno-Karabakh. Now, after
they got the 907 waiver, interfering with the actual
territorial sovereignty of Armenia in the border issue, not
releasing the political prisoners--I mean, not the political
prisoners, the actual prisoners of the conflict--in violation
of international law. I mean, I think they can act with
impunity. I think when we waived it, we gave them that green
light.
Secretary Blinken. We will have to continue taking a look
at this. I was and have been working actively on this,
particularly getting the return of the prisoners, getting
engaged in an actual process discussion, negotiation over an
actual resolution, working on those things. It was my hope that
we would be able to get a little bit of traction there, but I
think we will have to continue to look at this and re-look at
this in the future.
The Chairman. Well, I hope you will.
With the thanks of the committee for your service and for
your tremendous appearance here today--I mean, you have gone
through several hours here. Obviously, your knowledge,
intellect, and scope is pretty extraordinary. So we are
grateful to have your insights, grateful for your service.
This committee's hearing record will stay open until the
close of business tomorrow.
Again, with the thanks of the committee, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The Administration's decision to waive sanctions on Nord
Stream 2 AG and its CEO last week was a mistake. I support our
relationship with Germany, but the U.S. should not compromise on
countering malign Kremlin influence, which is in the national security
interest of the U.S., NATO, and our vital European partners like
Ukraine. Now that you have waived sanctions on the company responsible
for Nord Stream 2, do you assess that a viable path remains for
stopping the pipeline?
Answer. The Administration has been clear that we view the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline as a Russian geopolitical project that is a bad deal
for Germany, Ukraine, and European energy security. The pipeline was
over 90 percent complete when the Administration took office and our
assessment was that sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO, and its
corporate officers would not stop the pipeline's construction. If
construction is completed in the coming months, the process of testing,
inspecting, certifying, and otherwise operationalizing the pipeline
will take more time, and many technical and regulatory hurdles remain.
Throughout this process, we will continue to oppose the pipeline and to
work to strengthen the energy security of our allies and partners. We
will also continue to examine entities involved in potentially
sanctionable activity and engage them about the risks they face if they
are involved in Nord Stream 2.
Question. If the pipeline is completed, what are the remaining
obstacles to it becoming operational? Can the U.S. exert pressure
during that phase to ensure that does not become operational?
Answer. If pipeline construction is completed in the coming months,
the process of testing, inspecting, certifying, and otherwise
operationalizing the pipeline will take additional time. Throughout
this process, we will continue to oppose the pipeline and to strengthen
the energy security of our allies and partners. We will also continue
to examine entities involved in potentially sanctionable activity and
warn them about the risks they face if they are involved with Nord
Stream 2.
Question. What does the Administration now expect from Germany
after having made this significant concession to exercise the waiver?
Will Berlin strengthen its support for Ukraine in the Normandy Format
or provide additional assistance to Kyiv in its struggle against
Kremlin aggression?
Answer. The Administration's position remains clear--the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline is a Russian geopolitical project that threatens
European energy security and undermines the security of Ukraine and
frontline Central and Eastern European allies and partners. The
Administration waived certain sanctions in line with the President's
commitment to rebuild relations with our European allies and partners
and to create space for diplomacy with Germany. We have urged Germany
to take significant, concrete steps to reduce the risks Nord Stream 2
poses to Ukraine and European energy security. As we engage Germany
diplomatically, we continue to consult closely with Ukraine and Central
and Eastern European allies and partners.
Question. What will the Administration do to bolster our
relationship with Ukraine as it continues to face Russian threats?
Answer. The United States will continue to work with our allies and
partners to oppose Russia's occupation and attempted annexation of
Crimea and support diplomatic efforts to end the conflict in eastern
Ukraine. Sanctions on Russia will remain in place until Russia ends its
occupation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine. We will work
with Congress to continue providing security assistance, including
lethal defensive weapons, that Ukraine needs to defend itself against
Russia's aggression. The United States will continue to support
Ukraine's chosen Euro-Atlantic path by providing assistance and pushing
for progress on necessary reforms that will ensure a democratic,
prosperous, and secure future for all Ukrainians.
Question. Azerbaijan's aggression continues to threaten the
Armenian people in the south Caucasus, as we saw again earlier this
month with its violation of Armenian sovereign territory. The United
States should be clear in pushing back on this illegal aggression, but
it is very difficult to do that after the Administration greenlighted a
Section 907 waiver renewal despite Azerbaijan's attack on Nagorno-
Karabakh last fall. How can the Administration credibly push back on
Azerbaijan's illegal actions after demonstrating that Azerbaijan will
not face consequences for its aggression?
Answer. The Department will continue to take appropriate measures
to ensure any security assistance from the United States to Azerbaijan
under the waiver of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act will not
hamper efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and
Azerbaijan and will not be used for any offensive purposes against
Armenia. Continued engagement with Azerbaijan is important to advancing
regional peace and stability. Most recently, United States officials,
working with the Georgian Government, successfully negotiated the
return of 15 Armenian soldiers held by Azerbaijan on June 12. We will
continue to call on both Armenia and Azerbaijan to relocate their
forces to the positions held prior to the May border incidents.
Question. Is the Administration rethinking the ongoing provision of
security assistance to Azerbaijan in light of its violation of Armenian
territory?
Answer. The USG continuously reviews and monitors U.S. foreign
assistance provided to all countries, including Armenia and Azerbaijan,
to ensure appropriate use of funds and alignment with U.S. foreign
policy goals. I will make sure the Department continues to take
appropriate measures to ensure any security assistance from the United
States to Azerbaijan will not hamper efforts to negotiate a peaceful
settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan and will not be used for
offensive purposes against Armenia.
Question. What steps has State taken to press Azerbaijan to release
the POWs and detainees and end the destruction of Armenian cultural
heritage?
Answer. We continue to call on the parties to respect their
obligations under international law and ensure the humane treatment of
all detainees as well as respect for cultural heritage. We continue to
urge the parties to engage fully with the relevant humanitarian actors
to complete the exchange process for all prisoners, detainees, and
remains expeditiously. We have advocated extensively for the release of
the remaining detainees both publicly and privately. Most recently, on
June 12, United States officials, working with the Georgian Government,
successfully negotiated the return of 15 Armenian soldiers held by
Azerbaijan.
Question. I appreciate that the State Department has criticized
many of the Turkish Government's unacceptable actions, from the
persecution of the LGBTI community to Erdogan's recent anti-Semitic
comments. The Administration must be clear and consistent on pushing
back on Turkey's malign activities across the board, from its
obstruction of the Cyprus peace process to its support for Azerbaijan's
aggression against the Armenian people to its destabilizing activities
in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. How has State worked to address Turkey's
malign activities in the Eastern Mediterranean, the South Caucasus, and
the Middle East?
Answer. The Biden administration has urged Turkey regularly and at
senior levels to cease activities that undermine regional security. In
areas of armed conflict such as Syria, Iraq, and Libya, we encourage
Turkey to instead take actions that advance inclusive peace and
stability. We have urged all foreign forces, fighters, and mercenaries
to depart Libya. We have also held useful bilateral discussions with
Berlin Process partners on how to begin to operationalize the departure
of foreign fighters, as called for in U.N. Security Council Resolution
2570. On Syria, we have urged Turkey to take steps to address human
rights abuses committed by armed Syrian groups it supports. Regarding
Cyprus, the United States has made clear that it continues to support a
Cypriot-led comprehensive settlement to reunify the island as a
bizonal, bicommunal federation, which would benefit all Cypriots as
well as the wider region. The United States was deeply concerned by
Turkey's actions last year that raised the risk of conflict between
NATO Allies in the eastern Mediterranean, and we welcome the commitment
by Turkey and Greece to continue exploratory talks. We reiterate that
disagreements should be resolved through diplomacy rather than
provocative military actions. The role played by third parties,
including Turkey, in last year's fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict was deeply unhelpful. We encourage Turkey to support the
ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan and to help the sides work
toward a sustainable, long-term political solution.
Question. Beyond the 2010 U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement,
what are the Administration's specific near and medium term diplomatic
and development objectives in Iraq, and how is U.S. Mission Iraq
resourced to successfully achieve these objectives?
Answer. The Administration's near- and medium-term goals in Iraq
include supporting Prime Minister Kadhimi's efforts to hold free and
fair elections, combat corruption and promote reform and economic
cooperation, hold accountable those who perpetrated violence towards
peaceful protesters, and work towards the final defeat of ISIS.
The FY 2022 Diplomatic Programs request for Iraq is an increase of
$44.9 million above FY 2021. The FY 2022 request for U.S. assistance to
Iraq maintains progress by sustaining ongoing programs, including
economic and development assistance. It will enable long-term security
and stability as security sector assistance transfers from DoD to State
authorities.
Question. Given the shifting nature of U.S. activities in Iraq,
does the Administration intend to advocate for Congress moving away
from OCO funding as the basis for Iraq-related activities to create a
more sustainable foundation for the bilateral relationship?
Answer. The USG is focused on long-term security and economic
development priorities in Iraq; the FY 2022 request does not seek
assistance as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). The FY 2022
President's budget proposes a more robust funding level within the
Department's and USAID's ``enduring base'' appropriation, to resource
ongoing programs and operations previously funded through OCO.
Question. Colombia: For two decades, Colombia has been our closest
partner in Latin America, and there has been strong bipartisan support
for the strategic relationship that our countries have built. However,
Colombia today faces immense challenges, including the need to continue
implementing its 2016 peace accord, the enduring threats of drug
trafficking and armed actors, the socioeconomic impact of a new surge
of COVID-19 cases, and the impact of the Venezuelan refugee and
migration crisis. On top of this, Colombia is now in its second month
of protests and social unrest. There have been troubling incidents of
human rights abuses by security forces and disturbing cases of
civilians taking up arms against protesters. At $455 million, Colombia
represents the Administration's largest country request for Latin
America, underscoring the continued priority that the U.S. places on
this strategic partnership. In that sense, Mr. Secretary, can you lay
out the Biden administration's priorities for the U.S.-Colombia
relationship, how the budget request helps address the major challenges
I mentioned and the ongoing social unrest, and what assistance the U.S.
will provide to Colombian efforts to address COVID-19?
Answer. The U.S.-Colombia partnership is grounded in shared
democratic values. We aim to support a secure, prosperous Colombia that
can effectively respond to the needs of its citizens, defeat
transnational criminal groups that threaten hemispheric security,
generate economic opportunities for citizens in both our countries,
combat climate change, and partner in promoting democratic governance
and respect for human rights. Our assistance will help address citizen
concerns over rural insecurity and lack of economic opportunity that
are among the motivations for recent protests. President Biden
announced Colombia's inclusion in an initial tranche of 14 million U.S.
vaccine donations, and we will continue providing assistance and
resources.
Question. NATO is the most important alliance we have, but I am
concerned that it remains in need of modernization. In advance of the
June NATO Summit, what is your vision for ensuring that NATO is
prepared for the 21st century, including with regard to strategic
planning/capacity and burden sharing?
Answer. I will continue to ensure Allies equitably share the
responsibility of NATO's collective security. Allies recommitted to the
Wales Defense Investment Pledge in its entirety at the June 14 Summit.
I will urge Allies to view burden sharing in terms of capabilities,
readiness, and force generation, not simply defense spending. I will
continue consulting with Allies and with Congress to ensure NATO has
sufficient, capable, and ready forces required to maintain a credible
defense and deterrence posture and fulfill NATO missions and
operations. I will ensure the revision of NATO's Strategic Concept
proceeds from sound analysis of the evolving security environment to
offer a clear approach to current and future threats and challenges.
Question. Are there steps that we should consider within the
context of NATO that would strengthen democratic institutions in member
countries and address the rise of anti-democratic actions on the part
of member states?
Answer. NATO was founded on the principles of democracy, individual
liberty, and the rule of law. NATO is stronger because it is an
Alliance grounded in our democratic values, rather than transactions or
coercion. No democracy is perfect. That is why the Biden administration
is committed to democratic renewal at home and abroad, and why it is
important for Allies to hold one another accountable for honoring
democratic commitments. The Biden administration has made clear that
democracy and human rights are central to U.S. foreign policy. We are
closely watching the issue of judicial independence and freedom of
expression in particular countries, as are the European Commission and
other EU institutions.
