Hearing of the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform - Pakistani Elections

Interview

REP. TIERNEY: Good morning. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs hearing entitled "Pakistani Elections: Will They Be Free and Fair or Fraudulently Flawed?" will come -- "Fundamentally Flawed" -- will come to order.

I ask unanimous consent that the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee be allowed to make opening statements. However, Mr. Yarmuth, we're happy to have an opening statement from you as well, when it comes to that, if you'd like. Without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept open for five business days, so that all members of the subcommittee will be allowed to submit a written statement for the record. Without objection, so ordered.

I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today and assisting us in this hearing. We're going to continue our sustained oversight of United States policy toward Pakistan. Here in the States, we're well into our longest-ever presidential campaign, and the future course of the United States' national security is at front and center as an issue. On January 8th, as New Hampshire voters brave the cold to vote in the first-in-the-nation primary, another election that very same day, a parliamentary election halfway around the world in Pakistan, will also have a profound effect and consequences on U.S. national security.

We've noted in previous hearings that Pakistan is at a crossroads. After a year of extremist violence spreading throughout its western regions, an ambivalent military response and increasing pressure from pro-democracy groups, President Musharraf declared a state of emergency on November 3rd. Pakistan's emerging civil society appeared to be the main target. President Musharraf sacked judges who refused to surrender their independence. He jailed lawyers, human rights advocates and political opposition leaders. He banned public political gathering. He muzzled the nation's independent media. And worst of all, he turned Pakistan's guns on its civil society, instead of on Taliban and al Qaeda.

The Bush administration initially made some gestures to pressure President Musharraf to reverse course. Ambassador Anne Patterson, for example, made very important and visible efforts to highlight the detention of lawyers and the crackdown on independent media.

However, the administration, especially recently, has appeared to undermine the pro-democracy message. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher continue to refer to Musharraf as an indispensable ally. President Bush said that President Musharraf hadn't crossed any lines by imposing the state of emergency. And just two weeks ago, Ambassador Boucher referred to the state of emergency as -- and I quote -- "a bump in the road."

I'm concerned that such statements greatly undermine U.S. credibility with the Pakistani people. We should never forget that the Pakistani people are our indispensable and long-term ally, not necessarily any one leader, whether it be President Musharraf or anyone else.

Over the last several weeks there have been some positive developments. President Musharraf resigned as army chief. The leaders of the two mainstream opposition parties, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, are now back in Pakistan. And President Musharraf revoked the state of emergency just this past weekend.

Still, much of the damage remains. Judges have not be reinstated. Media outlets now operate under a code of conduct restricting criticism of the government.

Leading opposition lawyers remain under arrest. The election commission lacks independence. The voter rolls continue to inspire little confidence, and evidence mounts that raises serious concerns about President Musharraf using the power of the state to gain unfair advantage in the election.

For example, this is a photograph, shown on the screen over there, that was taken last week, depicting an armed Pakistani security official actually posting signs on behalf of President Musharraf's political party, the PML-Q. There's also evidence that the crackdown against civil society continues, notwithstanding formal revocation of the state of emergency. This picture on the screen is of security forces beating women at a peaceful protest, taken just a few days ago. We note that this confrontation happened after the state of emergency was purportedly lifted.

Taking all of this into account, there are grave concerns and many questions about the prospects for free and fair parliamentary elections less than three short weeks from now, on January 8th. How will the code of conduct imposed on the media allow the kind of unbiased political expression necessary for a free and fair election? How much of a chilling effect will there be on a robust political opposition when activists continue to fear crackdowns and arrests?

How accurate are the voter rolls going to be going into this election? And what effect will Nawaz Sharif's ineligibility to stand for election have? How will political parties campaign in the western regions of the country that have been enflamed by Taliban and al Qaeda violence? How will the removal of the judges unwilling to go along with President Musharraf, and the lack of an independent election commission, hamper the ability to ward off and root out corruption and unfair practices at the polls?

We're also concerned that it merits to take a few minutes now, before the heat of the election day itself, to discuss the following. First, what standards must be met for an election to be deemed free and fair? What is the dividing line between minor problems and massive election fraud? Second, how should the United States react if the international community and credible election observers deem it to be a fundamentally flawed election?

I look forward to engaging with our distinguished panel, that's before us today, about these particular questions. I want to thank all of you for sharing your expertise with the Congress and with the American people. In particular, I look forward to hearing your experiences, since you've closely monitored the buildup to these Pakistani parliamentary elections, with business there in the not-too- distant past.

So thank you and Mr. Yarmuth, if you have some comments, we'd love to hear those as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. TIERNEY: Thank you, Mr. Schneider.

