Video of Congressman Sherman in Action
"For the past six years, Chairman Gallegly and I have represented adjoining Congressional Districts in Southern California. Mr. Gallegly�s home county, Ventura, a portion of which was also in my district until recently, is well represented on this panel. I am looking forward to confronting the imminent threats terrorist organizations pose to the United States and the world," said Sherman. "I also look forward to focusing on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and on human rights."
Sherman is concerned about state sponsored terrorism. "I firmly believe that if we face an attack which even comes close to the magnitude of September 11, we will indeed see the hand of a state sponsor involved. A structure as complex as al-Qaeda, with complex financial transactions, training facilities and detailed planning cannot exist without the acquiescence of a host government," Sherman said.
Sherman is particularly concerned about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and he has been a lead advocate of a tough line against Iran and countries which invest in Iran. He also focused his attention on Kashmir, one of the most intractable and long-running territorial disputes in the world. "The spark that sets these two nuclear states off, if it comes, will probably be a terrorist incursion from Pakistan into India," he said.
Sherman encourages tough sanctions against rogue states as a means to control their sponsorship of terrorism, mentioning Libya as a country where this approach has been partially successful.
Congressman Sherman�s complete statement as prepared for delivery is attached.
First, I want to thank Chairman Gallegly for holding these important hearings. I note that the Chairman and I have for the past six years shared adjoining Congressional Districts in Southern California. Mr. Gallegly�s home county, Ventura, a portion of which was also in my district until recently, is well represented on this panel.
Of course, this will be the first of many hearings we will hold on international terrorism. But I am glad that we have the opportunity today to receive this broad overview from the State Department on where we stand globally in the war on terror, in the form of a review of terrorist organizations and the threat that they pose to US interests world-wide.
I look forward to hearing the testimony and answers from both our distinguished witnesses today. I know that Ambassador Black and Assistant Secretary Wayne are both dedicated public servants, and we are fortunate to have them at these two critical posts in the State Department.
I want to note in my opening remarks some of the main areas where I would like to see the focus of our administration in relation to terrorist organizations and the threat they pose to our security.
State Support for Terrorist Organizations
Clearly, as September 11, 2001, demonstrated, terrorists do not necessarily need active state support in the form of materiel or financing in order to do horrific damage in the United States. No state actually provided those al Qaeda operatives with the financing or materiel they needed to conduct the single greatest act of terrorism in the history of mankind on that terrible day. We also know now that al Qaeda has gone about the business of trying to develop, largely on its own, chemical and biological weapons.
However, as September 11, 2001, also demonstrates, terrorists do need to have, at the very least, a base from which to operate, to train, a place to hide their assets -- they need a safe haven if they are to have the ability to exist on the level needed to coordinate such a major attack. Al Qaeda received all of this and much more from the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Likewise, I firmly believe that if we face an attack which even comes close to the magnitude of September 11, we will indeed see the hand of a state sponsor involved. If weapons of mass destruction are ever used by terrorists against the American homeland, there will be a state accomplice behind it.
However horrific the prospect of a state-sponsored campaign of terror against the United States may be, if there is a positive side to this, it lies in the fact that states are regular actors on the international scene -- they can be sanctioned, they can be isolated, they can face military reprisal, and, in the truly extreme case, they can be dealt with preemptively, as in the case of Iraq. In other words, we can often prevent the worst threats from terrorism by dealing with the states which support or tolerate terror. These states are susceptible of very traditional means of encouragement and coercion.
Indeed, when we fight terror, we are most often asking states to cooperate in some way -- to take some action such as freezing assets, making arrests, conducting surveillance, sharing intelligence. Notwithstanding the fact that terrorist organizations are the quintessential "non-state actors," they are defeated by states working together; they succeed only when states fail to take concerted action or, worse, provide actual support for terrorist organizations.
The Taliban regime has been removed from power. The regime of Saddam Hussein is, of course, on its way out -- albeit at a huge cost, including the loss of US and allied servicemen and women. But with that accomplished, two of the worst government sponsors of terrorism will be gone.
However, I would also point to the case of Libya, which for a long time had been among the leading state sponsors of terrorism. In addition to some military punishment, the regime of Qaddafi was isolated, sanctioned, and stripped of much needed investment and trade. The key lesson from Libya, however, is that these actions were effective because they were taken against that state on a multilateral basis. Today, as it seeks to reverse its position in the world as a true pariah state, Libya can hardly be called an active state supporter of terrorism at all. It was forced to largely get out of the terrorism business by the concerted action of the civilized world.
