Mr. GILMAN. Our first witness today is the Honorable Barney Frank of Massachusetts. He is an important voice on human rights issues in the Congress. Some time ago he wrote our Committee suggesting that the Committee hold a hearing on our current relationship with Saudi Arabia, in which he set out several cogent observations, the gist of which was that our relationship with Saudi Arabia does not help advance our national interests.
We are delighted to welcome Congressman Frank before our Committee. You may proceed. You may give your testimony in full or summarize it as you see fit.
Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My thanks to you, the Chairman of the Full Committee, the gentleman from Illinois, to the Ranking Member, the gentleman from California, for having these hearings.
Just as I listened to the opening statements and the range of opinions, I am struck by the wish that we would do this more regularly. This is exactly the role that Congress ought to be playing, airing important public policy debates, not necessarily because there is a decision pending, but, in fact, to bring some genuine level of thought.
I think we have a seriously asymmetrical relationship with Saudi Arabia. As the gentleman from California said earlier, it was one thing when we were dealing with the Communist threat and there was a geostrategic imperative that was somewhat overarching. In the absence of that, we are suffering from cultural lag. I think we are acting as if we get a great deal more out of the Saudi Arabian relationship than we do, and that we err, in fact, in appearing and being more supportive of them than the facts justify.
Obviously the Saudi Arabian regime has one of the worst records in the world with regard to human rights. Their lack of democracy, their absolute religious intolerance, their degrading mistreatment of women, all of these are troubling. They are not simply troubling, however, in themselves. Of course they are, but they have an impact on us. I cannot think of anything more appalling than the fact that we send American military personnel to that country primarily these days to protect that country and allow them to be subjected to a form of abusive treatment that we would not tolerate for a minute anywhere else. I salute the American military officer who said that she was not going to take it anymore. We ought to be rallying to her.
They undercut our position. Let me read some excerpts from a recent, very important speech:
"Opposition parties should have the freedom to organize, assemble and speak with equal access to all airwaves. All political prisoners must be released and allowed to participate in the election process. Human rights organizations should be free to visit. If the government truly wants to advance the cause of workers, it will permit trade unions to exist outside of government control. For open trade, we should have a government that is fully democratic which respects the rule of law and where the human rights are protected."
I am reading from President Bush's speech recently about Cuba, and I do not understand why this applies to Cuba and not to Saudi Arabia; and I don't understand how we can go before the world and say, footnote, Cuba only. We will get to China later. How do we make these arguments, legitimately critical of a dictatorial regime in Cuba, and then overlook what is probably worse with regard to Saudi Arabia?
I would ask to put in the record a series of questions and answers-I take that back, a series of questions and nonanswers, with Assistant Secretary Craner, and I don't blame him personally, he was carrying out government policy, for March 4, 2002, when the human rights report was released. The press very diligently tried to get the Assistant Secretary to talk about what we were doing to implement human rights in Saudi Arabia. Lacking bird dogs, subpoena power, and truth serum, they could not get an answer out of him. It is not his fault. The fault is the policy that makes a glaring exception in our human rights policy for this regime in Saudi Arabia. The argument might be okay, but you have to make devil's bargains sometimes.
[The information referred to follows:]
RELEASE OF THE COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2001
Secretary Colin L. Powell and
Assistant Secretary Craner, Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
Remarks to the Press
Washington, DC March 4, 2002
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am very pleased to be here with all of you today to release the State Department's 26th Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. It is a special privilege to release the report with the Secretary of State, whom I have watched over the years work tirelessly in public, and now in private, to advance human rights around the world.
The country reports we're releasing today provide a snapshot of the human rights record in almost 190 countries, evaluated within a consistent set of internationally recognized human rights standards and norms. Virtually every aspect of human rights is covered, from transparency in government, to respect for the integrity of the person, to worker rights. The facts are simply and objectively presented for the reader to analyze.
Before I discuss the content of the Reports, I would like to thank all of those who have worked so diligently to produce them. This is a massive endeavor. The work entails thousands of hours in research and information gathering by US diplomats abroad and Department staff here in the United States. Overseas, this information gathering can be hazardous, and US Foreign Service Officers regularly go to great lengths, under trying and sometimes even dangerous conditions, to investigate abuses, monitor elections, and aid individuals at risk.
Additional sources for the report include domestic and international human rights groups, academics, jurists, international organizations, and domestic and international media. Within the Human Rights Bureau, I owe a special thanks to my deputies, to Bill Dilday, who heads the Office of Country Reports, and to his Deputy, Jeannette Dubrow, who ran the office during his unavoidable absence during part of last year. The staff of the Country Reports Office are a dedicated group of people committed to preserving and presenting the facts as accurately and objectively as possible.
