tv United Nations Fiscal Year 2016 Budget CSPAN April 15, 2015 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
past month may be remembered as the moment the united states lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system." number one -- >> if he was right i think the best response to that is to ratify the reform of the imf. >> you finished my sentence. usually i just steal your ideas, this time you finished my sentence. so that is really what i was getting at. number one, does the formation of aiib in some way form a new economic reality? in that context do talk even more in depth of this reform. is the u.s. undermining its role as the leading country to contribute to financial order? >> you know, i think that the asia infrastructure bank was part of a broader project by the chinese authorities to actually
develop growth build infrastructure projects and stimulate growth and economic activities not only within china but also with many neighbors along that old silk road and down along the maritime road. so it wasn't, you know, a huge structure, if i may say. but it was part of thinking along the lines of we need to develop broader and there are countries along the way pointing towards europe that will actually benefit from that. and so will our internal manufacturing infrastructure. i think it has been elevated a bit because of the general context in which that bank has been now set up as of march 31st. but it's a great initiative in the sense that it's broad spectrum. it reflects the transformation
of the global economy with new key players. and it embraces a regional approach which could actually be extremely stimulative for economies that matter more and more today than they did a few years back. so it's both -- i think it's part of something which is broader. and it really reflects a new landscape for the global economy. now, what can the united states do to reinforce its natural leadership role in the global economy as well as in the international monetary scene is to effectively ratify a reform which is a governance as well as a quo ta reform that was engineered by many countries particularly by the united states back in 2010. what does it do? two things. number one, it gives a bit more space to the likes of the
emerging markets and some underrepresented countries. so a bit more space at the table. it reduces a little bit the participation of the europeans which has been probably excessive relative to their size in the global economy. so you rebalance a bit less europeans, a bit more emerging market economies. you double the quotas which doesn't have any budgetary implementations. already earmarked and are in the united states budget. some of it has to be put into the form of quota which gives the institution more stability. so doubling the quota gives more financial resources if and when a crisis occurs. and that's pretty much what it is. >> uh-huh. >> so the united states continues its right to be the
key shareholder and member states of the imf. and it takes zero financial risk. so i think it's a no-brainer but. >> let me ask one more question that you touched on. john kerry secretary of state john kerry is here next week at the atlantic council. >> he's here with you. oh great. >> with us really watching the campaign around these trade issues. and we are particularly highlighting the geostrategic and geopolitical importance of trade issues. instead of focusing on all the gains that would be had from the ttp and ttip, look at the other side. what happens is there a downside if it doesn't happen? if we get to the end of this administration, there's no trade promotion authority, there's no ttip, no tpp and no imf reform ratification. instead of saying everything we would gain what happens if none of that goes through? which could be an outcome. it is a possible outcome.
>> well, you know, i'll put my sort of corporate hat for a second. and i'm a big u.s. corporate and i want to invest. i know that there is a massive growing market out there in the east. and if there is no facilitation of trade, if there is no better tariff arrangements and no more alignment of standards around the world instead of necessarily investing in the united states of america i'm going to look at other investment authorities -- opportunities. and probably invest where there are very serious growing markets. either in terms of purchasing powers or in terms of population. you know i always think of mr. heineken when he was investing around the world. he was generally looking at where there was a lot of light because he knew that that's where people would actually buy and drink beer. well, big corporates, that's
what they do. and if there's no facilitation, no lowering of the barriers then you have to be everywhere to expand. and you have to invest outside. so to those say it's going to reduce employment, it's going to be bad for labor i don't think so. i really don't. >> so let me just take one question. i'm sorry that we really have run out of time, but i'm looking -- >> it's my fault. i spoke for too long. >> no, that was a brilliant speech. so against the wall please your hand, you had your hand up first. >> robert with international investor. madame director, the u.s. dollar's at an all-time high along with the growth of the world we've seen the growth offinof in indebtedness, much held in repayment schedules in dollars. if interest rates rise here, that problem could be exacerbated. are you concerned it could create a crisis with any of the world's currencies?
