N1BOS — broadcast
20260920 160000 UTC
466 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] their liquid national gas natural gas is imported from
[00:00:04] Russia, uh, and they also have
[00:00:08] Russian ownership of their major energy company.
[00:00:11] Those those issues need to be addressed, and if confirmed, I
[00:00:15] will certainly continue to urge that NIS
[00:00:19] be there be a change in ownership and
[00:00:22] control from Russian ownership and control to something else, which is under
[00:00:26] negotiation as I understand it. Uh, in addition, I think looking
[00:00:30] at completion of pipelines uh from the West that allow
[00:00:34] them to get energy sources become very important in terms of their
[00:00:38] capacity to engage the
[00:00:41] West
[00:00:44] and advance all of uh to the exclusion on occasion of Russia and
[00:00:47] other countries with
[00:00:50] a more complicated question than a somewhat less honorable ambitions for
[00:00:53] Serbia. Ms.
[00:00:58] of lot of things. But in Neshut, um, as you've already seen today, this committee is
[00:01:02] really concerned, really interested in how
[00:01:05] we achieve um, how we bolster our national security
[00:01:09] on matters related to uh the
[00:01:12] Arctic. Uh, we face a lot of vulnerabilities in that
[00:01:16] area, and I know you know more about this
[00:01:19] area than almost any anybody I know.
[00:01:23] Um, what can you tell us just sort of about your strategy on this? I've introduced a bill
[00:01:26] to try to address our efforts there, but uh
[00:01:32] tell us what you know
[00:01:34] the the business interests of about how our foreign adversaries, within the realm of what
[00:01:37] you can talk about in a non-classified environment, but how are our
[00:01:40] adversaries may be exploiting vulnerabilities
[00:01:43] going to make your job very, very hard. Let me in the Arctic, U.S. vulnerability cities? Yeah,
[00:01:47] thank you, Senator. Uh, it's it's something that I think is is
[00:01:51] quite the highest priority when it comes to our national security is is
[00:01:54] understanding the threat environment that is up there, the lack of
[00:01:57] domain awareness, ensuring that our U.S. card has the capabilities,
[00:02:01] our Navy. I think we're all aware we have a shortage of icebreakers. We
[00:02:05] do have ice ice pact
[00:02:07] to um build a agreement, hopefully that will help with the expansion thanks to President Trump's uh advocacy
[00:02:11] there. Uh working with uh Canada and Finland to help
[00:02:15] um expand our icebreaker fleet. I believe right now we only
[00:02:18] have one actual heavy icebreaker
[00:02:21] ship, um which is quite
[00:02:24] old, and uh we have maybe two medium icebreakers and that's about
[00:02:27] it. So there's there's quite a bit just from a shipping standpoint and having
[00:02:31] having that capability. The concern as I said earlier with
[00:02:35] increased shipping traffic with Russia and China, my concern
[00:02:38] is, China tends to have these quote unquote research stations up in the high
[00:02:42] north. Um, a lot of it is with dual use purpose. Uh, I
[00:02:46] myself have visited up in the high north and seen
[00:02:49] firsthand these these so-called research stations being unplugged, and what does that
[00:02:53] really mean? Right? Um, so and then also just
[00:02:56] seeing a lot of ships up there including illegal
[00:03:00] fishing that's taking place and what does that really mean when they're supposed to also be scientific
[00:03:04] research? So understanding
[00:03:06] state, but again they do consider themselves in that that dynamic, taking stock in inventory of what we do have up
[00:03:09] in the high north, expanding maybe some of the military exercises that we have and
[00:03:13] working with our Arctic partners and including NATO of
[00:03:17] course will will certainly be part of that uh dynamic. I
[00:03:20] mentioned even a space component and being able to have the sensor
[00:03:24] the sensors, the radars that that are appropriate up there and
[00:03:29] open source reporting of working closely with NORAD and Northcom as well. Thank you so much.