Over the last few months, I have heard the worry that the war on terrorism will sideline America's interest in human rights. This is far from true. In fact, the protection of human rights is even more important now than ever. The US Government is deeply committed to the promotion of universal human rights and the development of pluralistic, accountable governments.
As the President said in his State of the Union Address, and as you just heard the Secretary say, the events of September 11th necessitate that the international war against terrorism be fought not only to protect our rights and freedoms, but also to promote them throughout the globe. To my mind, this is most evident in Afghanistan, which a year ago was ruled by one of the world's most repressive regimes.
Liberated from the Taliban, Afghans have come to cherish the lives, society and freedoms they have regained. Women have begun to assume key roles in the political and economic recovery of their country. Schools have reopened for young women, girls and boys. Afghans no longer live in fear of violating some unwritten, arbitrary law of behavior enforced at the whim of the Taliban. There is still much to be done to ensure public security and reconstruct the country, but no one can doubt that 2001 was the year when Afghans began to regain their freedoms.
We have mentioned a few examples of positive steps being taken around the world in the introduction to the Reports. The move towards democratic principles, such as transparent elections and accountable governments, continues. In 2001, we saw democratic political reforms taking root around the globe, from Peru, to Mexico, to Ghana, Senegal and Serbia.
Still, in our less than perfect world, there is much room for improvement. Some of the world's most repressive regimes, from Cuba to North Korea, have changed little over the past year. But elsewhere, some governments are beginning to understand the need for change to get their countries on a sound economic base, and to sustain a meaningful long-term relationship with the United States.
This cannot be achieved without the rule of law, accountability in government, and the development of civil society. These are some of the matters we are pursuing in expanding dialogues with a number of coalition partners in the war against terrorism. Our alliance has given us wider avenues of discourse with several countries where previously we had very limited exchanges.
The Reports were delivered to Congress earlier this morning. They will be posted to the State Department website and be immediately available after this briefing. We appreciate the discussion and debate generated by the Reports. We believe such discourse can only serve to advance the cause of universal human rights. And with that, I'll open up to your questions.
QUESTION: . . . And then also, some of the allies that you've criticized in the report, such as Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, could you talk about how this translates into policy? I mean, we support them in financial and other ways, and how does that translate?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: . . . On the second question, how does it translate into policy? In a variety of ways. And that is why we try to be as accurate and objective in these Reports as possible so it can be a guide to policymakers. We use them in our diplomatic discussions with them, but we also use them in talking to our allies about the kind of programs we are undertaking in those countries.
So, for example, in a number of countries that we have become more closely aligned with since September 11th, our programs of assistance, democracy assistance, are already ramping up to be able to help civil society, the press and others in those countries to try and make them more democratic.
QUESTION: I'll follow that. Just give us a couple examples what you're doing in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Egypt.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: I'll throw out a few examples. In Uzbekistan, we're undertaking a program to help a variety of civil society groups around the country come together to formulate future plans. In Kyrgyzstan, we talk about the press in Kyrgyzstan, and we're going to help fund an independent printing press there, an independent printing press to be able to facilitate the printing of newspapers. Those are just two examples that are coming out of my office.
QUESTION: What about Saudi Arabia?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: We're getting there.
QUESTION: Lorne, I want to follow up on Saudi Arabia. I'm a little bit surprised by your glib answer. With the demise of the Taliban, there is arguably no government in the world that has as bad a human rights record as Saudi Arabia does, especially when you consider what it does with half of its population. Even North Korea and Iraq don't put their women behind four layers of veils.
What is the United States doing to actively promote democracy and human rights with Saudi Arabia, on the argument that it's ever more important after 9/11?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Well, I would say two things. Number one, I disagree that it's the worst violator.
QUESTION: Who is the worst violator?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: I would place Iraq and North Korea and Libya and a couple of other countries into that category.
Number two, as the President said in this State of the Union Address near the end, in a paragraph that was not as noticed by some as the "axis of evil", we intend to begin working with governments to ensure that people who believe in these values have a voice in their country. That is something that, to the degree the President stated it, is new. And that is something we are going to be working on very, very much in the future.
There are a number of countries in the Arab world-there are a number of countries in the Muslim world-that have already, on their own, demonstrated the capacity to begin pluralization and more democratic practices. You see it in Morocco, Jordan, Turkey, to a degree in Indonesia. You are also beginning to see it more and more in the Persian Gulf, in places like Bahrain and Oman and Qatar, which I mentioned in my introductory remarks in the report.