Question. Afghanistan: I remain concerned that troop withdrawal
will bring terrible consequences for many Afghans. I have no doubt that
the Taliban will escalate violence post-U.S. withdrawal to make some
gains on the battlefield that could strengthen their hand further. The
situation is going to get worse before it gets better. We should be
doing everything we can to strengthen the hand of the Afghan
Government. The school attack 3 weeks ago is a potent reminder--if one
were needed--that the threat to women and girls and minorities remains
acute and will likely grow. The department has said the right things in
terms of the protection of women in Afghanistan, but I fail to see how
this will work post-withdrawal. What is the State Department
specifically doing to adapt its programs and policies for women and
girls in light of withdrawal?
Answer. The United States will continue to support the rights of
Afghan women and girls through diplomacy and by maintaining significant
humanitarian and development assistance. Ongoing U.S. programs support
the meaningful participation of women in the peace process, strengthen
respect for women's rights, create quality educational opportunities,
assist women to join the workforce, and expand access to quality
healthcare. While the future of Afghanistan is for Afghans themselves
to decide, the United States has made clear that future development
assistance and international legitimacy depend on their actions with
respect to rights and fundamental freedoms, especially those of women,
children, and members of minority groups.
Question. The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program remains a
bureaucratically difficult, complex, and slow mechanism for assisting
Afghans who supported the U.S. as interpreters and support staff. What
steps have you taken to accelerate the approval process?
Answer. The Department of State takes seriously its commitment to
assist Afghans at risk due to their prior service to the United States.
In conjunction with interagency partners, the Department is
participating in a robust NSC-led effort to streamline SIV processing,
including through improved interagency information sharing and process
improvements. The Department has also added additional staff at Embassy
Kabul and in the U.S.-based offices that process Special Immigrant Visa
(SIV) applications, including the office that processes chief of
mission applications. We look forward to working closely with Congress
on streamlining the SIV process.
Question. I am also concerned about the humanitarian crisis that
could result from increased violence. Does the Department have a plan
and resources needed to deal with massive refugee flows in the region?
Answer. We remain engaged in Afghanistan through our full
diplomatic, economic, and assistance toolkit to support the peaceful,
stable future the Afghan people want and deserve. We are actively
engaged in contingency planning with international organizations and
NGO partners in case of increased internal and cross-border
displacement and will continue to assess resourcing requirements as the
situation unfolds. Our humanitarian partners are committed to
delivering needs-based assistance with impartiality, neutrality, and
independence as long as they can safely do so. We are engaged in
humanitarian diplomacy to coordinate an international response and
encourage neighboring countries to continue accepting Afghans seeking
international protection.
Question. Multilateral/Humanitarian: The world is experiencing an
unprecedented humanitarian and displacement crisis, with an estimated
235 million people in need of humanitarian assistance this year alone.
In Syria, Ethiopia, and countless other crises, authoritarian regimes
and non-state actors are blocking food, medicine, and other
humanitarian assistance to devastating effect. There is a pressing need
for consistent, high level engagement by the United States both
internationally and at the U.N. to address the efforts to block
humanitarian assistance. In what specific ways is the Department
pushing for consistent and high-level U.S. engagement internationally
and at the U.N. to address the undermining of humanitarian access? What
results have you seen from these efforts so far?
Answer. I believe U.S. humanitarian leadership is more important
than ever, particularly amid record-high humanitarian needs and
obstruction of aid in crises such as Syria and Ethiopia. To promote
accountability for such aid obstruction, we use many tools, including
investigations and prosecutions at appropriate national and
international tribunals, U.N. resolutions, and targeted sanctions. We
continue working with partners, including the G7, to promote
humanitarian access and generate resources to improve aid workers'
security and safety. Much work remains, but we are putting bad actors
on notice, including in the Security Council, and promoting reforms and
tools that have helped improve humanitarian access.
Question. The U.N. has warned that 36 countries could experience
famine this year, pushing an additional 130 million people to the brink
of starvation. That is equivalent to the populations of France and the
United Kingdom combined. And we know that food insecurity leads to a
number of other devastating and destabilizing conditions. How are you
confronting this impending crisis?
Answer. I recognize the grave threat food insecurity poses to
national and international security, and to that end we are focused on
addressing the three main drivers of hunger: conflict, climate change,
and COVID-19 recovery. We chose to focus on conflict and food
insecurity as the theme of our UNSC presidency in March. We are the
largest donor to the World Food Program, the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization, and to the International Fund for Agricultural
Development, and are actively engaged in preparing high-level
deliverables for the G20 and U.N. Food Systems and Nutrition for Growth
Summits. Around the world, we are building sustainable, resilient, and
climate-smart food systems critical to ending food insecurity.
Question. Human Rights: It is almost impossible to go a week
without reading a devastating new report about sexual and gender-based
violence in conflict. Sexual violence is being used as a weapon of war
in Tigray Ethiopia today, as it has been in Burma, Yemen, Syria, and
the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are also alarming predictions
about the repression and violence women and girls in Afghanistan will
face should the Taliban reassert more control following the U.S.
withdrawal. What can you tell this committee that you are doing to
elevate this issue, treating it with the seriousness it deserves?
Answer. Preventing and responding to gender-based violence,
including in areas of conflict around the world, is a security and
human rights priority for the United States. We have called on the
Government of Ethiopia to take immediate action to prevent forces from
committing sexual violence in the Tigray region and have demanded that
perpetrators be brought to justice and will continue to pursue measures
to hold them accountable. In Afghanistan, we have signaled that a
future Afghan Government that does not respect women's rights should
not expect international legitimacy, acceptance, or assistance and have
advocated with all negotiation parties for an inclusive peace process
that preserves the rights of all Afghans, including women.
Question. What is the U.S. message to survivors of sexual violence
as a weapon of war and how are you working both to hold perpetrators
accountable and preventing additional such violence?
Answer. Preventing sexual violence in conflict is a matter of
international peace and security. Sexual violence fuels instability,
forces people to flee their homes and countries, fractures societies,
and is linked to and used in conjunction with other forms of gender-
based violence and abuse such as forced marriage, domestic violence,
and human trafficking. The United States made explicit the link between
security and sexual violence in conflict when we drafted UNSCR 1820 in
2008; and we continue to be a leader in supporting solutions to prevent
and respond to all forms of gender-based violence, including sexual
violence in conflict, investing in foreign assistance and leading
international diplomacy efforts.
Question. Since taking up your position, what have you done to
ensure we are working to hold our allies and adversaries to the same
standard on human rights? What shifts in our foreign policy must we
make to uphold this standard?
Answer. As President Biden stated, we raise issues of human rights
with both our allies and adversaries ``because that is what we are and
that is who we are.'' Human rights, democracy, and equality are at the
heart of our diplomacy. We have reengaged with allies, civil society,
and multilateral organizations, including the UNHRC to advance these
goals. We continue to engage in the Universal Periodic Review process,
through which we provide recommendations regarding countries' human
rights records, whether ally or adversary. We are already making
strides in shifting our foreign policy by being unafraid and
unapologetic about raising human rights concerns bilaterally and
multilaterally.
Question. We are seeing unprecedented assaults against the
fundamental rights of free expression and free press around the globe,
with egregious violations recently against journalists in Belarus and
Burma, including the detention of an American journalist by the junta
there. I am proud to lead a bipartisan resolution that reaffirms
freedom of the press as a priority of the United States in promoting
democracy, human rights, and good governance. What are you doing to
show authoritarian regimes that they cannot trample on the rights of
journalists without consequence?
Answer. The Administration is committed to promoting respect for
freedom of expression and accountability for those who abuse
journalists' rights. In response to the Lukashenka regime's forced
diversion of a flight to arrest a journalist and continued repression
in Belarus, I announced visa restrictions for 46 individuals and Office
of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions on 16 individuals and five
entities. In Burma, we have pressed the military regime to immediately
release U.S. citizen and journalist Daniel Fenster and others unjustly
detained, cease all violence, and lift restrictions on journalists and
media. Finally, I announced the Khashoggi Ban in February, which
promotes accountability for governments who threaten and attack
journalists and perceived dissidents overseas.
Question. Ethiopia continues to spiral out of control. Despite our
best diplomatic efforts, the conflict in Tigray, insecurity in other
regions of the country, and the erosion of political space persists.
Has the State Department come to conclusions about whether war crimes
or crimes against humanity have taken place? What measures is the
Administration prepared to take, in addition to previously announced
visa restrictions, to encourage Prime Minister Abiy to change course?
Answer. The Department is reviewing information relevant for a
determination as to whether atrocity crimes have been committed, and we
expect to complete that process soon. In addition to implementing visa
restrictions, the Department has restricted economic and security
assistance to Ethiopia and imposed defense trade controls, and we are
considering all options, including financial sanctions, to end violence
across the country and find a political solution to the conflict.
Question. Somalia: Our long-standing effort to stabilize Somalia
has met with limited success.
What is your plan to revitalize our Somalia policy to advance our
strategic goals in that country?
Answer. The United States has an interest in a peaceful Somalia
that is not a terrorist safe haven or source of regional instability. A
holistic approach is needed to ensure sustainable gains--instability
and lack of adequate governance cannot be addressed by military means
alone. The State Department is working closely with interagency
partners to develop a strategy that can effectively manage near-term
security threats while addressing the political, governance, and
economic issues at the root of Somalia's instability. Close
coordination and cooperation with the Somalis and international
stakeholders, including the U.N., EU, AU, Somalia's neighbors, Turkey,
and the Gulf states, will be vital to ensuring an effective approach.
Question. The President requested an additional $800 million for
global health security programs and activities in FY 2022. One of the
most important lessons of COVID-19 is that leadership matters,
especially in the global arena. How should we engage with our partners
to strengthen global health security and ensure we are prepared for the
next pandemic?
Answer. The United States is fully committed to working with
partners to reform and strengthen the international health architecture
in order to spur concrete, effective action to meaningfully improve
global health. We will build on WHO and existing institutions, but also
take into account the ways in which the world has changed and will
continue to change. We will address four key areas of work:
strengthening and modernizing existing organizations and systems and
identifying the need for new organizations and systems; ensuring
compliance with existing international agreements and identifying the
need for new tools; ensuring adequate, sustainable, and innovative
financing; and ensuring transparent, accountable, and measurable
oversight.
Question. Thanks to the leadership of President Biden, the COVID-19
epidemic in the U.S. is beginning to subside, however the disease
continues to surge worldwide. Most people around the world are still
waiting for vaccinations, especially in Africa. I applaud the
Administration's recent announcements about vaccine donations, but it's
clear our efforts alone will not achieve the levels of coverage the
world needs. What initiatives is the Administration planning to lead at
the G-7 meeting for collective action to end the pandemic?
Answer. The leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) set an agenda for
global action to end the pandemic and prepare for the future by driving
an intensified international effort to vaccinate the world by getting
as many safe and effective vaccines to as many people as possible as
fast as possible. G7 commitments since the start of the pandemic
provide for a total of over two billion vaccine doses, with the
commitments since February 2021 providing for one billion doses over
the next year. The G7 will seek to create the appropriate frameworks to
strengthen our collective defenses against threats to global health by:
increasing and coordinating on global manufacturing capacity; improving
early warning systems; and supporting efforts to shorten the cycle for
the development of safe and effective vaccines, treatments, and tests
from 300 to 100 days.
Question. The American Rescue plan provided $10 billion, but with
the urgency and tremendous needs of the crisis continuing to grow, will
that be enough to bring the pandemic under control?
Answer. The FY 2022 request will build on American Rescue Plan Act
funding and other resources that Congress has provided for pandemic
response and global health security. Beyond these specific resources
for global health security, the Department and USAID are adapting
existing programs and funding resources to address the primary,
secondary, and tertiary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic across all
sectors and programming areas.
Question. Mozambique: Many of us are rightly concerned with the
growing jihadist crisis in northern Mozambique, and the resultant
humanitarian emergency. However military action alone is an inadequate
response. The President's budget proposes no increase for Development
Assistance to Mozambique, but a substantial increase in International
Military Education and Training. What is the Department's plan to
address the full scope of the situation in northern Mozambique, and how
will the proposed funding levels in the FY22 request allow you to
implement that plan?
