the balkans have emphasized ethnicity above all others. people in the balkans like me have multiple identifies. and they need to recognize that

and demand that their vofts and their courts that those multiple identifies be respected and the whole person be respected. to tell me i can't be a candidate for president of the osnia herzegovina is outrageous. and yet that's what the constitution did. it also enabled the european court of human rights to strike down that provision. of course the constitution has not been amended to allow others to be candidates for the residency. what we need to expect from the balkans is stop this over emphasize on ethnic identity,

recognize we have multiple identities, and individual rights has to be respected. and they are not well respected n the balkans today. chair engel: thank you very much. i call on our ranking member, mr. mccaul. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. -- i'm retary and concerned about the growing in the t in serbia, wider balkan region of both the chinese communist party and the ussians. he c.c.p. with the initiative. do have investments with strings attached. death traps. financial implications and environmental and societal.

that we had the last congress, congressman ted yoho, probably one the best things this committee has ever done is we passed the development finance corporation. as a counter to maligned chinese ctivity. can you talk a little bit about, number one, the threat that's posed by the p.r.c. and russia in the region, and also what do you see are some of the solutions to stop that and particularly looking at private sector investments with the development finance corporation. . chairman engel: is there someone you want to direct the question to. mr. mccaul: to madam secretary nd mr. bugajski. secretary albright: i do think i'm very concerned exactly about the same things you are. the russians have wanted to have

a very direct relationship with serbia for a long time. a lot of the history even during the tito period had to do with that relationship. partially what is happening is the russians are practicing in serbia the things they are doing in other parts of central and eastern europe which is operating to undermine democracy there and then separate the countrys from being -- countries from being a part of the west. they are using the tactics of a k.g.b. agent. that's what we are dealing with. i do think they see them -- themselves as having a natural partnership, quote, with the slaves in the balkans, and as that kind of relation -- slavs in the balkans, and as that kivende relationship that's important for their own sake and undermining what we are doing in democratic development. the chinese have, in fact, been investing through the belton road and they have been doing it

in a number of areas that are born in the region which has to do with transportation, with mining. a number of the things that the region needs. i do think what is interesting, the development and finance corporation is a huge step forward. i think something that is very important. there's been an office recently in belgrade. i do think we need to use that as a tool in terms of helping on the investment. i also do believe the private sector needs to get in there. what is interesting, and i don't know whether this is true or not, i just read it, is that the chinese have all of a sudden decided that maybe they can't afford the belton road, literally. that they are having their own economic issues and that they are not going to be investing in much abroad. i think we need to follow that very carefully because obviously our relationship with the chinese is going to affect not just what happens in the balkans but many places. i think we have to watch.

i do think we really do want to see economic development in the balkans. and the more of it that can be done regionally, the more important it is because there are not that many people that live in the region. the countries are small. some kind of cooperation economically would help everybody. mr. mccaul: thank you, madam secretary, i agree with you 100%. mr. bugajski. mr. bugajski: it's important to look at the impact of the pandemic in the region. even after the vaccine is distributed and, assuming there are no other strains of the virus in the fuhr, the long-term economic impact is quite devastating to most of europe, particularly in the balkans. they need a lot of assistance from the european union, a lot of assistance from us, as well as the conditions for private nvestment.

it encourages nationalism, it encourages conflicts in the region. it encourages populace, and encourages foreign actors, bad actors who want to undermine security in the region. this is where i believe russia and china come in. russia, by the way, is more of a short-term danger. i would say china is a longer term threat. it will have ups and downs. of course a lot depends on its own internal economic performance its ability to construct this belton road nish ive. we need to push back. we cannot become complacent. investments in -- through development funds, with european union, working closely with the united states, as well as making onditions to attract private investment. this is why closer economic

relations is important. they can only be fully equal nce they recognize each other. i think all of that would help fight back against the nefarious russian and chinese influence. mr. mccaul: thank you so much. i yield back. chairman engel: thank you, mr. mccaul, mr. sherman. mr. sherman: mr. chairman, it's been an honor to serve with you on this committee for decades. you are a hero in kosovo. you are a hearo in albania. -- hero in albania. and are you a hero in room 2172. thank you for your years of dedication and leadership. you are leaving the committee in good hands. those of greg meeks and mike mccaul. and i look forward to extraordinary contributions on

