Congressional Hearings/Resolutions

The United States and South Asia: Challenges and Opportunities for American Interests

Hearing of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the House International Relations Committee

Thursday, March 20, 2003

Chaired by: Representative Jim Leach (R-Iowa)

Witnesses: Christina Rocca, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of South Asian Affairs; and Wendy J. Chamberlin, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia and the Near East, USAID

REP. JAMES LEACH (R-IA): The committee will come to order. On behalf of the Subcommittee, I would like to welcome Assistant Secretary Rocca and Ambassador Chamberlin to the first of what we hope will be many conversations with the administration and others on South Asia. As my colleagues are aware, all of South Asia, with the exception of Afghanistan, was returned to the subcommittee's jurisdiction for the 108th Congress. The hearing today is intended to provide an overview of the United States policy toward a region that has sharply risen in prominence for American policy makers, particularly in the aftermath of the events of September 11th. Although South Asia remains one of the world's most volatile regions, the United States can point to a number of diplomatic achievements in recent years.

The United States has forged a new relationship with Pakistan that has produced increasingly significant results in the campaign against terrorism, for which America is most grateful, and helped bring greater stability to Afghanistan. In a welcome department from previous historical experience, the rekindling of close ties with Pakistan has not come at the expense of our relations with India, which have strengthened and warmed to a degree unimaginable five or 10 years ago. American diplomacy was also instrumental in facilitating a peaceful resolution of the tense Indo-Pakistani crisis a year ago that so nearly brought the subcontinent to the bring of military conflict.

In Sri Lanka, Deputy Secretary Armitage has been personally engaged in lending U.S. support to the ongoing cease-fire and hopeful peace process. Likewise, in Nepal, the administration has expanded central development assistance while simultaneously strengthening the capacity of the Royal Nepal Army to contain the Maoist threat.
Before we turn to our witnesses, I'd like to make several brief points. And the first is that at all times, but particularly now, American cultural and public diplomacy needs to be attuned to the fact that a quarter of the world's Muslim population live in South Asia. India, Bangladesh and Pakistan each have more than 130 million Muslims, and Pakistan is the only modern state founded explicitly as a homeland for Muslims.

Secondly, the U.S. needs to have a sustainable strategy for helping to facilitate a process that can foster greater political reconciliation between India and Pakistan. Without a serious effort to bridge the Indo-Pakistani divide, the region may yet stumble into a nuclear abyss.

And finally let me just stress that from an American perspective, as much as there is animus between several countries in Southeast Asia -- or South Asia, there is no reason whatsoever that the United States cannot have good relations with all of the parties, and particularly the two significant countries, India and Pakistan. We have an enormous vested interest in a warming of relations with both. And that is something that we aspire to, not only as between countries, but both countries have significant populations from that region in our country. And this makes American relations with both India and Pakistan exceptionally important.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

REP. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA (D-A.S.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you calling this hearing before our subcommittee. And I also would like to offer my personal welcome to Assistant Secretary Rocca, and also the assistant administrator for USAID, Ms. Chamberlin, and look forward to hearing their testimonies this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I know it's a sobering experience for all of us as members, I thought that maybe, even though not related to the substance of our hearing this afternoon, but as I'm sure that it's been a very hard and contemplative experience for most of us, and not only the members of the committee but I'm sure members of the House, in terms of the most serious situation now developing as we are now at war with Iraq. And I sincerely hope that all the success and support that we could lend to our men and women in uniform, and that there may be a minimal number of casualties on both sides. I sincerely hope that whatever that we're trying to do, that it will produce some positive results in that important region of the world.

Mr. Chairman, at this time in our nation's history, we are facing a dramatic change in opportunity, but what concerns me most is the growing threat of nuclear proliferation. North Korea has defied the international community and publicly announced that he has the capability to produce an atomic weapon. According to some media reports, North Korea may already have two or three atomic devices. Now, this in itself has completely changed the entire spectrum of our strategic interests in foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. I recall that I believe it was in 1974 that India exploded its nuclear device, certainly not without the help of other countries, and the fact that India had the technology and proved to the world that it also has the capacity and the capability of producing a nuclear weapon.

I use India as an example, Mr. Chairman, because I believe it -- the first instance and opportunity, that the leaders of India pleaded with the world community that there definitely has to be a serious policy consideration in terms of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I recall some 15 years ago, the late prime minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, pleaded with the world community about the idea that we need to be free from nuclear weapons And I would like to share with the members of our subcommittee some of his insights into the importance of this issue.

And I quote, he said, "We are approaching the close of the 20th century as being the most bloodstained century in history. Fifty- eight million perished in two world wars. Forty million have died in other conflicts. And in the last nine decades, the ravenous machines of war have devoured nearly 100 million people. The appetite of these monstrous machines grow on what they feed. Nuclear war will not mean the death of 100 million people, or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million, the end of life as we know it on our planet earth."

I recall also an observation by the late Prime Minister Gandhi. He said, "Nor is it acceptable that those who possess nuclear weapons are freed of all controls, while those without nuclear weapons are policed against their production. History is full of such prejudices, paraded as iron laws -- that men are superior to women, that the white races are superior to the colored, that colonialism is a civilizing mission, that those who possess nuclear weapons are responsible powers, and those who do not are not."

I think it leaves the question, in terms of this most serious crossroads in the world community of nations and what we have to do to find some positive results in resolving these very, very serious issues that we are now confronted with. And without question, as you had mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the current conflict that is now ongoing between India and Pakistan, both countries now have the capability of producing nuclear weapons and the tremendous danger that they might be using nuclear weapons against each other if there is a conflict, or will be a conflict in the future.

We need to reassess the basic policies about mutually assured destruction, the policy of nuclear deterrence, the question about third generation nuclear bombs, the question of maybe having a little nuclear bomb may be not as dangerous as the fallout -- a full nuclear war. We need to reevaluate these issues. And, of course, I feel that this region of the world has just as much potential for a conflict that all of us are sincerely hoping that will never come.

And again, I thank you for calling this hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon. Thank you.

REP. LEACH: Gary, did you have anything? Mr. Ackerman.

REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D-NY): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for presiding over this important hearing today.

Although we meet in the shadow of renewed conflict in Iraq, we cannot forget that there are other parts of the world important to the war on terror, and frankly, important in their own right. Today's hearing is aptly titled because challenges and opportunities are what we face in South Asia, and none are bigger than in Pakistan. The recent arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the latest evidence that Pakistan continues to cooperate with us closely in the war against al Qaeda, but the circumstances of his arrest raise questions. He was in the house of a prominent member of the Jamaat-e-Islami political party that is a member of the ruling coalition in Islamabad, and the arrest took place in Rawalpindi, the seat of Pakistan's military leadership. I hope that these circumstances are being reviewed by the administration and that these concerns have been discussed with the government of Pakistan.

On other fronts, Pakistan remains an equally challenging case. The president last week formally exercised his authority to waive democracy related sanctions against Pakistan, and the administration has determined that the circumstances surrounding the possible transfer of nuclear technology to North Korea, quote, "Do not warrant the imposition of sanctions." Both of these decisions send a message, and that message is -- as long as you help us with al Qaeda, we will give you a pass on other issues. The message is clear to those who want to pursue weapons of mass destruction, who want to avoid democratizing, or who want to continue to support their favorite terrorists.

On the subject of favorite terrorists, it is not at all clear to me that General Musharraf has given up supporting Kashmiri terrorists, nor has he kept his word to us regarding infiltration across the line of control to Kashmir. I recognize that it is still winter in the mountains but spring is coming, and I think the government of India rightly fears that the jihadists will be back in full force. At some point, and maybe it's too late, we need to draw a bright red line for our friends in Islamabad that some conduct will simply not be tolerated.

The situation in Nepal also presents us with a significant challenge. The surprise cease-fire and announcement in January was a welcome development, but disputes among the political parties who object to the king's dismissal of the government last October threatened to undermine any progress. If the negotiations break down, Nepal risks suffering a long, vicious civil war that neither side can win outright, and that may invite intervention by Nepal's neighbors. This is an outcome the U.S. should be working to avoid.

Elsewhere in South Asia, there is some cause for hope. The Sri Lankan peace talks still offer the prospect that many years of civil war can be brought to a close, although a recent clash at sea between the government forces and a rebel ship suspected of smuggling arms threatens to derail the talks. Of equal concern is the political competition between the president and prime minister. That could diminish the prospects for peace.
In Bangladesh, the political process continues to be marred by violence, as partisans of candidates in local council elections fought with each other and disrupted polling in some areas. Additionally, human rights concerns remain over the joint military police patrols that the government claims are necessary to provide law and order. On the positive side, I am told that the prime minister will appoint members of the long-awaited anti-corruption commission during this session of parliament. It is my hope that you will do so, and that such appointments will be favorably regarded here as the Congress moves forward with legislation establishing the Millennium Challenge account.

And last, and not certainly least, I would be remiss if I did not mention the continued positive developments in the U.S.-India relationship. Once cool and distant, our bilateral relations with India have blossomed and expanded. Our counter-terrorism defense, global climate change, international trade, HIV/AIDS prevention, the United States now looks to India as a partner. During the visit of Foreign Secretary Sinha, the U.S. and India took another step along this path by agreeing to the principles that would govern high- technology and commerce between the U.S. and India. I know that there has been concern expressed over India's export control system, but I also know that India takes those responsible seriously, and will do the utmost to protect any sensitive or dual-use technology that my ultimately be transferred.

Mr. Chairman, there's a great deal to discuss this afternoon, and so I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

REP. LEACH: Mr. Smith, do you want to make any opening statements?

REP. SMITH (?): (Inaudible.)

REP. LEACH: Well, let me just say by introduction, Secretary Rocca was sworn in as the assistant secretary of state for South Asia affairs on May 31 of 2001. And prior to joining the Department of State she was a Foreign Service -- foreign affairs advisor to Senator Brownback, and prior to that was an intelligence officer with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Ambassador Chamberlin was until June of last year the U.S. ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Previously, Ambassador Chamberlin was the principal deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement at the Department of State, and prior to that, she was U.S. ambassador to the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

We're appreciative of having two such distinguished witnesses, and we welcome the both of you. And why don't we begin with Secretary Rocca, please.