Answer. The ISIS threat and the humanitarian crisis are grave. The
United States is working with the Mozambican Government and
international partners on an integrated response that enhances security
and addresses local grievances that contribute to the root causes of
the violence.
The United States helps Mozambique counter ISIS along four lines of
effort, including socio-economic support, security assistance,
strategic communications, and international engagement, while providing
immediate humanitarian assistance. The proposed funding levels allow
the Department to enhance its whole-of-government approach to respond
to the crisis and empower the Mozambican Government to confront ISIS-
Mozambique.
Question. In the past few weeks, ransomware created by Russia-
linked criminal groups forced the shutdown of a critical fuel pipeline
along the Eastern Seaboard and meatpacking plants across the country.
As you know, these were only the latest in a series of major cyber
incidents. Recently, hacking groups linked to the Chinese and Russian
governments compromised hundreds of thousands of American businesses
and state and federal agencies, including the Departments of State,
Energy, Commerce, Justice, and Homeland Security. Clearly,
cybersecurity is a critical international issue, and the threat to
Americans and our allies is only growing. What is the State Department
doing to prioritize and address this threat? How does this budget
reflect those priorities?
Answer. We must protect U.S. security and prosperity and push back
hard against those that seek to exploit and undermine the open nature
of cyberspace. The Department engages with international partners to
advance a framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace and
hold states accountable when they transgress it. We are also committed
to strengthening global cooperation and capacity to fight cybercrime,
including ransomware, and advancing accessions to the Budapest
Convention. Our FY 2021 budget reflects $5.998 million to promote
stability in cyberspace, along with $7 million in Economic Support
Funds (ESF). We doubled funds to combat global cybercrime from $10
million in FY 2021 International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
(INCLE) funds to $20 million INCLE requested in the FY 2022 budget.
Question. The National Security Commission on Artificial
Intelligence recently observed that ``there is currently no clear lead
for emerging technology policy or diplomacy within the State
Department, which hinders the Department's ability to make strategic
technology policy decisions. It also creates confusion for allies and
partners, who regularly express uncertainty regarding which senior
official should be their primary point of contact for issues related to
key topics such as AI, 5G, quantum computing, biotechnology, or new
emerging technologies.''
What do you plan to do about this?
Answer. I agree that we must elevate technology diplomacy and
organize the Department for the new era. That is why I asked my two
deputies to lead a review of our cyber and emerging technology policy
and structure. I understand they have been in close consultations with
Congress throughout this process. The review is in the final stages and
I will move quickly to implement its recommendations. In the meantime,
we have incorporated emerging tech concerns and opportunities into our
core diplomatic work. For instance, we have established a Trade and
Technology Council with the EU, and we are working in multilateral fora
and bilaterally to advance principles to harness emerging technologies
consistent with our values and interests.
Question. Will the United States provide Taiwan with additional
vaccines beyond the 750,000 already promised?
Answer. On June 19, the United States donated 2.5 million doses of
Moderna vaccines to Taiwan through AIT and the Taipei Economic and
Cultural Representative Office (TECRO). We have had a close partnership
with Taiwan on global health issues and have been working together
throughout the pandemic. Taiwan was there to help the United States in
the earliest days of the pandemic, providing PPE and other life-saving
materials. We remain grateful for its generosity and proud that we are
able to support Taiwan in this moment of need. Scientific teams and
legal experts from both Taiwan and the United States worked together to
ensure the prompt delivery of these safe and effective vaccine doses to
Taiwan.
______
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator James E. Risch
Question. Last week, the Administration rightly sanctioned several
individuals from Bulgaria for extensive corruption-related activities
harmful to U.S. interests. Just a couple weeks before that, the
Administration waived sanctions against former Stasi agent, longtime
Putin crony, and NS2 CEO, Matthias Warnig. One of the reasons for your
determination that the waivers are in the national interest of the
United States was that it will ``provide space for diplomatic
engagement with Germany.'' The Biden administration has claimed to be
elevating the importance of anti-corruption efforts to U.S. national
security. This is admirable, but how can you claim to be credible on
combatting corruption by waiving sanctions on arguably one of the most
corrupt energy projects in the world, Nord Stream 2?
Answer. My decision to waive certain sanctions in the case of Nord
Stream 2 is in line with the President's commitment to rebuild
relations with our European allies and partners and reflects a desire
to make something positive out of the difficult situation the
Administration inherited. Rather than risk damaging relations through
further sanctions, we are using the space provided by these waivers to
engage Germany diplomatically to take steps to reduce the risks Nord
Stream 2 poses to Ukraine and European energy security.
Question. Last week, the Administration rightly sanctioned several
individuals from Bulgaria for extensive corruption-related activities
harmful to U.S. interests. Just a couple weeks before that, the
Administration waived sanctions against former Stasi agent, longtime
Putin crony, and NS2 CEO, Matthias Warnig. One of the reasons for your
determination that the waivers are in the national interest of the
United States was that it will ``provide space for diplomatic
engagement with Germany.'' What is your plan for this diplomatic
engagement, and what requirements will Germany/NS2AG have to meet in
order to ensure the waiver is not revoked?
Answer. I will not go into details about ongoing diplomatic
discussions, but we have made clear to Germany that we expect it to
take serious, concrete steps to address the risks an operational Nord
Stream 2 would pose to Ukraine and European energy security. We also
continue to consult intensively with Ukraine and frontline Central and
Eastern European allies and partners, in order to ensure that our
discussions with Germany reflect their priorities and perspectives.
Question. How do you justify sanctioning people for engaging in
malign and corrupt activities in Bulgaria--an EU member state with whom
we presumably would also like to cooperate--while waiving sanctions on
a German national engaged in arguably much more strategically damaging
and corrupt activities related to Nord Stream 2?
Answer. My decision to waive sanctions against Nord Stream 2 AG,
its corporate officers, and its German-national CEO Matthias Warnig is
in line with the President's commitment to rebuild relations with our
European allies and partners, including Germany. The strength of these
relationships will lay the foundation for many of our foreign policy
priorities, such as the economic recovery; efforts to combat COVID-19;
and pushing back on Russia, the PRC, and authoritarianism around the
globe. The decision also comes with a clear message to Berlin that the
Administration expects it to take serious, concrete steps to address
the risks that a completed pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European
energy security.
Question. Under what circumstances would you revoke these waivers?
Answer. Like all national interest waivers, these waivers can be
rescinded if a determination is made that they are no longer in the
national interest.
Question. Should Nord Stream 2 reach completion, how will you work
to mitigate the strategic vulnerabilities it will create in Ukraine and
Central and Eastern Europe?
Answer. While the Administration continues to oppose Nord Stream 2,
the waivers we issued were intended to create the space for diplomatic
engagement with Germany to address the risks a completed Nord Stream 2
pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European energy security. Those
conversations are ongoing, and we have made it clear that we expect
Germany to take serious, concrete action to address those risks. We
also continue to consult extensively with Ukraine and other Central and
Eastern European allies and partners regarding our opposition to Nord
Stream 2 and in order to ensure our conversations with Germany take
their priorities and perspectives into account.
Question. Administration officials, including you, cite the fact
that NS2 construction was 95 percent complete when it took office to
justify waiving sanctions against NS2 and giving a pass to Russia's
premier malign influence project in Europe, but construction on NS2 was
also 95 percent complete in December 2019, when Congressionally-
mandated sanctions and robust enforcement by the Trump administration
halted pipe laying. Based on what evidence or assessment did the
Administration decide that robust enforcement of U.S. sanctions law
would no longer be effective in stopping or significantly delaying Nord
Stream 2?
Answer. While the Administration continues to oppose Nord Stream 2,
the pipeline was more than 90 percent complete when we took office, and
we assessed that sanctions on Nord Stream 2, its CEO, and its corporate
officers would not stop the construction of the pipeline. The waivers
we issued are in line with the President's commitment to rebuild
relations with our European allies and were intended to create the
space for diplomatic engagement with Germany to address the risks a
completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European
energy security. Those conversations are ongoing, and we have made it
clear that we expect Germany to take serious, concrete action to
address those risks.
Question. Looking back on your pledge in your confirmation hearing
to ``do whatever we can,'' to stop Nord Stream 2, does the
Administration also intend to waive the mandatory PEESA sanctions on
post-construction certification and testing? What about the mandatory
sanctions on NS2 AG under CAATSA section 228, a topic on which Ranking
Member McCaul and I sent you a letter last week? Note: Two of the
companies sanctioned under the 5/17 PEESA report had already been
sanctioned or had very close ties to entities sanctioned already under
Obama-era Ukraine sanctions codified under CAATSA. According to Section
228 of CAATSA, mandatory secondary sanctions must be applied to any
foreign person who engages in a significant transaction with a
previously-sanctioned entity. Since, by the Administration's own
admission, NS2 AG did business with previously sanctioned entities, NS2
AG itself should be subject to mandatory secondary sanctions.
Answer. Throughout the process of testing, inspecting, certifying,
and otherwise operationalizing the pipeline, we will continue to oppose
this project and work to strengthen the energy security of our allies
and partners. The language in 7503(a)(1)(B)(ii) of Protecting Europe's
Energy Security Act (PEESA) targets persons that ``facilitated
deceptive or structured transactions to provide those vessels
[identified in the Department's report to Congress] for the
construction of such a project.'' As the Department noted in its
response to your letter, this is a different standard than the one laid
out in CAATSA section 228. This latter authority is delegated to the
Department of the Treasury, which may be consulted further on section
228 implementation.
Question. The budget includes a request for $1 billion for global
health security, ``to prevent, detect, and respond to future biological
threats and pandemics.'' How will these resources be managed and
prioritized? Will the Department play a direct role in coordination, or
will funds simply be transferred to USAID and CDC?
Answer. The nearly $1 billion requested for global health security
for FY 2022 is essential to reinforce U.S. leadership on global health
security and includes: $355 million for USAID global health security
programming worldwide; $90 million to replenish USAID's ``Emergency
Reserve Fund,'' which was the initial funding source to address COVID-
19; $300 million for multilateral contributions to support COVID-19
vaccine and other countermeasures research and development (R&D) and
delivery; $250 million for a global health security financing
mechanism; and $20 million to address administrative and staffing
needs. We collaborate closely with other departments and agencies to
coordinate the execution of the U.S. global health security strategy
overseas.
Question. Last week, the Administration announced initial COVID-19
vaccine donations to COVAX and direct bilateral donations to certain
countries, rolling out 25 million immediately.
What, exactly, is the U.S. COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy strategy?
Answer. First, we are donating vaccines to the world, including 580
million doses through COVAX and bilaterally. Our principles for sharing
U.S. vaccines include maximizing the number of vaccines available
equitably for the greatest number of countries and for those most at-
risk within countries; preparing for surges and prioritizing healthcare
workers and other vulnerable populations based on public health data
and acknowledged best practices; and helping our neighbors and other
countries in need. Second, we are scaling vaccine production for the
world, working with U.S. vaccine manufacturers to increase vaccine
supply for the rest of the world. Third, we are working with partners
and investing in local vaccine production.
Question. Now that the World Health Organization has provided
emergency use authorization for Sinovac and Sinopharm--both of which
have low efficacy rates--how does the Administration plan to ensure
that U.S. contributions to COVAX are not used to underwrite the
purchase and distribution of substandard Chinese COVID-19 vaccines?
Answer. The United States encourages the rapid international
distribution of vaccines that meet the robust regulatory standards for
authorization by the WHO to assess safety, efficacy, and good
manufacturing practices. We will continue to advance our position that
any regulatory process to evaluate COVID-19 vaccines needs scientific
rigor and that information and data be shared fully and transparently.
We are also working in close coordination with COVAX to allocate the
more than 500 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines that will be donated
by the United States.
Question. Would it be appropriate to shift from financial
contributions to in-kind donations of surplus U.S. vaccines?
Answer. We will continue to donate surplus supply as it is
delivered to us, and simultaneously this summer, we will begin
executing on the donation of 500 million Pfizer doses that we are
providing to Gavi for distribution through COVAX. Our actions are
serving as a catalyst for other countries to contribute doses and
funding for the benefit of the rest of the world.
Question. What needs to happen for the United States to roll out
the remainder of the 80 million vaccines by the end of June?