>> i'm sure you listen very carefully to the risks that i've tried to identify. and that's the one that i have flagged together with the persistently low interest rate which causes another type of risk. but clearly the exchange rate and the currency risks and volatility it creates is one of those rising risks. also migrates risk as we call it because it's probably going to effect more of the emerging market economies and particularly the corporates in those economies that have actually borrowed in u.s. dollars or pegged currencies. it's not just u.s. dollars. it's also those that are used -- which have not changed. that's where we see the potential origin of risk that could be significant. >> thank you for that. >> and as you rightly said exacerbated by the potential
rise of interest rates. you know likely at the end of the year. >> let me close and let people stay in their seats because i know you have to get to another meeting right outside here. this was a great terrific conversation. wonderful speech. i am going to hold you to what was on the podium. we'll get you back a year from now. we'll see how we've done. and i really look forward to having you back at atlantic council. >> i'm absolutely coming back if we can celebrate the tpp the ttip and the imf reform. [ applause ]
we were experiencing some audio difficulties with this hearing with samantha power. we have fixed that and bring you live coverage now here on c-span3. >> -- no one nation should can address today's global challenges alone. that is why we must continue to work together with the world community using every tool at our disposal. unilateral action should be the last option, not the first. those who view the u.n. negatively or advocate for reducing its resources undermine the u.n.'s effectiveness and limit our ability to influence international decisions. simply put, we cannot expect the u.n. to perform if we starve it of the resources it requires or if we regard our treaty obligations as optional.
however, like any organization, the u.n. is not perfect. i am particularly concerned about its actions with regard to the israeli-palestinian conflict and comments by the obama administration suggesting a re-evaluation of our longstanding policy of defending israel at the u.n. indeed it was your predecessor, ambassador rice who said when vetoing a resolution onset on settlement activity, it has the israelis and palestinians conflict. and even the best intentions outside cannot resolve it for them. supporting a remaining agnostic on a u.n. resolution would violate the letter and spirit of the oslow accord signed in 1993 which endorsed a seminole construct of land for peace
through direct negotiations however prolonged, intense or seemingly entractable they may be. such a stance that the u.n. would also reward palestinian intransigence and ignore history. madame ambassador, i hope you will unequivocally assure the members of this subcommittee that the administration will do everything in its power to stand firmly with our ally israel and opposing counterproductive and reckless u.n. proposals. turning to iran. in addition to ensuring the strictist inspections and monitoring any facility one of the most critical components of any deal will be the timing of any proposed sanction relief and our ability to immediately reimpose sanctions should iran violate any part of the agreement. given iran's history of deception, i'd like to hear from
you that the core of u.n. sanctions will remain in place until iran has taken major nuclear-related steps that demonstrate their sincerity. i would also like you to detail the mechanisms with which the u.n. could snap back u.n. sanctions at any point during the deal and beyond. lastly, i hope you will also update the subcommittee on the u.n.'s conflict resolution efforts such as ending the devastating warfare in south sudan, countering violent extremism across the continent, which is all the more critical given the barbaric massacre of garrisi university. i thank you for your leadership, your commitment and passion and for all you do to represent
american values abroad. i look forward to your testimony. >> ambassador power, plead proceed with your opening remarks. i would encourage you to summaryize your remarks so we have enough time for questions and answers. your full written statement will be in place. we expect votes around 3:20. [ technical difficulties ] >> thank you so much for the invitation to testify today. and thank you for the rigor that you all bring in ensuring that america's contributions to the united nations are used to maximum effect in advancing our interests and our values in the world. as this committee knows and as both of your opening statements testified to, we are living in a time of daunting and seemingly perpetual global crises. in the year since i last testified before this committee a deadly epidemic exploded in west africa threatening tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives.
a monstrous terrorist group seized large parts of syria and iraq broadcasting beheadings and mass executions on youtube. and russia trained, armed and sent soldiers to fight alongside separatists in eastern ukraine among too many crises to count. these are the kinds of threats for which the united nations was created. yet they have exposed profound weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the international system. we've seen a global health system led by the w.h.o. that despite multiple warnings from credible sources including our cdc was slow to respond to the ebola epidemic's growing momentum. we have seen russia and china through their cynical veto of an icc referral resolution at the u.n. security council block a step toward holding accountable a regime that has tortured starved, gassed and barrel bombed its own people. representing our nation at the u.n. i have to confront these vulnerabilities every day. but the central point i want to
make to this committee is that even taking into account these weaknesses, america needs the united nations to address today's global challenges. the united states has the most powerful set of tools in history to advance our interests, and we will always lead on the world stage. but we are more effective when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal multilateral support to meet our objectives. let me quickly outline four ways we are doing that at the u.n. first, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address transnational threats. consider iran. in addition to working with congress to put in place unprecedented u.s. sanctions on the iranian government in 2010 the obama administration galvanized the u.n. security council to authorize one of the toughest sanctions regimes in the history of the organization. this combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing iran to the negotiating table.