MS. CHRISTINA ROCCA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to talk to you about our relations with South Asia today. As you mentioned --

REP. LEACH: Excuse me, Madam Secretary --

MS. ROCCA: Yes?

REP. LEACH: -- if you'd move the mike up a little bit closer --

MS. ROCCA: Okay.

It's become very clear that the most vital interests of the United States are affected by the events in South Asia. It's imperative that our country be actively and effectively engaged in the region, and since it came into office, this administration has devoted great resources and energy to advancing our relations with this very important part of the world. As a result, we have the close cooperation of all the countries in the region in the war against terrorism, and we're able to play a helpful -- and we were able to play a helpful role last spring and summer to diffuse the dangerous crisis between India and Pakistan that could have led to a catastrophic conflict.

There has been development in all our relationships with South Asian states, which I look forward to discussing with the committee this afternoon.

I'd like to start with India, where we're continuing to transform our relationship. Soon after taking office, President Bush outlined a -- his vision of a transformed and deepened U.S.-India relationship, partnership, one that reflects India's emergence as a major regional power, and the shared values that unite the world's two largest democratic countries. The scope of that relationship has widened and broadened significantly over the past two years.

The U.S. and India have overlapping vital national interests -- promoting peace and stability in South Asia, combating international terrorism, and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We seek a vital and comprehensive partnership with India that removes as many Cold War and other barriers between us as possible. Over the past year, we've stepped up consultations on strategic and regional issues, and greatly fortified cooperation in science and technology, defense exchanges, intelligence dialogue, and law enforcement. We're also working collaboratively with India to stem the proliferation of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

India is committed to preventing onward proliferation, and we are encouraging and supporting India's efforts to upgrade its export control systems to meet international nonproliferation standards. We will deepen all these initiatives and extend engagement on key global development issues, including climate change, reproductive health, HIV/AIDs and trafficking in persons.

Mr. Chairman, U.S. relations with Pakistan have broadened significantly over the past 18 months. Starting with our solid partnership in the war on terror, and our cooperation in Operation Enduring Freedom, we've expanded the relationship and have established a USAID program, providing assistance in the areas of education and health. We've expanded our cooperation in law enforcement, and we've begun restoring our military ties. In the coming year, we will strengthen further our programs in order to deal successfully with issues of key interest to both our nations, including counterterrorism, Pakistan's relations with its neighbor, regional stability, strengthening Pakistan's democracy, helping to promote its economic development, and improving life for the people of Pakistan.

Since -- as you said, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. and Pakistan cooperation on the war on terrorism has been excellent. Since the fall of 2001, Pakistan has apprehended close to 500 suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates. It's committed its own security forces, some of whom have lost their life to pursue al Qaeda in the border areas. And equally important, we are encouraging Pakistan to build a positive mutually constructive relationship with neighboring Afghanistan, and support its efforts to establish a stable and secure government.

To promote both regional and global stability, we also seek to reinforce Pakistan's commitment to non-proliferation and to improve its systems of export controls. Pakistan clearly recognizes the seriousness of any proliferation activity, and President Musharraf has personally assured Secretary Powell that his country is not engaged in such activity.
Pakistan's commitment to democracy and human rights is central to the efforts to build a stable, positive future for its people. National elections in October, though flawed, restored civilian government, including a prime minister and a National Assembly after a three-year hiatus. We want to see strong Pakistani democratic institutions and practices, including a National Assembly that plays a vigorous and positive role in governance, and an independent judiciary that promotes the rule of law. These institutions are required if Pakistan is to develop into a stable, moderate Islamic state.

And Pakistan's progress towards political moderation and economic modernization will require sustained growth. We are also providing debt relief and budgetary support, and we are devoting significant resources to assist Pakistan's economic development, particularly in the area of education, for the Pakistanis to develop the skills they need to build a modern state that can compete successfully in the global economy.
One of the greatest challenges to advancing our goals of moderation, stability and development in South Asia is the continuing tension between India and Pakistan, primarily over Kashmir. Last spring, U.S. diplomacy at the highest levels, along with that of the international community, helped prevent an India-Pakistan war. Last fall Kashmir's state elections gave new hope for progress in addressing issues that contribute to the long-standing dispute, but it was just a first step. Violence inside Kashmir continues, and is aimed at exacerbating tensions and undermining reconciliation.

An end to this conflict requires continued deescalatory efforts, increased communication within Kashmir, and a peace process between India and Pakistan. Ending infiltration into Kashmir of course remains a key goal.

The Kashmir state government, under Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, has announced a common minimum program of reforms and conciliatory steps to address Kashmiri grievances and lessen conflict in the state. We would like to see the state government move forward on this initiative and for the central government in New Delhi to support these efforts.

Last summer's election made it clear that the people of Kashmir want to pursue the path of peace. In the broader context, we will continue to urge dialogue and restraint between India and Pakistan. Continued U.S. attention and creativity diplomacy will be essential to move these two nations away from confrontation and towards dialogue and resolution.
Mr. Chairman, Bangladesh is a moderate democratic Islamic state, nation, and is the eighth most populous country in the world. It is the top contributor of manpower to U.N. peacekeeping missions, and is an active player in regional and international organizations. It's a voice of moderation among developing countries in the Islamic world and in South Asia. The country has made impressive strides in economic development, dramatically reducing its birth rate, improving literacy, delivering more social services, and empowering women through education and employment. Major challenges remain. Deep and bitter rivalries between the two main political parties, as well as continued corruption, threaten political stability and impede economic reform and growth. Serious law and order problems need to be addressed. It's in the interests of the United States to keep Bangladesh firmly in the moderate democratic camp, and to help its economy prosper.
We are working to strengthen Bangladesh's democratic institutions --parliament, local government, civil society, the police and the judiciary -- to make their operations more accountable, effective and transparent. But the future course of democracy in Bangladesh will depend on the political parties working together to solve the problems facing the nation. We are also advocating greater respect for human rights and are working with Bangladesh to end trafficking in persons.

Bangladesh is a valued South Asian partner in the war on terrorism, and we have worked to enhance its capabilities to deter terrorists and to stop the illicit financial flows that support them. Our goals in Bangladesh can be achieved over the long term if its economy grows and living standards improve. Progress has been made, but additional structural reforms are needed to diversity Bangladesh's exports and strengthen its infrastructure.
A decision to allow the export of gas by pipeline to India could attract the foreign investment that Bangladesh needs so desperately to help propel the economy forward.
In Sri Lanka, as you mentioned, the peace process moderated by Norway and strongly supported by the United States, has continued since the cease-fire was agreed to more than a year ago. Actual negotiations between the government and the LTTE began last September, and the sixth session of these talks will wind up tomorrow in Japan. We praise the commitments of both sides to sustaining the cease-fire, moving forward with the peace process, and working towards the final settlement. They have made significant progress towards the political solution that protected the dignity and security of all Sri Lankans and preserves that country's unity. But the talks are bound to be complex, time-consuming and difficult, and all political parties need to cooperate, put aside their differences and work together in pursuit of a settlement.

Our support to the peace process has included strengthening our bilateral relationship with Sri Lanka and increasing our assistance, particularly for reconstruction and humanitarian needs. The international community has also shown strong political support for the peace process, as well as willingness to assist with reconstruction and reconciliation.

Mr. Chairman, Nepal's democracy, stability and its economic and social development are now threatened by a ruthless Maoist insurgency. The Maoist leadership has made it clear that its ultimate goal is the establishment of an absolutist communist regime, and such a development could contribute significantly to instability in the region. Fortunately, a Maoist military victory is increasingly unlikely, something the Maoists themselves conceded by agreeing in January of this year to reenter political negotiations with the government. We will support a meaningful dialogue leading to peace. Unfortunately, the government's ability to mobilize effective resistance to the Maoists and develop a strong position for the peace process is complicated by ongoing rivalries within and between the mainstream political parties. The king and the parties need to cooperate more closely to maximize chances for a successful outcome.

Our support for a settlement has led us to increase our development assistance to $30 million in aid requested in the president's FY '04 budget. This is an all-time high. We are also working to restructure our programs better to address the economic causes of the insurgency, and providing security assistance to the Royal Nepalese Army. Once a political settlement has been reached, the United States should in the forefront of donors prepared to help Nepal conduct national elections, strengthen administrative and democratic institutions, protect basic human rights, and provide better health services and rural livelihoods.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by once again pointing out that the United States has significantly changed and deepened its relationships in South Asia. We are making progress in the war on terror. We have contributed to the lessening of tension and supported the resolution of conflict throughout the region. We have been champions of strengthened democratic institutions, development and economic reform that will lead to a better quality of life for all South Asians. But there is a great deal still to do. A more secure, democratic, stable and prosperous South Asia is very much in our interests, and I look forward to working together with the Congress as we continue to pursue these very important goals. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

REP. LEACH: Well, thank you, Madam Secretary.

Ambassador Chamberlin.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for this opportunity this afternoon to represent the Agency for International Development and to speak to you and the members of the subcommittee. With your permission, sir, I will submit a longer testimony and provide just summary remarks. Or --

REP. LEACH: Without objection, your statement will be expanded in the record, as Mrs. Rocca's if she so chooses. Please.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Thank you. All of us are concerned today by the unfolding events in Iraq, and the possibility that once again our forces, our U.S. forces, our boys, will be called upon to take decisive measures to ensure that the United States and the international community do not fall victim to terrorism, violence and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. As we know from recent events in Afghanistan and along the Indo-Pakistan border, these threats are very real to the people of South Asia. Terrorism, ethnic and religious conflict, nuclear war, present imminent dangers to the South Asian continent. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Christina Rocca, has addressed many of these issues, and I am sure she will be able to expand on them in the question-and-answer period, and I'll defer to her. I'll limit my remarks to developmental assistance and foreign aid issues.

A number of the president's initiatives have signaled a radically new approach to foreign aid, and these are welcomed. The Monterrey Principles, as envisioned in the Millennium Challenge Account, articulate a fresh and practical policy framework for development that is built on the simple fact that our aid is most effective when governments are democratic and when they are accountable to their citizens. The Middle East Partnership Initiative, MEPI -- I was up here yesterday speaking to that issue -- is another welcomed initiative, and that also emphasizes the right points -- democracy, trade and economic development, and education.