Thank you, all of you. And we went a little bit over the five- minute line as we thought we would, but I think it was worth listening to what you all had to say, and I appreciate it. The very last thing that Mr. Schneider said, saving the best for last, I think, is really the crux of the matter, isn't it, that the United States and Western allies have to recognize that free and fair elections are the best option for a secular and moderate parliamentary majority, and a unified country against extremist jihadi organizations, the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Do all the panelists agree with that statement, that that's really the best option here?

MR. DASCHLE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do. I think Mr. Schneider said it very well. And I'm concerned and I will say that in answer to your questions, I'll speak for myself and not for NDI. But I'm concerned, as he noted, that there has been far too much silence with regard to the United States position on many of these fundamental questions in Pakistan today. But your question is appropriate, and I would answer in the affirmative.

REP. TIERNEY: Mr. Garrett.

MR. GARRETT: Yes, sir, I agree. I think that really our future policy should be determined in large part by whether or not these elections are conducted in any type of a rigged or free and fair manner.

REP. TIERNEY: When I look at your polls, Mr. Garrett, and I see the number of people responding to this declaration and all that's followed it and whatever, I'm hard-pressed to think how without legitimacy, I mean, if there aren't free and fair elections, if somebody isn't given a legitimate mandate, how they're going to marshal all the people in their country to help us and other countries push back against terrorism and al Qaeda.

You're going to have a continuation, I would think, of what we see now as sort of the government fighting those secular forces, moderate forces, lawyers and judges and everything, just to stay in power, as opposed to focusing on these external and some internal problems. Am I right?

MR. GARRETT: I would agree.

REP. TIERNEY: So, following that, Mr. Garrett, I have an issue. Are you all concerned that your -- IRI's -- mission is going to be seen as some sort of a validation of what might very likely be illegitimate elections? And how are you guarding against being put in that position?

MR. GARRETT: Well, it's difficult to say what the final report that we would produce 45 days after the election is going to say at this time. However, our preelection statement, which we have issued publicly -- it's on our website -- does say that we see this as a very troubled election -- preelection environment, flawed.

As I mentioned in my statement, I believe if the political parties of Pakistan had decided not to contest -- and they're saying that they're contesting this knowing it's going to be highly flawed -- if it weren't for them, we wouldn't be there. But we do feel like we need to stand with the political parties of Pakistan as they do make that courageous stand themselves for democracy and elections.

REP. TIERNEY: I'm going to ask a series of questions, and Mr. Garrett, if you feel uncomfortable answering them because you've got a report coming out afterwards, then just defer.

MR. GARRETT: Right.

REP. TIERNEY: But I would like the senator and Mr. Schneider to answer. I want to talk about what are the standards that have to be met for free and fair. If the judges aren't reinstated, have they failed to meet the standard?

MR. DASCHLE: I don't see how you can meet the standard without a restoration of the rule of law, and the rule of law cannot be reinstated without the restoration of the judges. So I think it's pretty fundamental.

REP. TIERNEY: Do you agree, Mr. Schneider?

MR. SCHNEIDER: Absolutely.

REP. TIERNEY: Do you want to defer, Mr. Garrett, or make a comment? (No audible comment.) Okay.

If you don't reinstate to the media the ability to report on election occurrences, including criticizing the president and other authorities on that, how can you have a free and fair election? Would that failure to reinstate their ability to do that, to not make them subject to a $200,000 fine and loss of a license and possible imprisonment for reporting a critical aspect -- if that doesn't occur between now and January 8th, how can we infer that there are free and fair elections?

Is that a fair statement?

MR. DASCHLE: I think that is a fair statement, Mr. Chairman.

REP. TIERNEY: Mr. Schneider?

MR. SCHNEIDER: Absolutely.

REP. TIERNEY: If we don't release from prison people like Aitzaz Ahsan, the president of the bar association and a senator at the PPP, a known democracy proponent, and others that are imprisoned or whatever, how can we term it a free and fair election? Am I right?

MR. DASCHLE: Exactly right.

REP. TIERNEY: Mr. Schneider, the voter poll -- Senator Daschle, you made mention of that in your report, and Mr. Schneider mentioned it again. Twenty-five million people all of a sudden mysteriously appear and get thrown on there -- if that isn't corrected by allowing the parties to go through and scrutinize and make comments about who perhaps ought not to be on for whatever infirmity or ought to be on it because they're missing, how can that be termed a free and fair election? Am I correct?

MR. DASCHLE: Precisely.

REP. TIERNEY: Mr. Schneider?

MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah.

