PUBLIC POLICY UPDATE

April 8, 2011

WASHINGTON UPDATE

One-Week CR with Cuts to International Affairs Unlikely to Move, as Shutdown Looms

As the Update went to press, the end of the current continuing resolution at midnight Friday was
fast approaching, with no agreement yet on a bill to provide funding for the rest of the fiscal year.
Senate Democrats reported that tentative agreement had been reached on spending cuts of $36
billion (with the most recent additional $3 billion in cuts having come from the Department of
Defense) but that disagreements on “policy riders”—such as those banning federal funding for
Planned Parenthood and for certain functions of the Environmental Protection Agency—continued
to prevent a final agreement.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) disputed that characterization, saying agreement on
numbers had not yet been reached. Federal agencies started putting into effect their shutdown
plans, notifying employees who would and wouldn’t be furloughed and in some cases collecting
blackberries from those deemed “nonessential.”

Thursday, the House passed a one-week funding extension with an additional $12 billion in
spending cuts and a prohibition on even local public funding for abortions in the District of
Columbia, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D- NV) dismissed the bill as a “nonstarter.” The
White House issued a blunt statement calling the short-term bill a distraction from the efforts to
reach a long-term agreement, saying the president would veto the measure if it reached his desk.

The additional cuts in the bill (compared here to FY2010 total funding levels, counting
supplementals) included:
 an 11 percent reduction for the International Organizations and Programs account,
 a 19 percent cut for the Millennium Challenge Corporation,
 a 14 percent cut for P.L. 480 Title II Food for Peace grants,
 6-8 percent cuts for the two peacekeeping accounts, a zeroing out of funding for the Asian
Development Fund,
 a 19 percent cut to funding for the African Development Fund,
 a 7 percent cut to the U.S. contribution to the World Bank’s International Development
Association, and
 a 17 percent cut to the Clean Technology Fund.

House FY2012 Budget Resolution Proposes 30% Cut to International Affairs Spending
The House Budget Committee approved a budget resolution this week for FY2012, with a
nonbinding recommendation for discretionary spending in the International Affairs account of
$32.3 billion. It also contains an account (Function 970) that it calls the “Global War on Terrorism”
account. This appears to fully fund the administration’s request for what has been previously
called the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account, apparently including the
international affairs portion of that OCO request, which is $8.7 billion. That puts the total
international affairs recommendation in the Ryan budget at $41 billion. This would represent a
reduction of $17.6 billion from the total FY2010 level, a 30 percent cut.

1
 Ryan budget recommendation for international affairs: $41 billion
FY 2010 total enacted for international affairs: $58.6 billion
Ryan recommended cut: $17.6 billion = 30%

As a budget resolution, when passed next week as is expected, this would only set the overall
discretionary spending level, with the proposed levels for the individual budget functions within
that overall pie (like International Affairs) being purely advisory. That dividing up of the
discretionary pie will be determined later, by the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in the
form of allocations for the appropriations subcommittees.

Also, since the Democratic Senate will certainly not pass this Republican resolution or anything
close to it, this resolution will only affect the House. The Senate will eventually set its own,
presumably higher, discretionary spending cap and subcommittee allocations, and the differences
between the House and Senate levels will eventually have to be negotiated just as the FY2011
levels are being negotiated now.

As usual, the FY2010 level used here for comparisons includes all FY2010 funding, including
supplemental funding (which, in turn, includes supplemental funding that was “forward funded”
during FY2009). Other observers discount forward funding and/or some or all of the other FY2010
supplemental funding when calculating their FY2010 baseline, and arrive at lower percentage cut
numbers. Still others have compared the Ryan budget to the administration’s FY2012 request,
rather than to FY2010.

These differences in methodology should not distract from the central point that the Ryan budget
recommends severe cuts to international affairs spending.