Mr. Chairman, although South Asia is not eligible for MEPI, I wish to ensure you that the Asia and Near East Bureau in USAID is dedicated to applying the principles of MEPI and the Millennium Challenge Account and those of Monterrey to our programs in South Asia.

While not all of the governments we assist would meet the high standards of the MCA, we intend to work with them to create those conditions in which all of them will some day meet those standards.

In light of this new vision for development, and in light of the events in the region, we are reevaluating our aid activities to make sure that they adequately address today's challenges. If they do not, we will either reshape them or we will drop those poor performing projects.

Mr. Chairman, we applaud the leadership of this committee in addressing many of the key issues such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as well as your work on promoting international religious freedom, combating the crime of trafficked persons, and preventing famine. We look forward to continued close cooperation with you and your committee as USAID implements its developmental programs based on the president's vision of foreign aid as articulated in the Millennium Challenge Account and in Administrator Natsios' vision for the Agency, which he has recently submitted the foreign aid in the national interests.

In Pakistan, USAID has opened a field mission in Pakistan recently -- only in June of 2002. And this was after 12 years of rupture following the imposition of sanctions in 1990. Our objective there directly reflects our desire to strengthen Pakistan's capacity to combat terrorism, by encouraging just governance, investment in people and economic freedom. Our highest priority is investing in the people of Pakistan. The illiteracy rate is 53 percent, one of the highest in the region. Nearly 40 percent of the young people ages 15 to 20 are unemployed. Right now USAID is enhancing teacher training, improving curricula, encouraging community involvement, and supporting literacy programs.
In 2002, Pakistan held a national election that restored civilian government with the prime ministry and National Assembly. The democratic institutions remain weak. Our aid programs aim to strengthen those institutions and political parties. In terms of economic development, Pakistan is a poor country, where over 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. To stimulate growth at the national level, USAID's focus is on maintaining macroeconomic stability, reducing Pakistan's foreign debt, and encouraging the government to meet IMF goals. On a local level, we will promote microenterprise development to create jobs in some of Pakistan's poorest and hardest to reach regions.
We have used the ESF cash transfer mechanism to address Pakistan's foreign debt. The FY '03 transfer of 188 million will be used to buy down a billion dollar debt.

As Secretary Rocca pointed out, Sri Lanka is a success story. Sri Lanka is another clearly defined example of putting the administration's policy of accountable foreign aid to work. We are moving swiftly to capitalize on the recent positive events of the cease-fire and peace process. Successfully reintegrating the thousands of internally displaced persons and refugees from India will require significant human and material resources.
The FY '04 budget justification requests $19.5 million, targeting three main areas: increasing the country's competitiveness in global markets, building constituencies for peace through transition initiatives, and democracy and governance reform.

In Nepal -- Nepal today is more hopeful than it has been throughout this last year. Just last week representatives of the Maoist rebel group and the government mutually agreed on a code of conduct, which is a peaceful foundation for future negotiations towards a longer-term political settlement.

A few months ago, however, the future of Nepal appeared much bleaker as Secretary Rocca pointed out.

The destructive effects of the Maoist insurgency, however ,should not detract from the gains Nepal has made over the past 50 years. It has transformed itself from an isolated medieval kingdom to a constitutional monarchy. Child mortality and fertility rates have significantly decreased; literacy and food security has improved. Yet these development gains are unevenly distributed. Poor governance, corruption, the forbidding mountainous terrain and lack of basic infrastructure have led to wide disparities across regions and ethnic groups. These inequities provide fertile ground for the insurgency. This insurgency has resulted in over 7,000 deaths since it began in 1996.

Our greatest challenge is to meet the immediate needs of those communities most affected by the conflict through health and employment programs. At the same time, we must maintain our support for the government in the peace process. We must also take advantage of the opportunity to promote government reform and growth in trade, agriculture, energy, and to improve economic conditions for all Nepalis.

In Bangladesh governance problems continue to hamper growth. For the second year in a row, Bangladesh was ranked as the most corrupt of 122 countries surveyed by Transparency International's annual corruption perception survey. Since progress in USAID's government focused anti-corruption initiative is slow, we are also mobilizing civil society to build demand for policy reform. With three years of USAID's support, Transparency International-Bangladesh has become a regional leader not only for Bangladesh, but for four other South Asian countries as well.

Looking forward, Bangladesh elections will be held in 2006. Now is the time to start providing constructive assistance. Despite governance issues, USAID has met its targets in the economic section. In fact, other donors, the small business community and the Bangladesh government view our small businesses and agribusiness projects as leaders. Building on USAID's landmark success in child survival and family planning in Bangladesh, we are now helping to avoid the destabilizing effects of HIV/AIDS.

Finally, in India, India is a vitally key U.S. ally and has tremendous potential to be a catalyst for growth and development in an unstable region. India, the world's largest democracy of 1.1 billion people, enjoys fast economic growth. But there is a compelling reason for continuing our aid programs. India is also home for over 300 million people living in abject poverty, more people in abject poverty than in Africa and Latin America and combined. India faces severe health challenges. Over four million people are infected by HIV/AIDS. Polio is reemerging in the northern portion of the country and tuberculosis infections continue.

USAID has other ongoing activities, especially helpful in stemming the tide of HIV/AIDS in the state of Tamil Madhu. USAID has played a key role in establishing the securities and exchange board in India, and in the water sector, the government of Tamil Madhu approved the $2 million dollar water and sanitation project, which is made possible through loan guarantees by USAID's credits.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite President Bush's words, "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requests it and conscious demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach."

We look forward to joining with you and your committee to continue this work. Thank you.

REP. LEACH: Thank you all very much for that thoughtful presentation. Let me just begin with what in one sense is a reflection of circumstances in the region but this committee has to be very concerned with, and that is the security of our people, particularly State Department personnel.

I know you've closed consulates in Pakistan. Is that correct? Have you closed any consulates in any other countries?

MS. ROCCA: So far the only ones we've closed are Afghanistan and Pakistan. And they're closed to the public, but they're still open to American constituent services.

REP. LEACH: Okay. And are there recommendations that the department wants to make to the committee on the security area that you would like us to bear in mind?

MS. ROCCA: I don't have anything right now, but I'd like to leave that offer open. I will say that --

REP. LEACH: I think that's appropriate. Partly we don't know what events are going to bring --

MS. ROCCA: Exactly.

REP. LEACH: -- in the weeks ahead.

MS. ROCCA: I do want to say, however, that we have had excellent, truly excellent and immediate cooperation on the part of all the governments in the region in helping beef up the security of all our installations, the security of our people, as well as places of worship. All the countries are taking this very seriously.

REP. LEACH: Well, the committee notes that.

MS. ROCCA: And we're grateful for that.

REP. LEACH: And we would second your approval, because under international law it is the responsibility of the host government to ensure the security of diplomatic personnel. And this is, in difficult times, vitally important, particularly when policies are controversial.
Let me then ask a question that, Ambassador, you raised in your testimony. But forgetting all the geopolitical kinds of concerns at the moment, in international affairs health has risen to an enormous extent as a critical issue. And that particularly means HIV-AIDS. And we note the administration's initiative. We note the committee as a whole is going to be, under Chairman Hyde's leadership, coming forth with a bill in the near-future.

But this seems particularly relevant to South Asia at the moment. And the statistics are very worrisome. Do you have anything you want to comment on or recommend to the committee with regard to Southeast Asia and the AIDS initiative?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You're absolutely right. We are extremely worried about particularly the HIV-AIDS epidemic in South Asia. HIV-AIDS is growing fastest in the world in both India and China. It's an area of growing concern for us. We are moving in there. We are targeting India particularly in AID for some of our new initiatives.

At this point, frankly, there are more infected people in India than there are in South Africa. And with population densities and with 1.1 billion people in India, the potential for an increasingly dangerous situation is very evident. So it is of great concern.

Of less immanency are the HIV epidemics in the neighboring countries. But they're just as dangerous in the future. And we're developing programs in Bangladesh and Pakistan as well.

REP. LEACH: Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Rocca, as I said earlier, one of the contradictions about nuclear proliferation, and I think one of the things that I've somewhat at times expressed a singular support of India's concerns, when it first exploded its nuclear device in 1974, and later making a plea -- I was pleading with the world community as well as those nations that then and now possess nuclear weapons.

How do you view the policy that it's all right for countries like the United States and France and England and China and Russia to possess nuclear weapons, but it's not okay for India and Pakistan or any other nation to do the same? And India has been making this case for so many years, and nobody seems to be listening.

How can we really be serious as a world community to ban nuclear weapons altogether if these five nations continue to hold on to their nuclear arsenals in the name of nuclear deterrence? Where can we be serious in this effort, and especially when India has been advocating this issue for so long and nobody seems to be listening?

And now we're at the threshold of having Third World countries like North Korea, maybe others, seemingly that this is the only way to counterbalance the authority and the might of those countries that do possess nuclear weapons.

For the same token, (it's?) my reading of the boundaries here that India is right next to China. And if I were an Indian, I'd be very uncomfortable knowing that China has possession of nuclear weapons and I may not. Do you see the concerns?

I think India weighs very well in terms of simple logic would dictate, that if we're serious about getting rid of nuclear weapons, it should begin with those countries that do possess them. And I wanted to ask what your thoughts are on this issue.

MS. ROCCA: Well, Congressman, you have put your finger on the difficult situation that we're in. It is one of the priorities of this administration, as defined in the national security strategy laid out by the president, nuclear non-proliferation is one of the key issues that this administration is trying to deal with. And it obviously poses a grave danger.

We have a situation where we have a conundrum in front of us with respect to India and Pakistan, which I'll get into in a moment. But we have these two nations adding to their nuclear arsenals at exactly the time that the nuclear-weapon states are starting to lower the numbers in their arsenals.

Under the rules of the NPT, India and Pakistan, which are not signatories, can't be accepted as nuclear-weapon states. But they do have nuclear weapons. And we see no realistic prospect that they will be getting rid of them any day soon.