[00:03:32] See my time's expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
[00:03:35] Senator Lee, and thank you for not engaging in discussion about the
[00:03:38] footnotes in those Supreme Court cases that you're so familiar. Hey, we can go there if you want to.
[00:03:42] Not we don't. Senator Murphy, uh, thank you very much,
[00:03:46] Mr. Chairman. Thank you to uh everyone on the panel for your willingness
[00:03:50] to serve the country and to your family's willingness to
[00:03:53] serve. Um, Mr. Young, last year uh Donald
[00:03:56] Trump Junior made two um pretty high
[00:04:00] profile visits to Serbia. In at least one of them he met with
[00:04:03] Vucic uh and business leaders. And then in
[00:04:07] April of this year, an even more extraordinary visit. Uh,
[00:04:10] he went to the Republica Srpska, and it was widely
[00:04:14] covered um as um implicit
[00:04:17] endorsement of Dodik by the President's
[00:04:21] family. Um, we now know that at that exact same moment
[00:04:24] when the President was going, when the
[00:04:27] President's son was going to the Republic of Srpska, a Russian
[00:04:30] ally, um, very close associate of Vladimir
[00:04:34] Putin was paying
[00:04:37] for Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding. Um,
[00:04:40] and you were going to be in a country that
[00:04:43] apparently um, is of great interest to the President's
[00:04:47] family. What do you know about
[00:04:50] the President's son's visit to Republica Srpska? Why
[00:04:54] did he go, um, and what was the message he was
[00:04:57] delivering when he was there, because it was covered as
[00:05:01] an official act of the federal of the
[00:05:05] U.S. government. It was of great interest in the region when
[00:05:09] Um, one of he was there. Uh, Senator Murphy, thank you for that.
[00:05:13] uh question, I will have two levels
[00:05:17] of answers for that. One is that
[00:05:20] uh, as I have seen in the newspapers, which
[00:05:24] is my only level of understanding of this, is that there
[00:05:26] is interest in financial
[00:05:30] investment on the part of his companies
[00:05:32] in Serbia, and those are of
[00:05:36] course decisions for
[00:05:38] Serbia and the private sector to make. If confirmed, I will
[00:05:42] certainly look carefully at what kinds of
[00:05:45] representations we are making, by what kind of activities
[00:05:48] occur across the board, to ensure that we try
[00:05:52] to speak with a single voice
[00:05:56] the particular activities that are
[00:05:59] designed to help advance our relationship with Serbia in
[00:06:03] ways that make the United States safer, more secure. But in
[00:06:07] preparation for this hearing or for this job, have you
[00:06:09] asked the White House or the State Department, what the
[00:06:12] nature of those visits were? That seems to be
[00:06:16] immediately relevant to you in this new post. Have you
[00:06:19] asked those questions? Uh, the Senator, I have
[00:06:23] asked those questions and, but I am not, I am not
[00:06:26] in a position, having not been confirmed to be able
[00:06:30] to have the depth of more confidential
[00:06:33] information about that, and what they have, what I've been briefed
[00:06:37] on really reflects essentially what it's in the
[00:06:40] newspapers. Yeah, this is, this is an extraordinary moment
[00:06:43] when um
[00:06:46] the family um do intersect with the
[00:06:50] national security interests of the country. Um, and I think it's
[00:06:56] ask both you and General Johnson, a
[00:06:59] related question. The President's family has a lot of business
[00:07:02] interests in the region. You referenced that Donald Trump
[00:07:06] Jr. seems to uh be interested in building
[00:07:09] properties there. The President's son-in-law, maybe the most
[00:07:13] important diplomat these days representing the United States, Jared
[00:07:16] Kushner is proposing
[00:07:20] resort in Albania, and in fact it has become so
[00:07:23] controversial that um an American ally,
[00:07:26] the leader of that country, his political survival is
[00:07:30] threatened because of this
[00:07:32] project. Um, this is a pretty simple
[00:07:35] question, if the White House were to come
[00:07:39] to either of you, um and ask for help from the
[00:07:43] embassy a
[00:07:45] financial project important to the family,
[00:07:49] what would your response
[00:07:52] be? Um, first ask you, General Johnson, and
[00:07:55] then um to you Mr. Young. And I don't think
[00:07:58] these are out of the realm of possibility hypotheticals
[00:08:02] given how many important business interests the family has in
[00:08:06] this particular region.