UPCOMING HEARINGS

Hearing: Budget for the U.S. Agency for International Development

Committee: Senate Appropriations—State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
Subcommittee
Witnesses: TBA
When: Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 10:00 a.m.
Where: 138 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Contact: 202-224-7363 http://www.appropriations.senate.gov

Hearing: International Development Priorities in the FY2012 Budget

Committee: Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Witnesses: TBA
When: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 2:00 p.m.
Where: 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Contact: 202-224-4651 http://www.foreign.senate.gov

Hearing: FY2012 Budget for Africa

Committee: Senate Foreign Relations—African Affairs Subcommittee
Witnesses: TBA
When: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 2:30 p.m.
Where: 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building

2
Contact: 202-224-4651 http://www.foreign.senate.gov

Hearing: Crisis in Cote d’Ivoire: Implications for the Country and Region
Committee: House Foreign Affairs—Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee
Witnesses: William Fitzgerald, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of African Affairs
When: Tuesday, April 13, 2011, 9:00 a.m.
Where: 2172 Rayburn House Office Building
Contact: 202-225-5021 http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov

Hearing: State—Foreign Operations Budget

Committee: State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee hearing on FY2012
appropriations for agencies under its jurisdiction
Witnesses: Members of Congress
When: Tuesday, April 13, 2011, 10:00 a.m.
Where: 2362-A Rayburn House Office Building
Contact: 202-225-2771 http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov

Hearing: Priorities for U.S. Assistance in the Western Hemisphere

Committee: House Foreign Affairs—Western Hemisphere Subcommittee
Witnesses: Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere
Affairs; and Mark Feierstein, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean
at USAID
When: Tuesday, April 13, 2011, 10:30 a.m.
Where: 2122 Rayburn House Office Building
Contact: 202-225-5021 http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov

Hearing: State, Foreign Operations Budget

Committee: House Appropriations—State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
Subcommittee
Witnesses: Members of Congress
When: Wednesday, April 14, 2011, 10:00 a.m.
Where: 2362-A Rayburn House Office Building
Contact: 202-225-2771 http://house.appropriations.gov

HEARING SUMMARIES

House Foreign Affairs Committee

Reforming the United Nations: The Future of U.S. Policy
April 7, 2011

Witness:
 Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the UN

Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) began the hearing by remarking on the staggering growth of
the UN budget over the last 10 years. She stated that it has nearly doubled in size but shown no
resulting increases in transparency or accountability. She believes that inefficiency and
redundancy run rampant throughout the organization. The chair stated that efforts to institute
reform need to include withholding U.S. contribution—funds that make up 22 percent of the UN’s
budget. She also stressed the hypocrisy of a Human Rights Council whose membership included
known human rights abusers like Libya, with its apparent disdain for U.S. ally, Israel.

3
Ranking Member Howard L. Berman (D-CA) focused his opening statement on the benefits
international organizations like the UN provide to the U.S. Just recently, the authorization for a
No-Fly Zone over Libya saved thousands of lives. Berman stated that while everyone agrees that
the UN badly needs reform, withdrawing U.S. participation will only weaken its ability to institute
change. The last attempt to bring about reform through withholding ended in abject failure. He
remarked that recent reports have shown progress in all major areas, all of which resulted from
active U.S. participation and engagement. The ranking member also echoed the chair’s statement
regarding the Human Rights Council and Israel.

Ambassador Susan Rice started off her testimony by stating that current fiscal conditions
illustrate quite clearly that U.S. resources are not unlimited. However, participation in international
organizations like the UN enables the U.S. to pursue its interests while sharing the cost burden
with the international community.

Rice outlined five uses of UN participation:

 the prevention and mitigation of conflict through the use of peacekeeping forces,
 helping to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons,
 isolating supporters of terrorism and human rights abusers,
 providing humanitarian aid in the event of disaster, and
 engaging in political events that advance U.S. interests.

To reform the UN, the U.S. delegation urgently presses for greater budget discipline, a culture of
accountability and transparency, a results-oriented focus and changes in the procurement
process. Also, she stated that efforts have been made to ensure that members of the Human
Rights Council reflect the goal of the institution. She concluded her testimony by stating that while
far from perfect, the UN advances U.S. interests through burden sharing and consensus building.

Questioning:

Ranking Member Berman asked Rice about the expected results that U.S. withdrawal from the
UN would have on world affairs. She responded that U.S. influence would be greatly diminished.
She elaborated by stating that the bulk of U.S. funding goes toward the maintenance of
peacekeeping activities in Sudan and the Ivory Coast. The situations in these countries would
only worsen without the presence of these forces. In her view, burden sharing actually has the
effect of increasing U.S. influence.

Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) asked what the role of UN peacekeepers in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) would be after July 9 and whether anything was being done to address
the apparent abuses committed by UN troops. Rice responded that the UN is currently in the
process of investigating the allegations and evaluating the role of its forces in the region. She
stressed that the DRC is among the gravest concerns of both the U.S. and the UN.

Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) asked Rice to evaluate how the UN was pressuring for results on the
issue of Abyei in Sudan, as well as UN actions in the Ivory Coast. Rice answered that the recently
appointed ambassador to Southern Sudan, Princeton Lyman, is actively working to push for a
resolution of the ownership issue surrounding Abyei. So far it has been difficult, with both sides
being obstinate. The UN has been highly active in the Ivory Coast; it backed the election results
that declared Ouattara the winner, and asked Gbagbo to step down. Peacekeeping forces also
took out heavy weapons and protect civilians in Abidjan.

4
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked whether UN resolutions limited U.S. authority and
decision making in any capacity. Rice stated plainly that these resolutions do not limit U.S.
authority in any manner. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the U.S. has the
capability to veto any proposed resolution.

Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY) asked why Rice felt that the Bush administration decided
against withholding U.S. contributions to achieve desired reforms. Rice responded that, in her
view, it is not wise or beneficial to use withholding, because it is ineffective and reduces U.S.
influence globally. Active participation in the reform process has proven to be more beneficial,
achieving many of the reforms members of Congress seek.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Confirmation Hearing: Mara E. Rudman
April 5, 2011

Witness:
 Mara E. Rudman, to be Assistant Administrator for the Middle East, USAID

Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA) opened the proceedings by remarking on the historic changes
being witnessed in the Middle East. As assistant administrator at USAID, Mara E. Rudman will
oversee the implementation of the agency’s programs in this region. These programs will be
essential in facilitating a democratic transition in the Middle East through the promotion of health,
education and good governance. U.S. assistance has come under criticism recently for its support
of corrupt and incompetent governments. USAID must work to engage the people of countries
such as Egypt, Tunisia and Syria more directly to avoid this. Foreign assistance to this region
must continue, even during this challenging budget climate. The tools of USAID are essential to
providing humanitarian relief to Libya, initiating economic development and political reform in
Egypt, and alleviating the crisis in Yemen. A strategic and targeted assistance approach will be
needed to meet the unique challenges of the present.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) introduced the appointee and noted Rudman’s exceptional service
to the country. She has served on the National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton
and Obama. He believes that Rudman’s recent posting as U.S. special envoy for the Middle East
peace process will give her valuable experience that she can take into her new position.

Rudman began her testimony echoing the comments on the difficult timing commensurate with
this appointment. She also reiterated the president’s statement that the U.S. must stand with
those who share its ideals, especially in the volatile Middle East. She hopes to help Administrator
Shah in his efforts to modernize and strengthen USAID, making it once again the premiere
development agency in the world. A major portion of this streamlining process includes the
implementation of a clear strategic vision with the goal of managing existing relationships into a
transition from development assistance to cooperation. She concluded her testimony by noting
that the events of recent weeks, though tumultuous and uncertain, illustrate a universal desire for
transparency and good governance.

Questioning:

Casey asked the appointee how she intends to approach rebalancing U.S. priorities in the region
in the wake of recent events. Rudman responded that priorities in the region must take into

5
account USAID’s country-by-country assessment of the Middle East. The agency will need to be
agile and responsive to cope with the rapid pace of events.

In reference to Lebanon, Casey expressed his concern over the possibility of USAID funding
getting into the hands of Hezbollah. Rudman responded that USAID will have to be careful and
measured in its approach to the region. The government is still being formed in Lebanon and
USAID is planning for multiple contingencies, with a focus on economic growth and the
development of civil society.

Casey then turned to the $440 million requested in President Obama’s FY2012 budget to
strengthen the Palestinian Authority, asking how USAID planned on using it. USAID has
established a partnership with Palestinian leadership and the Israeli government. The Palestinian
leadership has a plan for establishing good governance, water availability, road construction, and
economic development.

Casey then asked Rudman for a sense of USAID’s work in Yemen. She stated that USAID is
currently examining the situation while conducting capacity building activities despite the violence.
She believes there are still levels within the Yemeni government that will cooperate with USAID.
This work aims to create more broad support for transparency in addition to economic support.