And this presents us with a conundrum. As non-signatories of the NPT, India and Pakistan are not bound by the treaty's obligations of either nuclear-weapon states or non-nuclear-weapon states.

So we are adopting a pragmatic approach. And we have sort of a focus on three key areas, and one of them is we are working hard with both nations to get them to exercise restraint. We're asking them not to conduct nuclear tests, to minimize missile tests, to announce their missile tests in order to keep the tensions down, to announce them in advance, to bring an early end to the production of fissile material, which would be in line with their stated policies of having these weapons as a minimum credible deterrent.

We're also asking them not to build sea-launch or ICBMs, not to deploy nuclear-capable warheads or nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, and to keep missiles and warheads in separate locations.

The second key area is stopping -- (inaudible) -- proliferation. And we're working very closely with both countries on this. We have active programs to work with India and Pakistan to bring their export- control regimes and their laws up to international standards in order to prevent nuclear proliferation or the leakage of sensitive technologies.

And finally, the third key area is one of defusing tensions between the two countries. And the high levels of tension and the lack of dialogue and essentially the cold war that exists at the moment increases the risk that the nuclear threshold might be crossed through misperception or inadvertence.

And so, linked with our broader strategy of trying to bring these two countries together, we are encouraging them to update or establish new hotlines to restore full staffing at their embassies, to have a number of channels of communication to minimize the risk for misunderstanding and to implement a number of CBMs.

This is an enormous focus of the Southeastern Bureau and the Non- proliferation Bureau, and it is a matter of daily concern.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: You know, it's well and good that I think these are nice rules telling India and Pakistan, "You be good little boys, now, and don't misbehave." As I recall, in 1995 a country called France, and I think at the time President Chirac, broke the moratorium on nuclear testing and decided to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific.
Of course, only after exploding about 232 nuclear devices in the South Pacific, which has caused tremendous damage to the environment and the atolls and the islands in that part of the world, and despite world opposition, despite even U.S. opposition, President Chirac decided to go ahead and conduct nuclear testing.

So how can we be telling -- to me it sounds like being self- righteous. You tell these countries not to do it, and here it is among the nuclear club, five members, if anyone of them decides to break these basic elementary rules. Where does the fairness come into play if a country like France decides unilaterally to resume nuclear testing? How can you then say India cannot be justified to do the same?

And that's the very essence, I think, why India has been making this case, not only before the world community but to be serious about getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether. And this is where the contradiction comes into play.

And I was wondering, what do you do if a country like France does this? And they did it, by the way, not in the name of their national interest, but only to find out -- President Chirac was doing this as a $2.5 billion repayment of the nuclear lobby industry that supported him in his bid for election as president.

MS. ROCCA: I wish I had an easy answer to your very, very good question, Congressman. This is something that we're trying to work out. And --

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: I don't want to --

MS. ROCCA: -- there is no easy answer.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: And I mean no disrespect to you, Secretary Rocca, to put you on the spot like this, but I'm raising the issue because it does have relevance to the very problems that we have in North Korea and other countries who may say, "The only way that we can counterbalance the weight and the might of these powerful nations is that I've got to have possession of these nuclear weapons."

That's the bottom line. And that's the reason why leaders in North Korea desires to do this, to get the attention of, like, our country. And it's a sad way to look at it, but that's the reality.

Is there such a country as Bhutan?

MS. ROCCA: Yes, sir.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Can you share with us what's happening there? Is that part of South Asia?

MS. ROCCA: It is part of South Asia. It is a country whose foreign policy is very closely tied to that of India. They have a representative up in New York, and we meet with them a couple of times a year. And I'm hoping to travel out to Bhutan in the near future.

They have a hydroelectric -- an economy that has hydroelectric potential and a very small population. Our dealings with them on a day-to-day basis often have to do with the issue of Bhutanese refugees that are in Nepal and trying to repatriate them.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: What about the Maldives? Is that a country also?

MS. ROCCA: Yes, it is.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Is it part of South Asia?

MS. ROCCA: It is part of South Asia. It is a member of the coalition in the war on terror. And it is another Muslim democracy that is a voice for moderation in the world. Thank you for raising those.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: I have one more question, Mr. Chairman.

REP. LEACH: Could we do this in a second round?

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Oh, I'm sorry. All right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

REP. LEACH: Mr. Rohrabacher.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador Chamberlin, our paths have crossed several times over the years, and so my questions are a little bit more pointed. How would you characterize Pakistan's ISI's involvement in the opium business on the Afghan-Pakistani border over the last six years?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Should I pass that one to you? We had a deal we made before we came in here; she'd stick to her side of the building and I'd stick to my side of the building. So, although I'd be happy to answer your question, this really falls within the purview --

REP. ROHRABACHER: I'll tell you what. Because you were deeply involved in the issue, holding leadership positions on drug enforcement as well as being ambassador there --

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Okay, I'll take it.

REP. ROHRABACHER: -- I made no such deal with you, so you might answer the question.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Thank you very much. Pakistan actually is one of the success stories in the counternarcotics -- our entire involvement in counternarcotics. In the early 1970s, Pakistan was one of the largest producers of opium in the world. And as you say, it was largely along the border --

REP. ROHRABACHER: My question is this. How would you characterize the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence organization's involvement in the drug trade over the last six years? I'm not asking for a history to eat up all the time to my question.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Okay. Over the last six years, very little opium has been produced inside Pakistan.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I --

MS. CHAMBERLIN: If your question is on trade --

REP. ROHRABACHER: Ma'am, will you answer the question? You've heard the question very specifically. How would you characterize the Pakistani ISI involvement in the opium business on the Afghan-Pakistan border over the last six years? Do I have to repeat this four times for you?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Over the last five --

REP. ROHRABACHER: Six years.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Substantial.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Substantial. All right. So to get from you -- we had to get this far, that the Pakistanis' intelligence service had substantial involvement in the opium business along the Afghan- Pakistan border for the last six years.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Over the last six years, substantial.

REP. ROHRABACHER: All right.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: I will defer to Christina to characterize over the last one year.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Would you characterize -- well, certainly after 9/11, I imagine things changed. I don't think that we're going to judge people based solely on that. Was Pakistan a primary force behind the creation and the maintenance of the Taliban?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Yes, sir, supported the Taliban prior to 9/11.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Right, prior to 9/11. Did you ever, as ambassador, or in your involvement in anti-drug activities, ever make a report calling the Pakistani government to task for its involvement with the Taliban and its intelligence unit's involvement in the opium trade?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: I arrived in Pakistan in August of 2001. I presented my credentials to the government of Pakistan on September 13, 2001.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: No, I didn't.

REP. ROHRABACHER: All right. And the Pakistani prime minister recently visited California, where he publicly stated that the United States was also a partner in creating and maintaining the Taliban. Ms. Rocca, with your knowledge from the former CIA, would you say the Pakistani foreign minister was lying about the Clinton administration's involvement in creating and maintaining the Taliban?

MS. ROCCA: I think, Congressman, we've actually talked about this before, and there is no -- there was no U.S. government involvement in creating the Taliban.

REP. ROHRABACHER: No U.S. -- so the Pakistani prime minister -- excuse me, foreign minister -- was lying when he said that publicly in California.

MS. ROCCA: I'm not aware of the statement that he made, so I don't want to comment on the statement specifically.

REP. ROHRABACHER: All right. Let me note, over and over again during the last 10 years I've been talking about Afghanistan. And during the Clinton administration, I was talking about the Taliban and our government's at least acquiescence to it. You apparently had no knowledge of that, being someone in the CIA. Ms. Chamberlin, of course, just came on board.

Let me note -- and I know I'm coming down hard on Pakistan during these questions -- let me just note, there is a problem in Southeast Asia with the Kashmir. If the Indians would simply permit a plebiscite so that people could have their say in the Kashmir, I think that a lot of the tensions would be gone from that region.

So please don't interpret what I'm saying now as me jumping down on the side of India or Pakistan. The fact is that right now I'm just trying to -- I have two people who are players, and it seems to me that this is the time that we could get some questions answered as to what led us to 9/11.

Ms. Rocca, did the State Department, even after 9/11, put forward a strategy in dealing with bin Laden that would have left the Taliban in power?

MS. ROCCA: Not that I'm aware of, sir; absolutely not.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Let me just note for the record that this senior member of the International Relations Committee, who dealt very much in-depth on that issue, that it was very clear that that was the State Department's position after 9/11 until it was forced to abandon it because it was so humiliating for them to have to admit that they were planning to leave the Taliban in power.

Ms. Chamberlin, you recently were ambassador to Laos, where I think we first met. Do you now advocate, and did you advocate then, a free-trade treaty with that dictatorship, even though there'd been no democratic reforms and even though human rights abuses among the Hmong people were escalating at the time?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: To correct the record, Representative Rohrabacher, we first met in Malaysia when I was charge.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Right.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: I did support a trade agreement with the Lao, with the dictatorship and human rights-abusing government at that time --

REP. ROHRABACHER: Right.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: -- on the basis and on the rationale that strengthening that dismal economy would create jobs and help to address some of the other social issues, such as trafficking of women and the abject poverty. Yes, sir.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Well, you left one issue out as well. How about the trafficking of drugs, which is the follow-up question? And at this time that you were advocating a free trade agreement with Laos, were you aware of the Laotian government's deep involvement in heroin trade?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: No, I was not.

REP. ROHRABACHER: You were not?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Not of the Laotian government's involvement in the heroin trade.

REP. ROHRABACHER: You were -- you were --

MS. CHAMBERLIN: I was not aware of that --

REP. ROHRABACHER: As ambassador to Laos, you --

MS. CHAMBERLIN: While I was ambassador to Laos, I was not aware of the Lao government's involvement in trade. I've been aware of a history of Lao government's involvement of trade. But during the period I was there, we had good counternarcotics cooperation from the Lao government.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Mr. Chairman, just to let you know, the people I have spoken to, who seem to know a lot about Laos, tell me that there is no drug trade in Laos except the Laotian government. This is a dictatorship that doesn't permit competition to go on within its own country. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I know I've overstayed my time here.

REP. LEACH: Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Ackerman.