this committee in the future. under that leadership. andobservation about kosovo that is america often takes -- is accused much being anti-muslim. nothing could be further from the truth. and nothing could illustrate that to a greater degree than the fact that we bombed a christian country in order to preserve the kosovars and prevent ethnic cleansing. that story needs to be repeated again and again throughout the muslim world by both the united states and kosovo. i hope that we get time to focus on bulgaria and greece in this hearing on o the balkans, but naturally we are focusing our attention on the former yugoslavia. as i turn to my questions, i realize this may be the last time i ask my questions

immediately after the gentleman from the bronx, and maybe the last time i get to ask questions immediately before the gentleman from queens. following the 2016 coup attempt in turkey, erdogan blamed the followers of guilan, bosnian officials were pressured to shutter schools that had ties to his movement. then in 2016, six turkish nationals were arrested in kosovo and secretly extradited to turkey. we know that there were false charges issued by the turkish government. as a result, journalists, human rights defenders, and him icians associated with and others who would like to see a greater degree of democracy in

turkey have been subject to pressure or arrest. secretary albright, does turkey continue to pressure countries in the balkans both with regard to harboring any turkish national that erdogan doesn't like? and with regard to other matters. secretary albright: congressman, i am very concerned about turkey's behavior generally in terms of the kind of activities that erdogan is undertaking. it raises -- i hope we spend more time at some point talking about what their role is, what's happening in nato as a result of turkish behavior in buying russian arms. i do believe that there are isolated cases of pressure that the erdogan government is putting on other governments. i think erdogan has to be careful not to fall into a trap

where some people are saying that all of a sudden the muslim population in kosovo is being manipulated from the outside, that it is not thinking about what is happening to the people of kosovo, but that they are under pressure. they have been dealing, i think, very positively with some people bringing to fight and some back in order to have them understand what is happening in the country. but i do think that on a general answer the role of erdogan is something that is very troubling in so many different ways of its relationship with greece, what it is trying to do in the balkans, and what it is doing in the middle east. something that is definitely worth a closer look by this committee of yours which has to deal with the various repercussions of it, not just in the balkans but generally. mr. sherman: and turkish actions

rerecently in the caucasuses. the president of serbia has deepened ties with moscow. should the united states also pursue deeper military ties with serbia to try to wean them away from moscow? or should we avoid that? should serbia be sanctioned for its purchases of russian military equipment which could constitute a violation of u.s. sanctions laws against russia, particularly catsa. madam secretary. secretary albright: i do think we need to look much more at what is happening in terms of the plch of russian military equipment -- purchase of russian military equipment generally. i think it is something that is subject to sanctioning and try and understand what they are buying. i think we also need to look -- this is a really hard question in terms of not just serbia, as i said earlier what turkey is doing as a nato member, using

our arms and the russians at the same time for activities that don't respond to what is necessary in the region. i think this is something that there's very much investigation and action by congress. mr. sherman: i yield back. chair engel: thank you, mr. sherman. mr. chabot. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. chairman. my wife sent me to the post office in my district this past saturday to buy postage stamps for our christmas cards, and it was mentioned earlier by the ranking member that not only do you have a street but postage stamps. i know you are jewish, but i would have been proud to purchase those stamps if they were legal here in the u.s., which i am assuming they are not, but you deserve tremendous credit for the -- your leadership on this committee for so many years, particularly as

chairman. i'm proud to have served on this committee with you for 2 1/2 decades now. i wish you nothing but the best in the future. you are a great friend, great chairman, and wish you nothing but the best in the future. chair engel: thank you, mr. chabot. mr. chabot: i'll go first to mr. bugajski, how has putin used his u.n. security council veto to complicate efforts to normalize relations between kosovo and erbia? mr. bugajski: thank you very much for the question. basically russia continues -- russian federation continues to back kosovo's membership in the united nations -- block

covid-19's membership in the united nations. it is on the one hand backing serbia's position now, not to recognize kosovo, but also exploiting the fact that it has that power over entry of any country in international institutions to raise the stature. that does serbia a disservice because the more serbia can -- more serbia becomes dependent on russia such things as blockages in international institutions, the moral it becomes dependent in other areas, economic, military as we have already discussed. blockage of any government that we recognize i think is destructive for stability in the rougeon. -- region. five european union states also do not recognize kosovo's independence, and i think the incoming administration can also play a role in persuading them that the future is kosovo's independence. it's independent now but full

