[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PAKISTANI ELECTIONS: WILL THEY BE FREE AND FAIR OR FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
(PART II)
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 29, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-175
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-227 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DAN BURTON, Indiana
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
Dave Turk, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 29, 2008................................. 1
Statement of:
Boucher, Richard A., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and
Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State............ 11
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 9
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 5
PAKISTANI ELECTIONS: WILL THEY BE FREE AND FAIR OR FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
(PART II)
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign
Affairs,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Tierney
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tierney, Shays, Lynch, Yarmuth,
McCollum, Welch, and Platts.
Also present: Representative Issa.
Staff present: Dave Turk, staff director; Andrew Su and
Andy Wright, professional staff members; Davis Hake, clerk; Dan
Hamilton, fellow; A. Brooke Bennett, minority counsel; Janice
Spector and Christopher Bright, minority professional staff
members; Todd Greenwood, minority legislative assistant;
Benjamin Chance, minority clerk; and Jeanne Neal, minority
intern.
Mr. Tierney. Good morning and thank you all for coming.
I want to particularly thank our witness for being here
this morning. He is on quite a busy schedule and came in on
short notice because we have been trying to have this hearing
for a couple of weeks. The Ambassador has been traveling and
doing a lot of work.
He is also scheduled to testify at 1 p.m., in front of the
Intelligence Committee. That will be a closed hearing from my
experience with that group. I think it is important that we
have an open hearing so that the Ambassador gets to share with
us what is going on from his perspective and the
administration's perspective.
And so, we are continuing our oversight on the national
security interests at stake in Pakistan, particularly with
respect to the elections for February 18th.
The 9/11 Commission and our own intelligence agencies have
repeatedly stressed the central importance of Pakistan in
efforts to root out terrorism. A growing chorus of others have
joined them, also raising serious concerns about how we are
doing in that struggle. Most striking, I think, was last
summer's National Intelligence Estimate of a resurgent Al Qaeda
in Pakistan safe havens.
Over the past year, our subcommittee has had vigorous
oversight. Two congressional delegations have gone to Pakistan.
We have had at least three previous hearings on the issue, one
of which the Ambassador was present at.
The central lesson, at least that I have taken, is that if
we really care about preventing another situation like 9/11, if
we care about bringing Osama bin Laden to justice, if we care
about protecting our soldiers in Afghanistan from the
escalating cross-border attacks, then we absolutely have a
crucial interest in ensuring that the government in Pakistan
has the popular mandate to confront extremism and terrorism
within its borders.
We have heard over and over again about the importance of
the United States speaking with a clear and unambiguous voice
about the need for the upcoming elections to establish the
legitimacy of a Pakistani government in order to instill
confidence in the Pakistani people that their will is reflected
in the election results.
At times, Ambassador, you and others in the administration
have voiced the same sentiments. For example, on early July 12,
2007 at a hearing, you testified: ``We believe that Pakistan
must make a full transition to democracy and civilian rule.''
But at other times, our country's message seems to have
been mixed and muddled. Deputy Secretary Negraponte and other
officials have called President Musharraf, ``indispensable,''
and you referred to the suspension of the Pakistani
constitution as a ``bump in the road.''
Many more times our lack of words or lack of actions, for
example, with respect to President Musharraf's purging of
judges from the Pakistani courts, speak volumes especially to
the Pakistani people.
All the while, the essential goal of free and fair
elections in Pakistan seems to be slipping from our grasp. Just
last month on December 20th, we heard from a distinguished
panel of election observers from across the political spectrum
who concluded unambiguously that preelection preparations
offered little hope to the Pakistani people that their voices
will be heard in a free, fair and transparent election.
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who had recently
returned from an election assessment trip to Pakistan,
concluded that free, fair and transparent elections would be
impossible without significant, sincere and immediate
corrective action on the part of the Government of Pakistan. He
noted: ``Without the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar
Chaudhry and the other deposed justices, public confidence in
the ability of the judicial system to act independently and
ensure the transparency of the electoral process will be
significantly curtailed.''
Tom Garrett from the International Republican Institute
testified that the Government of Pakistan, invoking security
concerns, had limited polling place access for international
election monitors. Mr. Garrett also spoke about IRI's recent
poll showing a plummeting of support for President Musharraf.
Former Peace Corps Director Mark Schneider expressed the
view of the International Crisis Group by emphasizing the
central role the judiciary plays in the integrity of the
Pakistan electoral process. He noted: ``The U.S., and its
Western allies, must recognize that free and fair elections are
the best option for a secular and moderate parliamentary
majority, a unified country against extremist jihadi
organizations, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.''
The testimony of those three individuals emphasize the
widespread atmosphere of insecurity and intimidation that
strike at the heart of any credible democratic process. The
voters' rolls fail to inspire confidence and raise the specter
of massive disenfranchisement.
The media continues to operate under a code of conduct that
criminalizes criticism of President Musharraf's government.
Many of Pakistan's leading judges and lawyers remain silenced,
if not imprisoned.
Opposition parties struggle to make their case under
restrictions on political expression and campaigning. Leading
opposition figures remain disqualified.
There is a fear that Pakistan's fearsome intelligence and
security services may again play an insipid role in rigging and
intimidation, and international election observers face
disabling barriers to polling place access.
As bleak as these assessments were, the electoral
environment in Pakistan has unfortunately deteriorated since
our December 20th hearing. On December 27th, former Prime
Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi. Her
assassination was a blow to supporters of democracy and
opponents of violent extremism everywhere.
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in light of the
widespread Pakistani view of U.S. complicity with what they
believe is a dictatorial government, sees electoral strength in
bashing the United States.
The militancy and terrorism, once largely confined to the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas, has spilled into the
streets of the provincial capital, Peshawar, and elsewhere. The
elections were delayed until February 18th and rumors abound
among some that President Musharraf is looking for a way to
postpone those elections, perhaps indefinitely.
Yet, despite the essential need of a legitimate and
impartial judiciary in the electoral process, this
administration, the Bush administration, appears willing to
concede a dismantled judiciary to President Musharraf.
Despite signs that the vaunted Pakistani military
establishment is distancing itself from President Musharraf,
this administration appears wiling to continue in expressing
steadfast support for President Musharraf.
Despite evidence that President Musharraf's cling to power
represents a distraction to our counterterrorism efforts, we
continue to pursue policies described by Pakistanis as
``Busharraf.''
Over the past summer, when you testified earlier before us,
Ambassador, I noted, ``It is often said that Pakistan is a
place of breathtaking complexity. It is in part because of this
that our long-term national security interests are best served
by forging bonds with the Pakistani people and not with any one
particular leader.''
That is what our hearing is about today. I look forward to
hearing your comments.
I note that we have waived any introductory statement in
writing or otherwise by you, Ambassador, so we can get to
questions and answers because of your pressing schedule and
other obligations today.
Mr. Shays, do you want to make any opening statement?
[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0227.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0227.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0227.003
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me say I appreciate the Ambassador here. In
deference to your time schedule, I am going to waive my written
statement and just say that your statement captures much of
what I feel.
I am particularly concerned about judicial interference and
the dismantling of the judiciary. I am concerned about election
day monitoring and the position that the government may take
against International Republican Institute in its efforts to
monitor.
I am concerned that we not make the error that we made in
Iran with deciding that because we didn't like the Shah, we
would just throw our support to Khomeini and we ended up with
that. So we are treading on thin ice, and we need to act
intelligently.
Frankly, I don't know what action is required. That is why
I appreciate this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0227.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0227.005
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Mr. Shays.