REP. ACKERMAN: I haven't come prepared for these confirmation hearings. (Laughter.) I want to thank both distinguished witnesses for your careers in public service and for being here with us and listening to our questions and sometimes to our rantings and ravings and rattlings, and being so calm and polite about it. We appreciate that.
I have a question for Secretary Rocca -- good to see you again. Bangladesh has been a very strong supporter in the war on terror, and yet we see reports that al Qaeda elements have taken up residence there. Would you comment on those reports and describe Bangladesh's cooperation with us on the war on terror?

MS. ROCCA: Mr. Ackerman, Bangladesh has been an excellent partner in the war on terror. It has provided assistance in every area that we have asked for. It has been a voice of moderation, and it has been helping us also in freezing terrorist assets. We have -- I have read reports -- I have read the same reports that you have, but we have not found at this point that I am aware of, we have not found Bangladesh to be a (mecca ?) for al Qaeda or a harbor for --

REP. ACKERMAN: So those reports have been generally discounted, despite the --

MS. ROCCA: Well, I want to -- to my knowledge they certainly have. But also I think we have a good enough conversation with the government of Bangladesh that should anything substantive come to our attention, we would be able to take this to them, and there would be immediate action taken. We are confident of that.

REP. ACKERMAN: Thank you. We're looking towards good things happening with our relationship to that country.

The president has waived -- this is moving on to another country -- waived the democracy-related sanctions on Pakistan. And the State Department has decided not to proceed on the question of the transfer of uranium enrichment technology from that country to North Korea. But, as I recall, there is another piece to this story, and that is that the New York Times has published allegations that Pakistan had purchased North Korean missiles last summer, and I assume the administration at some point will acknowledge that that is the case. Can you tell us when the administration will make a decision on the potential missile-related sanctions?

MS. ROCCA: Mr. Ackerman, I think I'd be happy to talk to you about it in a different forum in great detail. But I'd like to also take just one point to something you said. You said that we had decided not to proceed on the question of HEU to North Korea. That is not the case. I think the secretary and others have made it very clear that we have carefully reviewed all the information available, and relating to the possible transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Korea, to North Korea, and decided that they did not warrant the imposition of sanctions under applicable U.S. laws.

REP. ACKERMAN: I thought that's what I said. Moving on a little bit down the road, the administration proposed to provide $389 million in assistance to Pakistan during fiscal 2004. Were the administration to be seeking additional waiver authority since the authority provided under Public Law 10757 applied only to fiscal years '03 and '03?

MS. ROCCA: Yes, sir. I think Secretary Powell mentioned it during his hearing that we think that this might be an area where we would be coming for assistance to the Congress as we get a little further down the pike.

REP. ACKERMAN: And just one further question if I still have a half a minute, Mr. Chairman. We continue to press General Musharraf regarding his commitment to halt infiltration across the line of control in Kashmir. What does he tell us about his efforts in that regard?

MS. ROCCA: He is making every effort and is telling us that he is keeping his commitment to us, that there is no government-supported cross-border infiltration. We continue to keep Pakistan's feet to the fire on this, because obviously this is a key to bringing resolution to the problems in the area.

REP. ACKERMAN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. LEACH: Before turning to Mr. Chabot, I want to be very precise on something Mr. Ackerman has raised. Are you willing to share with the committee in private your view, considerations, regarding the nuclear transfer issue?

MS. ROCCA: The second part of -- I think that issue -- the question of the missile issue, I'd be happy to discuss in another forum, and I believe that the administration has sent letters to the Congress on who has been briefed and on its policy for potential and concerns about potential onward proliferation and the fact that we decided that at this point there is no need for sanctions.

REP. ACKERMAN: If the chair would sit at that meeting, some of us would be very --

REP. LEACH: Yes, I'd be very happy to, and I'm -- these words are interesting to parse, and I think we will want to discuss the words as well.

Mr. Chabot.

REP. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rocca, you had mentioned in your statement relative to Bangladesh that they played an important role in sending troops around to various peacekeeping efforts around the world. Could you expound upon that a little bit as far as what countries they've been in, what numbers of troops they've sent? And, secondly -- well, you can supply that later, if you'd -- I would agree with your point that that's been an important role. Could you comment on what role they might play relative to Afghanistan or Iraq perhaps down the road?

MS. ROCCA: I don't have the numbers for you -- I'm just looking to see if I have them, and I'm afraid I don't.

REP. CHABOT: Okay, if you could supply those later, I'd appreciate it.

MS. ROCCA: But I can tell you for example there was a recent -- Bangladesh was very helpful recently in getting some workers off oil rigs in the Gulf, and Bangladesh has -- just one moment. Do you have -- okay, it's also a safety zone at the moment. They are willing to step up to the plate on peacekeeping operations any time they've been asked. The issue of Iraq -- Afghanistan -- there is no U.N. mission there at the moment, but I am sure that if it were ever to come to that, that Bangladesh would be an active participant.

REP. CHABOT: And potentially Iraq, I would assume, could be similar to Afghanistan in that respect perhaps at some point?

MS. ROCCA: Potentially, but I -- we'll have to see how that plays out. And --

REP. CHABOT: Okay. Secondly, let me turn to Pakistan. What -- how cooperative has Pakistan been relative to essentially tracking down Osama bin Laden, other al Qaeda members in the border region between Afghanistan -- partly in Afghanistan, partly in Pakistan -- that area of Pakistan has been for lack of a better term, compared to the Wild West in some regions where there is not necessarily the type of governance that one might expect in most nations. And many have argued that if there was either more cooperation or if perhaps we could get our personnel in there to a greater degree than we have thus far, we might be able to conclude successfully the capture or destruction of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda more quickly than we have thus far been able to do so. Could you comment on that?

MS. ROCCA: Our cooperation -- the cooperation of the government of Pakistan in tracking down al Qaeda throughout Pakistan has been 100 percent solid. It has been -- they have cooperated in areas where their own men have lost their lives specifically in the border areas that you have just mentioned. The -- they are going at it systematically, and we are very happy with --

REP. CHABOT: Let me follow up on that. To what extent are we allowed to get our personnel in there to do what needs to be done there? Are our people in there at all? Are you allowed to talk about that?

MS. ROCCA: I think that we -- we are happy with the way they're going about it. What we have done to help them is to put together a program. We have just received $19 million to work on opening up the federally administered tribal areas, which is the areas we're talking about, to make inroads -- to help build roads and to help extend the writ of the government, which will make it easier to penetrate into these areas in the long term.

REP. CHABOT: I -- you know, I just -- the comment I think obviously one of our top priorities that ought to be this administration's, and clearly it's the American people's as well, is to get Osama bin Laden and if he's in that region of the world we need to leave no stone unturned to do that.

Let me ask you the next question. Let me address this to Ambassador Chamberlin, if I can. You had mentioned the Millennium Challenge Account and the -- you know, essentially that's additional money and an additional fund to encourage democracy and accountability to citizens to reduce corruption and make sure that they are investing in their people -- basically good governance type practices in return for the aid that they are receiving or assistance they are receiving.

What I am -- my question is this: In all the foreign assistance that we are already giving, shouldn't we already be demanding that? Do we have to have a separate pot of additional money which they are supposed to do these good things? I mean, shouldn't they be doing all those things with the many billions of other American dollars which are out there in foreign aid all around the world?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: That's an excellent point, Mr. Congressman. I think there's an acknowledgement here that -- array along a continuum. You have at the far end of the continuum failed states -- desperately failed states. Afghanistan was certainly one until prior to 9/11. And then you had different levels of both government and economic development. It is our belief, certainly the principles embedded in the Millennium Challenge Account and the president's Monterrey Principles, that foreign assistance works best in pushing a country up over that threshold of economic development, if good development, political will, good governance and the political will of the government is in evidence. If a government is corrupt, if it's a dictatorship, as Congressman Rohrabacher is so keen about, all the amount of aid that you throw at it is unlikely to have the same boost in economic development that it would in a situation where you have committed leaders, transparent systems, governments that invest in their own people.

The Millennium Challenge Account, the principles of it, is to take those countries that are just below the level of economic development but that do have the elements of good governance and committed leadership, to give an extra boost to them in our economic -- in our assistance program, to help there will it will help the most, where our aid will be the most effect. Now, this doesn't mean that we walk away from countries that are in great humanitarian need. We still do have a -- we believe we have a moral obligation to those countries that are on the verge of famine, whether we approve of them are not. This is the recent state in North Korea.

REP. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I don't see the clock, but do I have 30 seconds that I can ask another question?

REP. LEACH: You don't, but you have it.

REP. CHABOT: Thank you. I would ask unanimous consent to give 30 additional seconds and the question and answer hopefully can come in that time. A $3.5 million grant for democracy in Afghanistan, my understanding is it's stalled in USAID's contracting office. It might be good -- would you all check into that? Do you know anything about that?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: I'll certainly check into it. If it's stalled in our procurement office, I'll go back and knock down the door.

REP. CHABOT: Okay, we'd appreciate whatever action you could take on that. Thank you very much.

REP. LEACH: Mr. Smith.

REP. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And following up on Mr. Chabot's remarks, first of all, just a comment on Afghanistan -- I know that's not your area, but when it comes to international aid there is no better place that we could spend our money right now, just because part of the international aid issue is the world's perception about how much the U.S. helps. We tend not to give a lot of credit for some of the things we do do. And the advantage of Afghanistan right now is, as the saying goes, the whole world is watching. There is no place that will better reflect people's opinions about whether or not the U.S. is willing to step up and help people who need it in Afghanistan. If the money goes there, it will be noticed. And we could be doing a lot better, is my perception. This is for another group of people, but just the basic infrastructure issues -- I mean getting some roads built, getting the telecommunications structure back up. It seems to me that's the sort of thing we know how to do. We are not really doing it at the moment, and it would help us a great deal if we did.

Shifting back to Pakistan and following up on the question of their cooperation, I guess the question I have -- you said the cooperation is 100 percent certainly officially. How concerned are you that lower level operatives within the ISI or within the government someplace else are not helping or, you know, more problematical are exactly the opposite: helping the people we are looking for? And I ask that because if in fact the people that we think are there are there in Pakistan, and that government, which has a fair amount of control, is helping us, why can't we find them? What's going on at the lower level in Pakistan that is perhaps thwarting us in that effort?