In his final question, Casey asked about specific activities regarding the water shortage and
institution-building in Yemen. Rudman answered that it is important for USAID to determine the
identity of key players, technocrats and most effective bureaucrats. The limited resources must be
used efficiently, and good process must be established to get policy right

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Confirmation Hearing: J. Scott Gration
April 5, 2011

Witness:
 J. Scott Gration, to be ambassador to the Republic of Kenya

Sen. Christopher Coons (D-DE) began the hearing by focusing on the larger themes
surrounding the Republic of Kenya in the wake of the political violence following the 2007
presidential election. These include the government’s accountability, its treatment and attitudes
toward human rights, and the overall transition to democracy. He stressed the importance of
implementing the new constitution and preparing for the coming presidential elections in 2012.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) expressed his keen interest in J. Scott Gration’s plan to apply
lessons learned from his work as special envoy to Sudan to the situation in Kenya. He noted the
brewing refugee situation along the northern border with Somalia and the potential crisis that
could emerge from a lack of attention. NGO dedication in this region has been key to providing
humanitarian assistance to people in this region.

Gration testified that the people of Kenya have embarked on an ambitious campaign to reform the
government in their country in the wake of the violence of 2007. The U.S. must do whatever it can
to assist these efforts and bring about greater transparency in next year’s presidential election. He
believes that the conflict in Somalia will have a great impact on events in Kenya in the coming
years. Efforts must be taken to not only ensure the well-being of refugees coming into Kenya but
also securing the border against intrusion by al-Shabaab militants.

6
Questioning:

Sen. Coons asked the ambassador about his plans for running the largest embassy on the
continent, as well as managing relations between civilian and military personnel in the region.
Gration responded that his job was to manage, orchestrate and provide a strategic vision. He
hopes to be able to bring all branches of government together to formulate the best policy
possible, drawing on his experience in the military as well as the Foreign Service.

Coons asked Gration to detail any lessons he learned as special envoy to Sudan and whether
they could be applied to Kenya. Gration believes that his primary mission in Sudan was to save as
many lives as possible after the NGOs were thrown out of Darfur. This required the use of
pressures and incentives to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)
and establish a modicum of transparency and trust in the region. A similar system of trust and
transparency will be needed in Kenya to achieve desired political reforms.

Sen. Isakson inquired about the conditions of the northern border refugee camp at Dadaab.
Gration answered that currently there are about 315,000 to 350,000 refugees living in the camp.
The camp needs more land, but the Kenyan government is reluctant to grant it out of fear that the
camp with grow beyond control. Gration admitted that the long term solution is to bring peace and
stability to Somalia.

Coons also asked about actions being taken to strengthen democratic institutions in Kenya and
what potential flashpoints could erupt in the future. Gration answered that in order to strengthen
these institutions, efforts to encourage countrywide participation, anticorruption measures, civil
society involvement and a dialogue with disaffected youth must all take place. USAID must target
education, push accountability and involve NGOs and other multilateral agencies. Finally, an
election as successful as the referendum in Sudan will do much to stabilize the country.

As his last question, Coons asked about Feed the Future (FTF) and Global Health Initiative (GHI)
efforts in Kenya and the possibility of urging the Kenyan government to assume a greater share of
the cost burden in these tough fiscal times. Gration answered that Kenya is currently too
dependent on rain-fed agriculture, but that FTF efforts to improve subsistence farming will
improve this. Furthermore, FTF’s value-chain analysis of storage, market access and banking
capacity can be included. Finally, GHI has partnered with the government to create a transition
program for public sector involvement. This will focus on building capacity with programs like
nurse training.

Federal Commission on Wartime Contracting

U.S. Agency for International Development Improvements
April 1, 2011
Witnesses:
 Rajiv Shah, Administrator, USAID

Co-chair Christopher Shays opened the hearing by pointing out that at USAID, contractors and
grant recipients are the default option to fill growing needs. He acknowledged that coordinating
contracts can be a difficult task, even for the Department of Defense. USAID’s operations are
further complicated by the need to coordinate with the U.S. military on stabilization projects in
combat zones. The commission has concerns whether USAID: has the resources and systems
needed for effective oversight of contractors; is adequately staffed to control waste, fraud and
abuse; gives due regard to the sustainability of projects; its Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) is

7
adequately coordinated with the larger USAID mission; has adequate safeguards for private
security contractors; and is promoting competition and accountability when choosing contractors.