It doesn't mean that they're perfect. You know, all of these countries I just mentioned in the Persian Gulf have a great problem with trafficking, for example. But where people are trying to become more pluralistic and to become more democratic on their own, that is something that I think is worthy of our support and can serve as an example to others.
QUESTION: You didn't answer my question. What is it that we are doing in Saudi Arabia to promote that greater voice and greater democratic participation?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: We are talking to the Saudi Government about how to do that, and we are going to encourage others in the Muslim world, in the Arab world, who are trying to make their societies more democratic.
QUESTION: At what levels are we talking? I mean, there's nothing that's visible at all to us in the outside world. It's different from in the past.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Okay. I would look at the last paragraph, the last couple paragraphs, of the President's State of the Union Address.
QUESTION: But I heard this before. I'm asking specifically about one country.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Yes. What are you asking?
QUESTION: I'm asking what it is the United States is doing.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: And I think I've outlined that. We're talking to them at many levels about these issues in their country. We're talking to a lot of people across the Arab and Muslim world about these issues in their countries and about how they can serve as examples to others.
QUESTION: Can I go back to Robin's question on Saudi Arabia? You mentioned in the State of the Union Address that the President wanted to support people who believe in our values, to give those people a voice. And in some countries, as mentioned before, such as Uzbekistan, you said that we're supporting or funding programs. In Kazakhstan you mentioned a printing press.
Can you point to any kind of tangible things? And when you say we're talking to the Government of Saudi Arabia, are we talking to them about starting such programs up, or are we just simply mentioning that they have a human rights problem?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Can I talk about tangible advances in particular countries? There are things I would point to. Pakistan's decision to eliminate the requirement that religious minorities be elected separately from the mainstream electoral system. That is something that we have talked to them about for years. Is that something they did?
QUESTION: Is that something we've talked to the Saudis about?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: They don't have elections. Is that something that we're doing? Is that something they did because we're allied with them on the war on terrorism? I don't know. But it's something that we had asked them for for a long time that they have now decided to do.
QUESTION: I'm talking about-and the reason Saudi Arabia is important is because they are a US ally and they are so touchy about what appears-you know, sort of American and Western values, particularly when it comes to women. So when you mention that you're having discussions with the Saudis, I think that-I mean, we'd like to know what specifically do you really plan to do to change things, or are you just going to sort of talk to them and talk to them, and keep it--
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: No. As some of you know, I don't really enjoy long, extended conversations with no outcome, and we'd be looking for an outcome in the case with any country we were talking to.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) before-that previous administrations have done before on Saudi Arabia. We've been talking for years with the Saudis. What's different?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: How do you know that?
QUESTION: Because other administrations told us that they've talked to the Saudis about human rights and democracy issues, participation in women's rights and all of it.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Well, yeah, I understand. Other administrations have talked about these issues. I hope you're gong to see more of an effect from this administration.
QUESTION: But what is it-that doesn't answer the question.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: What is different currently?
QUESTION: What's different from what this administration is saying to them than previous administrations have said to them?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: You'll have to judge by the outcome. You'll have to see how we do it differently.
QUESTION: Why can't you give us some indication? What's the big secret? You talk about what we're doing tangibly in every other country but Saudi Arabia.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Because I don't yet know the effect in Saudi Arabia. I can tell you an effect in Pakistan or I can tell you an effect in Uzbekistan. I don't yet know the effect in Saudi Arabia. And you will have to judge us not by what we say we're doing, but by what is accomplished in these countries.
Mr. FRANK. The gentleman from California said during the Cold War, we obviously had to deal with people when survival was at stake that we might not like to. The problem is that we get very little from the Saudis today. We do not get full cooperation when Americans are killed when they are trying to defend the Saudis.
I was pleased to read the subsequent testimony from Mr. Woolsey and Mr. Kristol, and I will not preempt what they say, but with regard to Saudi Arabia, I agree with the thrust of what they have to say. The Saudis have made a kind of deal whereby in return for nothing troubling happening to them within their own nation, they will play a destructive role elsewhere.
They are exporters of hatred, trouble and dissatisfaction. As to oil, yes, they sell us oil; and yes, we buy oil from them. I don't believe that they do this as a favor to us. I don't think the Saudi economy today could long sustain any interruption in their ability to sell oil.
With regard to the question of peace in the Middle East, and I will close with this, I am pleased that the Saudi Arabia Government did this year, in what I suppose will be known in history as the Abdullah-Friedman Treaty, negotiated by the New York Times columnist and Prince Abdullah, the Saudi Arabians graciously agreed to accept the fact that Israel exists. Two things ought to be said about this. A year and a half ago when there were serious negotiations going on between then Prime Minister Barak with the help of President Clinton and the Palestinian Authority-at least we were hoping that they would be serious negotiations; unfortunately I think largely because of the Palestinian Authority's position, they were not serious-where were the Saudis then? If it is, in fact, big news that earlier this year, 2002, the Saudis announced that they would accept Israel's existence, obviously that means in 2000 when we were at that critical point, they didn't accept it.
