EMAIL DETAILS

Below is the statement by NDI Chairman Madeleine K. Albright who testified
earlier this week before the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the
importance U.S. leadership in advancing democracy globally. In her
testimony, Albright appealed for continued support for international
democracy assistance, calling freedom the “star by which American foreign
policy must continue to navigate in the years to come.” The subcommittee is
chaired by Senator Lindsay Graham; Senator Patrick Leahy serves as Ranking
Member.


“Promoting democracy is not just right. It is also necessary, smart and
cost-effective, she said.


Democracy assistance amounts to just 4 percent of foreign aid, but it has
an outsized impact on U.S. national security, global strategic interests
and economic prosperity by supporting a stable, peaceful and productive
countries that are responsive to the needs of their citizens.


While democracy has spread significantly since the Cold War, its growth has
not been uniform geographically and authoritarianism has recently gained
renewed traction in some countries. Responding to this trend, Albright
said, “The more democracy is challenged the more its champions must insist
on its validity as the best system of governments humans have devised.”


Albright expressed the hope that the Congress would stand against proposed
cuts to the the State Department and international affairs budget, “which
would inflict irreparable harm on democracy assistance, as well as other
vital diplomatic and development programs.”


“There is nothing automatic or easy about democratic change,” she said.
“But American freedom, prosperity and peace depend, in large measure, on
whether democratic institutions succeed around the world. That depends, in
turn, on America’s willingness to continue working with our partners to
promote democracy.”


Albright said that America's moral leadership on democracy and freedom is
an important tool in the U.S. diplomatic arsenal that we should not take
for granted. Moreover, she argued, “Moving forward, we must remember that
the alternative to support for democracy is complicity in the rule of
governments that lack the blessings of their own people.”


The NDI chairman was joined by International Republican Institute Vice
Chairman James Kolbe, National Endowment for Democracy Co-Vice Chairman Vin
Weber, and United States Institute of Peace Chairman Steven Hadley.


With best regards,


Ken


Kenneth Wollack
President
National Democratic Institute
455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
202-728-5500 (Tel)
888-875-2887 (Fax)
email: ken@ndi.org
website: www.ndi.org


Submitted Statement of Madeleine K. Albright

Hearing on U.S. Democracy Assistance

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee United States
Senate Committee on Appropriations

Tuesday, May 9, 2017


Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, distinguished members of the
committee: Thank you for holding today’s hearing on U.S. democracy
assistance and for inviting me to testify as Chairman of the Board of the
National Democratic Institute.

Before I begin, I want to express my deepest respect and appreciation for
the vital role this committee has played in sustaining and strengthening
the non-military tools of American power. Experience has taught me that
diplomacy, development, and democracy are as integral to our national
security as defense. In today’s uncertain and dangerous world, we weaken
these national security tools at our peril.

I am pleased today to be able to appear alongside three good friends. When
I was in office, Jim Kolbe was a key partner on foreign assistance programs
in Congress.

A few years after I left government, I had the opportunity to work with Vin
Weber on a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on democracy in the Arab
world.

And more recently, Steve Hadley and I co-chaired the Atlantic Council’s
Middle East Strategy Task Force, which identified failures in governance as
the root cause of the crisis in the region, and recommended that the
international community focus more of its efforts on long-term institution
building in the Middle East. The kind of support offered by democracy
assistance programs and by independent organizations such as the U.S.
Institute of Peace is a vital component of the strategy we proposed.

With that in mind, my testimony today will focus on three areas:


-

First, the link between the growth of democracy abroad and our security
here at home;


-

Second, the strategic impact of U.S. democracy assistance programs;


-

Third, the role of democracy assistance in addressing the threats and
challenges facing America in the world.


There are still some in Washington and elsewhere who believe that promoting
democracy does not qualify as real foreign policy. They see little
connection between fostering democratic practices and the hard-headed
pursuit of American interests.

But our wisest leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike, have always
understood that American foreign policy must be shaped not solely on the
basis of what we are against, but also what we are for. And our interests
dictate that we should be for a world in which democracy is defended and
universal values upheld.

The past seventy years provides ample proof that democracy is more than
just another form of government; it is also a powerful generator of
international security, prosperity, and peace.

Yesterday, May 8, marked 72 years since the end of World War II in Europe.
In the years that followed, democracy helped Germany and Japan become
integrated into the world economy and evolve into key allies of the United
States.