[00:08:08] Good morning, Senator Murphy, thank you. I don't
[00:08:12] the President would actually ask me to help him
[00:08:15] with financial deals for his family first and
[00:08:19] foremost. And if he did, I think I
[00:08:22] would refer back to main state in order to get
[00:08:26] clarification.
[00:08:28] Well, what if the State Department said, we'd like you to help the President or
[00:08:32] the President's family a business
[00:08:35] deal? I don't believe that it'll ever occur. Do
[00:08:39] you believe it's appropriate for an embassy to be
[00:08:42] helping the President of the United States
[00:08:46] a personal family financial A first of
[00:08:50] all, Senator, it is the job of the embassy to
[00:08:54] help promote U.S. economic
[00:08:57] interests in those countries. Well, whether or not it's the
[00:09:00] President's, mean it's a different
[00:09:03] story. I understand where you're coming from. So you think it might be appropriate
[00:09:06] for an embassy? I did not say that, Senator. So is it or is it
[00:09:10] not?
[00:09:14] If they ask me if you want to promote
[00:09:17] economic development in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I
[00:09:20] welcome all Americans to come to Bosnia and Herzegovina
[00:09:24] to be able to promote even if it's the President's family interest. Um,
[00:09:28] Mr. Young, is it appropriate for an embassy
[00:09:30] to be trying to push a
[00:09:33] personal project of the President's
[00:09:36] family? Uh, Senator Murphy, it
[00:09:39] is, I believe, part of the job
[00:09:42] of an ambassador to try and urge the country to create an
[00:09:46] environment that levels the playing field so that American companies
[00:09:50] and American interest can compete fairly and freely and if they
[00:09:54] do they will win. But just answer the question. I mean this is not for you, especially.
[00:09:58] This is not inconceivable. I mean, the President's son has
[00:10:01] active Trump family projects
[00:10:05] um in Serbia today. It is not inconceivable that you will be asked
[00:10:08] to advocate on behalf of those projects. Do you think it's
[00:10:13] for you to advocate on behalf of projects that put money
[00:10:16] in the pocket of the President
[00:10:18] of the United States?
[00:10:21] Senator, I think it is the obligation of Ambassador to uh
[00:10:25] urge a country to
[00:10:28] consider all opportunities. Guys, the answer
[00:10:31] is no. The answer is no. It is not
[00:10:34] appropriate for an ambassador to
[00:10:37] advocate on behalf of projects that will enrich the President
[00:10:41] or his family. That's an easy answer. The answer is
[00:10:45] no. Thank you, Mr.
[00:10:47] Chairman.
[00:10:49] Uh, well, thank you, Senator Murphy. I think
[00:10:53] the the question's a whole lot more complicated than what you've put in front of them. I
[00:10:57] think uh obviously legal advice would be important in that regard.
[00:11:01] Ethics advice would be important in that regard. And I have every
[00:11:04] confidence that these people would seek such
[00:11:07] advice and follow that advice that were was given to
[00:11:11] them. So I I think it's
[00:11:15] simple yes or no. It would depend upon the circumstances of each
[00:11:18] case. It would depend upon a lot
[00:11:23] any event um thank you uh for your answers on that.
[00:11:27] And uh it I think what Senator Murphy just laid out is
[00:11:30] a uh good example of the kind of complicated questions
[00:11:34] and difficult choices that uh ambassadors have to make when you're when you're
[00:11:38] out in the field. But uh being the United States of America, we have
[00:11:42] uh lanes and pathways for those decisions to
[00:11:45] to be vetted and then uh decisions to be made. So thank
[00:11:49] you. Thank you for your service. Senator Hagerty.