Answer. We will have allocated all 80 million doses in the coming
days with shipments going out as soon as countries are ready to receive
the doses. The Administration will move as expeditiously as possible,
coordinating with COVAX and other countries as well as working through
logistical details, regulatory requirements, and other legal
considerations to ensure safe and secure transfer of doses. We
anticipate an increasing number of shipments every week as we ramp up
these efforts. Already, doses have landed in Mexico, Canada, and
Taiwan.
Question. What are next steps after that for the United States
donating or exporting vaccines to other countries around the world?
Answer. We will continue to donate surplus supply as it is
delivered to us and simultaneously will begin executing on the 500
million Pfizer doses we are providing to Gavi for distribution through
COVAX. We will work with the G7 and other partners to coordinate
multilateral efforts to combat the pandemic. We will also advance our
health and health security efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to
COVID-19 and other biological threats; increase vaccination; detect
outbreaks and variants; respond to surges; and recover economically. We
will do so in a way that strengthens our global public health
institutions and ability to come together as an international community
to defeat this pandemic and the next.
Question. Certain countries--including important U.S. allies like
the Philippines--have purchased Pfizer and Moderna vaccines from the
United States. When are these vaccines going to be made available to
these countries?
Answer. Driven by aggressive USG actions and investments, in
partnership with U.S. vaccine manufacturers, to accelerate domestic
manufacturing and expand domestic production lines, the United States
has vastly increased vaccine supply for the rest of the world in a way
that also creates jobs here at home. Pfizer and Moderna have already
increased their capacity to produce vaccines for the world and are
exporting to partners across the globe. We will continue to take
additional steps to help vaccinate the world and end this pandemic
globally, including by sharing doses from our own vaccine supply in
addition to supporting increasing vaccine supply which enables
commercial procurements such as by the Philippines.
Question. Do you commit to advocating for the quickest possible
delivery of purchased vaccines for U.S. allies and partners like the
Philippines?
Answer. In addition to sharing doses from our own vaccine supply,
we are scaling vaccine production for the world, working with U.S.
vaccine manufacturers to vastly increase vaccine supply for the rest of
the world in a way that also creates jobs here at home. Driven by the
aggressive actions that have been taken to accelerate manufacturing and
production lines in the United States, Pfizer and Moderna have already
increased their capacity to produce vaccines for the world. We will
continue to take additional steps to help vaccinate the world and end
this pandemic globally.
Question. According to a May 26 CNN report, Biden administration
officials reportedly shut down a State Department investigation into
the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ned Price said last week that was
inaccurate and that the investigators had completed their work and
finished a report.
Which is true?
Answer. Under the previous Administration, the Bureau for Arms
Control and Verification (AVC) commissioned an internal inquiry into
COVID origins, and that work has concluded. The team responsible for
the inquiry never drafted a report, but did provide a briefing of their
work to Department staff. All relevant parts of the Department,
including AVC, continue to work with the interagency on this matter as
needed and directed. Additionally, President Biden has committed to
keep working with like-minded partners around the world to press China
to participate in a full, transparent, evidence-based international
investigation and to provide access to all relevant data and evidence.
Question. Should the Department play a more significant role in
coordinating U.S. partnerships with foreign entities engaged in
research and development (R&D) of pathogens--particularly gain-of-
function research--to ensure that all such research is aligned with the
national security interests of the United States?
Answer. The Department of State plays a significant role in the
interagency processes that address oversight policies for research that
might pose national security concerns. These oversight policies require
careful consideration of risks and benefits, as well as consideration
of our international obligations. I am committed to working with the
interagency and the Administration to make sure that the Department of
State continues to play a role in the interagency, leading to informed
decisions in the best interest of the United States.
Question. What role should the Department play and what are you
going to do to ensure a more robust interagency role for the State
Department on this issue going forward?
Answer. The State Department has a role in interagency policy
discussions about preventing the misuse of scientific advances that
could pose a threat to national security, including advances in the
life sciences. We ensure that policy development takes into account
both our international obligations and the international implications
of policy choices, then we work with our allies and partners to
encourage others to adopt similar policies. I am committed to working
with the interagency and the Administration to ensure the Department of
State maintains our robust role in shaping, implementing, and
communicating federal policies that protect our national security.
Question. Should the United States engage in highly risky
research--such as gain-of-function research--in cooperation with
countries that do not have adequate biosecurity standards, that have
violated or failed to uphold the International Health Regulations, or
where the United States cannot certify that such country is in
compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention?
Answer. Factors that bear on the risk of accident or misuse should
be carefully reviewed in considering whether to conduct, fund, or
otherwise cooperate in such research. Federal funding and oversight
policies help guide these decisions for research that might pose
particular concerns. I am committed to working with the interagency and
the Administration to make sure that federal policy choices are in line
with our international obligations and in the national security
interests of the United States.
Question. Have you asked the Department to conduct an analysis of
whether any funding or foreign assistance--including State Department
funds implemented by USAID--has supported entities in China that
conduct gain-of-function research or research that presents a dual use
concern?
Answer. The Department of State does not fund gain-of-function
research, and the United States has policies in place to prevent misuse
of life sciences advances. I am not aware of Department of State
funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and I refer you to
other departments and agencies for any questions about their
assistance.
Question. Will you commit to conducting a thorough review and
providing documentation to this committee?
Answer. I am committed to reviewing current policy and funding
priorities for any programs the Department of State may have for joint
research projects with China and will share that information with
Congress as appropriate.
Question. Directed-Energy Attacks on U.S. Diplomats and Personnel:
I am deeply concerned by the troubling reports about the number of
State Department and other federal employees impacted by the suspected
directed-energy attacks known as ``Havana syndrome.'' The Department
has an obligation to do more both to protect its people and hold
accountable those responsible. Unfortunately, the information provided
by the Department to this committee has been inadequate thus far--even
on the most basic issues. How many State Department personnel have been
impacted overall?
Answer. The Department has no higher priority than the safety and
security of USG personnel and their accompanying family members. The
Department has received reports of unexplained health incidents from
various regions around the globe. We are working closely with the
interagency to standardize reporting and information-sharing to ensure
a consistent approach to identifying and caring for those affected. We
stand ready to provide you further information on the impact of these
incidents.
Question. How many of those affected were overseas and how many
were domestic?
Answer. The USG has received both overseas and domestic reports of
unexplained health incidents. We are working closely with the
interagency to standardize reporting and information-sharing to ensure
a consistent approach to identifying and caring for those affected. We
stand ready to provide you further information on the impact of these
incidents in a classified setting.
Question. What new policies or procedures the Department is putting
in place to help ensure our diplomats get the care and protection they
deserve?
Answer. As our understanding of unexplained health incidents (UHI)
evolves, we also adapt and improve our policies to better protect and
care for our workforce. We established the role of care coordinator to
assist those under chief of mission security responsibility who have
been affected by a possible UHI. On June 1, State launched a pilot
baseline testing program to improve our ability to measure the effects
of a UHI. We implemented an interagency-approved triage tool, including
an initial field assessment, to determine if an individual suffered a
UHI. On care, we are discussing appropriate extended care facilities
with the interagency community and private sector. We are ready to
discuss our countermeasures in a classified setting.
Question. Should Cuba be removed from the List of State Sponsors of
Terrorism without credibly explaining the targeted attacks on U.S.
diplomats in Havana?
Answer. The Administration has committed to carefully reviewing
decisions made in the prior Administration, including the decision to
designate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. I commit to a careful
and thorough review of all material related to the decision to
designate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
Our top priority is the safety and security of our people. The
Department is working to determine what happened to our personnel and
their families and to ensure their well-being and health. That
investigation is ongoing and is a high priority. The Department will
continue to work with Congress on this very important issue.
Question. It has come to our attention that a number of those
impacted may have worked in policy areas or countries of particular
interest to Russia such as Nord Stream 2, cyber, certain political-
military issues, and other areas. Can you confirm these reports, or has
the Department conducted any other survey of the regional and policy
distribution of those affected?
Answer. The Department is fully invested in an interagency process
seeking to determine the culpability and mechanism for these incidents.
To date, no conclusions have been made, including about policy areas
and geography of affected employees, but we commit to keeping Congress
abreast of developments related to unexplained health incidents
impacting U.S. personnel overseas.
Question. Are China and Russia reducing the role of nuclear weapons
in their strategies?
Answer. No. That is why this Administration will seek to engage
both countries in meaningful dialogue; head off costly arms races; and
pursue new arms control arrangements while ensuring our strategic
deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective and that our extended
deterrence commitments to our allies remain strong and credible.
Question. Doesn't ``reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S.
strategy''--as described in President Biden's interim national security
guidance--embolden China and Russia, and cause our allies to further
doubt our commitment to them to and to extended deterrence?
Answer. The Administration's Interim National Security Strategic
Guidance states that as the United States seeks to reduce the role of
nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, we will do so,
``while ensuring our strategic deterrent remains safe, secure, and
effective and that our extended deterrence commitments to our allies
remain strong and credible.'' We will consult with our allies and
partners as we undertake a review of U.S. nuclear posture and policy to
inform our pursuit of the objectives outlined in the interim guidance.
Question. Do you support the Department supporting Japan in
developing long-range precision strike capabilities?
Answer. In a worsening security environment, the United States and
Japan will continue to closely coordinate on how to deter effectively
and, if necessary, respond to growing threats to the U.S.-Japan
Alliance and regional security in the Indo-Pacific. Long-range
precision fires are one component among many contributing to the
alliance's offensive and defensive capabilities. I would defer to the
DoD for a more detailed analysis on specific roles, missions, and
capabilities within the U.S.-Japan Alliance.
Question. What is your stance regarding U.S. leadership in
mediating an end to the conflict in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon
and do you classify it as an armed conflict at this stage of the
crisis? Should the U.S. dedicate greater targeted financial and
diplomatic resources to help mediate the conflict?
Answer. The United States has an important role to play in pushing
for a resolution to the crisis. We support the Swiss Government's
efforts and other meaningful initiatives that could advance peace on
the ground, including local initiatives. We have not reached a
determination as to whether there is a non-international armed conflict
in Cameroon. My decision recently, following cuts in security
assistance, to implement a visa restriction policy on individuals
believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, undermining peace in
Cameroon, reflects our commitment to resolve the Anglophone crisis. We
will continue to consider all potential diplomatic tools to advance
dialogue and end the violence.
Question. What role should the United States and the U.N. play in
verifying the withdrawal of Eritrean troops from Ethiopia?
Answer. An immediate end to hostilities and the withdrawal of
Eritrean forces are the critical steps to resolving humanitarian access
and human rights concerns in Tigray. A mechanism through which the
international community can verify that such a withdrawal has occurred
will ultimately be required. The United States and the U.N. are among
those entities that could potentially play a constructive role in
helping to craft and implement such a mechanism. We are consulting with
a broad range of international partners on this issue.
Question. If South Sudan's leadership continues to fail in
delivering on the current peace agreement, should the United States
begin looking at making all of its foreign assistance to the country
conditional to implementing that accord or key components of the
agreement?
Answer. The lack of implementation of the Revitalized Agreement on
the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) is unacceptable.
The Department is considering options for leveraging U.S. foreign
assistance to best support implementation of the R-ARCSS.
Question. Of the $272.6 million increase for the global workforce,
how much of that--both in dollar figure and as a percentage of the
total--is going towards positions in the Indo-Pacific region?
Answer. The FY 2022 request includes $121.6 million in Diplomatic
Engagement funding for the global workforce, of which $23.1 million, or
15 percent, supports new positions for the Department's continued
efforts to counter the PRC's concerning influence and advance
democratic values within the context of the Indo-Pacific Strategy.
Question. What is the precise number of the additional U.S. direct
hires that would be funded by the proposed increase for the
``Diplomatic Engagement'' account that would be in roles in the Indo-
Pacific region or in relevant roles at Main State?
Answer. The Department requested 48 additional Diplomatic
Engagement U.S. direct hire positions to support roles in the Indo-
Pacific region or in relevant roles at Main State. The positions are
requested for the Bureaus of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP),
South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA), and the Global Engagement Center
(GEC).
Question. Of those increases in functional bureaus, how many would
be in roles with direct responsibility for China-related issues, and
what are the job descriptions of those jobs?