Forty years later, the promise of democracy inspired Solidarity, the Velvet
Revolution and other movements that lifted the Iron Curtain and ended Cold
War security threats.

The democratic gains that followed in the 1990s inspired the enlargement of
NATO and opened the door to EU expansion. They allowed us to work with our
neighbors in this hemisphere more closely than ever to broaden prosperity,
address social ills, and expand the rule of law. They enabled countries in
the Asia-Pacific region – including Indonesia, India and South Korea – to
achieve new levels of prosperity and become economic and strategic partners
for the United States. And in Africa, the steady growth of democracy has
led to improvements in development, health, and security across the
continent.

When the Cold War ended, many felt democracy was in command and marching on
the right side of history. But in the years since, that sense of euphoria
has dissipated. The financial crisis, and growing gaps between rich and
poor, have fueled anger and deepened doubts about the capacity of democracy
to deliver on its promises. Recent progress in a few key countries and
regions has been overshadowed by renewed authoritarianism in Russia,
democratic backsliding in places such as Turkey, the rise of illiberal
populism in Europe, state collapse in an authoritarian Venezuela, and the
breakdown of order in parts of the Middle East and North Africa.

While history’s direction no longer seems so obvious, we know that
America’s security needs will be influenced greatly by whether freedom
finds a foothold in nations where democratic forces are being repressed.

That is because while democracy may not provide a guarantee against
aggression, it is the best political insurance available. Governments that
are publicly accountable rarely start wars; while regimes that run
roughshod over their own citizens are often indifferent to the rights of
their neighbors.

Moreover, in today’s world, destabilizing conflicts that threaten U.S.
interests erupt more frequently within societies than between them. Here
again, democracies have a clear advantage, because they embrace pluralism,
encourage tolerance, and enable citizens to pursue change in a lawful and
peaceful way.

It is no coincidence that the hotspots most likely to harbor terrorists,
generate waves and refugees, and produce illegal drugs are in areas of the
world that are nondemocratic. Meanwhile, democratic nations are more likely
to support timely international action to fight terrorism, trafficking, and
disease.

It is true that democratic transitions can produce disorder in the short
term, but history tells us that over the long term the opposite is true. As
the legacy of totalitarianism attests, it is the denial of freedom that
points the way most often to civil conflict and war.

At its best, democracy can produce the kind of stability that lasts, a
stability built on the firm ground of mutual commitments and consent. This
differs from the illusion of order that can be maintained only as long as
dissent is silenced; the kind of order that may last for decades and yet
still disappear overnight.

Democracy also has the best record of fostering the stability, openness,
and dynamism required for global economic growth, which is itself another
important U.S. national security interest.

I have been in many arguments about which comes first, economic or
political development. But experience has taught us that democracy and
development reinforce each other. Societies grow more quickly and strongly
if people are free to express their ideas, market their labor, and pursue a
better life.

For all these reasons, the health of democracy is clearly vital to
America’s interests. And my central message today is that promoting
democracy is not just right; it is also necessary, smart, and
cost-effective. After all, foreign assistance is only about 1 percent of
the total U.S. budget; and democracy assistance represents just 4 percent
of our foreign aid.

The question is how to go about promoting democracy. Because in any
society, building democracy is never easy and never fully accomplished; it
is something to be worked toward, step by step, country by country, day by
day.

This is precisely the philosophy that has guided the National Endowment for
Democracy and its four core institutes – NDI, the International Republican
Institute, the Center for International Private Enterprise, and the
Solidarity Center.

As you know, NED and the party institutes grew out of President Reagan’s
speech to the British Parliament, in which he stated that “Our military
strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this
strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in
the struggle that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and
rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the
values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are
dedicated.”

Those words remain true today.

I am proud to have served as NDI’s founding Vice Chair, and after stepping
away from NDI for eight years during the Clinton Administration, I became
Chairman of the Board of the Institute in 2001 – a position I have held
ever since.

My experience gives me a unique perspective on how NDI and the other core
institutes of the NED have worked to help advance U.S. strategic interests
around the world, along with the important efforts of USAID, the State
Department’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and the Middle
East Partnership Initiative of the Near East Affairs Bureau. I have seen
the work of these organizations up close. They have developed relationships
at the highest levels of government, across party lines and at the
grassroots.