and ultimately to helping reach a framework that effectively cuts off every pathway for the regime to develop a nuclear weapon. it is not only on iran where we've used the u.n. to cat liez action on issues where the international community has proven unable or unwilling to respond. last september as people were dying outside of hospitals in west africa that had no beds left to treat the exploding number of ebola patients, we chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the u.n. security council on a global health issue. pressing countries to deploy doctors and nurses, build clinics and testing labs and fill other gaps that ultimately helped bend the outbreak's exponentially rising curve. of course, america did not just rally others to step up. we led by example deploying more than 3,500 u.s. civilian and military personnel to liberia where we helped bring the number of new infections down to zero last month. second, we're reforming u.s. peace keeping to meet the challenges of 21st century
conflicts. there are more than 100,000 uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the u.n.'s 16 peace keeping missions. a higher number than at any time in history. they have more complex responsibilities than ever before. and the united states has an abiding strategic interest in resolving the conflicts where peace keepers serve which can quickly cause regional instability and attract extremist groups as we have seen in mali. we've seen serve with bravery and professionalism in some of the world's most dangerous conflicts as in success in neutralizing some of the rebel groups in the democratic republic of congo, we've seen problems too often including the failure to protect civilians. we are working relentlessly to forgive these shortfalls. we are persuading more advanced militaries to step up and contribute soldiers and police to u.n. peace keeping. that was the aim of a summit that vice president biden convened at the u.n. last september where countries like
colombia, sweden and indonesia announced new troop commitments. and it is the message i took directly to european leaders last month when i made the case in brussels that peace keeping is a critical way for european militaries to do their fair share in protecting our common security interests. this coming september president obama will convene another summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of -- third we are fighting to curb -- last year keeping with a commitment in my hearing. i told this committee "the united states will stand with israel, we will defend it and we will challenge every instance of unfair treatment throughout the united nations." we have lived up to that commitment from mounting a full-court diplomatic press to help secure israel's permanent membership into two u.n. groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded. to consistently and firmly opposing one-sided actions in
international bodyiesbodies. and we will continue to live up to that commitment. in december when a deeply unbalanced draft resolution on the israel-palestinian conflict was hastily put before the security council, the united states successfully rallied a coalition to join us in voting against it. ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve the nine votes of security council members required for adoption. fourth, we are working to ensure that the u.n. lives up to its obligation to promote human rights and affirm human dignity as we did by prezzing for the security council to hold its first-ever meeting on the human rights situation in north korea. we used that session to shine a light on the regime's widespread abuses and give a face to its victims, like the man reportedly chained to the back of a car and dragged for some 30 miles in loops around his village simply for trying to escape to china. in closing, let me stress we take very seriously our duty to
ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. so when we request full support for the accounts that fund the u.n. and affiliated organizations, it is with confidence that we are doing everything within our power to make the u.n. more fiscally responsible, more accountable and more nimble. since the 2008-2009 fiscal year we have actually reduced the cost per peace keeper by 18%. and we are constantly looking for ways to right size missions in response to conditions on the ground as we will do this year through draw downs in haiti and liberia among other missions. when we mobilize the u.n. and member states to tackle u.s. threats, we are doing more than just advancing our interests. we are enabling protection on u.n. bases for more than 112,000 displaced people in south sudan who fled after security forces went house-to-house killling people based on their ethnicity.
we are rallying the embassy to hold -- convened first-ever meeting on anti-semitism in january where more than 50 countries condemned anti-semitism's alarming rise and pledged to take steps to stop it. and we are not only helping prevent a generation of children in west africa from being wiped out by a deadly epidemic but also making it safe for them to return to their classrooms as happened just yesterday in sierra leone where schools reopened for the first time in over nine months. these are the stakes this is the reason we will continue to work tirelessly to make the u.n. more efficient and more effective. and this is why we're so grateful for this committee's support as well as for its efforts to hold the u.n. to the standards that america's security and the great crises of our time demand. thank you and i look forward to your questions.