Administrator Rajiv Shah began by stating that USAID has taken to heart many of the
comments and recommendations that have come out of previous commission hearings. In
Afghanistan, USAID works side-by-side with military actors and plays a crucial role in stabilization,
improving the quality of services available and ultimately helping to create an environment that will
allow U.S. troops to withdraw. He said that these efforts by USAID are critical to the
administration’s transition policy. Making projects sustainable and durable in order to facilitate that
transition is a specific goal.

In Iraq, the USAID mission has shifted from counterinsurgency and stabilization programs to long
term development goals, such as establishing strong governance and resettling refugees. USAID
takes constant reform and performance improvement incredibly seriously. The interim report
Shays includes 32 recommendations, most of which are strongly supported and consistent with
USAID Forward.

USAID should be an accountable civilian partner of the U.S. military and it should engage in
interagency planning and the implementation and review of programs. USAID must engage in
procurement reform to change contract management and oversight. USAID also needs more
flexibility in human resources and more targeted investment in basic human resources to allow
more efficiency and effectiveness. To carry out these reforms, USAID and the State Department
must have sufficient resources to ensure the mission and transition in Afghanistan is successful.
Overall, the work of USAID is about achieving results, and there have been aggressive reforms
implemented in the past year to make USAID more effective and results-oriented.

Questioning:

In response to questions, Administrator Shah noted that while development takes time, there
are things that USAID can do in the short term to lay the groundwork for effective development
and build governance capacity. But there are also short-term actions that can undermine long-
term development. In this case, USAID must take an interagency approach to make sure
Washington, Kabul and all levels have a voice and ownership of projects. In this way, short-term
stabilization outcomes are able to lay the groundwork for a long-term development strategy.

In order to prevent project failures, USAID has a new evaluation policy that requires every major
project to have baseline data, mechanisms for collecting counterfactual observations and an
analysis of that information. While this is a very different approach than the Commander’s
Emergency Response Plan (CERP), it can be integrated and the agencies can work together as
has been seen with the provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs).

Embedding procurement, financial management, and implementation capability in an Afghan

institution and then working over years to build its basic capability is part of the sustainability
strategy and has worked well with the Department of Health. There is a sense of urgency for the
reforms at USAID due to the nature of the work to save lives and protect U.S. national security.
There is also a sense that USAID has not been properly resourced over the last several decades.

Commissioner Katherine Schinasi stated that a common heard complaint from implementing
partners is that there are not enough USAID personnel with whom they can interact. Another
concern is that agencies such as USAID and the military are not working together, and are in turn
being wasteful and inefficient. Shah stated that private security is critical for many large-scale

8
development projects carried out by USAID. The administrator also noted that for some “mission
critical” projects, USAID is looking at ways to ensure that it has a security partnership with U.S.
forces that are able to provide security. He said that it is important to reduce the reliance on
private security contractors (PSCs) but to also increase oversight of the PSCs it needs.

He noted that USAID staff in-country has increased since the work in Afghanistan began and that
allows for rapid growth and more projects. To facilitate travel and security for these workers
USAID has partnerships with the military and uses with locally employed staff and foreign service
nationals who have more freedom to move around to review and see programs.

In response to questions by Co-chair Shays about oversight of projects and Commissioner

Charles Tiefer about the recent allegations of USAID contractors not properly alerting the U.S.
government of concerns with the Kabul Bank, Shah referenced a partner vetting system that has
been put in place in Afghanistan. He also noted that USAID is deeply integrated with the Afghan
Finance Threat Center.

Commissioner Dov S. Zakheim stated that OTI and the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA) seem especially suited to contingencies like Afghanistan and Iraq, more so
than the whole of USAID. However, OTI and OFDA seem to be outliers that have their own
budget control and programs. They make a huge difference, but seem like they are different than
the rest of USAID. One of the key issues is the organization of USAID’s culture and a lack of
cultural mindedness.

In response, Shah said that some USAID Forward reforms are focused on speed, flexibility and
efficiency, and are subtly aimed at making all of USAID’s programs more like OTI and OFDA. He
said that USAID has created a new auditing tool, which was developed in Washington in
conjunction with USAID in Kabul and is being used to review all new programs and ones in
progress.