Having worked on these issues in an out of government, I can say that the
pluralistic approach the United States has taken to democracy assistance
has served it well. Funding by the NED has allowed the Endowment and its
four core institutes to plan strategically, yet respond quickly and
flexibly to emerging opportunities and sudden problems in rapidly shifting
political environments. In addition, the NED has been able to operate
effectively in closed societies where direct government engagement on
democracy issues is more difficult.

The truth is that while the U.S. government – including the White House,
State Department, Congress, and overseas embassies – must set the tone and
provide needed resources for democracy assistance, much of the day-to-day
democratic development can and should be carried out, with proper
oversight, by non-governmental organizations, which operate in the realm of
people-to-people relations.

Although conducted at a distance from the U.S. government, these programs
serve important U.S. strategic interests.

We see this in Iraq, where NDI has been on the ground for more than a dozen
years. In recent months, NDI public opinion research has been identifying
what kind of governing structures local residents want in post-liberation
Mosul and elsewhere in the country.

This research is critical because experience has shown that military
operations to root out terrorism will succeed over the long term only if
they are followed by sustainable improvements in governance with
institutions that enjoy the confidence of the public. The work that NDI is
doing to understand the preferences and attitudes of Sunni, Shia, and
minority populations, combined with our work in the field to empower local
partners, can help enable those improvements in governance to take root.

The same is true across the border in Syria, where more than thirty NDI
governance advisers are working each day helping to advise local citizen
groups and administrative councils in dozens of communities across northern
Syria. Thousands of consultations and training sessions have been
conducted, reaching more than 500 council members and 7,000 civic
activists. The growing relationships between citizens and these councils
are, under challenging circumstances, improving living conditions and
creating a culture of democratic governance.

These civic groups and councils are also directly challenging extremist
groups. As one regional observer put it, “you may think Syrians are
condemned to an unpleasant choice between Bashar Al-Asad and the jihadists,
but the real choice being fought out by the Syrians is between violent
authoritarianism on the one hand and grassroots democracy on the other.”

In the Middle East and elsewhere, the mission of U.S. democracy assistance
is not to impose democracy. That is an oxymoron. Democracy is not a product
or a service. It cannot be exported or imported. It must grow from within.

Still, there is no truth to the argument that democracy is not suited to
certain regions. Democratic elements are present in every major culture.
Similarly, no nation is unready for democracy, because no country is ready
for dictatorship.

Yet if democracy is going to take root, we have learned that it must be
accompanied by policies that will improve the living standards for the
many, not just the privileged few. In short, the institutions of democracy
must deliver. People want to vote and eat.

To that end, deepening democracy so that it can deliver tangible
improvements to people’s lives must become even more of a focus for U.S.
democracy assistance.

The stakes for democracy’s success are high in Ukraine, where NDI and its
European partners have brought together all eight party factions in the
parliament to agree on procedures that will make it easier to build
consensus around economic and political reforms.

The dialogue has taken place in Belgium, France, and Ukraine, and the
feedback we have received has been positive. NDI is also supporting local
civil society groups and larger national organizations who are pushing for
economic and political change, and advocating for more women in elected
office.

These efforts are producing results, as citizens without prior experience
in activism are participating in decision-making in large numbers. Through
NDI programs alone, more than 45,000 citizens have engaged directly in the
national reform process, including a decentralization process that will
ultimately give Ukrainians more opportunities to influence decisions that
affect their lives. These are the kinds of bottom-up changes that, given
time and continued support, can put down deep democratic roots.

There is nothing automatic or easy about democratic change. But American
freedom, prosperity and peace depend, in large measure, on whether
democratic institutions succeed around the world. That depends, in turn, on
America’s willingness to continue working with our partners to promote
democracy. And that depends on whether the Administration and Congress
provide the resources required for our most effective democracy-builders to
do their jobs.

Thanks to the tremendous efforts of this committee, the omnibus
appropriations act enacted by Congress last week provides full funding for
democracy assistance and will enable NDI, the other NED-affiliated
institutes and other groups to carry on vital work for the remainder of the
fiscal year.

Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed strong support for elevating
democracy and human rights in our foreign policy, including in a bipartisan
letter sent to President Trump last week.

As welcome as these steps may be, there is much to be concerned about
regarding the future of U.S. democracy assistance.

The so-called “skinny” budget proposal includes steep and arbitrary cuts to
the State Department and international affairs budget which would inflict
irreparable harm on democracy assistance, as well as other vital diplomatic
and development programs.