REP. TIERNEY: The problem that I'm seeing here is, we got three weeks to go, some very, very serious impediments on that, and it's almost -- we didn't want to put Mr. Garrett in this position, because he's going to put a report out, but how in the world do you even think that there can possibly be free and fair elections unless President Musharraf has a sudden turn of heart here and within the next couple of days changes all of these things? And I think it would be arguably possible to do if you did things today or tomorrow, but any time beyond that, you just run out of time, and you don't have it.

So I think the next question is, how does the United States react? How ought we react if all of these things don't get changed so that the elections are put on a footpath toward free and fair elections?

MR. DASCHLE: Well, Mr. Chairman, again, speaking for myself, I would say that the United States needs to be far more assertive, far more vocal, far more aggressive in stating our position. As Mr. Schneider noted and we've noted this morning, the silence is a message, and that silence cannot go unnoted.

We just passed the omnibus, as no one knows better than the chairman and Mr. Yarmuth, but that conditionality in the omnibus is a beginning, but it's only a beginning. I think it's a very mellow statement with regard to what it is this government needs to do, but you have to start somewhere. I would hope that we could build on that in the future, and I would hope that we could be a lot more assertive with regard to the conditionality of assistance.

But most importantly, in the next three weeks -- and we won't be in -- you won't be in session during the next three weeks -- I think it's very critical that the State Department step up to the plate and voice these concerns with a lot more vigor that I've seen so far.

REP. TIERNEY: Yeah. I have to agree with you.

My problem is that other than Ambassador Patterson, who's done arguably a good job on at least some of these aspects in being outspoken -- really concerned about Mr. Negroponte and Mr. Boucher and their statements. To say that he hasn't crossed any red line, to me, is absurd. I mean, he crossed it when he declared the state of emergency and all the other things that followed from it. But then for Richard Boucher to indicate that it's a "bump in the road" -- if it happened to this country, I don't think we'd look at it as a bump in the road.

And so, I don't know what hope we can hold out for this administration really doing that.

For the record, I'll make note that the senator referenced action that was taken on spending bills, appropriations bills last night where the House and the Senate decided to put some constraints on the financial aid that the United States was giving to Pakistan. A significant amount of money, $50 million, was held aside until the secretary of State can make certain representations about corrections of conditions that we mentioned here today -- the judges and others being put out of jail, reinstated to the bench, the media being given back the license that it had to report and so on.

So that did -- also money being put more towards development and education and other things as opposed to just indiscriminate money to the Musharraf regime to do what they want to do, and also directing some money away from money that's been spent militarily for things like F-16s and focusing it more on the battle against terrorism and the Taliban, although the administration's surprising remark to that was they didn't quite know how that was going to happen, because the F-16s were so important to the -- to Musharraf and the military, notwithstanding the fact that F-16s, to my knowledge, haven't been used to fight terrorism and the Taliban and al Qaeda in that region of the world, nor do they need (Orion ) submarines or some of the other things it was being spent on. So those are the things that were referenced there.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. TIERNEY: I just want to add one thing and that is, you know, we've seen this before. If we don't have free and fair elections now, when the prospects are that if they were held in that manner, that people that were secular probably -- at least were moderate certainly, and shared interests with others -- would be might likely to win. You have a fraudulent election, or a fundamentally flawed election, and one or two terms down the road here, you can end up with an entirely -- a team in there that you don't even want to see. And that's why it's so disturbing to have this administration sitting on the sidelines and not speaking out.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. TIERNEY: Following on that thought, there are a number of areas in that country that are deemed not particularly safe by the Pakistani government itself and by our own government on that. Are you going to be able to get into those areas with the IRI to monitor situations there -- Baluchistan, Peshawar and up in the FATA areas?

MR. GARRETT: During the preelection assessment we were able to get into Baluchistan. We did not go into the frontier. I believe a few weeks before, NDI was able to visit Peshawar during their preelection assessment. We don't really know as of now what's going to be happening on election day. There are certainly parts of the country that I think are just "no go" for us, but for the most part I think we're going to see a fairly good distribution in all four provinces of our international observers.

REP. TIERNEY: Mr. Schneider, tell us a little bit about the alleged role of the intelligence services and their impact and intimidation -- at least alleged intimidation. And also, the local mayors and local authorities: What their role is in the election; what the concerns are around that?

MR. SCHNEIDER: There are three things, it seems to me, that are major concerns. You've already had the parties file complaints with the election commission about the intelligence services having threatened, in some cases detained, their party leaders at the local level. You've had the decision by the newly named high-court judges in several of the provinces to move hundreds of local district judges around. Remember, I mentioned that they are going to be essentially the electoral voting managers on election day. Well, they've moved them out of their districts and sent them elsewhere. So you have a real concern about those kinds of administrative actions at the local level.