We are going to move to testimony and questions.
My introduction is of Ambassador Richard A. Boucher who is
the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and
Central Asian Affairs for the U.S. Department of State.
Welcome, Ambassador. We swear in our witnesses, as you
know, on this subcommittee.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much. The record will reflect
that the answer was in the affirmative.
We have waived your written testimony. You may want to make
a few opening comments. If you do, Ambassador, we would
certainly like to hear them.
Mr. Boucher. If I could, sir, I would like to.
Mr. Tierney. Certainly.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. BOUCHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF
SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much for having me here today.
To all of us, the elections in Pakistan are very, very
important, and the success of Pakistan as a nation, as a
moderate, modern, prosperous nation, able to fight extremism is
one of our vital national interests.
I appreciate. Let me say right off the top, I appreciate
the fact that you have traveled there. Mr. Lynch and others,
members of the committee have traveled out there to look at our
operations and look at the situation firsthand but also to
pursue many of these issues and the emphasis that we, as
Americans, that all of us place on a democratic transition in
Pakistan.
We have certainly seen a lot of turmoil in Pakistan in the
last, well, the last year, the last 9 months especially:
emergency rule in November-December, suspension of the
constitution, restrictions on freedom of assembly, freedom of
speech, and then the very tragic and sad assassination of
Benazir Bhutto which took one of the major leaders of Pakistan
from the nation.
We have seen increased militancy in the North-West Frontier
and more and more clashes between the army and the militants up
in the tribal areas. Violent extremists have declared war on
Pakistan's democratic process, and I think the assassination of
Ms. Bhutto is a sign of that. They continue to target
politicians and the political process as we move forward into
the elections and probably afterwards.
Despite the unrest, I think our fundamental goals in terms
of what we're trying to achieve with Pakistan remain unchanged.
We want to see a successful transition to democracy and
civilian rule. We want to see the emergence of leaders through
a credible election. We want to see a strong moderate center
that can complete this transition and help form a solid basis
for pursuing the fight against extremism and the building of
strong democratic institutions including an independent
judiciary in Pakistan.
Our assistant programs focus on these areas in a
fundamental and long term way. We are spending over $125
million this year on education. We promote health programs that
serve the people of Pakistan. We have had a lot of programs
that promote economic growth as well as security and counter-
narcotics.
We have had about $100 million over the last few years that
has been spent on democracy programs including $25 million or
so that was spent directly on elections.
So it is a very important balance in our efforts. It is an
important balance that maintains a whole breadth of interests
in the Pakistani people and in trying to help them achieve the
kind of nation and society that they aspire to.
We have seen some positive trends in Pakistan over the
years and even in recent times. The civil society and the media
are strong, although they have taken some hits.
The army is taking on the militant extremists, and they
have conducted operations in the Swat Valley and are now
conducting operations in Waziristan against extremist elements.
All the major political parties, while they are criticizing
the election process, have made the judgment it is better to be
in than out, and they are going to participate in the
elections. Obviously, their view of how the elections turn out
will be one of the very important factors that we use as we see
after the election, from the parties, from the observers, from
the media, how it was conducted and whether we think it meets
the standards that we are all looking for, and that is an
election that can reflect the true wishes of the Pakistani
people and the Pakistani voters.
We are doing everything we can to try to ensure as fair an
election as possible. We have supported efforts for a long time
now, as I said, with the money we spent over the last 2 or 3
years, but we are also supporting things on election day like
fielding observers, strong election observer missions. We are
supporting the Asia Foundation's work in fielding something
like 20,000 domestic observers in Pakistan.
We have organized embassy teams from the embassy and the
consulates in Islamabad and the other cities of Pakistan. About
30 teams will be sent out by the U.S. mission in Pakistan to go
look at key races around the country, and we are working very
closely with the International Republican Institute to try to
see if they can't send their people back and conduct the
observation that they had planned. I think its leadership has
yet to make the final decision on whether they are going to
reengage.
We have worked with the European Union on their observers
who are out there and more to come. So we think that is an
important element in trying to ensure that the election is as
fair and free as possible because just the scrutiny encourages
people to better behavior.
We also have had a very active and ongoing dialog with the
Pakistani Government and the Pakistani Election Commission
about improving the election environment. Some of the steps we
have been looking for have been taken, whether you go back to
the need for transparent ballot boxes and 300,000 transparent
ballot boxes that were purchased, other aspects of counting and
tabulating the results that we have pressed very hard on, some
of which have been done, many of which remain to be done.
But they have reasonably taken some steps that we have
encouraged. They have clarified guidelines for international
observers, promising full access to all the polling stations
and all the activities at the polling stations.
They have printed and distributed electronic copies of the
voter rolls. This was an issue that was very, very important to
people.
They have now published a list of polling stations in the
official government newspaper, so everybody knows in advance
where the polls are going to be. That, unfortunately, has been
a problem in previous elections in Pakistan and was one of the
things that early on the experts pointed out to us as being an
issue, and that has been done.
We are pushing very hard for transparency in counting so
that they publish results at the lowest polling station level
and put it on public display so that people like the Asia
Foundation with their observers and the media can do
independent tallies to make sure numbers don't get added along
the way as the totals get made.
We continue to work very hard to try to ensure an election
that is as free and fair as possible, and we have been, I
think, really working with a lot of people. Whether domestic
and foreign, I think it is time for everybody to work as hard
as they can to try to make this a good election, and that is
where we are putting most of our energy right now.
President Musharraf has made repeated and public promises
that there will be a fair and transparent election, and we
expect him to try to work to make sure that happens.
Secretary Rice put it fairly succinctly the other day after
she saw President Musharraf. She said, these elections need to
be elections that will have the confidence of Pakistanis. That
is the important point, and so we will look to Pakistanis on
this issue.
You raised the question of the judiciary. It is a difficult
question in Pakistan. If you look back at the history of
Pakistan, almost from the start, there have been direct and
serious clashes between the executive and the judicial
branches.
I guess to say that they need and haven't had an
independent and responsible judiciary that everybody accepts.
We have made this point over and over.
We have urged the Government of Pakistan to release the
people who remain in detention--three attorneys, eight supreme
court and three high court justices under house arrest--and we
have urged that those people be released from detention. We
have urged the political leaders and the other leaders in
Pakistan to focus on the need for an independent judiciary.
But, frankly, it had become a very political issue in
Pakistan and I think it is fair to assume that they won't
really address it seriously until after the election and that
the new leaders, the political party leaders that emerge from
the election as well as the other people in government are
going to have to address this. We are obviously very prepared
to bring whatever expertise, resources and support we can to
that process, but I think we all understand how important it is
for Pakistan to have an independent judiciary that the people
can count on.
We have also continued to encourage the government to
release the remaining restrictions on the media. GEO TV is now
back on the air, including their news channel that is one of
the most popular in the country, but there are still
restrictions and codes of conduct that apply to the media that
we think should be looked at in order to help ensure a more
free election.
After the election, there will be a lot to do. The new
players in Pakistan, the new people elected in the political
parties will have to decide on the prime minister. The new
prime minister will have to work with President Musharraf as
president in a new role. The institutions of the society need
to be looked at and some of them, like the judiciary, rebuilt.
So it will be a very complicated process, but we look
forward to supporting that process. We look forward to working
with whomever emerges from a good election as prime minister,
and we look forward to maintaining our very strong relationship
with the Pakistani people.
So, why don't I stop at that for the moment, and I would be
glad to take your questions.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much. You covered a lot of
ground on that, and we appreciate it.