membership in international organizations, and persuade governments, particularly the greek government, which acted very well in terms of the agreement they have with macedonia, something we didn't expect a few years ago, and i think greek government behaved very astutely, very bravely to come to that agreement. there is no reason why greece can't recognize kosovo. it already recognizes the paperwork and so forth. of course countries that we really helped in the past, romania, these countries should also be recognized -- recognizing kosovo. if there are slower recognitions in the european union that will help increase pressure on russia to wave that veto power in future in the united nations. mr. chabot: with my remaining time let me follow up with another question. among other measures the u.s. brokered agreement that kosovo signed in september included mutual diplomatic recognition of israel while serbia pledged to

move its embassy in israel to jerusalem. could you describe why those measures are so significant? mr. bugajski: i think first of all the significance of kosovo because one of the things that serbia has been doing is not only blocking entry of the country into international institutions, but mounting an international campaign of derecognition. in other words, they persuaded mostly through bribery, they persuaded several countries in central america to derecognize kosovo. secondly, i would say that it's important for kosovo itself to be recognized by a country like israel. the holocaust, of course, defines, in many respects, the importance of why the jewish people need their own independent state. the ethnic cleansing or

attempted genocide of the kosovo population just 25 years ago in a way defines for the kosovo var people the importance of having their own independent state. it's a symbolic political level that's also extremely important. it also frees up, i would say, advance in terms of helping to persuade other countries to recognize kosovo. of course on the other hand for israel it's extremely important as well. it's extremely important for israel to have the embassy in jerusalem, which is traditional viewed as the capital of israel. and serbia, i hadn't heard the latest on whether they have accepted this. they did sign it. hopefully they'll go through with it. mr. chabot: thank you very much. my time has expired. yield back. chair engel: thank you, thank you for the kind words. i now will call on very good

friend of mine for many years, someone who will succeed me as the chairman of this wonderful committee, our districts are not far from each other. probably about a 20-minute cab ride from one district to another. maybe half-hour most. and let me just say that i'm glad that mr. meeks will be chairing this committee because i know with him the committee is in good hands. we have through the years traveled together, talked about issues together. his philosophy is very much like mine when it comes to these issues. he's well steeped in the issues that this committee will carry. i am delighted to see him as my successor. i know that he'll do a wonderful job. we traveled together, as i said, and have personal friends, been

personal friends for many, many years. in my hours of need he's always been there for me and vice versa. i want to just congratulate him. look forward to working with him. now call on the next chairman of this wonderful committee, mr. gregory meeks. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for those words. becoming the chair of this committee is bittersweet. it's bitter because you are my great friend and you have done a tremendous job as chair of this committee. we talk often. we strategize often. i'd like to say that will not change. so that i will continue to lean upon you and the experiences that you have had in your many great years as a member of the united states congress and as the chair of this committee and member of this committee.

we do have similar backgrounds. many people don't realize we both come from public housing. as a result of that we come with specific type of view, world view, on how we can make this place a better place. and you definitively, mr. chairman, have made the world a better place. that's why you have streets named after you and stamps with your face on them is because you have made a significant contribution to this place that we call earth. the united states and all over. and i thank you for that leadership. i look forward to our continuing friendship as we move forward. as i say, you will be getting phone calls from me quite often. thank you, mr. chairman, for all that you have done. chair engel: thank you so much, mr. meeks. i'm really touched. look forward, again, to continue

working together. we served together in albany in the state legislature and we of course served in washington for many, many years. you have been a very welcomed and important member of this committee in so many ways, so many times. as i said before, i feel a lot better knowing that this committee is going to be in good hands. congratulations. of course in the past whatever i can do to help you or o help the committee, all you have to do is call on me. we traveled together to many different places and our philosophies are very, very similar if not the same. look forward to seeing you flourish, mr. chairman, and whatever i can do to help. s you know, all you have to do is call.