Commissioner Clark Kent Ervin laid out the basic criteria that should be in place before USAID
undertakes a project: local buy-in, culturally appropriateness, locally sustainability, local
investment, competitively awarded contracts, and past contractor performance.

Commissioner Grant S. Green expressed concerns with the status of the Synchronized
Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT); that OTI may be contracting out governmental
functions; and with oversight of implementing partners and subcontractors. Program sustainability,
or the lack thereof, may be the greatest source of waste in U.S. government spending.

Commissioner Robert J. Henke stated that one of the challenges of USAID is that operating
expenses is in one account and there is a separate program account. The FY2012 budget request
includes the idea to make a working capital fund, which would allow for more flexibility.

Shays stated that the sense of the commission is that USAID is a very troubled agency that needs
to change significantly. USAID has been understaffed and asked to let others do things and
simply put USAID’s name on it.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Perspectives on the Crisis in Libya
April 5, 2011
Witness List:

9
  Ambassador Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
 Tom Malinowski, Washington Director, Human Rights Watch
 Dr. Dirk J. Vandewalle, Associate Professor of Government, Dartmouth College

Chair John Kerry (D-MA) began by stating that it has been three weeks since the passage of UN
resolution 1973, and that a humanitarian catastrophe had been largely averted. While the U.S.
has strategic interests in the outcome, the U.S. also needs to define the road forward. There are
needs for civilian protection and further economic sanctions to hasten Gadhafi’s departure. The
U.S. should also support the opposition and the Transitional National Council. It will be difficult to
put Libya back together, and the U.S., the UN and the Arab League all have roles to play in
creating a fully functional democracy.

Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) began by stating that there is little prospect of success
for the opposition even with the support of NATO. The U.S. has undertaken a major and open-
ended commitment that is misplaced in the Arab world. U.S. intervention and attention would be
better served in Iran, Pakistan, Yemen or in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. Obama has
made a tenuous link between humanitarian intervention and U.S. strategic interests, but there is
no evidence that regimes are less violent due to the NATO intervention. The U.S. needs to reduce
its military commitments in Libya.

Ambassador Richard N. Haass began by laying out the necessary criteria for an armed
humanitarian intervention: potential victims asking for your help, the presence of a sure threat,
support for intervention from the international community, and a high chance of success at a low
cost. These conditions were not met in Libya. The U.S. government should not have called for
Gadhafi’s departure initially; that makes diplomacy more complicated, removes the incentive for
him to go peacefully or cease violence, and increases the odds of failure. Just because there is
multilateral support for an action does not mean that it must be done or is justified. There is a gap
between U.S. goals and the means of achieving them, and Obama is trying to solve this by
increasing the means. The U.S. needs to reduce its goals so that it can utilize resources
elsewhere and focus on the humanitarian, not political, goals. The only way to achieve a better
regime in Libya is through ground forces—possibly peacekeeping forces—to maintain security
and build capacity. Gadhafi may have to remain in power through the transition to maintain some
stability.

Tom Malinowski began by dispelling claims that the rebels are unknown to us, since Human
Rights Watch has been engaged with the rebels in Libya for many years. The international
community was faced with an imminent humanitarian catastrophe and carried out a very fast
international response. Because these efforts were carried out quickly, we did not see Gadhafi
retake Benghazi, or the violence that would have ensued. Without the intervention there would
have been more violence in the east, there would have been merciless oppression of the
opposition, and there would have been many more refugees who were disenchanted with the U.S.
and ripe candidates for terrorist recruitment. The opposition needs civilian teams to teach and
help Libya to transition to democracy, form police, establish a fair judicial process, and learn how
to manage oil wealth. Misrata also needs a humanitarian corridor to get aid in.

Dr. Dirk J. Vandewalle began by pointing out Libya’s lack of modern and nationalized institutions,
the lack of an economy that can function without government support, and the lack of a judicial
system. There is also the lack of a clear strategy to engage the rebels and acknowledge the
east/west divisions. Elections may need to be delayed in order to build institutional capacity with

10
U.S. help. The U.S. has unique abilities to help build the social, civil and military components of a
new Libyan democracy.

Questioning:

Upon questioning from Chair Kerry, Vandewalle stated that the $30 million in seized assets
could be used to rebuild Libya or fund military operations.