Let me ask the first question, Ambassador. Is the United
States going to be aggressive in its support for an independent
U.S. investigation into the slaying of Benazir Bhutto?
Mr. Boucher. We have been very aggressive in supporting the
idea that there needs to be a thorough investigation and a good
investigation of the slaying, of the killing of Benazir Bhutto.
The Pakistanis have pledged to do that. They have brought in
expertise from Scotland Yard, and our understanding is there is
good cooperation there between Scotland Yard and the Pakistani
investigators.
Mr. Tierney. Allow me, if you will, to press that a little
only because.
Mr. Boucher. We have not gone farther than that.
Mr. Tierney. Will you go further than that because I know
there is great concern that the directive to Scotland Yard is
not as broad as some might like it in terms of finding out who
is responsible other than to find out how it might have
happened?
In order to put some confidence in this in the
international community, isn't our administration taking the
position that we should ask for a United Nations
internationally run investigation so that we can all have
confidence in that going forward?
Mr. Boucher. We have not taken that position, sir. There is
a lot of, I think, differences but differences between the
other cases where U.N. investigations have been done. It is not
a cure-all for any situation.
I think we look to, first and foremost, to the local
authorities to conduct any investigation. The addition of
Scotland Yard, we think, provides an added measure of
confidence, and we will all be watching that very, very closely
and see how it turns out. If there are problems, I suppose we
will deal with them at that point.
Mr. Tierney. Well, let me, for one at least, weigh in, Mr.
Ambassador. My position--I think I am joined by others--is this
administration ought to take a forceful stand on that.
It is not going to be in anybody's interest to have an
investigation that is clouded or that doesn't have the
confidence of not just the Pakistani people but people
internationally. I think right now there is enough of a
question about Mr. Musharraf's conviction to this. Never mind
the fact that there is some question, as I said, the directions
that have been given to the Scotland Yard.
I don't think it serves our purposes for our security or
anybody else's to have this thing not have the confidence of
the Pakistani people and others, and I believe the way it is
going forward now, not being an independent U.N. investigation,
really puts us in jeopardy of having it not be accepted the way
it should be, the results. So I just hope that you will
consider that and maybe rethink the position on this or bring
it back to the administration and say that there are plenty of
people who think that it ought to be ratcheted up a level here
and moved on.
Let me just address some comments that you made on
judiciary. Given the fact that already the president, President
Musharraf's election is questioned by many as to his legitimacy
and having had the testimony of all of the individuals that
have been before us about the election observations they have
made, that the judiciary is a critical component of the
election process in Pakistan and who appoints the judges to the
various levels that make decisions with respect to challenges
to any aspect of the election, about the determination of the
council and other aspects.
Unless the Musharraf presidency and the administration over
there is willing to allow the release of people that are in
prison right now or constrained in the judiciary and appoint
people that are not perceived to be his puppets in there, how
are we ever going to get people to accept any elections as
being legitimate?
Mr. Boucher. Well, I think, first and foremost, it is the
conduct of the elections that people will judge. They will know
how things went. There are plenty of observers. There will be a
lot of media. There will be international and domestic
observers.
As we have noted, the political parties at the moment are
participating. They have also raised a lot of red flags and
said problems here, problems there, things that ought to be
fixed. We are pushing very hard to get many of those things
fixed before the election.
The judiciary comes into play afterwards if there are
serious charges of fraud and abuse. If those aren't settled
appropriately by the election commission, then the judiciary
would get involved. But I think, first and foremost, our effort
is to try to get a good election up front, so you don't have to
ultimately fall back on judicial mechanisms that are in
themselves quite controversial.
Mr. Tierney. But challenges to the voter polls and other
aspects prior to election and during election are going to be
brought to those judges, and it is going to be important on
that. I think that we have to not just look at the fallout
afterwards. I think we ought to be a little more proactive.
You say that we are doing things to try to correct them on
the front end. One of the things we ought to correct is to make
sure people that are going to make decisions about the number
of challenges that have been made to the polls, to the polling
places, to the fact that the code of conduct still exists on
the media. So I don't know how we can trust the reports that
are going to be made about the election. They are certainly not
going to be critical if a reporter stands the prospect of not
only being fined but going to jail.
What are the prospects of getting these things addressed
prior to the election or are we just in a mode we are going to
ask President Musharraf to do it and when he doesn't do it, we
are going to deal with the fallout afterwards?
Mr. Boucher. I think there have been a lot of things
addressed prior to the election if you read. You referred in
your opening statement to the reports that the National
Democratic Institute had done, and if you go back and you read
the one they did in May and the one they did in October and the
testimony in December, some of the things that they were
focused on were consistent throughout, but some of the things
that they were focused on changed from time to time because
there were, in fact, changes. There was, in fact, progress.
I think we have come out of the state of emergency with
some serious distortions left on the process of the elections.
There are some things that still need to be corrected. We have
things in Pakistan that if you look at previous elections that
were serious problems. I cited transparent ballot boxes just as
one that is easy to point to but a lot of other things,
interference by local officials and other such things.
So I think we are both looking at the problems that existed
from way back in the past as well as the more recent ones and
just trying to get as many fixed as we can. The more that get
fixed, the better the election.
Mr. Tierney. My time is up. I want to stop.
You mentioned the National Democratic Institute. Their own
comment from Senator Daschle, who was there on behalf of that
committee, was in fact: ``Virtually nothing has been done since
our first report of May, 2007, to strengthen the prospects for
free and fair elections.''
So there has not been of a continuance of improvement, as
you recommend, at least not in the National Democratic
Institute's problem, and that is what we are dealing with here.
There hasn't been that kind of reform or changes in the
situation that they pointed out. The trouble back in May still
existed in December.
So that is, I think, why we are trying to urge some more
concerted effort on behalf of the administration here.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer to my
colleague who has been to Pakistan. I haven't been, so I am
just going to pay attention for a little bit.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Issa is not a member of this subcommittee,
but by unanimous consent we would be more than happy to invite
him to participate and go out of turn. Unless people want to
take their prerogative, we will go out of turn and allow you to
question now. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
You know there is nothing more bipartisan on this committee
than elections. The IRI, obviously, you are familiar with their
attempt to do work in Pakistan.
Let me just bring to your attention again a couple of
things. You are familiar with the exchange of letters between
the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics back in
October, OK?
Mr. Boucher. I am not sure I am.
Mr. Issa. Let me put it in perspective. Are you aware the
IRI has been told to cease and desist and leave the country?
Have you been told that there has been a cat and mouse game
played with their visas repeatedly, that both their head and
their interim head have been denied timely visas every time the
extension of an election occurs? What a surprise, they have to
play for another month or two just to try to get that.
But, in particular, I am going to call your attention and
ask unanimous consent these two documents be placed in the
record from the Pakistani Government.
Mr. Tierney. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Issa. Not only has the Government of Pakistan Ministry
of Economic Affairs and Statistics basically said we need more
than an MOU. We need to register the GOP and the IRI because
the IRI needs to be registered in order to do business on
elections.
What is the point of having international observers if they
have to somehow come up with a bunch of credentials beyond
those which the U.S. Government and your kind of office bring
to bear?
Second and, most importantly, the denying on December 24th,
just 3 days before the assassination of the lead prime minister
candidate, Mrs. Bhutto, they answered, clearly stating that
exit polls would not be allowed. They were not approved and
would not be allowed.
Clearly, if we expect and we do expect their to be gaming
of the system including the now translucent, not transparent,
ballot boxes, wouldn't you say that exit polls are about the
only way to get some relative feel for the level of gaming of
the system, post-election?