[00:11:52] Welcome. Good to be back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you for calling
[00:11:55] me. Um, and congratulations to all of you and thank you for your
[00:11:59] willingness to serve the greatest nation in the world uh as diplomats. Uh your
[00:12:03] charge is going to be significant. I'd like to start with you, Dr. Neshwat, if I might.
[00:12:07] Um, I'd like to talk to you about the importance of the Arctic
[00:12:10] for America's security and economic concerns. Um
[00:12:14] I think conventional wisdom in many foreign policy zones would say that this is
[00:12:18] really a European or a NATO issue. But I learned
[00:12:21] in my time serving as Ambassador to Japan that China is posing
[00:12:25] threats, not only in that region, but considerable threats
[00:12:29] and concerns around the world. And I'd just like to get
[00:12:31] your perspective on how you see the national security
[00:12:35] aspects, the economic security aspects of the region, particularly if you could focus on
[00:12:39] China. Thank you, Senator Hagerty. Um, yes,
[00:12:42] it's it's a very important question. It it certainly does go beyond beyond
[00:12:46] Europe. Um, when we think about the Indo-Pacific region, there's there's also
[00:12:49] a Pacific side of of the Arctic. And we have to consider those those
[00:12:53] aspects when you think about partners and allies like Japan,
[00:12:56] Korea, Singapore, they are
[00:12:59] Arctic observer states and they all have also
[00:13:03] have taken the investment opportunity to look at
[00:13:06] economic security. In fact, I think Japan is now building its second
[00:13:10] icebreaker, so they're all very concerned, especially when it comes to
[00:13:13] choke points as they're looking at shipping lanes as well where they can do
[00:13:17] their trading and shipping um all together. But um again,
[00:13:21] I I would say that the biggest concern would certainly be China.
[00:13:25] Once again, which again, we all think I know that it is not an Arctic
[00:13:31] a near-Arctic state. They have what's called a Polar Silk
[00:13:34] Road that they created a number of years ago,
[00:13:38] basically looking to have this dual use
[00:13:41] technology that that's out there, which I think is of
[00:13:44] great concern. And again, the
[00:13:48] concern will also be what are they doing with China? In
[00:13:51] fact, there's been reports,
[00:13:54] these Russia patrols in the
[00:13:57] region that that have extended even through the Alaska waters. So
[00:14:01] there is there is some concern in in that region as well too. So I think it's going to be
[00:14:05] very important. I believe there's even discussion of having a trilateral
[00:14:09] with U.S., Japan, and and Korea on on Arctic issues. So I
[00:14:12] look forward, if confirmed, to work with them as well. I
[00:14:15] I certainly applaud the
[00:14:18] trilateral exercise you're talking about, because I think the more that we can do with
[00:14:21] Japan, South Korea, and other nations in the region to what is a
[00:14:25] very common concern. Uh, I think that's very important. And thank you for
[00:14:28] highlighting the Indo-Pacific aspect of
[00:14:31] our concerns in the Arctic. As I think about what the Trump
[00:14:35] administration has done in terms of anticipating and understanding this
[00:14:39] issue, they've entered a significant deal with Finland to make ice
[00:14:42] icebreakers. And in fact, I think seven of the 11
[00:14:46] icebreakers are going to be built here in U.S. shipyards. But it's a
[00:14:49] critical move, I think, in terms of creating
[00:14:53] industrial base and the strength to to be present in that
[00:14:56] region. Um, going back to the China-Russia cooperation
[00:15:00] though, um, how does the icebreaker deal
[00:15:03] impact uh, how they may look at the region and how we should be
[00:15:07] posturing ourselves? Thank you, Senator. That's a great question.