Ranking Member Lugar questioned the premise that the U.S. should act during another
country’s civil war. Haass acknowledged that the U.S. cannot always intervene, but stated that
the U.S. should evaluate whether the violence and humanitarian needs are more than those of
just a civil war. He stated that there is some evidence that intervention can prolong the civil war.
Malinowski responded by stating that civil war is not the right term for Libya and while the U.S.
cannot always act, we should help those we can.

Haass pointed out that Libya will have immense needs in the future and will require lots of
resources due the lack of national institutions. Libya will likely need peacekeepers on the ground
engaged in a multi-year effort in conjunction with the support of the international community.

Upon questioning from Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Vandewalle stated that Libya would
not be better off if it was split east and west due to the people’s desire to stay unified despite both
sides having oil. Shaheen asked whether the Transitional National Council has ties to terrorism.

Vandewalle acknowledged that its members are very secretive and the U.S. knows less than we
want to. Malinowski added that we can learn more. Prior to the conflict, Human Rights Watch
knew most of the 31 members. While there has been al Qaeda recruitment in eastern Libya, the
entire opposition is not necessarily associated with them; though, inevitably, some of the low level
fighters do have ties to al Qaeda.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) questioned whether there was a need for U.S. military involvement
on the ground, to which all witnesses answered negatively. He went on to posit the option of the
CIA assassinating Gadhafi which was universally rejected by the witnesses. When he asked
about the degree of nation building to be carried out by the U.S., Malinowski responded that Libya
is unique from Iraq and Afghanistan because there is not an ethnic conflict and thus it would
require less U.S. involvement. It would be more like after the fall of the USSR in Eastern Europe:
U.S. efforts would not be massive and would not be resource-draining. Haass answered that
Europe has a larger stake in the future of Libya, and the U.S. should take a minimal role in the
nation building. Libya needs functional institutions, but not necessarily democratic institutions
initially.

Shaheen also asked about the refugee situation, and Malinowski responded that there has been a
trickle of refugees into Egypt and Tunisia. The Tunisian government has risen to the occasion with
assistance. He noted that UNHCR and the U.S. Department of State are also engaged in
providing aid. There are not overwhelming numbers of refugees and there is a strong
humanitarian response in progress.

ARTICLES AND REPORTS

BBC News
Apr. 5: Somali PM Mohamed Orders UN to Return to Mogadishu

11
Somalia’s prime minister, Mohamed Abdullah Mohamed, summoned all UN agencies working in
Somalia but based in Kenya to move their operations to Mogadishu within three months. Despite
militant group al-Shabab’s hold on most of the country, AU troops have helped the government
make significant gains.

CNN.com
Apr. 5: Preliminary Results: Michel Martelly beat Mirlande Manigat in Haiti
Preliminary results indicate that Michel Martelly has defeated Mirlande Manigat in Haiti’s
presidential runoff election. Though rioting and accusations of fraud followed last December’s
initial election, the vote held on March 20 was mostly peaceful. If these results stand, Martelly will
inherit many challenges to rebuild Haiti after last year’s earthquake and cholera outbreak.

BBC News
Apr. 5: Grameen Founder Loses Final Dismissal Appeal
The Bangladesh Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Grameen Bank to remove Nobel-
laureate and microfinance pioneer Muhammad Yunus from the bank’s leaderhsip. Though the
bank says the dismissal comes from an inappropriate appointment, Yunus and his supporters
claim alternate reasoning. The move has sparked terse criticisms from many donor countries.

New York Times

Apr. 8: As Standoff Continues, a Bleaker Outlook for Ivory Coast
Laurent Gbagbo has managed to hold out against government assaults in the basement of the
Ivory Coast’s presidential palace. To complicate matters, forces loyal to President Alassane
Ouattara have been accused of assaulting and killing members of Gbagbo’s ethnic group.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled the capital of Abidjan due to fighting.

CNN.com
Apr. 7: UN Chief: Africa’s Course could be set in Ivory Coast
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon predicted that the events in the Ivory Coast could set the
tone for the rest of Africa. In a firmly worded message, he stated that Laurent Gbagbo must take
his last opportunity to leave. In the same speech, Ban also thanked the U.S. for its support and
stated that its funding is essential to events like those in the Ivory Coast.

12