Mr. Boucher. Sir, I have worked very closely with IRI, and
I have talked to them a number of times, and our people in
Pakistan, our embassy in Pakistan has worked very closely with
them as well. So let me make a couple comments.
I am not familiar with a letter from October about
registering, and I will have to look into that and see what the
basis of that was and what happened to it.
We have worked very closely with them and the Pakistani
Government on the visa question. They have their visas renewed,
not as long as we would like, but for the moment everybody is
satisfied that question is taken care of at least through the
elections.
They were very concerned about remarks that the secretary
of the election commission made--I think it was December 26th--
about polling places and access to polling places and how they
would be allowed to go to places.
We worked with them and with the election commission. About
2 weeks ago, the election commission put out a statement that
clarified that to the satisfaction of all of us, that in fact
observers, domestic and foreign, would be allowed to go to all
polling places and see all aspects of the prospect.
Mr. Issa. But not do exit polling.
Mr. Boucher. Now let me get to exit polling. Exit polling,
as far as I understand, it has not been widely done in Pakistan
before. We think it would be a very useful adjunct to the
process, and we have made that point.
You ask, is that the only way to find out if people are
gaming the system and where the distortions are, and the answer
is I don't think so. I think there are other ways, and we have
been pushing very hard on those.
Asia Foundation is going to try to run a parallel vote
count with their domestic observers to collect the numbers at
the polling station level and add them up themselves. That is a
very useful check on the system.
The media will be out far and wide, checking on such
things.
We have encouraged very strongly with the election
commission and the leadership in Pakistan that there be full
transparency, that the count be done on chalkboards in rooms
where everybody can watch the numbers being added up.
There is a variety of things like that we have continued to
press, one of which I mentioned in my opening remarks, which
was posting of results at the polling places in a certified
manner so that everybody would be able to add them up
themselves.
So we do think exit polls would be useful, but there are
also a variety of other observations and ways that the count
could get checked.
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that, and my time is about to
expire.
I would say that if there is anything that I, personally,
am disappointed in, in my trips to Pakistan, it is that for the
amount of aid, the amount of support that we give this
president and the fact that his election itself was clearly
flawed at best, that we are not pushing for this check and
balance of at least having a prime minister whose election is
considered to be at a higher standard.
It would seem to be the minimum that we can ask for this
president. His position is secure. His position is in excess of
what was originally intended in their own constitution because
of the nature of how he came to power and now has become
president again.
So at least I, for one, am disappointed that 3 days after
the election, we expect a team to leave even if they are in the
midst of uncovering huge amounts of discrepancies. Observation
on election day, as you said, is not the only tool. But if your
visas expire and you are forced to pack up and be gone 3 days
after an election, it is very clear that you are not able to
followup in the aftermath of what is likely to be a less than
full and fair election.
Mr. Boucher. Sir, I think you put it very well the need for
a strong player, a strong prime minister who emerges from a
credible election. That has to be an important part of
stability in Pakistan. We push very hard for that in a variety
of ways, especially in trying to improve this process.
Right now, we have worked with IRI, we think, to solve the
problems that they saw with their observation mission. The
remaining issue, as far as we understand it, is only the
question of security for their personnel, and we are continuing
to work with them and talk with them about that. Should they
decide to go back, then we will work on keeping them there.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Lynch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Ambassador, thanks for your good work and
your willingness to come before the committee to help us with
ours.
In our last visit, we went into some of the tribal areas
and went into Peshawar, and the indications from some of the
parties was that they would indeed be participating in these
elections. But they felt confident, and this testimony was
repeated to the chairman and I and others in other meetings
with some of the candidates, they felt that it wasn't a
question of whether there would be election rigging by the
administration but how much election rigging would actually go
on.
So, while there is participation there, there are some
restrictions, as you have noted, regarding the media. One of
the restrictions that we were told of was that candidates for
the parliament were not allowed to criticize Musharraf or the
administration. Originally, he had control of all the media,
all the major media outlets.
There are also some charges that Musharraf's people had
begun the criminal reporting of certain opposition party
members which put their eligibility to participate in the
elective process, the campaigning, in question and also whether
they would be allowed to actually vote.
During our visit, the DCM, Peter Bodde, was nice enough to
invite us back to participate as election monitors. But I guess
with all those factors in there and some that you have
addressed and I have not, is it a worthwhile exercise, as Mr.
Issa says? What is the effectiveness?
What would be the effectiveness of us, as Members, going
back into Pakistan during the election and are we at that point
where we need to use the only leverage we have apparently with
Musharraf, which is economic aid by the United States to
Pakistan?
Mr. Boucher. I think you raise a number of very important
questions there.
First of all, I don't think. We don't necessarily accept a
certain level of fraud, but if history is any guide and the
current reports are any guide, we should expect some.
There is an interesting group called the Fair and Free
Elections Network--I think it is FAFEN.org--in Pakistan. It is
the domestic observer network, and they have regular reports of
what is going on in the provinces and districts.
If you see their reports, for example, they report
interference by local government officials in all kinds of
places on behalf of all the different parties, slightly
somewhat higher, sort of about a one-third of the districts
that reported some interference for most of the parties and
something on a half or two-thirds where the government party is
in charge. So it is an indication, perhaps, of what one might
expect throughout Pakistan, a certain level of interference.
On the other hand, I think it is harder to get away with it
now. Even on the restrictions on the press, there is an
enormous explosion of media in the last 8 years under President
Musharraf actually. They have gone from something like 4 TV
stations to almost 50. Even with the restrictions that exist,
which we think should be lifted, there is going to be a lot of
reporting.
There is going to be an enormous number of observers
around. The political parties are well organized and, believe
me, they will cry foul if there are any fouls that exist.
At the same time, I don't think we should give up on this
election. I think if everybody works to make it a good
election, we can have a credible election in Pakistan. If
everybody, political parties, election commission, election
observers, foreigners, domestic, civil society people,
everybody has to work to make this a good election so that the
new leaders who emerge for Pakistan have that endorsement, have
that legitimacy of coming out of a legitimate election process.
The election observers are important not just to point out
problems where they exist or to find fraud where it happens.
They are important, I think, to keep the process honest. Just
the fact that election observers there and are moving around
and looking at polling places, I think tends to put a damper on
the excesses that might otherwise occur.
Mr. Lynch. I guess the last question part of my question
again was the only leverage we have is really the economic aid
that we provide to Pakistan. A couple of problem areas. The
election is upcoming and also the willingness of Musharraf to
take decisive action in south Waziristan by Baitullah Mehsud
and also just the whole Federally Administered Tribal Areas
where Al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent.
Are we delivering a clear message that Congress is very
reluctant to commit further resources unless we see a
demonstrative change in behavior rather than some of the
passive, it is almost complicity that we have seen in the past?
Mr. Boucher. I think it is a question that is easier in
theory than in practice. I don't think it is worth our while to
withdraw money from girls' education, all the money that we put
into education and health in Pakistan. I don't think it is in
our interest to withdraw money from the counterterrorism
efforts in Pakistan.
I think we are very careful about our assistance. We have
taken steps recently to focus it much more on helping the
people of Pakistan and helping the authorities go after the
extremists.
There is a lot of fighting going on, and they have lost,
they have lost a thousand people to terrorism in the last year.
They have lost 250 members of the security forces since July.