MS. ROCCA: I think I'd like to answer your question in two ways. One is in terms of cooperation against al Qaeda in view of the nature of the operations. If there were people who were participating, who were not on board and who were aware of them, then we would not be having the success we are having, because we would not have gotten Khalid Sheik Mohammed. We would not have brought down those we were able to capture in Lahore or Karachi if there were people in the system who are aware of an operation that was about to happen.

REP. SMITH: I don't know that that's necessarily true. I mean, not to be argumentative. But what I mean by that is it seems to me that if had sort of some cooperation and then not some cooperation, that we would have some successes and some failures. It doesn't follow that that if we have some people not helping us we will therefore never succeed. It's a mixed bag --

MS. ROCCA: Well, I didn't interpret it that broadly either. But I would also say that in the border areas it's absolutely possible that there are people lower down who are not on board. I don't have any instances to relate to you, however, but it is absolutely a possibility.

REP. SMITH: But you don't -- there hasn't been any example of that that's had to be rooted out once discovered?

MR. ROCCA: None that we -- none that we have been able to verify.

REP. SMITH: Speaking of Pakistan, on an unrelated note, the education system there is a major concern, and was a part of what caused the problem in Afghanistan and caused the number of radicals that exist in Pakistan, the madrassas, which we heard a lot about shortly after 9/11. And it occurred to me that giving them some alternative form of education would be one of the best ways to go. How is that going? Have we done anything? If we have, I haven't heard about it. And to what extent are madrassas still present in Pakistan?

MS. ROCCA: I will let Wendy talk about the details of the program. But this has been a focus for a long time now. President Bush last year committed over $100 million to aid to help Pakistan's education system. And the idea is to provide an alternative to madrassas, and to support the government's efforts to reinvigorate or rebuild the education system which was badly broken. The -- when it comes to the madrassas, you are talking about expanding the -- they have an internal reform program whereby they want to expand the curriculum, and we want to help with that as well. But, more importantly, we are helping with building up an alternative. And it is not something that will be happening -- that will happen quickly, but it's a steady, slow approach that we ultimately hope will be successful. I'll let Wendy talk about --

REP. SMITH: Specifically, are there still madrassas out there? How many of them are there? How is that changing? Are we -- I know it's a long process, but are we making progress? I guess that's what I would --

MS. ROCCA: I think -- there certainly are madrassas out there. There are, I believe, in the -- I believe 600 -- and somebody can jump on me if there are more than that.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Thousands.

MS. ROCCA: Thousands? In Pakistan? There are thousands of them in Pakistan, and they are still operating, and it is not something that can be easily fixed. Absolutely it's still a problem.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Congressman, I'd just like to add to Christina's remarks that not all madrassas are bad madrassas. There are -- in fact, the vast majority of madrassas are religious schools. Many of them teach modern curricula. Many of them are -- bestow degrees and train people to work in modern jobs afterwards. There are a few that have been radicalized, and those are the ones that have been the breeding grounds for the Taliban and for some al Qaeda. Those we certainly don't approve of.

In our education assistance that Christina did mention, we are working in the area of teacher training and curriculum reform. Our curriculum reform and our teacher training will be available to those madrassas who would like to avail themselves of it. And we find this encouraging.

But, as Christina says, simply building up a stronger public school system is a good counterbalance. A long way to go.

REP. SMITH: Has General Musharraf ordered any specific madrassas shut down because of their radical nature?

MS. ROCCA: I believe yes, but you were there when it happened. Maybe you want to --

MS. CHAMBERLIN: He had an ambitious program requiring madrassas to register with the government, requiring all foreign students coming in, mostly from the Gulf, but from Indonesia as well, to register with their government to get essentially a visa to study there. A series of things. I think regrettably his madrassas reforms are not moving as fast or as strongly as we would like them to. And I believe, if I am not wrong, that we are still encouraging him to return and reinvigorate his original madrassa reform process which he has stepped back from.

MS. ROCCA: Can I just add to that? -- that that's a process that's complicated by the role that the MMA plays by its (admin ?).

REP. SMITH: Final question in that area. Have you thought about working with any private groups to drive funds in there? What occurs to me, being from where I'm from is the Gates Foundation, which does a lot of international work on education and health care. Have they shown any effort in coming here and helping with the education system, or any other private funds?

MS. ROCCA: It would be a great idea. There are a number of groups that were working there and are still working there -- the Asia Foundation for example. And until -- in fact up until 9/11 we were not providing any assistance to the government at all, and it was to exactly those kinds of groups, that we were providing assistance -- and we still are. We just are adding to it.

REP. SMITH: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

REP. LEACH: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Tancredo.

REP. TANCREDO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Exactly what is the government of the United States doing or does it intend to do about the events in Gujarat and -- that do not seem to be -- from everything I can read anyway -- contained solely to that state, but -- and also, seems to be a reflection of a growing sentiment within the country -- that is certainly worthy of our attention and concern. And the -- certainly the information I have about the event is overwhelming in terms of the violence that was committed there, the violence that we saw there, I should say, and the -- again I think the implications of it are such that it would require the greatest concern being expresses by the United States, and also some plan of action to undertake to get the issue addressed internally and maybe even in, you know, in terms of what we would think of a long-term solution in the country. And I just wonder -- I really have not seen anything significant recently, and I wonder if you could tell me what, if anything, is happening, and what if anything is planned?

MS. ROCCA: Congressman, first of all I want to say that we have spoken out loudly and often on the terrible events of Gujarat, and it did not in any way get a pass from anywhere in the world, much less this administration. And it was a cause of great concern. But I also want to say it was a cause of great concern to the government of India as well, and they also expressed great concern and sadness and were focused on it very much internally, that this kind -- especially the prime minister -- that this kind of activity and that this kind of event never be repeated.

India has a long history as a secular nation. It is a country that identifies itself as such. And one of the ways the issue is being addressed is internally. This is a democracy. This is where a discussion of all these concerns takes place. And it's one of the best ways to -- it is one of the ways that the government is putting together policies to make sure it doesn't happen again.

REP. TANCREDO: Could you just help me by being somewhat more specific about what that means exactly? How is the -- all right, we have spoken out against it, which is appropriate. And certainly I think there are other things we could do --

MS. ROCCA: We've also provided --

REP. TANCREDO: -- (inaudible) -- a country of concern, by the way, would be, I think, an appropriate response from our standpoint. But, if not that, then something else; but even beyond that, internally, if you could just help me understand exactly what India is doing.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: I'll defer to Christina in exactly what India is doing. I would like to say that USAID provided close to $300,000 as a gesture -- it wasn't a lot of money -- but to CARE, an NGO, to assist the people of Gujarat after the riots, mostly to provide humanitarian relief, some water supply where it was needed, and some trauma counseling.
MS. ROCCA: The events in Gujarat have resulted in a number of arrests and prosecutions. The legal system in India is agonizingly slow. And I think that also gives the impression that nothing is happening. But the fact of the matter is that they did take action and they are continuing to take action. This was a stain on their secular record. And no one is more concerned about it, I believe, than the Indians themselves.

REP. TANCREDO: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. LEACH: Well, thank you, Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Wexler.

REP. ROBERT WEXLER (D-FL): Thank you very much.

I would like to inquire, if I could, and do so with the greatest amount of respect, in terms of is there, in preparation or in analysis, a post-Iraq diplomatic strategy being developed? And I say this with the preface that I think, Ms. Rocca, you referenced Secretary Armitage's trip to India and Pakistan.

And from my point of view, we have to highlight the high point of American diplomacy in the past two years. It was, in fact, the role that America played in defusing that very confrontational situation.

On the other hand, I was in Turkey two weeks ago. If I had to point out the low point in America's diplomatic efforts in the past two years, I think that would be a good candidate, where -- and I say this without condemning the American effort, but a candidate for the failure of America to reach its diplomatic goals.

And I ask, in the context of a post-Iraq diplomatic strategy, in this context, whether someone supports the president's position in Iraq or whether they oppose it, I think objectively we would all conclude that the job that the two of you have to do, as well as all of your colleagues throughout the Foreign Service and State Department, has become exceedingly more difficult in that America's goals in so many parts of the world, but also in this part, seem to have been presented in a way -- or, in fairness, not presented but received in a way where we are more arrogant rather than humble.

And whether that's correct or incorrect, it would seem to me that for our State Department to be more effective in the future, there needs to be a calculation where we honestly objectively weigh how we can best achieve our diplomatic purposes.
My concern is we will have gone through this experience with respect to Iraq and maybe not do the analysis that is required to determine whether or not we have best achieved our diplomatic goals and whether or not our strategy is designed so as to maximize your ability to perform rather than to minimize it.

And I don't know if I've been particularly articulate in describing this, but in reading the two resignation letters of your colleagues in the State Department, with the recognition that, thank goodness, our State Department is as diverse as America is, and that's what makes us so strong, and those are but two people, their message, I think -- I have heard from not people who are resigning but people within the department who are very concerned that the antagonistic nature that America is received with in so many parts of the world undermines the people who I think are America's unsung heroes, which are you, quite frankly, and the people in the State Department.

So I guess my question is, is there an ongoing or will there be an effort to examine why we have had such a difficult diplomatic turn? And what, if anything, in the future will you and your colleagues recommend so that we can better perform without in any way condemning the individual efforts that you or anyone else has made?

MS. ROCCA: Well, Congressman, to quote my military colleagues, you've taken me a little bit out of my AOR here. But sticking to my AOR, I want to say that we have had excellent and unprecedented diplomatic relations with all the countries in the region. We have had discussions with them.

The governments of this country are absolutely aware of why we're doing it. There has been a transparency in our conversations. We have laid out our positions and we have taken account of each other's positions. And it is a very -- that is something from which you should take comfort, because it is a very good relationship.

I think part of what you may be talking about is also a public diplomacy aspect of things, and that is an area which I know that Undersecretary Beers and her successor are working on very closely -- or her assistant secretaries are working on a lot.