I think it is an encouraging sign that they have come this far. They have moved. That is an encouraging sign. But the fact that that is hailed as big news today reinforces the fact that they were not a constructive force back when that might have had more of an impact.
I remember being told that part of the problem was that Arafat was being asked to sign a peace agreement when he was not getting support for that in the Arab world. Well, the Saudis appear at that point not to have been supportive. Now they are moving better in that direction. There is still an unwillingness to condemn the anti-Semitism that the gentleman from California talked about, and an unwillingness to confront the attitudinal problems.
I think we should reexamine our relationship with Saudi Arabia and ask more from them in terms of cooperation against terrorism and human rights. It cannot be credible for us to make legitimate criticisms of the autocratic aspects of the Castro regime, and then treat the Saudi Arabians as our best friends in the democratic fraternity. That undercuts our credibility entirely. We can insist that they treat Americans fairly when they are there, and ask them to be supportive in ways that they have not been in the fight against terrorism, and we can hope that this first tentative step-and one has to understand the attitude of many Israelis. When the simple fact that another nation nearby is willing to admit it has the right to exist is treated as an enormous concession, one understands the context. It is something that is an improvement, and I hope we will encourage it. I don't think that we encourage constructive behavior by indulging unconstructive behavior, and I am afraid that is what our policy has been up to now with regard to Saudi Arabia.
Thank you.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Berman, any questions?
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it was a very good statement. I have no questions.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we will be able to speak with Mr. Frank later, so maybe we should get on with other witnesses.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Frank's time is limited. I suggest that we ask him our questions.
Mr. FRANK. Actually my time is not limited because you guys don't have the votes to pass the supplemental, and we could be here all day. But you do have other witnesses, and I do not want to get in their way.
Mr. GILMAN. Any questions? Mr. Issa.
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frank, staying on your subject, I respect your concern about Saudi Arabia. I share that. I have visited Saudi Arabia both as an Army officer and afterwards. I have found it to be a very difficult place to do business for Americans and I don't think that has changed much.
I share most of your concerns about Saudi Arabia coming late to the party, although among the 22 members of the Arab League, they are not the latest. There are some that have not come yet. Last weekend-and you and I had a dialogue on this on the floor-last weekend the Likud Party in Israel voted-their Central Committee, I think that is what it is called, voted not to recognize the right of 3 1/2 million Palestinians not to have a homeland of their own, regardless of the U.N. And the inevitability, and regardless of leader after leader within Israel over now 25-30 years who have said that there is an inevitability, that these people are not part of Israel, and they have to be given that opportunity, and since Oslo it has been considered the right direction.
In a sense aren't we faced with a certain level of coming late to the party or walking away from the party at the wrong time on both sides of this issue, and how do we keep Saudi Arabia engaged and ask them to do more if Israel seems to be losing its focus on peace?
Mr. FRANK. First, I would not equate what a political party did, particularly when the Prime Minister, who is a member of that party, specifically disagrees with that position. I think what the Likud did was an error, and I think it was not in Israel's best interest. I understand the frustrations that have led people to that, and I do know that since we are talking about history, we should be clear if at any time between 1948 and certainly 1966 the Arab world that you referred to wanted to create a Palestinian state, they could have done that, and no one would have stopped them. Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in fact, were under the control of Jordan and Egypt, and they could have done that. I do disagree with what Likud did.
I don't believe that Israel ought to be told that it has to reach an agreement, because it takes two willing parties being willing, mutually accommodating to reach an agreement, but I think it is in Israel's interest to continue to try.
I have to disagree that there is any kind of parallelism between the rejectionist position that was the Saudi position until recently, and what a political party does in Israel, particularly when all of the members of the government have repudiated it. And I also mention from the Israeli standpoint, they are not dealing only with Saudi Arabia. As you mentioned, Saudi Arabia is not the most rejectionist member. In fact, it has become more accommodating. Although from the standpoint of evaluating Saudi Arabia, being more reasonable than Syria is far too low a bar to set for any country.
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISSA. Yes.
Mr. BERMAN. I am just wondering if the gentleman would want attributed to President Bush, or to himself, all of the positions taken by the National Republican Party, or more particularly the California Republican Party, and resolutions that they have passed over the years?
Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, I think the point is well taken.