So they are engaged in a fight, and I think it behooves us to
help them pursue that with the best possible tools.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, just in
response, what we are hearing in our committee is that much of
the resources that we have given Pakistan in the past have not
gone to education. It has gone really toward the Pakistani
profile vis-a-vis India and the Kashmir and the military
programs and not for education. So we are concerned about that.
Mr. Boucher. I think if you look at the numbers, you will
see it is somewhat of a different answer.
Mr. Tierney. Let me interject. It is a point well taken on
both response and the question.
We are going to get into that issue in hearings coming up
in the not too distant future on that for two purposes: one, to
find out exactly what has been going on and how effective that
has been but also as we look forward to some of the changes the
administration has recommended and some that Congress has put
into law. If we are going to be delivering aid, we have to be
concerned about how it is made, whether we are accountable for
the money, where it goes and whether or not it is going to be
effective, given the security situation there now as well.
Mr. Boucher. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Tierney. So, point well taken, Mr. Lynch, and we
appreciate that.
Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, there seems to be a threshold question and a
conflict. On the one hand, it is very clear that stability in
Pakistan is vital to American interest in the region. No. 2,
Ambassador Negraponte has said that Mr. Musharraf is
indispensable. He is the indispensable man.
There is a view, widely shared in the State Department and
the Congress, that free and fair elections are probably the
most effective way to assure stability in Pakistan. But
President Musharraf, by his actions--suspending the
constitution and press restrictions and essentially firing the
judiciary--has fundamentally compromised the integrity of any
electoral process that follows.
No. 1, do you see Mr. Musharraf as the indispensable man as
was indicated by Mr. Negraponte?
Mr. Boucher. I do, sir. I think he has led the Nation the
way it has gone, but let's also remember now he is taking on a
different role. He is taking a role of president which he has
before but no longer as the guy in charge.
Mr. Welch. You do see him as indispensable.
Mr. Boucher. He is going to be one player, a man along with
a newly elected prime minister and a number of other government
institutions.
Mr. Welch. Let me just followup on this. I can understand
that there is a real dilemma for policymakers in our position.
I totally appreciate that, but the firing of the judiciary
would more or less be the equivalent to the President of the
United States in November 2000, when the Bush v. Gore-Gore v.
Bush case was before the U.S. Supreme Court, getting an
apprehension that it wasn't going to go the way the President
wanted it and firing the supreme court.
The threshold question that the American citizens would ask
is whether that had any legitimacy and whether, until the
restoration of the judicial branch, could you have any
integrity in future elections that would be subject to the
supervision ultimately of that independent judiciary.
The question I have is this. Why is it not the position of
the U.S. Government that as a condition for aid or, more
important, as a condition of confidence, that the electoral
process in fact will be free and fair, we have to require or
demand that President Musharraf restore the independent
judiciary?
Mr. Boucher. I think, sir. First of all, I don't think the
analogy stands up to expert scrutiny, and people I have talked
to about Pakistan, who have studied this a lot more than I do,
have said it is not. You can't compare it to the United States.
We have different history and tradition.
Mr. Welch. Don't compare it to the United States. Do you
believe?
Let me just ask this. We will leave out the comparison. Do
you believe that it was appropriate for President Musharraf to
fire the supreme court?
Mr. Boucher. No.
Mr. Welch. Do you believe that it should be our policy in
order to achieve the goal of free and fair elections, that we
demand that the president restore the supreme court justices to
their positions?
Mr. Boucher. We believe that it is very important for
Pakistan to have an independent and responsible judiciary.
Mr. Welch. Can it be accomplished without this?
Mr. Boucher. But that in itself is a very political issue
in Pakistan. There is a lot of controversy about it. We
certainly want them to deal with it.
Mr. Welch. No. I am asking our own position.
No. I am asking the State Department position. Is it the
State Department position that the judges who have been fired
should be restored?
Mr. Boucher. Our view is that the issue of an independent
judiciary in Pakistan can't be solved that simply.
Mr. Welch. So that the president is allowed to fire the
independent judges on the supreme court.
Mr. Boucher. Our view is that it was not a good move but
that to fix it, it needs to be done with the full political
process, with a newly elected prime minister and other leaders,
and they have to try to get together and figure it out.
Mr. Welch. My understanding is that if we have a new
election, President Musharraf retains the power to dissolve the
Parliament. Is that right or wrong?
Mr. Boucher. That has been the case for a long time, yes.
Mr. Welch. Right. So then, in fact, if he can retain the
power to dissolve the parliament, if the parliament takes an
action to restore the judiciary, then President Musharraf has
current power to dissolve the parliament and negate that
action. Is that right?
Mr. Boucher. In theory, yes. I mean, as you all know, there
is sort of constitutional law and there is politics.
Mr. Welch. See, here is the dilemma from, I think, the
American perspective, and I don't mean to be difficult on these
because you are facing an extraordinarily difficult situation.
We are stuck with the devil we know.
But there is an inherent conflict that I think we might we
want to directly acknowledge, and that is on the one hand, we
believe in free and fair elections; on the other hand, the
person who is going to implement those has already sabotaged
any possibility that the people who are going to vote can be
confident that it is a free and fair election or, if it is, he
won't be able to overturn the action of their vote by
dissolving the parliament they elected. You just acknowledged
that can happen.
Mr. Boucher. And that may or may not happen.
Mr. Welch. Well, it may not happen, but what we have is a
situation where the people in Pakistan, who want to vote, are
no dopes and they understand that ultimately what they vote is
totally secondary to what President Musharraf decides.
Mr. Boucher. If you look at the history of Pakistan, you
have had prime ministers kicked out by presidents and by the
army. Some of that is in the constitution. Some of it is not.
The fact is we are going to have a new political situation
after the election. The parties are participating, and we hope
they can get a fair representation.
Mr. Welch. Just one final question, do you think there
might be some benefit to how the people of Pakistan perceive
the U.S.'s commitment to their right to free and fair elections
if we stated explicitly and directly to President Musharraf
that we believe in order to achieve those free and fair
elections, he should restore the judiciary to its independent
status?
Mr. Boucher. I think some would think that was great and
some would not.
Mr. Welch. OK.
Mr. Boucher. The fact is it is a very political environment
in Pakistan. The judiciary has been a matter of political
controversy. They need to deal with it.
They need to have an independent judiciary, but I can't see
them doing it until after the election with all the players,
including the new players. If there is a good election, the new
players will be credibly elected and have a lot of say in the
matter.
Mr. Welch. I hope you are right.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
I will just make a note that I am stunned when you keep
saying that they are good elections. If the judiciary situation
isn't going to be resolved, then they aren't going to be good
elections in a sense. They are going to be tainted elections.
The question is the degree of taint on that.
But all the testimony we have had in this committee from
all of the people who are experts in here that have been over
there, that have assessed the election process, all remind us
of the important role the judiciary plays in the election.
The election commission, which is still not a full
complement of people on that commission and 1,300 complaints
continue to be resolved to that election commission even before
they have the balloting.
So I am just surprised to hear about good elections. I
think it is a term we might not want to get caught up. They
won't be good elections. They will be elections. The question
will be how much taint is going to be involved in those
elections.
Mr. Boucher. On a scale from terrible to great, it will be
somewhere in the middle.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Yarmuth, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, welcome, and I want to continue this discussion
because it is a line of discussion that we pursued with Senator
Daschle and Mr. Garrett and Mr. Schneider in December.
The question is we all talked about the confidence that the
Pakistani people have in the results of the election. We all
understand that there are two elements to that: the procedural
aspects, which may or may not be the most important aspects,
and then the overall question of whether you can have a
legitimate election in the environment that exists there. That
was prior to the assassination.