[00:15:11] Um, as I was saying earlier, we we're certainly behind the curve here
[00:15:15] as Russia continues to militarize the region. They
[00:15:18] have over a dozen now icebreakers. Uh,
[00:15:21] China also is is relying on some of that capital as well in the to the Northern
[00:15:25] Sea Route. So it will be very important. This ice pact deal
[00:15:29] and the expansion of it will help us have the capabilities as opposed to
[00:15:33] waiting over a decade to build icebreaker. This will hopefully
[00:15:36] expedite that with partnership of of Finland and
[00:15:39] as well as the support of Canada. So I I'm always curious
[00:15:43] how a title like Ambassador at Large fits into the State Department or
[00:15:46] chart. My experience with the organization, it can be
[00:15:49] complicated. But I I would appreciate to the extent you
[00:15:53] have visibility on that, how will you fit into the organization chart and how will you get the support
[00:15:56] you need, because you're going to touch many domains here with your
[00:15:59] responsibility? I I'd like to just get your commentary on on the organizational
[00:16:03] aspects of this. Thank you, Senator. I believe according to the statute
[00:16:07] and of this position, I would report to the Secretary through
[00:16:10] the Under Secretary of Political Affairs, P is the
[00:16:14] acronym. But this this will probably be housed
[00:16:17] in from what I understand the EUR Bureau, the European Bureau.
[00:16:21] However, that being said, it'll be critical to work with
[00:16:24] other bureaus such as the East Asia Pacific
[00:16:26] Bureau,
[00:16:29] the Western Hemisphere Bureau, emerging threats. I mean, it's pretty much
[00:16:33] all encompassing throughout the State Department. Having worked there, I kind of
[00:16:36] understand the dynamic of of of how the the regional bureaus and the
[00:16:40] functional bureaus work. So it'll be extremely important to be able to
[00:16:43] channel through and coordinate with each and every one of these bureaus. Well, you've identified the
[00:16:47] concern very well, and that is tucked in a way, tucked into a regional bureau
[00:16:51] with such broad responsibilities that would cut across many. You're
[00:16:54] certainly the right person for the job to figure out how that
[00:16:57] makes to make that happen, to make it work within the construct of the current
[00:17:01] system. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank ranking membership. Thank
[00:17:05] and congratulate all of the nominees here for being present today and wish you
[00:17:08] all the very best as you navigate this process. Thank
[00:17:11] you. Thank you uh Senator Hagerty. And for those of you
[00:17:15] who didn't know Senator Hagerty had the opportunity to sit right where you're sitting uh
[00:17:18] some years back uh before he went to Japan. He was an Ambassador to
[00:17:22] Japan.
[00:17:27] That's why he's so easy on you guys. Sat there. In any
[00:17:30] event, um, uh did a fantastic job for us in
[00:17:33] Japan, and uh and I really appreciate it. Uh, so with that,
[00:17:37] Senator Shaheen has already announced a second round as she ordinarily
[00:17:41] does. So to my good friend and colleague Senator Shaheen, I will
[00:17:45] yield. I only do I only do it when I have additional
[00:17:48] questions. By the way, I think all those remarks were made
[00:17:52] were uh particularly
[00:17:54] appropriate about missing your expertise uh in the
[00:17:58] Balkans. I know you spent a good share, good share of your
[00:18:01] career. So Shaheen and I came in at the same time and we
[00:18:05] kind of had as frequently happens, we have
[00:18:09] interests that are a little different, and she's been focused on that and
[00:18:13] there, and and it doesn't get the attention that it needs. So we are going to miss
[00:18:16] your expertise in that regard. So Senator
[00:18:19] Shaheen. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I I do
[00:18:23] have some more questions for Mr. Johnson, but
[00:18:26] um, I want to ask Miss Neswa first about
[00:18:30] her, um, views on Arctic
[00:18:33] Security, and I think it's very important that we have
[00:18:38] um someone in the position that you've been nominated for given the
[00:18:41] challenges that we're facing in the Arctic. And as I'm sure you're
[00:18:45] aware earlier this year, Secretary Blinken reiterated the
[00:18:49] importance of strong engagement with NATO's seven Arctic
[00:18:53] countries. And yet um,
[00:18:56] earlier, well, in May, Senator
[00:18:59] Murkowski and I led an all-female delegation
[00:19:02] to the Arctic. We visited
[00:19:06] um Northern Canada, Greenland, um,
[00:19:09] Svalbard in Norway. And
[00:19:12] we're supposed to go to Iceland and had trouble with the
[00:19:15] plane. But um,
[00:19:18] one of the things we heard in that
[00:19:21] trip was concern about the position this
[00:19:24] administration has taken with respect to some of our traditional allies.