The state governments have responsibility for the local administration. And again, there've been evidence -- you have some of it on your screen -- of use of government resources and government security forces campaigning for Musharraf -- so all of these things are major concerns that the parties have. And up to this point, the electoral commission has not responded to any of these complaints, but they're major concerns.

I'll also note that with FATA right now, the political parties -- the moderate political parties are not able to operate there. In the past, in fact, the PPP won in FATA in the distant past, but now they can't operate there. And it's an area essentially now controlled by the religious parties.

REP. TIERNEY: It's disturbing on that.

And I guess, Mr. Garrett -- again, not wanting to be unfair to you, but I keep coming back to this -- how can you -- can you conceive at all of an outcome of this where you deem these elections free and fair if that judiciary continues to be stacked the way it is? Is that even a prospect? Would that be something where you say, well, everything else went well, but that didn't happen; therefore, we'll put a fermata on it?

Or take one of the other criteria -- the fact that the media is still restricted. They suffer a possibly of a prison sentence up to three years under this code of conduct if they criticize the president or the military. If that doesn't change between now and then, can you even fathom saying that those elections were free and fair?

I think we all know it's not about how transparent the boxes are on the election day. You can monitor that all day long, but if none of this in the lead up changes, if the voter polls don't change, the ability of the press to report, the parties to participate, people to get out of jail, the judiciary to not be stacked -- I mean, is it really even fair to think that you might come up with any kind of a stamp of approval on this, or just a report on how bad it went?

MR. GARRETT: Let me just say that we had our preelection assessment team in the country the day the emergency was declared.

And so as we -- became aware of the emergency being declared, it was, one by one, the television stations were disappearing. You were watching one and it was saying there are troops arriving in the capital, the supreme court has been surrounded, and then it went off the air. And you'd switch to the next station, and it would be on for a while reporting, then it would go, and so forth and so on.

However, during that entire period, up to today, there was still print media that was allowed, I think, to operate unfettered. It was the electronic media that was singled out. It was not the nation's substantial print media.

If you look at our polling, it says that it would be, in a free and fair election, over 50 percent of the seats would very likely go to a coalition of opposition parties. And there are places where these political parties have very solid bases of support.

So I see these sorts of things and I think that once again, we can't really prejudge, because we don't know what might change in the next few weeks.

REP. TIERNEY: Well, the one thing that has changed is now the print media are subject to the code of conduct as well.

MR. GARRETT: That's true, but as recently as this past week when I was there, they were printing their cartoons against the president; they were doing editorials that were very well written, explaining what were the root issues with the emergency.

I would just say that it's going to be very difficult -- I think I said that in my statement earlier --

REP. TIERNEY: (Off mike.)

MR. GARRETT: It's going to be very difficult to imagine how this election is going to emerge with any type of a positive reference, given the things that we're already seeing going into it. It will be very difficult.

REP. TIERNEY: All three of you probably have far more experience on previous elections than the panel up here does, but my understanding of the electioneering process that goes on out there is the parties take to the streets, that they have large rallies, that they motivate tens of thousands of people on that. There're serious constraints on that, as I understand it. How does that affect the ability of any one party to really go through what they have historically understood to be the way of conducting and election, and what impact is that going to have? Senator Daschle?

MR. DASCHLE: Well, Mr. Chairman, even by Pakistani standards, you are not going to have anything close to that resembling a free and fair election. I mean, it starts with the ISI, and Mr. Schneider's description of the circumstances involving the pervasiveness of ISI involvement at the local level now, with regard to the elections.

You have the incompetence and the intransigence of the election commission. You have serious problems with regard to the freedom of press. You have an inability on the part of parties to organize themselves and have the public demonstrations of support for candidates that you've just described. You have a supreme court that is now completely violated and not in standing within the country.

So as I say, even by past standards in Pakistan, the circumstances today are deplorable. And I don't see how you begin to change that.

Having said that, I think the parties have come to the conclusion, what is the alternative? What do you do in a situation like this, when the alternative probably is Musharraf's dictatorship for an indefinite period of time, and no opportunity for them to voice themselves and to be a participant in the political process, even under this corrupted basis.

And so I think they've probably made the right decision, but we all have to know going in that this is really a joke, in terms of the capacity to produce any real results.

MR. GARRETT: Could I -- Mr. Chairman, just on the question of the press.

REP.TIERNEY: Sure.

MR. GARRETT: Just a couple of things.