One of the things that I asked of them, of the gentlemen
who were here before, was, what measures are going to be used
to determine in your estimation as to whether the election is
legitimate or not, procedural ones being one aspect of it as I
said?
The issue being if we are in a situation in which the only
measure of whether there is a legitimate election is whether
Musharraf is rejected overwhelmingly, then are we not in a
position, a very difficult position of having been perceived as
lending our imprimatur to an election that is flawed and what
the ramifications are for our ongoing efforts in Pakistan and
that part of the world?
Mr. Boucher. I don't think the standard for judging the
election can be who wins and who loses.
There are going to be a lot of voices commenting on the
election, describing what they saw. We are going to have
embassy observers, European observers, we hope American
observers, this huge domestic network that is going to be
there. We will listen to the observers.
We will listen to the media and what do they report, what
do they see.
We will listen to the political parties. Frankly, the
political parties have decided that whatever the distortions,
whatever the possibilities of fraud, whatever the faults and
flaws of the election commission, that they are going to
participate and they are going to go for it.
We are trying to continue to work right up to the last
moment and even afterwards to try to give them every
opportunity to get a fair result, a result that truly reflects
what the people wanted.
I think by listening to all these voices from people on the
ground, in Pakistan on the ground, we will know. We will all
know how good an election it was and how distorted it was.
Obviously, we have to make judgments at that point.
We have made very, very clear to everyone in Pakistan that
we think having a good election is essential to moving forward
with Pakistan. It is an essential part of our relationship, and
it is not in any way contradictory with our overall goals of a
stable society, fighting terrorism. It is part and parcel of
that.
Mr. Yarmuth. I agree with that. But, like I said, when we
had our hearing back in December and I raised this question, I
think there was general agreement that it was possible that
could be the perceptual problem following the election, that
the only way it will be perceived, not because of procedural
matters. The only way it will be perceived as legitimate is if
Musharraf is rejected.
Therefore, if that becomes the measure, what can we do or
have you thought about what we can do to essentially refute the
idea that we were complicit in basically a flawed election
process?
Mr. Boucher. I guess you know some circles will base their
view of the process on the outcome. Did we or did we not get
what we deserve, and people always have a higher expectation of
what they deserve and what they end up with, but I think
generally people have a sense from polling going back over the
last year and the changes in attitudes. People have a sense of
where it might end up.
But I think it is more the reports from the people on the
ground on the conduct of the elections, on how open the
environment was in the end, how much exposure they were able to
get through television or through rallies. It is important to
listen to the details and not just look at the totals.
Yes, some people will complain, and some will complain more
loudly than others, but you know one of the key questions will
be do the political parties accept the outcome to the point
where they think it is basis to form a government and to move
forward.
Mr. Yarmuth. I come from a media background. I would ask
you, are you confident that the media is sufficiently free to
provide the type of open discussion of the election as it is
being conducted, so there is confidence on the part of the
voters that they are getting an accurate report?
Mr. Boucher. There are still some restriction on the media
which we think should be lifted and can be lifted between now
and the elections, but I have to say there is an awful lot of
discussion out there and there is an awful lot of reporting out
there. So there will be a lot there but not as much as perhaps
there should be.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth.
Mr. Platts, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your testimony and the
importance of this topic. I do want to focus a little bit not
just specific on the election but on the militants in Pakistan
and our efforts to both help the Pakistan Government in going
after their militants who are trying to derail democratic
efforts in Pakistan and also how that impacts us in Afghanistan
significantly.
It was reported in the New York Times on Sunday about DNI
McConnell's and CIA Director Hayden's reported recent visit
regarding us having a greater latitude with our CIA operatives
in the tribal areas and that supposedly President Musharraf's
response was a rejection of this idea and that they will
continue on their own to combat this challenge.
One, is this seen by the department and by the
administration as a significant change in President Musharraf's
efforts in working with us in this regard and, if so, what is
going to be our efforts or our response to that change in
position?
Mr. Boucher. Congressman, there is a limit to how much we
can discuss these issues in this session and a limit to how
much I can discuss the business of other departments and
agencies.
I think there is only really one point I can make, and that
is Pakistan has been and continues to be a partner in the war
on terrorism. Many of their soldiers and officials have lost
their lives in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
They have been able to capture hundreds of very dangerous
people, and they have been a partner with us. They have worked
on it. We have worked with them.
It is a sovereign country. We work with them within their
own country as they wish and as they decide, and so we have, I
think, a positive relationship. We are always. We are all
looking for how we can advance this relationship and advance
the cause that we believe in, that we both believe in and that
is the fight against terrorism.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Platts, if I might just say, we are going
to allow you that extra time. I don't want to take it out of
your time.
You weren't here at the beginning to note that Ambassador
Boucher is going to be testifying at 1 p.m., in front of the
Intelligence Committee to cover those areas that can't be
covered here, including some questions about a different view
of what the Ambassador says in terms of some of the Pakistani
troops laying down their arms and being taken, imprisoned or
otherwise set aside on that. But to the extent that the
Ambassador can't get into that detail here, it will be covered
in the other hearing, and I think you will have access to the
minutes.
Mr. Platts. OK.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do respect the sensitivity and what you can say in this
open setting, but clearly what goes on with the CIA and with
the DNI impacts your department's ability to then work on these
issues of our relations with Pakistan and specifically the
election.
I don't want to diminish Pakistan's efforts in partnering
with us. I was in Pakistan in September, in fact, on the
anniversary of September 11th and appreciate the sacrifices
that their troops and personnel have made in trying to assist
us and combat these radical militants.
But in the FATA region, the North-West Province area, my
understanding is the administration has talked about additional
hundreds of millions of dollars of aid for those specific
regions.
I guess maybe from the Department of State's perspective,
how do we, to our taxpayers, say we are going to commit these
hundreds of millions to an area that we don't have confidence
or aren't under any reasonable control by the Pakistani
Government, yet we are going to put more of our money into that
region?
Mr. Boucher. It is a difficult area to work in not only
because of the insecurity but because of these unusual
governing arrangements that go back to colonial times.
The plan for sustainable development in the tribal areas
was developed very closely by the Pakistanis with us, and it is
a solid program, we think. One strong element of that program
is in the early stages now is to start building the
administrative apparatus to reach out to the people, to conduct
projects, to build bridges and schools and conduct health
programs in a verifiable and auditable way so that they have a
set of institutions that can carry out projects in those areas
and get things done.
We do have some experience up there. Our Narcotics Affairs
Section is building roads, doing training up there for a number
of years. The Agency for International Development has built, I
think, about half the 65 schools that they have planned to
build in those areas. We have child and maternal health
programs in the tribal areas already.
So we have some experience working with NGO's, working with
contractors, working with people who can get things done in
those areas.
Now, obviously, it is easier to do things where the
situation is calmer. So, at any given moment, we may be working
here and not there, and that will probably continue.
But, yes, we do have plans. We are going to put about $750
million into this area over 5 years, and the central goal is to
give these people a chance at economic opportunity, a chance at
jobs and a chance to be part of the national economy.
We will be coming to Congress also with legislation on
reconstruction opportunities to open up opportunities there as
well.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Chair, if I can just have a quick followup.
Mr. Secretary, in my numerous visits to Afghanistan where
we have had some important successes in aid investment and
development--whether it be roads, schools, hospitals--a key in
being out with PRTs and Jalalabad, it was kind of a role model
when I was there a few years back for how to do this. A very
important part of this effort was partnering our military with
our USAID officials and the civilian-military partnership that
provided the security along with the investment of the
development effort.