Answer. There are 128 functional bureau position increases in the
Department's FY 2022 request. Of these, three positions focus solely on
China issues. One new position will support the Global Engagement
Center's China Division programs countering PRC disinformation and
propaganda. Two new Bureau of Intelligence and Research positions will
focus on economic, finance, trade, and other China-related research and
analysis.
Question. How many of the new positions for the Indo-Pacific will
be economic officers? Please provide by a post-by-post breakdown of
where these officers will go within the region. Please provide specific
descriptions of what their roles will be.
Answer. Of the 48 new positions requested for the Indo-Pacific, 20
will be economic officers. The 20 positions are listed in the table
below.
Question. The last time you testified before this committee, I
asked you to discuss the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy,
including objectives, what specific policy and funding priorities the
Department would focus on, and what initiatives you would keep versus
discard from the prior Administration. At that time, you indicated the
Department was in the middle of a policy review. What are the answers
to those questions? What is the status of the policy review? Please be
specific.
Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is committed to a free and
open Indo-Pacific region. As part of an ongoing policy review process,
the NSC initiated several interagency discussions to update and further
enhance the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific. As the
process moves forward, we will work with Congress to ensure members are
informed of the progress and conclusions. Even as the review is taking
place, the Department of State is working to revitalize ties with our
allies and partners, advance inclusive economic policies that support
all U.S. citizens, and promote democratic resilience and respect for
human rights. With Congress's support, we are investing in the
capabilities of our allies and partners and strengthening effective
regional organizations in order to defend the international rules-based
order and prevail in strategic competition with China. We are also
working with partners to address shared challenges such as
transnational crime, climate change, pandemic recovery, and the threat
posed by the DPRK's nuclear program.
Question. Is the Indo-Pacific region the top priority region in
President Biden's foreign policy? If not, why not and what is the
region considered most important to U.S. interests?
Answer. The Indo-Pacific is the most dynamic and fastest-growing
region on earth, making it a leading priority for U.S. foreign policy
at the front lines of strategic competition with China. The United
States is committed to working closely with allies and partners to
advance our shared prosperity, security, and values in the Indo-Pacific
and around the world.
Question. The United States has only a handful of free trade
agreements with Indo-Pacific partners.
Will you commit to prioritizing a robust trade agenda with Indo-
Pacific economic partners?
Answer. Trade policy in the Indo-Pacific is a key part of the
Biden-Harris administration's effort to build back better. The
Administration's approach to trade is focused on supporting U.S.
working families, defending our values, and protecting the long-term
prosperity and security of the United States. As President Biden has
said, the United States is focused on making investments in U.S.
workers and U.S. competitiveness before he signs new trade agreements,
including in the Indo-Pacific. The United States is working with allies
and partners in the Indo-Pacific region to identify ways to address
specific trade issues such as infrastructure, the digital economy, and
energy.
Question. What has the Department already done in this area?
Answer. The United States has engaged bilaterally with the Republic
of Korea, Australia, Japan, and Singapore to promote full and faithful
implementation of our existing trade agreements. Regionally, we work
actively with APEC member economies to facilitate trade and investment
and look to improve economic ties with ASEAN. We seek to build the
capacity of countries to help them participate in comprehensive, high
standard bilateral or multilateral trade agreements that remove
barriers and unfair practices. We are also focused on securing,
diversifying, and strengthening resilient and scalable U.S. supply
chains to ensure we are prepared not only to defeat COVID-19, but to
reduce the likelihood that future crises or global challenges can
impede our supply chains.
Question. What is the total amount of Foreign Military Financing
(FMF) going to the Indo-Pacific region?
Answer. The President's FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification
requests $164 million in FMF for the Indo-Pacific region. This reflects
an increase of 29.8 percent from FY 2020 allocations, the most recently
completed fiscal year. FMF for the region amounts to nearly half of our
global discretionary FMF and typically includes earmarks for Maldives,
Mongolia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. The Administration's FMF requests and
Congressional appropriations are significantly constrained by enduring
commitments, particularly to countries outside the Indo-Pacific region
(e.g., roughly 88 percent of the global FMF account is earmarked for
the NEA region), which leaves the Department with limited flexibility
in discretionary FMF funds.
Question. What's the percentage of total FMF?
Answer. The President's FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification
requests $164 million in FMF for the Indo-Pacific region. The request
for the region consists of the $129 million under East Asia and the
Pacific, as well as $35 million in the South and Central Asia Regional
line. This amounts to approximately 2.6 percent of the overall global
FMF account. Given Congressional earmarks and other commitments, the
Indo-Pacific typically receives nearly half of the global discretionary
FMF budget annually.
Question. What is the Administration providing to the Middle East
and Europe in FMF, both in terms of absolute numbers and a percentage
of total budget?
Answer. The Administration requested a total of $6,175,524,000 in
FY 2022 FMF funds, of which $299,000,000 will support partner countries
in the European and Eurasian region (4.8 percent of the total FMF
requested budget) and $5,459,000,000 will support partner countries in
the Near East region (88 percent of the total FMF requested budget).
Question. Over the last several months, the Administration has
notified Congress of intent to use funds from the Countering Chinese
Influence Fund--now helpfully renamed the Countering PRC Malign
Influence Fund. Some of these funds are being used for projects and
programs that have very little to do with China--if anything at all.
The Department is essentially dipping into this pot of money to fund
things it wants to do anyway. Do you commit that this fund will only be
used for projects and programs that bear a direct nexus to acts by the
Chinese Communist Party that undermine U.S. and partner country
interests?
Answer. I commit that all approved Countering Chinese Influence
Fund (CCIF) projects and programs will bear a direct nexus to
countering malign PRC influence. The PRC's use of coercive and
corrupting tools of influence to undermine and interfere in countries
is a major concern for the United States and our partners around the
world. To ensure alignment with the CCIF's purpose and the
Administration's strategic goals, projects funded from the CCIF must
demonstrate that countering malign PRC influence is the explicit or
primary goal of the program and be located in countries and/or sectors
that are highly vulnerable to malign PRC influence.
Question. Do you commit to providing a comprehensive accounting of
all funds obligated under this line item to Congress upon request or at
the end of the fiscal year?
Answer. I commit to engage in a full review of the Countering
Chinese Influence Fund (CCIF) to ensure the funds are used
strategically in a manner that advances U.S. economic, diplomatic,
military, and technological leadership in our strategic competition
with China and in support of a stable and open international system. I
also commit to providing you with a comprehensive accounting of funding
and program detail information at your request or at the end of the
fiscal year.
Question. In January, I asked you about the interest of the
People's Liberation Army in overseas bases and logistics facilities.
Deputy Sherman recently raised the issue of China's activities at Ream
Naval Base on her trip to Cambodia, and General Townsend of U.S.
AFRICOM said in early May that China is looking at options all over
Africa, including on its West Coast.
Answer. Beyond the PRC's first overseas base in Djibouti, Beijing
is very likely planning to establish additional military installations,
including bases and logistics hubs, all of which would present a direct
challenge to our global interests and those of our allies and partners.
We are working closely across the interagency and with our partners and
allies to address this issue.
Question. Please describe the Biden administration's policy towards
Turkey.
Answer. U.S. strategic interests overlap with Turkey's in many
ways, including countering terrorism, ending the conflict in Syria, and
deterring malign influence in the region. Turkey makes crucial
contributions to NATO missions, vocally supports Ukrainian and Georgian
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and works to prevent the
Russian-backed Assad regime from precipitating additional humanitarian
crises on Europe's doorstep. The United States has a strong interest in
keeping Turkey anchored to the Euro-Atlantic community. The
Administration will continue to call out actions inconsistent with
Turkey's NATO commitments and will continue to raise human rights
concerns while seeking cooperation on areas of shared interest.
Question. Are you working to solve the S-400 problem?
Answer. The Administration continues to urge Turkey not to retain
the S-400 system and to refrain from purchasing additional Russian
materiel. Turkey's S-400 acquisition runs directly counter to the
commitments all Allies made at the 2016 NATO Summit in Warsaw to reduce
dependencies on Russian equipment. As the Biden administration has made
clear to Turkey, any new purchase of Russian military equipment would
risk triggering CAATSA sanctions separate from and in addition to those
imposed in December 2020.
We continue to press for resolution of the S-400 issue at senior
levels, including during the June 14 meeting between Presidents Biden
and Erdogan.
Question. Have you offered Turkey and President Erdogan any options
to help them exit this morass [S-400]? If so, please delineate them.
Answer. U.S. administrations have offered Turkey numerous options
to resolve the S-400 issue both before and after Turkey began taking
delivery of the system in July 2019. The United States offered Turkey
the PATRIOT air defense system in 2009 and 2019, and competed for
Turkey's 2013 tender for a long-range air/missile defense system. Each
offer included a broad range of co-production and co-development
opportunities as well as the most competitive delivery schedules
possible, which Turkey declined. We continue to press Turkey for a
solution that protects U.S. national security interests and meets the
requirements of relevant legislation.
Question. Russian President Putin recently said that with the
impending success of Nord Stream 2, ``we are ready to continue
implementing similar high-tech projects with our European and other
partners. We expect the logic of mutual benefit to inevitably have the
upper hand over various types of artificial barriers of the current
political situation.'' Will your State Department work to fight the
proliferation of these kinds of Russian malign influence projects?
Answer. The Department of State works closely with other agencies
on a whole-of-government basis that combines diplomatic, intelligence,
financial, and law enforcement lines of effort to expose and impose
costs for Russian malign influence. We also work with likeminded allies
and international partners to counter Russian malign influence through
a variety of multilateral and bilateral avenues. Denial, disruption,
and exposure of Russia's malign tactics impose a cost on targeted
individuals and entities which carry out these efforts. This includes
both official Government actors, namely the Russian intelligence
services and unofficial proxies. I will continue to support these
ongoing interagency efforts.
Question. Since the U.S. has not fully opposed Nord Stream 2 like
it indicated it would, how do you anticipate our partners will react to
future verbal opposition to Russian projects that may arise?
Answer. The Administration's position remains clear--the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline is a Russian geopolitical project that threatens
European energy security and undermines the security of Ukraine and
frontline Central and Eastern European allies and partners. Our goal
remains to ensure Russia cannot use energy as a coercive tool against
Ukraine or anyone else in the region, and we continue to engage
diplomatically with Germany on steps it can take to address our
concerns about the risks the pipeline poses to Ukraine and European
energy security. We also consult regularly with Central and Eastern
European allies and partners regarding our opposition to the pipeline
and ways we--and Germany--can support European energy security.
Question. Russia Strategy: Please detail the U.S. Government's
policy and strategy towards Russia. In your response, please be sure to
address arms control, international organizations, disinformation,
Russian military adventurism, Wagner Group, sanctions, U.S. Embassy
posture in Russia, European-U.S. unity of message on Russia, and the
Kremlin's abuse of its citizenry.
Answer. We seek a stable and predictable relationship with Russia.
At the same time, we will hold it accountable for disregarding
international laws, norms, and agreements, including those related to
arms control and nonproliferation, and for reckless and adversarial
actions like its invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine and
Georgia. Cooperation with our allies enhances our ability to deter and
disrupt Moscow's threats, defend human rights, effectively apply
sanctions, and highlight the increasing isolation caused by the Putin
regime's aggression and domestic repression. We also engage directly
with Russia to advance and protect U.S. interests, including at the
U.N., in the Arctic Council, and via our Strategic Stability Dialogue.
Question. The Biden administration is proposing a legislative
change that would allow the United States to join, or rejoin,
international organizations where the PLO is a member. As you know, the
PA and PLO continue to incentivize and celebrate violence against
Israelis through the egregious ``pay to slay'' program. In 2019 alone,
the Palestinians spent $151 million dollars to support imprisoned
terrorists and their families. What concessions have you been able to
extract from the PA and PLO on their pay for slay program before
suggesting this kind of diplomatic outreach?
Answer. This Administration is committed to encouraging the
Palestinian Authority to reform the prisoner and martyr payment system
in a manner that is consistent with U.S. interests and addresses the
concerns reflected in U.S. law. This has been a longstanding priority
of prior administrations and remains a top U.S. priority that I fully
support.