But to take it to the next logical question, Saudi Arabia has not been a partner for peace for a very long time at the level that it appears to be today. They are moving in our direction. Yes, it is late to the party. Shouldn't we engage and try to take it to the next level? In your opinion as someone who has looked at this for a long time, shouldn't we do that?
Mr. FRANK. Yes. American continues to be a great friend. If it were not for the American military 10 years ago, there would be no Saudi Arabia today. It would have been incorporated by its brother Arab state, Iraq.
I am not suggesting that we repudiate them and that we treat Saudi Arabia today the way we treat Cuba. I am suggesting that we have a more engaged relationship in which we put some pressures on them and make some demands on them. I think it has been very asymmetric. What they said is if Israel gives up on every issue in debate and dispute, we will agree that they can exist. It is relevant as a step forward, and it is relevant because it sets the context of how far people have to go.
Yes, I would be encouraging that. I think we should say to the Saudi Arabians or anybody else, we want to work with you for peace, but we are still going to say that elections are as relevant in Saudi Arabia as they are in Cuba.
I found myself in rare agreement with a spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority who was asked by a journalist what he thought about the Saudi Arabian call for elections. He said, oh, did he mean in Saudi Arabia? That seemed to be a pretty good question for which we ought to ask for the answer.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me get this right, Barney. You are not in favor of recognizing Cuba until they have free elections and political parties and such?
Mr. FRANK. No. I am not going to break off relations with China or Cuba.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you have a little double standard?
Mr. FRANK. No. Perhaps you were not listening.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I believe we should be pressuring the Saudis toward a more democratic attitude.
Mr. FRANK. Your problem is that you are equating pressuring with breaking off relations. What I am saying is we ought to treat all of these autocratic states similarly; that is, Cuba and China. I am not for breaking off relations and embargoing all three of them.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Did you actually criticize Sadat's background when he stepped forward and say, where were you 2 years ago, as you are doing with Prince Abdullah today?
Mr. FRANK. No, for a very different reason. I thought what President Sadat did was much more forthcoming. Yes, I would note that one of the things that made it so extraordinary that President Sadat did that was that it reinforced the previous rejectionist theory. I think it is fair to point out that the Egyptians could have moved toward creating a Palestinian state for many years. Yes, I think it is relevant to say, yes, they are doing this now, and that is a good thing, but I think the fact that simple recognition is considered to be such a great thing, that sets context. I also believe that what Sadat was going to do, opening it up, exchanging embassies, even though that has not worked out as well as people hoped it would, he went further 20 years ago than Abdullah is doing today.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me point out that when the United States decided at last to recognize Communist China, it was a monumental step which had taken a long time. I would suggest that the step taken by the Saudi Government in proposing a peace plan that includes recognition of Israel by all of the Arab states in which it would lead that effort is a monumental step forward, and that we should applaud it and should not try to minimize it or even to demean it. The fact is that we should encourage this and encourage progress perhaps based on that peace plan. Obviously it is not something that you can just hook in and just start it up and turn the key, and that is the end answer, but it is a very big step in the right direction.
With that, Mr. Chairman, let me note that I certainly agree with my colleague and friend that we should be pressing not only in Saudi Arabia, but in all countries that have Muslims or anywhere else, a democratic path so that the people of those countries have the right to worship God, speak, have freedom of the press, and live their own lives the way they see fit not only in Saudi Arabia, but elsewhere throughout the world.
Mr. FRANK. I am not talking about having a double or triple standard. I think with regard to all of these autocratic regimes. It ought to be that you have relationships, but within those relationships you put pressure.
Secondly, with regard to the Saudi peace proposal, I said I welcomed it, but I would disagree if you consider describing it to be demeaning it. It is not a peace proposal that anyone would expect Israel reasonably to accept. Complete withdrawal from all of the boundaries, ambiguity on the right of return which would be threatening to Israel's right to exist. I think it is a fair to say that it is a step forward, but also note what else needs to be done.
My main point is to stress what it means historically. There has been this debate, why did we not get an agreement in 2000 when the Israeli Government made this very far-reaching proposal. I think the fact that the Saudi Arabians are getting so much credit today for changing their position, that ought to be noted as evidence that their position 2 years ago during the critical peace negotiations was still a rejectionist one.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the United States had made any mistake in dealing with the Islamic world since the end of the Cold War, it has been that we have not championed the cause of democracy and the evolution toward a more democratic government in the states that are Muslim States, and I would certainly agree with you on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Pitts.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to pass until the next panel.
Mr. GILMAN. We thank Congressman Frank for his very helpful review of the relationship and for bringing it to the attention of the Committee.