How are we going to ensure that same ability in this area
where Musharraf is very publicly resisting us having a greater
presence?
Mr. Boucher. The basic development plan is a Pakistani
development plan. It is about a $2 billion plan. We are putting
in $750 million over 5 years. They will be about $100 million a
year for a slightly longer period.
We are also working with their military on two things. One
is to transform the Frontier Corps, the local security forces,
into a more capable force and, second of all, to help with some
of their units who need to do the job right now of fighting the
militancy, and working with them in these parallel tracks and
talking to them, working with them about how they can make
these two tracks work in tandem, both of fighting the militants
but also offering opportunity to the people who live there.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. You are welcome.
Ms. McCollum, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When elections take place on a weak foundation, they can
actually create divisions that democracy is supposed to be able
to heal. I had the opportunity, thanks to Mr. Tierney, to be in
Pakistan and met with many of the people, NGO groups networking
on the election issue.
I was pleased to hear in your testimony that they have now
published the rolls. When we had lunch and spoke with people at
length, the media hadn't been brought into how they were going
about setting up the rolls for the elections. There was no
transparency. There was no public looking in to see as to how
these elections were being prepared which was a huge mistake in
my opinion, and I think we all share that and express that.
So it was nice to hear that there has been a little bit of
action taken, but I am still very concerned about the upcoming
elections in Pakistan. The potential for violence and
instability, I mean we saw that recently with the assassination
in Pakistan.
We are witnessing now with what is taking place in Kenya, a
month since the Kenyan elections, and I don't think anybody in
their wildest expectations thought what was taking place in
Kenya would, the riots, the killing, the mass, mass killings.
In fact, in the city of Nairobi, a moderate opposition leader
was gunned down, assassinated. The New York Times said,
``Kenyans are literally ripping their country apart, uprooting
miles of railroad track, chopping down telephone poles, burning
government offices and looting schools.''
The potential for a flawed election to destabilize Pakistan
is a real one. Considering last year's challenges back and
forth with who was even going to be allowed to stand for
election and the assassination which I had mentioned already, I
am very concerned about a breakdown and the effect it would
have on regional stability.
So my question is, what steps should the United States and
the international community be taking to prepare in case
widespread violence and destabilization would follow an
election in Pakistan? What steps have been taken?
What discussions are taking place because the potential of
spilling over into affecting NATO forces, into Afghanistan is
real?
As we have respected and I believe we should respect the
sovereignty of Pakistan and what operations are conducted
within its borders, if this comes apart, what happens next?
Is there a Plan B and are we working with the international
community, so it is well understood what the international
community's reaction would be?
Mr. Boucher. Ma'am, I appreciate the question. I think I
have to say, honestly, our first plan is Plan A is to try to
make this process as good as possible.
We do know the history of elections in Pakistan and where
there has been fraudulent elections, widespread abuses, there
has been violence afterwards. That is one more reason why it is
important to have as good an election as possible, and
everybody should work on that, and that is what we are doing
and trying to get others to do.
The army is going to deploy to try to provide security at
polling places and keep down what you might call the level of
violence, the fact that the elections themselves are targeted
by the violent extremists. Just as Benazir Bhutto was, other
political leaders and government officials in Pakistan are
still being targeted.
The militants are anti-election as well as anti-
establishment and anti-politics and against the political
leaders. So there is a heavy threat that comes from that, from
that side of Pakistan, from the militancy and the violent
militancy that comes out of the tribal areas.
Exactly what we would do in the case of widespread violence
after the election really depends on what it was and where it
came from. If it were ignited by the militants, there is a
chance that we could work and see the society band together,
but if it were the result of electoral fraud, that obviously
creates a much more complicated situation.
So I don't think I am really able to give you a clear
answer right now as exactly what we would do, but I think what
you point out is a very real possibility and we all need to
push very hard to try to avoid coming to that point.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I have just a second left.
On an earlier question, you were asked about the Scotland
Yard investigation. Mr. Tierney asked you about that.
You, if I heard you correctly and I want to give you an
opportunity to make sure I understood what you said correctly.
If I heard you correctly, you said that there was no need for
the United Nations or any other such organization to be
involved in that. You thought that the Pakistanis and this very
limited Scotland Yard hearing would hold it.
That wasn't the U.S.'s position with the assassination in
Lebanon. How is this so radically different that we would have
such a silent voice on having a robust investigation?
Mr. Boucher. I think we have been very clear on the need
for a robust and thorough investigation. The question is who
should conduct it.
I don't think the conditions that led us to conclude that
there was an absolute necessity of a U.N. investigation in the
Lebanon case necessarily apply in Pakistan.
We will certainly be watching this investigation very, very
closely. We think the addition of Scotland Yard, whatever their
mandate, does help provide more insight and credibility into
the conduct of the investigation, and we will all be watching
very carefully to see how thoroughly it is done and what the
results are.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Shays, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Again, Ambassador, thank you for being here.
I wrestle with this, and I realize there are limits to what
you can say publicly, but what I wrestle with is that
Musharraf, however well intended, overthrew a duly elected
government that was secular, not sectarian, and that in order
to retain power, my read is that he has had to play over the
past few years to the sectarian interests and that now has put
him in the mess that he is in.
I can't get beyond the fact that he basically dissolved the
judiciary and put them aside, and it seems that almost
everything that follows from that point becomes a farce. I
wrestle with the fact that we have elections, and I say, well,
you have democratic elections, but you have a government that
overthrew a branch that is supposed to guarantee that the
constitution is followed in a democratic way.
Walk me through what I have just described and tell me
where my fears are misplaced.
Mr. Boucher. I think your fears are correct, but we won't
know until the process unfolds whether they actually come to
pass.
First of all, I think you have to look back at the history
of Pakistan and say, you know I am not the world's expert on
this, but in my brief readings I think just about every leader
has had a confrontation and sometimes a very difficult one with
the judiciary.
You referred to Nawaz Sharif and the man that was
overthrown by Musharraf. At one point, his party, people went
and ran the supreme court out of town or at least out of their
building. So it is the confrontation between the executive and
judiciary in Pakistan goes back a long way. It has been a very
political issue throughout the history.
That doesn't deny the fact that there absolutely needs to
be an independent judiciary in Pakistan. The question is how do
you get one. At this point, having a legitimately elected prime
minister and political leaders who can come out of this
election and be part of that process of deciding how to
restructure the judiciary is very important, and that is where.
Yes, the process is distorted by all sorts of things.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask this question.
Mr. Boucher. By restrictions on the media, the lack of
independent judiciary, all that stuff.
Mr. Shays. In our judgment, our government's judgment, did
the judiciary overstep its bounds? Did it do something that was
contrary to their powers?
Mr. Boucher. I don't think that is a judgment to us to
make. But, no, we thought that kicking out the judiciary was a
bad move, was a real mistake.
Mr. Shays. Well, I will just conclude by saying that my
questions were also going to focus on the violence that is to
come, and what happened in Kenya strikes me very likely to
happen in Pakistan. I don't know how we respond to it, but I
think it is going to be very likely to happen.
Mr. Boucher. Well, we will know in a few weeks whether we
have violence, whether we have, how good an election we have.
Mr. Shays. Right, and that is true. Do we have a
contingency plan to respond to violence if it takes place?
Mr. Boucher. I said we have to deal with how it comes from.
Mr. Shays. I don't need to know what it is. I don't need to
know what it is, but do we have plans if that happens?
Mr. Boucher. We have looked at various scenarios, but until
you find, you know until you see the actual situation, it is
very hard to decide precisely how to deal with it.