Question. Mexican transnational criminal organizations are
producing increased quantities of fentanyl and cartels, such as the
Sinaloa and the New Generation Jalisco Cartel, are the primary
trafficking groups responsible for smuggling fentanyl into the U.S.
from Mexico. Please describe how the budget request would ensure that
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement programs are focusing on
meaningfully reducing the flow of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids
from Mexico.
Answer. Among the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs' (INL) highest priorities is disrupting the
production and trafficking of synthetic drugs, including fentanyl. The
Department supports Mexico's recent steps to regulate fentanyl
precursor chemicals. The FY 2022 budget request ensures INL will
continue to build the capacity of Mexico to better disrupt
transnational criminal organizations, including through improving
investigations into precursor chemical diversion. The Department will
continue to deepen security cooperation with Mexico and will prioritize
developing meaningful solutions to address the synthetic drug threat at
the cabinet-level security dialogue that Vice President Harris
announced during the June 8 meeting with Mexican President Lopez
Obrador.
Question. In March 2020, the United States and Colombia announced a
joint action plan to reduce coca cultivation and cocaine production by
50 percent by the end of 2023. The plan would make full use of all
available tools, including rural development, interdiction, as well as
manual and aerial eradication. Can you explain how the budget request
would advance this objective?
Answer. Through the FY 2022 International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement (INCLE) budget request for Colombia, INL programming will
complement the Colombian Government's counternarcotics strategy by
providing assistance consistent with its five pillars: 1) dismantling
criminal organizations; 2) reducing drug supply; 3) decreasing drug
demand; 4) combating money laundering; and 5) increasing state presence
in rural areas where narcotics trafficking thrives. Integrated
implementation of these pillars will decrease the availability of
cocaine, reduce cocaine-related overdoses in the United States, and
stem migration caused by narcotrafficking-related violence in drug-
transit countries.
Question. In what ways can the U.S. better leverage existing
bilateral extradition treaties with Mexico and the countries in
Northern Central America to combat human smuggling and trafficking
throughout the region?
Answer. Our bilateral extradition treaties with Mexico and the
countries in northern Central America are powerful tools for combatting
crime, including human trafficking and migrant smuggling. I will
continue to evaluate the implementation of these treaties and look
forward to consulting closely with Congress on these issues.
Question. What conditions need to be met on the ground in
Venezuela, and what specific actions does Maduro need to take, before
the U.S. can support negotiations between the Maduro regime and Guaido
Government? Do you commit to not supporting negotiations until these
conditions are met and actions are taken?
Answer. The United States continues to support a negotiated
solution to the Venezuelan crisis that leads to free and fair
presidential and parliamentary elections and a return of the rule of
law and democracy in Venezuela.
Any solution to the Venezuelan crisis must come from the Venezuelan
people themselves through Venezuelan-led, comprehensive negotiations
that include participation from all stakeholders; allow for the
unconditional release of political prisoners; are time-bound; and allow
for all Venezuelans to express themselves politically through credible,
inclusive, and transparent local, parliamentary, and presidential
elections.
Question. The budget proposes a 72 percent increase in funding for
the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and seeks to remove all
conditions upon such contributions. This includes the ``Kemp-Kasten
amendment,'' in place since 1985, which prohibits U.S. funding for any
organization or program that ``supports or participates in the
management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization.'' Meanwhile, the UNFPA continues to support the
management of China's program of coercive abortion and involuntary
sterilization, publicly celebrates China's handling of the COVID-19
crisis (which has been characterized by the suppression of human
rights), and remains silent on efforts to ``erase the unique identity
of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims'' in Xinjiang. How will the
Administration ensure that U.S. contributions to UNFPA adhere to long-
standing U.S. law and will not be used to support heinous human rights
violations against women and girls, including the Chinese Government's
program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization and
genocidal campaign against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in
Xinjiang?
Answer. I take all legislative restrictions very seriously,
including those related to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA
keeps the United States contribution in a segregated account and does
not fund abortion. In addition, there is a dollar to dollar reduction
to the U.S. contribution for every dollar UNFPA spends in China with
other donor support. UNFPA has consistently advocated for and promoted
fulfilment of the basic right of all couples and individuals in China
and globally to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and
timing of their children. UNFPA does not support or promote abortion as
a method of family planning in China or anywhere. UNFPA does not
operate in Xinjiang.
Question. The budget request includes $300 million to pay a portion
of the U.N. peacekeeping ``arrears'' that have accrued over the last 4
years. These arrears are a result of a disagreement between the U.N.
and the United States on the ``scales of assessment''--a complicated
formula used by the U.N. to determine the amount member states are
expected to contribute for the general and peacekeeping budgets. Per
U.S. law, the United States will only pay up to 25 percent of the U.N.
peacekeeping budget. However, the U.N. ``assesses'' the United States
at a rate of up to 27.9 percent. This fall, the scales of assessment
will be renegotiated. Will you pledge to withhold payment of U.S.
peacekeeping arrears until the U.N. establishes a 25 percent cap on
contributions by any single nation?
Answer. In preparation for the triennial scales of assessment
negotiations, we are reviewing various options to reach an agreement in
the U.N. General Assembly to lower U.S. assessment rates and ensure
that other countries pay their fair share. I welcome the opportunity to
work with Congress to take the steps necessary to allow the United
States to meet our financial obligations. U.S. influence at the U.N.--
including the influence we need to push back against China and others
and to lead reform efforts--is greatest when we pay our bills in full
and on time.
Question. Would you agree that paying back peacekeeping arrears
before securing the 25 percent assessment rate would be giving away any
leverage in the negotiations?
Answer. U.S. influence at the U.N. is greatest when we pay our
bills in full and on time--both the influence we need to push back
against China and others and to lead reform efforts, including reform
efforts to ensure that U.N. peacekeeping funds are used as effectively
as possible. When we do not live up to our financial obligations--both
on the U.N. regular budget and the peacekeeping budget--it undermines
U.S. credibility and leadership at the U.N. and gives China and others
an easy talking point to promote their authoritarian views and
policies.
Question. The budget includes programming for democracy, human
rights, freedom, and the rule of law which we welcome. It also
references the Administration's plan for a Summit of Democracy.
What definition of democracy will be you using for inviting
countries to participate?
Answer. Invitations to the White House-led Summit for Democracy
will be offered to governments with a demonstrated democratic
trajectory and political will to advance democracy, as well as
commitment to the goals and objectives of the summit, including
implementing meaningful Summit commitments. Participating governments,
including our own, will be expected to deliver on both domestic and
international commitments that advance democracy, fight corruption, and
protect human rights.
Question. Can you please tell us more details of this Summit and
its goals?
Answer. The White House-led Summit for Democracy will reinforce the
United States' commitment to placing democracy and human rights at the
center of our foreign policy. It will have three principal themes:
defending against authoritarianism, addressing and fighting corruption,
and advancing human rights. The summit will include both well-
established and emerging democracies as well as representatives from
the private sector and civil society. Participating governments will be
expected to deliver on both domestic and international commitments that
advance democracy, fight corruption, and protect human rights.
Question. The United States is the global leader in responding to
humanitarian crises around the world. Yet, from Northern Yemen to
Tigray, humanitarian workers are increasingly under attack. Access is
being constrained by armed actors and bureaucratic processes.
Organizations are harassed. Convoys are attacked. Warehouses are burned
and looted. While it is in the interest of the United States to
continue providing humanitarian aid, it is not in our interest to see
that aid used as a weapon against the innocent men, women, and children
it is meant to support. The budget proposes to increase disaster
assistance and food aid. How do you intend to ensure that it actually
reaches its intended beneficiaries, and is not used as a weapon by
armed actors and governments against perceived opponents?
Answer. The United States will continue to work with experienced
multilateral, international, and local humanitarian organizations; use
tried-and-tested modalities; and leverage new technologies to improve
the delivery, monitoring, and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance
even in highly insecure environments. We will also continue to press
for accountability for those who commit violations or abuses of
applicable law, including international humanitarian law, especially
violations involving violence against protected humanitarian workers
and the vulnerable civilian populations they serve; attacks against
protected humanitarian and healthcare facilities and other civilian
infrastructure; or deliberately efforts to delay, divert, destroy or
weaponize aid.
Question. How do you propose to expand humanitarian access in
Tigray and Northern Yemen, for example?
Answer. I believe this Administration's commitment to diplomacy and
multilateralism can re-energize the U.N. and member-states to exert
pressure on all parties to expand humanitarian access in conflicts like
Tigray and Yemen. Quelling further violence, including attacks on aid
workers and on healthcare facilities and establishing immediate and
unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations are the first basic
steps to creating the conditions for a sustainable political
settlement, even in the most intractable conflicts.
Question. Is the manipulation and/or denial of life-saving aid to
vulnerable populations a crime against humanity and, if so, how do you
intend to hold those who bear the greatest responsibility accountable?
Answer. We condemn in the strongest terms obstruction of
humanitarian assistance, and we are deeply concerned by humanitarian
crises globally, including the deteriorating food security situation in
Ethiopia and in Yemen. As a general matter, we note that intentional
starvation of civilians as a method of combat may constitute a war
crime or a constituent act of crimes against humanity under certain
circumstances. We continue to urge the Government of Ethiopia to hold
all those responsible for abuses and violations of human rights
accountable. We will also explore all tools available, including the
application of our visa restriction policy and other diplomatic tools,
as appropriate, for any individuals responsible for restricting aid.
______
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. Supporting Global Basic Education: According to UNESCO,
the COVID-19 pandemic has interrupted learning for about 90 percent of
the world's student population, and 24 million students around the
globe may never return to school as a result of the pandemic.
Furthermore, it's projected that the economic downturn caused by COVID-
19 could lead to an education financing gap of $77 billion in low- and
middle-income countries over the next 2 years. I introduced the Global
Learning Loss Assessment Act with Senator Boozman to encourage the U.S.
to play an active role in mitigating this educational crisis before
it's too late.
Given these trends, why does the President's Budget Request include
a 28 percent decrease in global basic education funding compared to the
level enacted in FY21?
Answer. As the largest bilateral donor to basic education in the
world, the USG is uniquely positioned to respond to the COVID-19
pandemic quickly and efficiently, building on the strong foundation set
by the USG Strategy on International Basic Education. The
Administration's FY 2022 request of $888.6 million for basic and higher
education is the highest President's Budget Request for education since
FY 2012. In response to the pandemic, the USG will continue to partner
with bilateral and multilateral partners, the private sector, and
external stakeholders to leverage resources to help partner countries
mitigate the loss of instructional time, prepare for heightened
uncertainty, and equip education actors and institutions to be
increasingly resilient.
Question. How will the State Department and related agencies
support global education to prevent a lost generation of learners,
knowing that basic education has many long-term, wide-reaching benefits
including economic prosperity and security?
Answer. In response to the pandemic, the USG is working with
partner countries to mitigate the loss of instructional time and equip
education actors and institutions to be increasingly resilient. To do
so, USG programs are addressing barriers to school participation,
ensuring safe return to learning opportunities, especially for the most
marginalized, and building more resilient and equitable education
systems with the capacity to better manage future shocks and prevent
development backsliding. Despite numerous challenges, the USG reached
more than 25.5 million learners through international basic education
programs designed to improve measurable learning outcomes and expand
access to high-quality education for all in FY 2020.
Question. Multilateral Institutions in the Western Hemisphere: U.S.
leadership in multilateral institutions is essential, especially within
our own Hemisphere. They improve U.S. relations with our neighbors, and
enable us to counter the influence of malign actors in the region. I
introduced the Organization of American States Legislative Engagement
Act with Senator Wicker to strengthen the participation of elected
national legislators in the activities of the OAS. It became law
earlier this year, and I look forward to working with you to implement
this legislation. My colleagues and I have also been supportive of new
general capital increase for the Inter-American Development Bank,
though I am concerned that China appears to be the country whose
companies are securing more contracts for infrastructure projects than
any other country, while contributing a pittance, less than half a
percent of the funding. Can you commit to a robust funding level for
multilateral institutions in our Hemisphere, including the OAS and the
IDB?