[00:19:28] Canada, um, the threat to take action on
[00:19:31] Greenland, um, the map showing Iceland is a
[00:19:35] U.S. territory. And
[00:19:37] none of those are conducive to the kind of
[00:19:41] partnership and collaboration we need with our Arctic
[00:19:45] allies. So can you talk a little bit about how you would
[00:19:48] address the interest in ensuring that we have
[00:19:51] regular communication with our allies? Thank
[00:19:55] you, Senator. If confirmed, I I look forward to working with each and
[00:19:59] every one of our partners and allies, including the A7
[00:20:02] partnership uh that was created earlier this year uh with our
[00:20:05] Nordic partners. Um,
[00:20:07] I would say that it would also be important to work with our our U.S. Nordic
[00:20:11] ambassadors too. And and if confirmed, I hope to maybe
[00:20:14] perhaps hold uh monthly meetings uh from time to time
[00:20:18] to make sure we're all speaking from the same sheet of music and carrying uh Secretary
[00:20:21] Blinken's and and President Trump's um policies going
[00:20:24] forward so there's no confusion and that we we have that close
[00:20:27] coordination in working with uh those partner countries that
[00:20:31] will be very important, uh which of course includes uh
[00:20:34] NATO. Um, well, thank you, as you point out,
[00:20:38] NATO has an important role to play, and and
[00:20:40] they're doing a better job of recognizing how
[00:20:44] important that is.
[00:20:47] the briefings that we got when we were in Svalbard, which is above the
[00:20:50] Arctic Circle in Norway, was
[00:20:53] about Russia's increasing aggression in that
[00:20:56] region. And so can you talk
[00:21:00] about how you think we should be responding to what
[00:21:03] Russia is doing in the Arctic? Well, thank you,
[00:21:07] Senator. Very important question. I was saying earlier to
[00:21:10] Senator Hagerty that with Russia's continued militarization of the
[00:21:14] Arctic, now they are hurting a little bit economically because of the Russia
[00:21:17] Ukraine War, but they continue
[00:21:20] to dominate in the region, controlling access through the Northern Sea
[00:21:23] Route. And the biggest, I think, challenge for us in the United
[00:21:27] States and for our Arctic allies is to
[00:21:30] have those capabilities, whether it's the icebreakers behind that,
[00:21:34] having the the technology, the innovation, the support. I
[00:21:37] mean even the coldware gear, having
[00:21:40] been having participated in some of the military exercises, I noticed
[00:21:44] even our own troops were needing to use, for
[00:21:48] example, Norwegian uniforms and boots just to deal with the cold weather. So there's
[00:21:52] a lot that we can learn from each other and cooperate both from an
[00:21:55] operational standpoint and and and also even
[00:21:58] from a security standpoint in the sense of those
[00:22:02] shared values and understanding that we need that domain awareness.
[00:22:06] Well, thank you. We have the Cold Regions Lab in Hanover, New
[00:22:09] Hampshire, and we would invite you to come and see what they're doing there
[00:22:13] to to address some of the concerns we have about
[00:22:17] being prepared for Arctic um temperature
[00:22:20] and weather. Absolutely. Thank you.
[00:22:24] Um, thank you. Mr. Johnson, I want to, I
[00:22:28] asked Mr. Young this question, but I didn't ask you
[00:22:32] whether you also
[00:22:35] agree that what happened in Srebrenica was a
[00:22:38] genocide?
[00:22:43] Thank you, Senator. I think I could unequivocally tell you, yes,
[00:22:46] Srebrenica was a genocide, has been
[00:22:50] the convictions that came through with the court systems as you mentioned earlier.