Mr. Shays. Well, thank you again for being here.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding these hearings in such
a timely way.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Boucher, I just want to followup on that particular
thing because we have made that an emphasis of the hearing on
this.
Mark Schneider, who was here on behalf of the International
Crisis Group, spends a lot of time over there. His testimony
was this: Musharraf, by permanently barring the previous
supreme court and the provincial high court judges who refused
to bow to his edict, has assured that the commission will be
compromised of his handpicked choices.
District returning officers and assistant returning
officers, who supervise the actual polling process in each
province, are either district court judges themselves or
appointed by district court judges, all under the guidance of
the provincial high courts, whose new members are suspect.
Remember that Musharraf has sacked 13 of the 17 supreme
court judges and more than 40 high court judges, and any
electoral complaint of fraud, rigging or electoral violation
ultimately would be heard on appeal to those courts. Stacking
the full range of high courts nationally and provincially,
including naming a totally new high court in Islamabad, amounts
to hijacking the electoral process itself.
That is our concern, I think, in a nutshell, that the very
people that are supposed to set up the process before
balloting, assure that the voting polls are there, assure that
the balloting process is legitimate, assure that complaints
about that are determined in a fair way are people that have
been put in place by President Musharraf whose own election is
suspect, whose dismissal of the original court was suspect and
now whose appointees are suspect.
The people we have heard from and all the parties, they may
be participating in this election, but all of them feel
strongly that is the crux of the matter and that, in essence,
again they can't get a fair election. They can just get the
best that they can get.
The question is how tainted is it going to be. If it is too
tainted, all hell is going to break loose.
So I just leave that to tell you the ground work of some of
the testimony that raises that question and why we think it is
important.
Mr. Boucher. Can I make one quick comment on that?
Mr. Tierney. Certainly.
Mr. Boucher. I don't disagree that is a serious concern,
but I do think that there are a number of ways to deal with it.
No matter how beholden or dishonest any individual
returning officer is along the chain, if he has to do his
counting and his business in full transparency with media
watching and the parties watching and the observers watching,
it is a lot harder for him to add in a few thousand votes here
and a few thousand votes there. We have pushed very, very hard
on the transparency issue for that reason.
Mr. Tierney. Except, Ambassador, there are 64,000 polling
places. There will not be observers at every one. There will
not be media at every one.
Mr. Boucher. There will be.
Mr. Tierney. There will be plenty of opportunity, as
historically has happened in the past, for mischief to occur,
and that is the problem. It is such a vast area.
Now we would like that to be cleared up before the
election. We would like the media code of conduct to be changed
before the election. We would like the people that are in
prison to be out before the election changes.
But when we have Mr. Negraponte, Ambassador Negraponte
making statements that President Musharraf is indispensable to
the United States, what leverage do we have?
What motivates him to changing his conduct if we already
told him you are indispensable, we put all our chips with you,
we don't care how the election comes out, you are going to be
there, we are going to deal with you?
What leverage do we have with him to change any of these
things?
Mr. Boucher. He has put himself in a new position, and we
are going to have to deal with him in that new position. He has
committed himself to a democratic transition, to a transparent
election, and I think the leverage is his own commitments.
The leverage is that he has made those statements. He has
made them in public repeatedly to us and to others, and we
expect him to live up to those commitments.
Mr. Tierney. Well, according to the latest poll over there,
a really comprehensive public poll, 67 percent of Pakistanis
want him to resign immediately and 70 percent say his
government doesn't deserve reelection. So he is treading on
some incredibly thin ice.
I just hope that we concentrate on not necessarily bucking
up Mr. Musharraf but bucking up the people's choice over there
and working with them on that and somehow find leverage,
despite the fact that the administration has turned him into
indispensable. Find some leverage maybe in view of the fact
that General Kayani has set some distance to him now, saying
that the army will stay out of the elections, maybe since the
retired army officers have made a statement against Musharraf
or whatever. Maybe we can capitalize on that for some leverage
to get him to do what we think needs to be done before the
elections.
Mr. Boucher. We will work with all the institutions in
Pakistan, the civil society, the presidency, the army, the
politicians, the elected prime minister. It is very important
for us that there be a balanced and stable leadership and group
in Pakistan.
But I think, fundamentally, our view is let the people vote
and let the votes be counted fairly.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I don't want to go around in a circle on
that.
What are we doing? What is the United States doing to press
for the release, the immediate release of those, the political
opposition leaders, the judges and the bar association members
who are in prison, Aitzaz Ahsan, the president of the Supreme
Court Bar amongst them?
Are we just passively asking nicely and then letting
whatever the answer is go or are we aggressively insisting that
these people ought to be released?
Mr. Boucher. No. We have pursued this at all levels. We
have raised it repeatedly. We have made public statements, like
my statements today, that these people should be released from
detention.
Mr. Tierney. It was reported that the Government of
Pakistan expelled an American journalist, Nick Schmidle,
because of an article that he wrote in the New York Times
Magazine about the next generation of Taliban, local Taliban in
Pakistan and the electoral prospects for the religious
political parties. Are we doing anything with regard to that
expulsion? Have we taken a position?
Mr. Boucher. We have raised it with the Pakistani
Government and don't think it was justified.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Welch, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Welch. No, thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Platts, do you have any other questions?
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just an observation, we seem really to have a dilemma, that
we need Musharraf more than he needs us and we are willing to
and want to hope that he supports free and fair elections, but
we will continue to support him if he doesn't. It seems to boil
down to that.
In the world of terrorist threat, maybe that is the
decision that the U.S. Government has to make, but I wonder
whether we should be more explicit about the real balance of
interest is here so that there is not a cynical reaction on the
part of Pakistanis.
Mr. Boucher. I have to say I think you know we have a
fundamental interest in the Pakistani people and their success.
We have a strong interest in fighting terrorism. But we also
see a successful transition to democracy as part of that
process, as part of the stability and the platform, if you
wish, to fight terrorism.
Our interests are not dominated by any one segment of
society or any one leader. We look forward to working with all
segments of society and all the leaders that emerge,
particularly those who emerge from the election.
Mr. Tierney. Ambassador, I can't leave without asking you
one question. I don't mean to be a wise guy on this, but I am
trying to assess our degree of importance that we put on this
issue, and I think it is high.
I think your earlier statement of this, of General
Musharraf's actions in dismissing the court and declaring
emergency and changing the constitution were regarded at one
time as a bump in the road. Is it fair to say that was an
unfortunate expression, that we put a much higher degree?
Mr. Boucher. I said a lot of things that day. That was,
unfortunately, one phrase that I used and I immediately
regretted it. It was a very serious problem, and we are trying
our best to overcome some things.
Mr. Tierney. That is terrific to hear, and I am glad you
say that.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. We have made a few of those.
Mr. Tierney. We have, which that is why I want to give the
Ambassador a chance to do a do-over, as they say on the
playground, on that.
Ambassador, the last question I have is on December 21st, I
sent a letter to the President, outlining a number of issues
and concerns that have been raised here today. Do you have any
understanding of where that letter response is in process and
when we might expect a reply?
Mr. Boucher. I am sure there are people working on it right
now, and you will get your reply. As soon as I can find out who
they are and what they have done with it, we will get it to you
quickly, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Fine then.
Ambassador, let me close just by thanking you for making
yourself available today. We give you a little bit of time to
maybe take a breath before you go before the Intelligence
Committee where I will see you and Mr. Issa, I believe, will
also be there. Again, thank you.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Tierney. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]