At the same time, the cement appears to be hardening on a new global split
between democratic and undemocratic forces. On one side is our Community of
Democracies, on the other is a Community of Dictators. More than 25 years
after the Cold War, we do not want Vladimir Putin – rather than the likes
of Havel, Walesa, or Mandela – to point the way to the future.

We must not provide these undemocratic forces encouragement, and that means
the United States must not make the mistake of casting aside issues of
democracy and human rights when it conducts its foreign policy.

I am nearly 80 years old, without stars in my eyes. I understand that no
system of government, not even democracy, guarantees prosperity or peace.
Our leaders must weigh a variety of factors when deciding which foreign
governments to support. It is sometimes necessary to make alliances of
convenience with countries that do not share our values.

Even when we make such arrangements, we should never lose sight of our
long-term interests in promoting and sustaining democratic governance,
which is ultimately the best guarantor of peace, prosperity and stability.
This means democracy and human rights must always be a pillar of our
national security strategy and a part of our bilateral agenda, even with
those countries where they are in short supply. And that agenda includes
the types of programs we are discussing today.

Moving forward, we must remember that the alternative to support for
democracy is complicity in the rule of governments that lack the blessing
of their own people. That policy would betray those who are most
sympathetic to our values and reveal a preference for the sterile order of
repression over the rich and self-correcting sustainability of a free
society. Such a preference might be expected of leaders from Moscow or
Beijing, but not America or the community of democratic nations.

The truth is that our values and our interests are not in conflict with
each other. Our principles and our interests coincide, and if we do not
act accordingly, we will serve neither effectively. If America is lukewarm
or transparently hypocritical in its support for democracy, we will do more
damage to our long-term interests than any short-term gains secured by a
cynical approach. The more democracy is challenged, the more its champions
must insist on its validity as the best system of governments humans have
devised.


Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: your leadership is essential if
America is to continue to lead the roster of democracy’s champions. And
much depends upon whether we do. Because the defining struggle of the 21st
century is not, as many predicted, a clash of religious civilizations; it
is instead a competition between democratic and autocratic systems of
government.

Our adversaries are determined to exploit democracy’s openness, as we have
seen with Russia’s attempts to interfere in democratic elections around the
world. But those who wish to tear democracy down can succeed only if
democracy’s guardians are too complacent, too divided, too timid, or too
stuck in the past to stop them.

The mission for small “d” democrats like us therefore begins with
continuing our support for countries such as Ukraine, Burma, and Tunisia
that are in the midst of a democratic transition and in need of outside
support; but it cannot stop there.

Ultimately, our ability to promote democracy successfully depends on the
credibility and appeal of our example. It is hard to persuade others to
follow our lead when all they see is gridlock and partisanship. But in a
free country, the solution to setbacks can be found – not by bowing to the
false gods of nationalism and tyranny – but by building better, more
flexible and responsive institutions.

To lead successfully, we must adjust to the ubiquity of social media, the
changing nature of the workplace, and the desire that people everywhere
have for sources of constancy in their lives.

We must place a priority on ways to stimulate economic growth while
simultaneously narrowing the gaps between rich and poor, urban and rural,
women and men, skilled and unskilled.

We must work across borders to respond to transnational challenges,
including terrorism, climate change, sectarian violence, and too many
people chasing too few jobs.

Above all, we must recognize that democracy’s unique virtue is its ability
– through reason and the kind of open debate that is the hallmark of the
U.S. Congress – to find remedies for its own shortcomings.

That job is within our power to do, and we had better get on with it before
it is too late.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: make no mistake, building democracy
at home and supporting democratic institutions abroad is the continuation
of heroic work. Without this commitment, American foreign policy would lose
its moral compass, its most compelling claim to global respect, and
ultimately, the support and understanding of the American people. Shedding
our support for democracy would put in jeopardy our long-term economic,
political, and security interests.

Freedom is perhaps the clearest expression of national purpose ever
adopted, and it is America's purpose. Like other profound human
aspirations, it can never fully be achieved. It is not a possession; it is
a pursuit. And it is the star by which

American foreign policy must continue to navigate in the years to come.

I want once again to thank each of you for the efforts you make every day
on behalf of our nation and the principles we have cherished for more than
two centuries.

I appreciate deeply the opportunity to testify before you, and I look
forward to your questions.

# #