Answer. I am committed to a robust funding level for multilateral
institutions in our Hemisphere, including the Organization of American
States (OAS) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). The IDB is
the largest multilateral lender in the region and a critical
organization through which we support the region's sustainable
infrastructure, high-standard investment, and transparent economic
development. The OAS remains the premier multilateral organization in
the Western Hemisphere committed to advancing our regional commitment
to the promotion and defense of democracy in accordance with the
principles articulated in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
Question. How do you intend to compete more vigorously with China
and others in placing qualified Americans into senior positions in
multilateral institutions?
Answer. The Department is establishing a new office in the Bureau
of International Organization Affairs--the office of Multilateral
Strategy and Personnel (IO/MSP)--focused on U.N. elections,
multilateral appointments and competitive positions, and upholding the
foundational principles and values of the U.N. and multilateral system.
The Department is employing a multifaceted approach that includes
recruiting qualified and diverse candidates, consulting with them
throughout a transparent application process, and advocating for their
selection where appropriate. I have prioritized robust strategies to
work with the interagency as well as our allies and partners to secure
increased numbers of qualified, independent U.S. citizens and
likeminded candidates, as appropriate, employed in multilateral
institutions.
______
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Rob Portman
Question. In our meeting with President Zelensky, he asked if the
Global Engagement Center could assist in setting up their newly formed
Center for Combatting Disinformation Center in Ukraine. Do I have your
commitment that you will look into this request?
Answer. Yes, the Global Engagement Center (GEC) is already looking
into the request. One of the GEC's core responsibilities is to partner
and coordinate with likeminded governments on efforts to counter
foreign propaganda and disinformation. The GEC recently met with the
head of the Ukrainian Center for Combatting Disinformation, and they
discussed ways to build off the good work of both organizations and how
they can collaborate with one another. The Department and the GEC look
forward to working with Ukraine's Center for Combatting Disinformation.
Question. As we talk about the GEC, I am curious as to when you are
going to name a new Special Coordinator. The previous Coordinator, Lea
Gabrielle stayed on an extra month to help with a transition, and there
is still no one named. This is not a Senate confirmed position, but we
need a person with great knowledge of the issues to be able to work in
a bipartisan manner. Do you know when this appointment will be
announced?
Answer. I am committed to having a diverse and qualified leadership
team in place, including the Special Coordinator position at the GEC. I
am working with the White House and within the Department to identify
and select such candidates as quickly as possible.
Question. I understand in your budget request that you are not
asking for an increase in GEC funding. Last year's appropriation was
$60 million and Senator Murphy and I have asked for $150 million this
year. Is this accurate? And if so, why aren't you asking for more
funding to support the mission? Our adversaries are spending tens of
billions of dollars annually on promoting disinformation and as we
learned on our recent CODEL, in many cases our allies and partners are
asking us directly for this assistance. The GEC is tasked as the
interagency lead, and from our discussions, it is clear that the $60
million dollar appropriation is not enough to meet the challenge. Do
you support an increase in GEC funding?
Answer. The GEC's FY 2022 budget represents a $5.1 million (8.5
percent) increase over FY 2021 and includes 17 new positions. I am
happy to work with you and your colleagues in continuing to strengthen
the GEC and our full range of public diplomacy programs. I recognize
that authoritarian regimes continue to use disinformation campaigns,
strategic corruption, and other coercive tools to enhance their malign
influence and to interfere in democracies. The GEC's efforts are an
important part of the work we must undertake with allies to counter
disinformation, define an affirmative and democratic global information
space, and ultimately sustain an information environment of truthful
communication.
Question. COVID-19 Vaccines: While the United States is turning the
corner on our fight against COVID, other areas of the world are
experiencing surges that are creating desperate situations in many
countries for many people. India and Nepal are two such examples. I was
heartened to see that the United States is investing heavily in COVAX
and dedicating our excess supply of vaccines to countries in desperate
need. However, there does not appear to be a strategy or guidelines for
the distribution of these vaccines. What is the process for deciding
what vaccines go where? Will this process be made public? There is a
lot of confusion in communities around the United States, including in
Ohio, due to a lack of clarity on this issue from the Administration.
Answer. Our principles for sharing U.S. vaccines include maximizing
the number of vaccines available for the greatest number of countries
and for those most at-risk within countries; preparing for surges and
prioritizing healthcare workers and other vulnerable populations based
on public health data and acknowledged best practice; and helping
countries in need and our neighbors. We also seek to ensure vaccines
are delivered in a way that is efficient, equitable, and follows the
latest science and public health data. Our doses do not come with
strings attached. The singular objective is to get these doses to those
in need and save lives.
______
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Edward J. Markey
Question. Chinese exit bans continue to impact Massachusetts
residents, Cynthia and Victor Liu, and their mother, Sandra Han. The
issue was recently raised in diplomatic engagements with our Chinese
counterparts. What was the response from Chinese officials, and are
there plans for President Biden to raise the issue directly in his
talks with President Xi?
Answer. The United States continues to raise wrongful detentions
and coercive exit bans with the PRC at every opportunity, including
during Secretary Blinken's June 11 phone call with Chinese Communist
Party Politburo Member and Director of the Office of the Foreign
Affairs Commission Yang Jiechi. That will continue. Additionally, the
State Department's travel advisory for China warns that the PRC uses
wrongful detentions and coercive exit bans for a number of
inappropriate purposes, including to pressure family members to return
to the PRC from abroad and to gain bargaining leverage over foreign
governments. This is unacceptable and we call on Beijing to provide a
fair and transparent process any time restrictions on liberty are
imposed on U.S. citizens.
Question. Paul Overby is also a Massachusetts resident last seen in
Afghanistan in 2014. As the U.S. leaves Afghanistan it's critical Paul
not be left behind. Will you prioritize hostage affairs in negotiations
to bring him home before our troops leave? Will you additionally commit
to connect directly with his wife as soon as is possible?
Answer. Recovering Paul Overby is a top priority for me, and the
Biden-Harris administration and it remains a priority in our
negotiations. Working closely with the Special Presidential Envoy for
Hostage Affairs Ambassador Roger Carstens, Ambassador Khalilzad
continues to raise the recovery of our hostages in Afghanistan, to
include Mr. Overby, during his discussions with the Taliban. I will
continue to do everything possible to see to it that Mr. Overby is
returned to his family using every appropriate tool at our disposal,
including a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to the
safe return of Mr. Overby. The Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage
Affairs and team routinely update Mr. Overby's wife.
______
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Rand Paul
Question. After almost 20 years, we have lost over 7,000 killed,
suffered over 50,000 wounded, and spent over $6.4 trillion, in Iraq and
Afghanistan alone. And that doesn't even account for our total human
and monetary costs in the greater Middle East over the same period of
time. President Biden claims that we will end this seemingly endless
war in Afghanistan, and I am grateful that he is planning on keeping
President Trump's plan to leave the war. However, the FY 2022 budget
request should reflect the cost savings that leaving Afghanistan will
afford us. Estimates based on Department of Defense data indicate that
as much as $50 billion will be freed by withdrawing troops from
Afghanistan. Although the State Department and the Administration did
not request funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, funding for
traditional OCO was moved to the DoD base budget. The request for the
State Department and DoD has increased, and is rapidly rising, even
when it should have dropped off. President Biden requested $58.5
billion for the State Department and USAID, an increase of $5.5 billion
or 10 percent over the FY 2021 enacted level. He also requested $715
billion for the DoD for FY 2022, a $10 billion increase from FY 2021,
despite his commitment to end the War in Afghanistan. Where did these
cost savings go? Well according to the Defense Budget Request, they
didn't really go anywhere at all, they moved to the DoD budget, under
``Direct War Requirements'' and ``Enduring Requirements,'' which
together totals roughly $42.1 billion. Where did the net cost savings
go for ending the War in Afghanistan? Why is the cost of the War in
Afghanistan going to cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars,
and nearly as much money as when we had troops on the ground?
Answer. The Department of State defers to the Department of Defense
(DoD) for all issues related to DoD's FY 2022 Budget Request. The
Department will have increased operating costs in Afghanistan as
Embassy Kabul assumes a number of enabling functions from DoD as the
U.S. military draws down its resources. These enabling functions are
essential for our continued diplomatic presence in Afghanistan. A
Congressional Notification was recently approved to reprogram funding
within the Department to prepare for DoD's drawdown, ensure the safety
of chief of mission employees, and allow critical diplomatic engagement
with the Afghan National Government and local partners.
______
Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions
Submitted by Senator Cory Booker
Question. Diversity and Additional Human Resources: During your
confirmation process, we discussed two major issues related to
personnel. First, we discussed the need to ramp up our diplomatic
capabilities and presence due to the increasingly complex policy
challenges we face. Second, we discussed the value of our diplomatic
corps deployed abroad reflecting Americans by increasing diversity
among our Foreign Service corps.
The budget makes good on both of those promises by including
funding for 255 additional Foreign Service personnel and 230 additional
Civil Service personnel, and also includes $49 million to ``broaden
recruitment, diversity, and inclusion programs'' across the State
Department.
How will you deploy these additional human resources across our
missions to put diplomacy first while being better positioned to use
our capabilities to better compete with our near peer competitors?
Answer. The Department of State is committed to using its staffing
resources to revitalize the foreign policy workforce. This includes
supporting department-wide program requests to broaden recruitment,
diversity, and inclusion programs. New Civil Service and Foreign
Service (FS) positions to include FS political, economic, public
diplomacy, and management positions will further implement the Indo-
Pacific strategy, counter concerning Chinese influence, expand U.S.
economic outreach and commercial diplomacy worldwide, broaden public
diplomacy engagement, defend U.S. interests, address regional security,
and engage with the U.N. and other organizations.
Question. One avenue to increase access to careers at the State
Department is through internships. However, as we discussed, State
Department internships are mostly unpaid, which is a barrier to entry
for minority and low-income students and young professionals. In
addition to Ambassador Abercrombie's work to increase diversity at the
State Department, I hope you will consider the State paid internship
legislation that Senator Scott and I have put forward.
Answer. I support a paid internship program at the Department of
State. It is among my highest priorities to enhance diversity, equity,
and inclusion in our workforce. Paid internships would help address a
key barrier to entry for many who are interested in a career with the
State Department by mitigating the costs associated with foregoing
income during an internship, as well as travel and living expenses in a
major metropolitan area. A paid internship program would support
Department efforts to reach a broader range of candidates, including
those historically underrepresented, and increase access to the
valuable opportunity of experiencing national security service and
career options. I continue to support pursuing such legislative efforts
in both chambers, especially those that provide the flexibility to add
this program to supplement existing internship programs, and special
hiring authority to have such interns join as employees for key
purposes.
Question. Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: Conflicts around the
world are having a devastating and distinct impact on women and girls.
There is heightened awareness of the need to address sexual violence in
conflict resolution processes and to ensure that perpetrators of sexual
violence do not benefit from de facto or de jure amnesties. However,
significant gaps in prevention, accountability, reparations, and
protection of victims and witnesses of conflict-related sexual violence
persist. Does the United States recognize the need to prioritize
gender-based violence and a protection response as being up there with
the need to provide other lifesaving responses such as food, water, and
shelter?
Answer. The United States is committed to preventing and responding
to gender-based violence (GBV), particularly the protection and
empowerment of women and girls, as a human rights imperative. In the
context of humanitarian response, addressing GBV is a life-saving
priority and is integral to advancing broader U.S. foreign policy and
development priorities. The United States implements its commitments to
GBV prevention and response through whole-of-government strategies. In
addition, the United States remains committed to Safe from the Start, a
United States initiative launched in 2013 to increase leadership,
accountability, and resources available for lifesaving GBV prevention
and response, and ensure quality services for survivors from the very
onset of emergencies.
Question. If so, what is the Department doing to ensure access to
care, both physical and psychological? What is being done to push for
investigations and accountability?
Answer. Justice and accountability for gender-based violence (GBV)
remains a Departmental priority, and we continue to press for justice
that is survivor-centered and respects the unique needs of survivors of
these crimes. Since 2013, the United States has channeled more than
$136 million through Safe from the Start to systematically prevent and
respond to GBV at the onset of emergencies, and a significant amount
more to fund core and specialized GBV prevention and response through
other mechanisms. In addition, the United States remains actively
engaged with states, donors, and IO and NGO partners through various
bodies, such as the Call to Action on Protection from Gender-based
Violence in Emergencies, in continuing to develop policies and
responses that better address the unique needs of displaced women and
girls.