[00:22:53] Absolutely. And do you agree
[00:22:57] that it's important for us to to make clear
[00:23:00] that that's the position of the United States and particularly when we
[00:23:04] hear from characters like Milorad
[00:23:08] Dodik as he's trying to encourage
[00:23:11] separatism and foment
[00:23:15] further ethnic tensions and religious tensions in
[00:23:19] Bosnia, Herzegovina, that it's important for us to be unequivocal
[00:23:22] in how we talk about that issue. I think,
[00:23:26] Senator, you can rest assured that when I am in position that I will be
[00:23:29] very positive in recommending those courses
[00:23:33] of action as you mentioned. earlier. Absolutely.
[00:23:36] Thank you, thank you, thank you all very much. I join
[00:23:40] in that, thanks to all of you, we had a unique opportunity here today
[00:23:44] to talk about some things that you might wind up with,
[00:23:48] Senator Murphy raised some questions. Ethical questions, and we don't, we don't
[00:23:52] usually get into a discussion of that, I'm sure they take that up when you go through
[00:23:56] school, over at the State Department, the kinds of things that that you're going
[00:23:59] to deal with, but my experience over the years and
[00:24:03] is that the ambassadors wind up with some very
[00:24:07] unique situations and ones that that require you to write
[00:24:10] home and find out what what needs to go on, so
[00:24:14] thank you again to you and and to your families for
[00:24:17] being here today, certainly. Panel that we had
[00:24:20] today and uh I want to thank you all for the benefit of
[00:24:24] your testimony uh and candor uh with us.
[00:28:12] AFD triumph: how will Germany change? Black
[00:28:16] Sea, Russian-Ukrainian food war.
[00:28:20] Nepalese guest workers, what are Sherpas doing in
[00:28:23] Norway?
[00:28:36] Greetings: the triumphant victory of the AFD in the state elections
[00:28:39] in Saxony-Anhalt is a turning point for
[00:28:42] Germany, although it is one of the smallest federal
[00:28:45] states, the consequences of the election are felt across
[00:28:49] the country. How do citizens react to the dominance
[00:28:52] of a party that is declared right-wing extremist in Saxony-
[00:28:56] Anhalt and how does the AFD victory
[00:28:59] change their lives?
[00:29:03] Saxony-Anhalt, once part of communist East
[00:29:06] Germany. After the fall of the Berlin Wall,
[00:29:09] people massively emigrated from this province, especially young
[00:29:13] and better educated. But a few years ago, the trend
[00:29:17] changed, more people are moving in again,
[00:29:20] seeking the benefits of living in smaller towns, affordable
[00:29:24] rents, and businesses they can
[00:29:27] develop. But is Saxony-Anhalt really a place for
[00:29:30] a permanent life? If the Alternative for Germany, which is considered
[00:29:34] extremist in this federal state, succeeds in taking
[00:29:38] power, many will ask if perhaps it's not.
[00:29:52] When Anja Reismann walks through the town, someone always approaches
[00:29:56] her. In this town, she knows almost
[00:29:58] everyone.
[00:30:01] Anja was born here, but she left when she was very young. At that
[00:30:05] time, the place seemed cramped, boring.
[00:30:08] She lived in the Czech Republic and France, then near
[00:30:10] Munich. She didn't expect to
[00:30:13] return.
[00:30:19] There are now more people here, more people who want to do something, more
[00:30:23] young people. There's almost always something going on every
[00:30:25] weekend. And Anja also wanted to give back to the
[00:30:28] community. She founded an organization that brings people together.
[00:30:32] Every Monday afternoon there are coffee, cakes, and fruit,
[00:30:36] and everyone is
[00:30:37] welcome.
[00:30:40] These small moments that arise, you know? So
[00:30:44] an older gentleman
[00:30:47] recently sat next to Asada from Afghanistan and then they
[00:30:50] realized, oh, we live on the same street, we are neighbors and
[00:30:54] yes, she needed someone to help the children with their homework,
[00:30:58] he needed someone to help her with shopping and...