The Need to Deal with Iran -- a Key to Middle East Peace and US Security
This same multilateral approach must also be taken against Iran, today's number one state sponsor of terrorism if we are to be successful in convincing that regime to end its support for Islamic Jihad, Hizballah and radical elements in Yasser Arafat's apparatus such as the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and thus end Iran�s militant meddling in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The difficult task of building Middle East peace, which our European friends claim to care so much about, will be made much more difficult if Iran continues its support for terrorism.
And Iran's mix of terrorism and the development of WMD, especially nuclear weapons, threatens the United States directly.
But unlike Libya, which had made the unwise decision to support attacks in Europe, Iran currently supports groups which attack principally Israeli citizens (and visitors to Israel). Our European friends are not particularly keen to sanction Iran since they are not often the victims of Iranian terror -- and since there is a good deal of money to be made in that country, perhaps.
I note with concern the continuing trade talks between the EU and the Iranians and with special concern pending World Bank loans to Iran. The Bank is actually considering a loan of approximately $180 million to the Islamic Republic, and a vote on this loan package could come as early as next month at the Bank's Board of Directors. This package and other loans to Iran are being pushed primarily by European members of the IBRD. I have made my concerns known to the World Bank President, all EU governments, and the State and Treasury Departments. I know American staff at the Bank are lobbying against these loans, but I am afraid we must take stronger action against these Western efforts to rehabilitate the government of Iran.
We need to make certain our friends in the EU and Asia know that support for the Iranian regime, whether in the form of cheap loans, or increased trade or investment, will be tantamount to support for international terrorism.
The Kashmir Crisis
We have in this dispute between India and Pakistan the real possibility of open conflict between two nuclear powers, and two friends of the US, two of our most important allies in the war against terror. An India-Pakistan war would be an unmitigated disaster. While the underlying conflict over Kashmir is indeed one of the most intractable and long-running territorial disputes in the world, the spark that sets these two states off, if it comes, will probably be an act of terrorism or terrorist incursion from Pakistan into India.
Two Pakistani-based groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, have links to Al Qaeda, and are designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by our government. These groups have been linked to attacks against the Indian government in October and December of 2001, including the deadly assault against the Indian Parliament. India and Pakistan came extremely close to war in 2002, largely as a result of dispute over the terrorist activities of these Pakistani groups. Tensions remain very high to this day.
Pakistan promised to end incursions in the Summer of 2002, a pledge which served to take both countries back from the brink of war. US diplomacy, especially the work of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, was critical in defusing that 2002 crisis. However, the Indian government continues to complain about incursions across the Line of Control (LoC) from Pakistan.
I want to note that it could take just one more serious terrorist attack in India or Indian-controlled Kashmir to cause a war between these two friends of the US. I know that the State Department will continue to urge Pakistan in the strongest terms to seal off the LoC to terrorist incursion, and I hope that Pakistan will take all necessary measures to prevent a repeat of the 2002 crisis. Pakistan has been an invaluable ally in the war against terror, but lack of vigilance against terrorist incursion across the LoC, to say nothing of actual support for those incursions, threatens to undue all that we have accomplished and much more.
The Need to Tie New Aid Programs to Help in the War on Terror
Finally, I want to address our foreign aid programs and the need to shape them to assist the war against terror. The President has proposed the creation of a bold new foreign aid initiative. For this he is to be commended. The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) has the laudable goal of bringing as much as $5 billion in additional funds into our foreign aid budget by 2006, to be distributed to countries whose governments have adopted the right kind of economic policies, are free of corruption, care for their people, and respect the basic freedoms of their people.
What is missing from the proposal is the need for our government to take into account a country�s cooperation in the war against terrorism when making aid eligibility decisions. As proposed, we could end up providing MCA funds to states which have fine economic policies and public heath programs, but which have not assisted, even when asked, in the war against terror; at the same time, we could end up ignoring states which have done an excellent job in supporting our efforts against terror, but have not, according to the Heritage Foundation, opened up their economy enough to foreign trade.
I hope that as legislation creating the MCA moves forward, it will contain provisions to ensure that states which balk when called upon to provide assistance in the war on terror are not rewarded, while states which have helped us, sometimes at great costs politically as well as economically, are not excluded from the MCA program due to their following economic policies with which we do not agree. I have urged that such a provision be included in the bill and will work to see it adopted.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings.
| Next | Previous | |
 |
Press Release List |  |