Question. Outside of funding and programming, what diplomatic
levers can be brought to bear on this critical issue particularly in
areas such as Ethiopia and Myanmar?
Answer. For Ethiopia, the Department has already approved visa
restrictions for certain individuals who are responsible for or
complicit in undermining resolution of the crisis in Tigray. We have
also restricted security and economic assistance to and imposed defense
trade controls on Ethiopia due to human rights concerns, and we are
exploring all diplomatic tools available.
On Burma, we will continue to use all appropriate tools available
to exert pressure on the military junta, deny the regime international
credibility, and expose the junta's horrific brutality, including by
promoting justice and accountability for human rights abuses and
atrocities.
Question. Autocracy vs. Democracy: The Chinese Government's efforts
to tighten control at home and expand authoritarian tactics abroad
present a threat to global democracy. The world has watched as
President Xi Jinping has intensified repression in China by repressing
dissent in Hong Kong and imprisoning over a million Uyghurs and other
ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang province.
We have also witnessed increasingly aggressive efforts by the
Chinese Government to export repression beyond its borders through the
spread of global censorship, the harassment of dissidents outside
mainland China, and attempts to undermine the effectiveness of
international institutions such as the United Nations and its
constituent bodies.
How does the State Department propose to counter growing Chinese
efforts to promote its state-centered authoritarian type of Government
in weak and backsliding democracies around the world?
Answer. Alliances and partnerships serve as force-multipliers for
the United States. We are speaking out and working with our allies and
partners, and as members of the G20, U.N., and wider international
community, to uphold the rules-based international system and
international law. Together with our allies and partners, we are
calling out the PRC for the atrocities it is committing in Xinjiang and
for dismantling the rights, freedoms, and high degree of autonomy for
Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic
Law. We are also imposing costs on those responsible for human rights
violations in China, even as we work to bolster democratic resilience
at home.
Question. What policies and programs are the Department pursuing
with this budget that will help increase global transparency about
Chinese efforts to influence, censor, and undermine access to free
media in countries around the world?
Answer. We are strengthening our public diplomacy programs,
including the Global Engagement Center's (GEC) efforts, to counter
disinformation and define and sustain a global information environment
in which audiences around the world can freely access, contribute to,
make informed judgments about, and trust transparent and truthful
communication. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL)
programs aim to address the weak governance, corruption, and poor human
rights conditions that make countries susceptible to PRC manipulation
by empowering local civil society with the skills and resources
necessary to advance good governance, human rights, and anti-corruption
goals. In addition, the Countering PRC Malign Influence Fund is funding
projects to counter the PRC's use of coercive and corrupting tools of
influence.
Question. What efforts is the Department undertaking to reassert
the United States as the leader on the global stage, particularly at
the United Nations? Concurrently, how does the Department propose to
counter Chinese obstructionism on the Security Council and other bodies
as the United States seeks to promote human rights and universal
freedoms?
Answer. The United States is using our reengagement to reassert
U.S. leadership across the U.N. system. We are working with likeminded
partners on the UNSC to ensure that the UNSC delivers on its mandate of
maintaining international peace and security and remains impartial and
aligned with U.N. values and principles, including by pushing back
against the PRC when necessary. Through our reengagement, we are also
promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms by working
to ensure the UNHRC shines a spotlight on countries with the worst
human rights records and serves as a forum for those fighting injustice
and tyranny.
Question. I'm pleased to see that the State Department is working
with Treasury to make effective use of the Global Magnitsky Act to go
after corrupt actors. Beyond this, what other tools does the Department
have at its disposal to support the new national security strategy?
Answer. The Department implements a multifaceted approach to combat
corruption, including promoting implementation of the U.N. Convention
against Corruption (UNCAC), the only global anticorruption treaty and
leading international framework that supports our efforts to prevent
and combat corruption. The Department plays a key role in the promotion
of internationally recognized standards to prevent and combat
corruption, engages in bilateral diplomacy to promote reform, provides
foreign assistance to strengthen criminal justice systems and other
institutions, and implements visa restrictions to promote
accountability for corrupt actors.
Question. We have seen an increase in the use of sanctions to
further U.S. priorities and democratic norms. Do you believe State and
Treasury have the resources to manage the increasing use of sanctions
as a major tool in our toolkit?
Answer. Sanctions can be an effective way to drive behavior change
and to respond to activities that threaten U.S. national security. The
Department of State has multiple offices charged with developing,
managing, and supporting sanctions policy and implementation, including
offices in the bureaus of Economic and Business Affairs;
Counterterrorism; International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs;
International Security and Nonproliferation; and Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor; among others. These bureaus, which work closely on
sanctions policy with State's regional bureaus, will continue robust
implementation of sanctions policies and programs as part of broader
foreign policy efforts.
Question. Many corrupt foreign leaders hide their money in offshore
accounts. What is the Department's view on making the existence of
these accounts and their corrupt owners public when the U.S. Government
becomes aware of them?
Answer. The President's recent National Security Study Memorandum,
which establishes the fight against corruption as a core U.S. national
security interest, emphasizes the need to curb illicit finance by
reducing offshore financial secrecy, seizing stolen assets, and making
it more difficult for those who steal to hide behind anonymity. The
Department's programmatic and diplomatic efforts to promote beneficial
ownership transparency and prevent money laundering can reinforce this
priority and evolve as the strategy takes shape. Working with
interagency partners, I will continue to use all tools at my disposal
to support efforts to increase transparency around beneficial ownership
and use of offshore accounts, while remaining mindful of U.S. law
enforcement interests.
Question. What is the Department doing to bolster the capacity of
international institutions and multilateral bodies to establish global
anti-corruption norms, promote financial transparency, and strengthen
the frameworks of financial institutions to prevent corruption?
Answer. The Department plays a key role in the development and
promotion of recognized international standards and commitments,
including those in the U.N. Convention Against Corruption, which is the
leading international framework supporting our global efforts to
prevent and combat corruption. We provide foreign assistance to support
the role of multilateral bodies in establishing anticorruption norms
and promoting their implementation; strengthen justice sector and other
oversight institutions in promoting debt transparency and
sustainability; and promote public transparency, accountability, and
integrity. We also advocate incorporation of these important values
during multilateral and bilateral meetings.
Question. I was pleased to see the highest in a decade budget
request for humanitarian assistance, reflecting the increased needs
caused by climate change, conflict, and migration. To be able to
provide humanitarian assistance, our partners need to be able to access
those in need. Yet, in conflict after conflict, in every region of the
world, they are denied access to vulnerable populations in need of
assistance. According to some estimates, crisis-affected populations in
more than 60 countries around the world are not getting the
humanitarian assistance they need because of access constraints. In
2019, Senator Young and I worked with CSIS to establish a task force on
humanitarian access. One of the conclusions of our task force was that
the U.S. Government must prioritize aid funding, training, data
sharing, and new technologies to help aid workers overcome access
challenges to reach the most vulnerable. What is the Department doing
to ensure that humanitarian access is being treated as the foreign
policy and national security priority it is?
Answer. In addition to the access challenges endemic to insecure
environments, since early 2020 humanitarian aid organizations have had
to adjust to additional access restrictions and risks posed by the
COVID-19 pandemic. With USG support, these organizations have been able
to provide essential assistance and protection by using new
technologies, scaling up cash and voucher assistance, and shifting more
responsibilities to local staff. In FY 2020, the United States provided
$10.5 billion in humanitarian assistance, and thanks to Congress's
generous support, we will increase that programming this year. We will
also prioritize access to COVID-19 vaccines for the most vulnerable,
marginalized, and hard-to-reach populations and encourage other donors
to do the same.
Question. What leverage does the Department have to force non-
compliant actors to grant access? What tools are you missing that could
make the U.S. Government more effective at getting humanitarian aid to
those in need?
Answer. I believe there is an imperative to provide assistance to
those in need. If direct bilateral diplomacy with non-compliant actors
does not yield immediate results, pressure by like-minded states can be
brought to bear, including through measures imposed by the UNSC. Other
tools include promoting accountability for human rights abuses and
violations of international humanitarian law, and in cases of extreme
need, providing assistance to vulnerable populations without the
consent of non-compliant actors.
______
The Committee Received No Response From Secretary of State Antony J.
Blinken for the Following Request by Senator Van Hollen
Secretary Blinken,
Mr. Hamza Ulucay is a former foreign national State Department
employee who served at the U.S. Consulate in Adana for nearly 40 years.
He was detained by Turkish officials as a consequence of his service to
the U.S. Government. I appreciate the U.S. Department of State's hard
work to help secure Mr. Ulucay's release and ongoing efforts to ensure
that he receives proper representation in the legal battles he
continues to fight against the baseless charges by the Turkish
Government. However, I am troubled that Mr. Ulucay has been deemed
ineligible for a pension for his federal service. On May 23, 2020, I
sent a letter marked as ``time-sensitive'' regarding Mr. Ulucay's
situation to the Department of State. I want to know the legal basis
for the decision to deny Mr. Ulucay a federal pension. Moreover, I ask
that you explore all means to provide extraordinary relief, if
necessary, to support this individual who has been a loyal employee of
the U.S. Government for decades, and has been subjected to unfounded
prosecution by the Turkish Government because of that service. My staff
received confirmation from the Department that this letter was
received. However, since then, and despite numerous attempts by my
staff to receive updates, I have not received a response. I am
including the letter below for your reference.
Given Mr. Ulucay's precarious situation, please review this matter
and provide a response as expeditiously as possible.
text of letter
Dear Acting Assistant Secretary Durakoglu:
I am writing on behalf of Mr. Hamza Ulucay regarding the terms of
his separation from employment with the U.S. Department of State.
I am grateful to the Department for all that it has done to support
Mr. Ulucay during his unjust detention by the Turkish Government and to
secure his probationary release. As you may know, I had the opportunity
to meet Mr. Ulucay in 1988 when I was a staff member on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Ulucay was extremely helpful to me
then, as I know he has been to the U.S. Consulate in Adana since 1980.
I was pleased when he was honored as Foreign Service National of the
Year in 1992. I am a proud cosponsor of S. 1075--the Defending United
States Citizens and Diplomatic Staff from Political Prosecutions Act of
2019, which supports his release and those of the other Turkish
nationals being held unjustly.
I appreciate the Department's extension of Mr. Ulucay's employment
for 1 year past the required retirement age. I understand that Mr.
Ulucay is also eligible for a special immigrant visa, but that he has
not yet been able to avail himself of the opportunity due to travel
restrictions imposed upon him by the Turkish Government. I know that
the Department's support has been very much appreciated by Mr. Ulucay
and his family.
I was troubled, however, to learn that Mr. Ulucay has been deemed
ineligible for a pension from his federal service. I understand that
U.S. missions abroad have a vast array of local conditions in which
they must adapt and operate, and that many depend on local retirement
systems to support Foreign Service nationals after employment with the
U.S. Government. However, I find it disturbing that the Department of
State, despite recognizing that Mr. Ulucay is confronting his current
situation as a direct consequence of his service to the U.S.
Government, would leave him with two horrible options--to remain in
Turkey on a meager pension from the Turkish social security system and
at continued risk of retribution and retaliation by the Turkish
Government, or, when and if the travel ban imposed upon him by Turkish
officials is lifted, to immigrate to the U.S. as a retiree with no
means to support himself and his family.
I respectfully ask that the Department of State clarify the grounds
on which Mr. Ulucay was deemed ineligible for benefits through the CSRS
program, providing the relevant legal citations and employment records.
I understand that foreign nationals employed at posts abroad and
appointed after December 31, 1987 are ineligible for CSRS benefits
under 5 U.S.C. 8331(1). However, Mr. Ulucay began his employment at the
U.S. Consulate in Adana in 1980. I hope that you will work with me to
resolve this situation.
Given Mr. Ulucay's precarious situation, I ask that you review this
matter as expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions and to
direct correspondence, please contact Ms. Catherine Provost of my staff
at catherine_
[email protected].
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris Van Hollen,
United States Senator.
cc: The Honorable Antony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State
[No Response Received]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117shrg45439_chrg-117shrg45439.htm
- Size
- 307,809 bytes
- SHA-256
- 28a467e84caff6d0e8491c42cf2a8692818a7c37a0f938af3b4d6d3c53980973
- Original
- No public link identified.