i call on o you now if you have any questions you'd like to ask, please go ahead and do so. mr. meeks: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. let me first say that as far as policies are concerned, one of the things i think is important for us to understand is that if we do america first, that means we can get mistrust in our allies. in this case ourure peaian allies. if -- our o european allies. if we do america alone, then we are not at the table. we have no one to lead. leadership is bringing people along with you. leadership is getting buy-in from others. you are not a leader if you are just doing it for yourself. so as i look at this issue i think it's important for us to tolize that we need the e.u.

do more, and we have got to make sure that we are leading them in that direction. my question will be to you, madam secretary, you know the european union was not as large of an actor 25 years ago when you helped usher in peace in the region. one that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks question -- one of my very first hard vote, tough vote, was the year after i was elected to congress, i got elected in 1998, this was a very controversial vote because when you decide that you are going to bomb a region it's important. but i know and learned then early on that to stop atrocities is important. and i voted for what you led and directed and helped with president clinton. it was very important. humanitarian causes. i think it was the right thing

to do. now regardless of how one feels about the e.u., we need them, i believe, if we want to get some progress here, economically and politically. so my question is, and i think that everyone is talking about it, how can we and the biden administration better cooperate with brussels, but most importantly where and how should we push them? where are the right buttons to push them to be a part, and how should we do that? secretary albright: i will still be calling you, mr. chairman, officially, i am delighted you are going to have the role and i look forward to working closely with you. let me just say i think that we need to recognize that one of the leverage aspects in terms of behavior change among these countries is that they are eager to get into the european union. therefore, i think it is important for us to cooperate

with the european union and some of the criticisms that i have had of the recent activities, including what happened in the talks that were held in washington, they have not been coordinated with the european union. and i think that we need to work with them and try to figure out what the various leverage points are in terms of democratic behavior, the partnerships you are talking about, and the fact that we, in fact, our ostrnt is operating with others o. -- our strength is operating with others. that's the force multiplier. i have to say i always loved to talk about what we dead-d in bosnia and kosovo because it's a combination of diplomacy and use of force and the economic tools. it's really using every kind of leverage that we have. i think in doing it in partnership with the europeans is a very important point. the more we partner with the european union, that will be a

strength in other parts of the world who are talking about china and russia. i think if we are concerned about their behavior, by doing it -- making our points in combination with the european union is a sign of similar values operating together, understanding how to use the tools that are available to policymakers. i think it's a very important part of the next stage here. mr. meeks: let me just ask real quick, i know we are about you of time, in similar matters, e.u. bulgaria is blocking north macedonia after greek concerns over name issues. bulgaria questions macedonia's identity and language. how can the biden-harris administration work with our allies in brussels to ensure the e.u. hopefuls of the western balkans are not being held in the waiting room by its neighbors? secretary albright: i think we have to make that very clear

that that's part of it i find this, having spent so much time in terms of a name issue for what is now northern macedonia, when i was at the u.n. we called it the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. nobody ever knew what we were talking about. and the fact that the greeks were able to come to an agreement, this has been worked on so hard, i think it is a tragedy in so many ways that the bulgarians for their domestic reasons have taken this up and they need to be -- that needs to be raised if they really are -- how they fulfill their membership duties. i think it's a very important issue that undermines what we are trying to do generally in the balkans is to get cooperation in terms of economic and political issues. mr. meeks: thank you. i believe my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. chair engel: thank you, mr. chairman. again i look forward to working with you. mr. perfectry.

-- mr. perry. mr. perry: thank you very much, mr. chairman. we are going to miss your service here. i have to say we all enjoy our friend greg meeks, which we have a lot of spirited conversations in the locker room and otherwise. that having been said, mr. bugajski, i'm wondering, it's been 25 years since the dayton accords, which were supposed to be a transitional arrangement to allow bosnia to work out its differences without war, without the violence and the conflict, and come up with some better form of government that served them all well. it has turned into the de facto government over time, and even after two years now, it's my understanding that they have yet -- two years since the most recent leaks, they have yet to form a government. their parliament hasn't met one time. one single session.