This is something we're very focused on, because we do have trouble getting out the word as to why we're doing what we're doing and presenting it in a way that shows that we're doing this -- and I don't just mean today's events in Iraq. We have -- we should be doing more to reach out to the Muslim world.

And we actually have in Bangladesh some really, truly excellent programs where our ambassador in Bangladesh goes out and talks to imams in training and has -- we now have a program that is attached to that training course for a few days at the end of the course where there is some training in gender sensitivity and sort of in general presenting the other side of things. And it's been very effective.

This is just one little program, but there are a number of things like this that we should be doing in all the countries of the region, certainly, and that we're working on doing.

REP. WEXLER: Mr. Chairman, can I have 20 seconds?

REP. LEACH: You may. We've been very generous with our time.

REP. WEXLER: And I believe --

REP. LEACH: And you've been here all morning, of course.

REP. WEXLER: Thank you. And I believe Mr. Crowley may follow up with respect to Bangladesh.

And I very much respect what you say. But I must tell you, though -- and this has nothing to do with you and everything to do with the Department of Justice -- some of us have engaged in a process of requesting information of the attorney general why Bangladesh has been treated in the fashion that it has.

And that, to a very great degree, undermines, in my view, the exact opportunities and progress that you are making, because Bangladesh seems to have been lumped in with other countries where, on the objective criteria, it doesn't appear to deserve to be. And I'll leave it at that. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me extra time.

REP. LEACH: Thank you. And Mr. Crowley, you're welcome to join the committee. And if you have any questions, please -- you're recognized for five minutes.

REP. CROWLEY: Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity, not being a member of the subcommittee but being a member of the committee of the whole, for the opportunity to participate here this afternoon. And as the co-chair of the Bangladesh caucus and the Indian-American caucus here in the House, I appreciate the opportunity to participate.

I want to thank both of you for your testimony today and for your presence, and Ms. Rocca, especially the relationship that we've developed over the last year or so as pertains to South Asia.

Particularly I want to point out the positive nature of both of your statements as it pertains to Bangladesh; Ambassador Chamberlin, maybe less so in your -- your voiced comments about Bangladesh, but in text you both speak very highly about what's taking place there, both in the government sector, at least towards democratization and better democratization -- as a fledgling democracy, but more towards a better democracy -- and in the private sector as well in terms of moving forward in that country.

Last year we were successful in getting positive language included in the Foreign Ops appropriations bill dealing with the Asian University for Women that will be located in Bangladesh. And I was hopeful that either both of you or one of you could speak on that, the importance that I see in terms of developing the new attitudes within the Muslim world and the Islamic world and the Arab world, and Bangladesh being the host country for that.

I know that USAID has committed a million dollars towards that effort. What are other countries doing towards that to help educate young women in higher education and moving those countries forward?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Yes, sir. USAID has provided $1 million. This is a pilot study to assess the feasibility of perhaps follow-on assistance. And we're very keen to see how that plays out. But we're certainly committed to the concept of educating young women. We think that the concept is a promising one and we're following this one very closely.

REP. CROWLEY: Ms. Rocca, anything to add to that?

MS. ROCCA: Well, I think that we've talked about this project in the past, and certainly the concept is a good one. And I think we're really excited about the prospects of it. But I think everything really depends on the assessment, on its viability as a long-term project. Certainly the concept is something which no one could argue with.

REP. CROWLEY: Could either one of you comment on the assistance from other nations or other entities outside the U.S.?

MS. ROCCA: To this project?

REP. CROWLEY: Mmm-hmm, what support there may be.

MS. ROCCA: I'm not aware of that.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: I'm told by my assistant that they have received a small amount of private contributions, but I'm not aware of any other bilateral donations.

REP. CROWLEY: It's my understanding that the EU, Japan and other nations were also interested in contributing to that; if you could possibly get back to us with any progress that's being made in those fields as well.

Just to piggyback a little bit on what Mr. Wexler was talking about, you know, the way in which our country treats Bangladesh, a country that is a democracy, a fledgling democracy but a democracy all the same, an Islamic country.

Sometimes it baffles me as well the way in which we treat Bangladesh; for instance, the re-registration that has been taking place in this country of the -- I don't know how many countries there are on that list. I know we're not at war with Islam, but all but one of those countries, North Korea, is an Islamic country. So what we say and what we do tend to be two different things.

And I just want to register with you my great concern that I have about treating Bangladesh in this way. I don't really understand what the program is meant to do. I don't know of any terrorist that's actually going to reregister with the United States government, nor do I know of any person who's here undocumented who's going to re- register with the United States either.

So the purpose of the re-registration, I'm missing it. It's all about a feel-good and we're doing something about terrorism on the home front here. But I do want to stress the damage that that does in countries like Bangladesh and other friendly Islamic countries as well.

MS. ROCCA: Congressman, I was just in Bangladesh two weeks ago, and this issue came up. And I made a point everywhere of pointing out the fact that this is in no way aimed at Bangladesh or at any specific country or at any specific religion, and that as we move forward to secure our borders, but keeping our doors open but secure our borders, that more nations -- that this will be sort of standard for a number of countries, for most nations.

And already today we have over 150 nations that have been affected by our new policies on immigration or arrival in the United States. And it's absolutely in no way to undermine our relationship or to signal that there is anything wrong in the U.S.-Bangladesh relationship. On the contrary, it's a close, strong relationship.

REP. CROWLEY: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would appreciate being invited possibly to any meeting that you have with Ms. Rocca concerning the other issue of India-Pakistan and the transfer of technology from Pakistan to North Korea and vice-versa. All right. You're very welcome sir.

REP. LEACH: Thank you. We're going to go with a brief second round. I'd like members to be fairly brief about this, but if it's all right with our two witnesses. Let me begin with Mr. Faleomavaega.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Thank you. I think there was a statement made earlier by Secretary Rocca, the fact that this region of the world is one-fifth of the world's population and about 40 percent of the world's poor are also in this area.

And I wanted to ask Ambassador Chamberlin, what is the dollar value that the administration is committed in providing USAID and this region basically? I won't ask for specifics, but I'm just curious. What are we looking at in terms of our government's commitment in providing USAID resources to help this region, with 40 percent of the world's poor?

And I'd also like to know, how do we measure -- what standard are we using, say, if a nation is poor? What's the per capita income in that country to be considered or classified as a poor country?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: The gross number -- the total number for the countries is $520 million FY '04 request level. I can break that down into the individual countries if you would like. For Bangladesh, in the funding flavors, to include child survival, developmental assistance, economic support fund and PL-480, Title 2, total request of $102 million; in India, $132 (million), almost $133 million; in Nepal, almost $39 million; in Pakistan, $275 (million); and in Sri Lanka, $19.5 (million).

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: You know, one of the things that bothers me sometimes is that our country, our government, is always being criticized by other countries, saying that we're not contributing enough in foreign aid to other nations, as compared to maybe Japan or others.

But I have a different way of interpreting it, saying that we do contribute in a very different way. And I'm curious to ask both of you if there's any way that you can quantify the dollar value of our ability in the financing that we provide for the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the fact that all the nations of the world had the opportunity to make long-term loans at a very low interest rate. And to that extent, it seems to me that it's just as important.

And I'm just curious if, by chance, you might have some quantification of this resource for which our government does provide a tremendous amount. For that matter, we finance, what, 25 percent of the entire United Nations budget every year.

So I'm curious how you would -- if you agree or disagree with my assessment, that we may not be very visible in saying, "Oh, this is how much we're contributing," but the fact that there are other regional organizations that we do contribute a substantial amount and for which other countries of the world are given opportunities to be beneficiaries. Am I wrong in this assessment?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: No, I think you're absolutely right, sir. And I totally agree with the thrust of your statement. I don't know the breakdown, but I do know and agree with you that it's quite substantial. And I think we are recognized throughout the world as the power that we are.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: And one more question to Secretary Rocca. I was in Pakistan years ago, and at that time we happened to have met with President Sharif. And if I recollect, he was duly-elected president of Pakistan, and then there was a military coup; the gentleman that now is the president, Musharraf.

And we had a very difficult time in recognizing that this coup was totally antidemocratic. And yet we are now giving full recognition of a military takeover. Can you help me with this, the fact that -- wasn't President Sharif the duly-elected president of Pakistan?

MS. ROCCA: Prime Minister Sharif was the elected --

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Oh. Prime minister.

MS. ROCCA: -- yes, he was sir.

And when in October of '99 when the coup took place, sanctions were imposed on Pakistan, and they remained imposed until 9/11. At which point the congress helped us to be able to essentially bring Pakistan on board in Operation Enduring Freedom.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: So, our policy then has changed to a higher level, to suggest that it's all right to depose democratically elected president?

MS. ROCCA: Well, no, sir, because there were elections last October. Those elections were flawed, but they are definitely a progress towards the full return to democracy. There is now a vigorous National Assembly in place. The Senate was recently elected in the last there weeks, and the National Assembly will be operating, and it is -- we want to help strengthen the institutions, because they are still weak. But there is a return to democracy in Pakistan.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: At the same time we are giving full recognition to a military coup in that respect.

MS. ROCCA: I'm not sure --

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: I mean, we are recognizing President Sharif as the duly --

MS. ROCCA: Well, the prime minister of Pakistan is coming to Washington in the near future, probably next seek, and he will have -- he is recognized as the head of government of Pakistan.

REP. FALEOMAVAEGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. LEACH: Thank you.

MS. CHAMBERLIN: Congressman, to answer another question that you just posed, you asked what the gross national product was for the region. It's $440. In India and Pakistan it's both $450. In Sri Lanka it's $850. In Nepal it's a small $240, and in Bangladesh it's $370.

REP. LEACH: Thank you.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both.

REP. LEACH: Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I guess my major point, and repeated over and again, till you understand that, is that there is a relationship between America's commitment to truth and democracy and justice, and our national security. And just to note there is a, as we speak, a report from the United States Commission on International and Religious Freedom -- is actually issuing its report on Laos. I realize today's focus isn't Laos, but this is a subcommittee that deals with that, and we have a former ambassador there. And I guess the point is that 9/11 didn't happen on its own. And whether it's Laos or whether it's Afghanistan or whether it's Pakistan, when the United States turns a blind eye to the fact that -- well, by the way, I mean as we know almost all of the world's heroin comes from those areas in Laos and Afghanistan that are dealing with the subject that we are talking about today. And it -- those revenues from that heroin have done what? Have gone to support international terrorism, gone to support those terrorist operations against our own people. So when we have a dictatorship or when we do not demand people hold to democratic standards and human rights standards, it comes back to hurt us.