The last couple of days the Pakistan media regulatory authority has actually sent new letters to the owners of the private television stations. And they've basically told them that they're being watched and that they can't do live coverage, live programs that deal with political issues in way which, in their view, violate the code of conduct, in terms of ridiculing or in any other way criticizing the president and the military, et cetera.

And when you talked the intelligence agencies, they've also made it known to reporters that their actions are clearly questionable with respect to some of the things they've written as it relates to individuals like President Musharraf. And you have to remember that during the emergency period, the -- then-General Musharraf issued ordinances which increased the restrictions on both the electronic media and on the print media.

You know, I was just looking at ordinance number 14, for example, on the print media, says any material, printed or graphic, that defames, brings into ridicule or disrepute the head of state, members of the armed forces, et cetera. These things are barred and they're potentially liable for three years in jail and major fines.

So the kinds of restrictions that now exist are far greater than anything in the past, and obviously this has an enormous chilling effect on all of the media.

REP.TIERNEY: When we look at the unfortunate circumstance -- I think, Mr. Garrett, you put it out in your testimony pretty well, about had we -- we were looking at it and thinking there was a really good system over there. The parties would have a platform and stand for principles and policies. But historically, it's been very personality-driven, and I don't think that's going to change overnight.

So given the fact that they have now prohibited Nawaz Sharif from even participating, what does that do to at least one of those major parties and their prospects in this election? Senator?

MR. DASCHLE: I think it makes it almost impossible for the full participation of the parties of consequence to have the ability to participate openly and freely. And I think once you've eliminated one of the major opponents in the political process -- I mean, by the very nature of that act, you're not going to get where you need to go, aside from all the other things we've already talked about.

REP.TIERNEY: Thank you.

Mr. Schneider, you made mention in your testimony that seven out of the 11 original judges on the high court, highest court, voted before they were displaced that the action of the -- of President Musharraf was in fact -- or General Musharraf at that time, I think -- that it actually was unconstitutional.

MR. SCHNEIDER: Right.

REP.TIERNEY: What's the effect of that order now? If that was put in place before they were actually removed or whatever, is it still valid? Has it been invalidated by his subsequent actions? Is it lingering out there?

MR. SCHNEIDER: It's very difficult to say because, as I say, that action took place before they were removed from their position. And so the argument could be made that that still stands. There're some legal voices in Pakistan who say that's the case, that this was an unconstitutional act, found unconstitutional by the court, and that that court ruling still stands.

And obviously, President Musharraf subsequently has said that no order by any court can void what he's done during the emergency law period. But the entire order establishing the provisional constitutional order was declared unconstitutional by the court before it left office, before they were thrown out.

So I think at some point in time you're going to go back -- I do think that at some point you will have a democratic government. I do think at some point they will find that the original orders by General Musharraf were unconstitutional and invalid, that he could not, essentially, bar the court from reviewing his actions.

REP.TIERNEY: What are the prospects that the elections held -- that the PPP takes on the PMLN, takes on -- and of course, the PLMQ takes -- Are we looking at a deadlock? Are we looking at a constitutional crisis? Is there any way that we can estimate at this time?

MR. SCHNEIDER: Not at all. Traditionally in parliamentary democracies, you'd have coalitions that are built after the elections, because you rarely have an overwhelming majority. And so in this case, what you -- seems likely is that you both will have the PPP and the PMLN, plus some of the individual regional parties, moderate regional parties joining in an effective majority, if there is --

As I say, if the polling that IRI has done is reflected in the voting and those votes are counted, then I think you will have a coalition that will be put together that will choose its prime minister. And at that point I suspect that that majority in the parliament will challenge the actions that President Musharraf has taken. And, in fact, may well challenge his reelection.

MR. DASCHLE: I'm actually somewhat encouraged, for the reasons you've just heard, in the longer term, Mr. Chairman. I think the parties, the people of Pakistan, are increasingly determined to deal with these challenges in a very forceful and effective way.

It's going to take some time. They're not -- I don't think they're probably going to be able to do it in the next three weeks. But after the election and with a continued effort to organize and to form the coalitions that Mr. Schneider just addressed, in the longer term I think the kind of pressure internally, and if it can be done as well from the external sources we've discussed today, especially the United States, I think we have reason to be optimistic about the prospects in Pakistan ultimately.

REP.TIERNEY: I think the unfortunate consequences, however, is that coalition will be mindful of the fact that this United States government did not speak up as strongly as it should have for the people, and made their work harder for them. And I think also that all of that focus on resolving those internal problems will probably detract from efforts that could be used to focus on Taliban and al Qaeda and other situations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source