the people of bosnia are required to fund 13 different governments and parliaments, and this rotating trio presidency a total of 149 ministries to the extent that 40% of employed workers -- there is a brain drain where 40% of employed workers are over the age of 50, and 20% of the inhabitants of the country are on a pension. what do you surmise is the legitimate -- that doesn't even mention what china's doing, what russia's doing inside the country with a vacuum of governance, so to speak. what do you predict will be the long-term outcome of what seems to be a country that is stuck in time at the moment? mr. bugajski: thank you very much for that question. i don't think any status quo

lasts indefinitely. particularly when the country has been so battered by economic distress as a result of the pandemic. as you said it's stuck in sort of a vortex of bureaucracy, fiefdoms, corruption, favoritism , and nationalism. that sooner or later something's going to give. something will explode. i think it's important for us to engage in a major reform process working together with the european union to construct the proper constitution. remember, dayton was meant to end the war and give everybody a stake in the country. it was not intended to lay the groundwork for entry into international institutions through a fully functional authority state. i think we need to work, i mention this in the testimony on constitutional reform, administrative reform, it was

mentioned, which is a good idea, long-term process of actually curtailing the entities which combat unity, which oppose unity, as well as some of the layers of bureaucracy in government. simply bosnia cannot afford and nobody can afford at this point. without that, what i fear is that at some point the nationalists are basically waiting for the moment that this is no longer viable and they don't break away from bosnia and become an independent state and russia will back them. which puts serbia in a difficult position. we need to avoid that skennaro because that will be bloody. this time we need to prevent a war by acting early rather than coming in after the war already egins. mr. serwer: if i may follow up. i agree entirely. we have to be aware that the europeans have some very

important cards to play in bosnia and herzegovina. one is a lot of money. they can use that money to influence things there. the second is troops. we don't have significant -- we may have a few soldiers, but we don't have a significant troop presence, even the european troop presence is very small. the problem is it's spread out all over the country. it needs to be where the war might occur, where secession can be prevented. that happens to be this northeastern town which was the site of some of the most fierce fighting during the 1990's war. all of them should be put there. they should have clear backing by nato as well. we can influence events in bosnia and herzegovina also by being very clear that if there is a popular involvement for

constitutional reform that it will be protected. that it will not be repressed. as several popular movements that arose in recent years have been repressed. we can't be permitting that to happen. and europe has strong influence due to the money and the troops. we have strong influence because of our history with bosnia and herzegovina together i think we can help to promote the idea of constitutional reform, which is fundamental. i really don't think that any change in the electoral system or any administrative changes will suffice to fix bosnia at this point. the dayton agreements are based on the constitution and it's the constitution that needs to be changed. mr. perry: i thank the

witnesses. having a spent a year in uniform there, i agree with your assessment broadly speaking. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield. chair engel: mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. let me join with my colleagues in wishing you the very best. thank you for your long service to the congress and certainly to our committee. you have set a standard of decency and civility that i wish governed all committees in congress. abide r. mccaul helped by that spirit and i appreciate both of you doing that. thank you. wish you-all the best as you branch out on new endeavors. and i know you can look back in your career here in congress with great pride. and you should. chair engel: thank you, mr.

connolly. mr. connolly: mr. bugajski, i was really struck by your observation that term in the balkans, particularly in serbia, the russians are going to continue to be influential, but the longer term influence to watch is that of china. and i look at history, that's an extraordinary thing to say. who would ever have thought the cheese would be a dominant influence in the balkans say 20 years ago? or certainly 100 years ago? it was czarist russia that helped determine the beginning of world war i in coming to the aid of serbia against the as you trow hungarian and german response to the assassination of arch duke ferdinand. i'm not questioning that, but i wanted to give you an opportunity to expand what did you mean by that? why do you think longer term in the balkans it's the chinese we need to be focused on?