The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was of course -- and I have stated -- the product of corrupt involvement by Pakistan's ISI, and perhaps by the Saudis, who wanted to get rid of their Wahabi problem, and perhaps by certain people in the United States government in the last administration, which I have yet to track down, but will eventually. But whatever we know, we do know the United States before 9/11 was not playing the forceful role to try to bring a more civilized regime in Afghanistan as it should have. And it wasn't. And it wasn't until after 9/11 that the Pakistani ISI, the people in that organization that were involved with the drug trade, were fired. Now, indeed 9/11 has happened, and it's a whole new world since then. But I don't think it's unfair, or I don't think it's bellicose for us to take a look at history in relationship to the problems and the challenges we face today. And in the past I believe this country was humbled, unlike what one of my colleagues stated that we were arrogant. Now, I think we were humbled during the past eight years by crooks and kooks and drug dealers, and we let our standards slip during the last eight years, and we are paying for it today.

So let me just state this. Ms. Rocca, Secretary Rocca, I want to commend you and commend the administration for a steady hand since 9/11. They were just coming to power -- first coming into power before 9/11 and for a few months there. So I won't judge this administration on what it did in those few months before 9/11. But since 9/11, in Afghanistan there's been a tremendous victory for the things that we believe in, and bringing civilization and freeing the Afghan people from their tormentors.

However, with that said, it's clear that the drug trade is still thriving in Afghanistan. And let me just say -- and maybe you could comment on this -- I would hope -- now, the first year after 9/11, we had to work to try to bring peace to Afghanistan; can't solve all the problems. But will eliminating the drug trade be a priority for the administration in the second -- in the second phase of Operation Free Afghanistan?

MS. ROCCA: Absolutely. We are -- the British are taking the lead. I want to be clear on that. There is so much to be done in Afghanistan and so many critically and vital functions that need to be fixed and things that need to be done, that it has been divided out among countries. The British are taking the lead. We are assisting them. And it is absolutely a priority of this administration.

REP. ROHRABACHER: This is not an inexpensive proposition when you have the only source of income for millions of people being the drug trade. We need to be very proactive and not -- let me admonish you, and admonish the administration, a year from now, if the drug trade is still going on as it is now, it won't be an excuse that the British failed, it will be us, it will be the United States who will have failed. And so this is as much our responsibility as anyone's. And I would hope that this administration is active on that problem.

I would hope that this administration, in the next year, spends more time in trying to bring peace between Pakistan and India, as the last administration did not, in that we should be insisting -- which I don't know if we have publicly insisted or not -- on a plebiscite for the people of the Kashmir to determine, through the democratic process, what their future is. And there will be no peace until that happens, and people are fooling themselves if they think otherwise. So I would hope that we -- do we have any plans to publicly support the ballot box as a solution, rather than a bullet box for the Kashmir problem?

MS. ROCCA: Congressman, let me talk to your bigger point first, and that is that we are absolutely focused on peace between India and Pakistan and it is a absolute priority, for all the reasons that we've been talking about at this hearing this afternoon.

And the international community is in agreement on this because we cannot go back to where we were last summer. That was a truly dangerous situation for the world, not just for the region. So, it is a --

REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay, so let me --

MS. ROCCA: I'm getting to the more --

REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.

MS. ROCCA: On the issue of the plebiscite, the fact of the matter is that both Pakistan and India have agreed that this needs to be resolved bilaterally, and we want to help them resolve it bilaterally. And that is what we are going to do.

REP. ROHRABACHER: You see, that's the wrong answer.

MS. ROCCA: And trying to do.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Bilaterally means between two governments. What -- the only solution is whether the people who live there will vote and be able to control their own destiny. When we learn that -- we learn that fundamental principle, then we're going to start having some progress. You don't solve it by outsiders bilaterally making a decision between the elites of India and the elites of Pakistan. It's the people of Kashmir who count.

And let me commend the president for his speech in the American Enterprise Institute. I hope this administration has the courage to follow through on the principles of democracy and human rights that the president laid out, because he said that we will hold this standard for the Arab and Muslim world as well as the rest of the world. And I think if he catches on to that and he holds on to that principle, that this administration, unlike the last administration, will not only be highly successful in helping the people of the world find freedom, but also building a more secure world for us as well as them.

Thank you.

REP. LEACH: Mr. Sherman, we're kind of at the end of the second round, but we're delighted to welcome you. If you have any questions, you're --

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Why, thank you. I do. I heard my colleague from California talk about the past administration. And I can just say that the Clinton administration never dreamed of the level of bipartisan support that is being accorded to the Bush foreign policy today.

I realize that that is not an -- that there are -- that Democratic support for the Bush foreign policy is not total by any means. But when I see what happened to the Clinton administration when they sought to compel Iraq to allow inspectors to continue in 1998, I'm glad to say that we're doing a much better job today of leaving partisanship at the water's edge.

I would also point out that a plebiscite for Kashmir might be conducted after the United States endorses a plebiscite for the Kurdish areas of Turkey, the Kurdish areas of Iraq, the Shiite areas of Iraq, the Sunni areas of Iraq, and for Southern California. And when those areas get a chance at self-determination, then maybe we will see a plebiscite agreed to by both India and Pakistan.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): I'm for it! There you go.

REP. SHERMAN: Turning to our witnesses here, I don't believe that there's been much discussion of Sri Lanka, which is a bright spot in South Asia. But you have, in effect, two zones now, and the United States gives development aid to Sri Lanka. What do we do to make sure that a fair proportion of that aid is available to the people in the northeastern section of that troubled island?

MS. CHAMBERLIN: As a matter of fact, Mr. Congressman, we are focusing much of our aid on the northeastern portion of the country. We're mindful that our assistance has to also be addressed to the Sinhalese. But we are very much interested in assuring that there's a -- well, a peace dividend to encourage the very promising trends in the peace talks in Sri Lanka.

Our new projects, and they're brand new, is aimed at providing that peace dividend. It's small. It's a beginning. But we're looking at creating jobs, at building some of the small infrastructures, particularly in the northeast, where much of the conflict has centered over the years, and it's been very ugly conflict. Again, not forgetting those in the southern part of the island as well.

REP. SHERMAN: I know that one controversy is whether the LTTE will remain on a terrorist list. And this raises the issue of whether there's ever a statute of limitations on wrongful behavior in prior decades. I know that Arafat's sole occupation was terrorist in the '70s. When it appeared as if he was a partner for peace, we treated him with a level of respect that the president of Cameroon can just barely taste and the president of other significantly sized countries are often not accorded.

As peace seems to take hold, do we see removing the LTTE from that list if we believe that on a going-forward basis they are dedicated to peace and, in any case, dedicated that, God forbid, any conflict resumes, that it would be waged in accordance with legitimate rules of conflict?

MS. ROCCA: The issue of taking the LTTE off the list is one that hasn't really come up yet because the LTTE still needs to renounce -- while they have said that they will operate within a federal framework and therefore have renounced Tamil Eelam, the fact remains that they need to renounce violence in deed as well as word. And when that has happened, then we will move forward. At the moment, they're still acquiring weapons, they are still impressing children soldiers --

REP. SHERMAN: Isn't the government still acquiring weapons as well?

MS. ROCCA: They were never on the foreign terrorist organizations list. (Laughter.)

REP. SHERMAN: I mean, to say that an entity engaged in a civil war, that used to wage a portion of that war inappropriately and now is committed -- and you're about to get to the one area where their commitment is lacking, but to say that in an effort to reach peace, one side can rearm itself and the other side can't, I think a balance of power is appropriate.

More I don't think we ever turned to those who were fighting against the Afghan government and told them they had an obligation to do so peacefully.

But you were going to mention the underage soldiers, and I'll save you the time of saying that that is an area where I think we all agree that the LTTE has to improve its record. And I hope, though, that we don't let our dedication to individual rights -- and there are important ones that you've identified -- stand in the way of the overwhelming peace dividend available, if we can get these two sides together.

MS. ROCCA: We are firmly committed to trying to help them reach a peace settlement, not just for the peace in Sri Lanka, which obviously is critical, but showing that one can reach peace through negotiation would be a powerful signal around the world.

REP. SHERMAN: And so we'll achieve that through negotiation and a federal structure without involving a plebiscite and the creation of a new independent country.

Perhaps my colleague from California will read this transcript and see an opportunity to apply it elsewhere in South Asia.

Thank you.

REP. LEACH: Well, thank you.

And let me thank both of you. I want to do one 30-second follow- on to Mr. Sherman. There's another list with regard to Sri Lanka that I hope gets reopened, and that's the list of countries where the United States Peace Corps is allowed to operate.

MS. ROCCA: I'm sorry?

REP. LEACH: That you will review whether or not the United States Peace Corps should return to Sri Lanka.

MS. ROCCA: We already started that --

REP. LEACH: You have.

MS. ROCCA: -- I'm happy to report.

REP. LEACH: Ah ha.

MS. ROCCA: An assessment team went out last fall --

REP. LEACH: Good.

MS. ROCCA: -- to assess the security situation, and they came back with a mixed picture and essentially a need to move forward with a much more granular security assessment. But it's sort of been put on hold temporarily for budgetary reasons.

REP. LEACH: That's understood.

MS. ROCCA: But it is on the docket, and we are very much in favor of it.

REP. LEACH: Well, I -- you know, I think maybe events of recent days it should be reviewed in the context of, but I would hope not for budgetary reasons.

MS. ROCCA: Well, we'll --

REP. LEACH: You know, the budget should not be the constraining factor. Security should be.

MS. ROCCA: Right. We've been having this discussion with the Peace Corps, and they're looking on this very favorably. So, we're hopeful.

REP. LEACH: Good. Good.

Well, let me thank both of you. This