mr. bugajski: thank you very much for that question. let me begin with why russia is not a lopinger term danger. russia is a country in serious decline, economic decline. its economy is the size of a medium-sized european state. china has the second largest economy in the world. russia has internal problems with its nationalities, with its regions, with increasing public unrest, with increasing opposition to putin. there may even be power struggles during the secession period over the next four years. russia faces major internal problems. china, on the other hand o, unless of course there is opposition to the chinese communist party from within, is in a different stage. it continues to be a great dynamic country in terms of its economic growth. it doesn't face the internal contradiction answer conflicts that russia does, and it's increasingly -- and always looked to the longer term. in other words, they don't even

have to look at secession cycles because of the dominance of the communist party. they are looking eventually to replace russia as the major rival of the united states. and best way to do that is to increase their influence not only militarily in east asia, south asia, and other parts of the world, but economically, politically, diplomatically, culturally, and through the media. that's precisely what they are doing not only in europe but in other continents. europe is our concern here and the balkans in particular, this needs to be watched very, very carefully over the coming years. one other thing i would add. how russia and china cooperate in temples undermining u.s. influence and the european union and nato and so forth. that is something that needs to be very carefully what's scrutinized and i hope our intelligence service is also looking at the connection between chinese and russian intelligence services.

mr. connolly: two points. one is you can add, in terms of russia's diminishment as a power, you should also add the demographic part. the shrinkage of russia's population over the next 40 or 50 years is unbelievably dramatic. and that is going to create a whole set of issues on top of everything else you listed. i really appreciate your perspective on china. i would just point out i just did a white paper for nato parliamentary assembly on china, and what's so strike something that, frankly, nato documents don't even acknowledge china exists let alone that there is a challenge or threat until the last few years. if you go back 10, 20 years, no nato document acknowledges china as an entity let alone a clearly emerging world power. i think you're quite right to be focused on china and it's

growing influence in theaters we are not used to their playing in. and building on that, madam secretary, you talked about maybe china is re-evaluating whether it can afford the b.r.i., the belton road initiative. let me try out from a foreign policy point of view sort of a contrarian view that may have some validity. that is that putting aside whether they can afford it or want to continue with it, that in many ways it's a double-edged sword for them. that when they sort of entrap nations into their fiscal web, there is a lot of resentment. there is a lot of debt management issues. and you get shoddy workmanship, only chinese labor, and you get a debt overhang that really cripples the country.

and over time could that create a backlash? instead of building good will, actually china loses ground with a lot of these countries. i don't mean by that that we shouldn't compete or we shouldn't be concerned, but isn't there another aspect that's potentially negative for china that maybe we have an opportunity to examine and work with? your views? secretary albright: thank you. i have to say i was very surprised in reading about -- can you hear me? reading that this morning. i have been saying that the chinese must be getting very fat because the belt keeps getting larger and larger. they are everywhere. they have been in venezuela, and a number of places. i do think, however, that we may be overestimating their economic prowess in terms of what -- what's happening to them at home.

i believe that it's going to be very important for all of you and the executive branch to keep very close track of what china is doing in its own region. the most recent regional trade agreement that was southeast asia, we were not a part of it, they are not giving up on having an extended influence. the other point that you raised from the things i have seen, they have run into problems in countries where they have gone. they initially, some of the countries in africa, for instance, when they wanted to build a road, we had environmental problems, and they said where do you want it? and the countries were eager to accept it. then they found that they were part of a deathtrap or that the workers on it were chinese that were imported so it didn't increase their labor productivity. and they are beginning to see the problems. so i think that what's going to have to happen we are going to be very astute in looking at

what the threat is from the chinese. more nuanced, frankly. they will be adversaries, competitors, and cooperators in some things. and i think it is going to be major. and it is something that we need to have agreements with and cooperation with theure peaians -- with the europeans which have not been happening. it's been fascinating to follow up some of the things they have been doing in europe because they have been connecting, they have been buying ports. or investing in major industries that are basic to the existence of ex-contries. i'm -- ex-contries. i'm not willing to say this has changed. what i find interesting is the questioning. there is generally a questioning by the chinese of how the united states is going to operate in the biden administration. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. chair engel: thank you, mr. connolly. mr. yoho.

mr. yoho: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to get one of those stamps with your face on it before you leave. it has been a pleasure working with you. i find this a very interesting hearing. i think mr. connolly, the last speaker, talking about china, i think where we have seen china step up is after the 19th communist party in 2017 when ping very bluntly and boldly said it's time for china to take the world center stage. i think we have seen that escalate. i think we are seeing the material -- materialization of that. secretary albright, you were talking about the ability to go in and do these infrastructure projects. partnering up with the e.u. >> we are going to leave this live hearing here. you can continue to watch online at our website, c spafment.org. u.s. house about to come in. it's part of c-span's over 40-year come