>> i'll have this first question. madame ambassador, one area of the reported nuclear deal with iran that's troubling to me is the removal of all u.n. resolutions regarding iran's nuclear program. the department of state's fact sheet on the perimeters of the agreement states all past u.n. security council resolutions on iran nuclear issues will be lifted simultaneous with the completion by iran of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns. the lifting of all u.n. security council resolutions will lead to iran's nuclear program strikes me as quite a concession. i have questions such as what is the rationale for the immediate removal of such resolutions can you clarify the timing of the removal of sanctions exactly what obligations must iran meet under the agreement, does the promise to remove u.n. resolutions include the u.n.
security council resolution that covers the sale and/or transfer of conventional arms and ballistic missiles technology? if so, how can we credibly assure our allies in the region -- have not been dismissed. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. there's a lot there so let me try to take a number of those issues in turn. first, let me stress a point i made in my opening statement which is how central the u.n. security council has been to reinforcing what this body and the executive have done in putting pressure on iran that brought them to the negotiating table. i do want to distinguish that the sanctions definitely are responsible for the kind of economic pressure that iran faces that has caused them to make a very large number of concessions that many would not have expected. however, those sanctions did not succeed as you know in dismantling iran's nuclear
program. indeed before the joint plan of action the estimates on iran's breakout time were two to three months. and we're looking at 19,000 centrifuges and so forth that will have to be now dialed back as part of this agreement. so again the multilateral effects are very real. and they are why we are in a position, we think to peacefully and verifiably ensure that iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. with regard to your question, i think the most important point to stress is that iran has to take a whole series of nuclear-related actions. actions at iraq, actions at fordo, actions again to greatly reduce the number of centrifuges down from 19,000 to some 6,000 the kilograms of enriched uranium, the quality of that uranium, all of those steps have to be taken before anything is done in new york and before any
additional sanctions relief is provided. those steps will need to amount to us having confidence that iran's breakout time has gone from the two to three months, where we are now, to more than a year. and that's again with those steps that have been outlined in the perimeters document would bring about. so that's going to take some time. the estimates range from six months to one year. but again there will not be relief on the nuclear-related sanctions until those steps have been taken. second i think if i may just underscore that this relationship -- excuse me this framework is not a framework predicated on trust. that is why again we have to await the completion of those steps before you would see security council resolutions. what we would do in new york if this went forward is, yes lift the prior resolutions, but we would of course need to put in place a mechanism for ensuring
many of the sanctions remained. the conventional arms and ballistic missile sanctions we believe should remain for some time. there will need of course to be the enshrinement in a security council mechanism of the nuclear-related commitments that iran is taking on. and we are going to need to create some kind of procurement channel so thank you very much any acquisitions or purchases that iran is contemplating making that might be dual use would have to get approved through this procurement channel. so by no means is it the case that willy nilly we look and see that a deal is signed and then the security council sanctions that have been so critical to bringing us to this place simply melt away. quite the contrary. we are looking at a phased approach. and again, one that we think leaves us in a much stronger position to ensure iran's peaceful nature of iran's nuclear weapons program. and if i left out any part of
your question, please -- >> i'll come back to it. mrs. lowy. >> thank you again. and thank you for your service. since 1948 the united states has been a steadfast defender of the state of israel at the united nations. i am troubled by recent reports and press statements by the administration that the united states would "re-evaluate our approach." which could signal a shift in position at the united nations. i believe it is in our national security interest that the united states unequivocally continues to standby our democratic partner israel. is it still the position of the administration to veto one-sided anti-israel resolutions at the u.n.? >> thank you, congresswoman. i have worked tirelessly,
ambassador rice has worked tirelessly, our predecessors in this job have worked tirelessly to defend israel's legitimacy and its security at the united nations. and we will absolutely continue to do that. when we -- when there was a discussion about re-evaluation i want to be very, very clear that there was no contemplation and will never be a contemplation of reevaluating our deep security and deep partnership and friendship relationship with the state of israel. as you know well, the military the security, the intelligence ties are as deep as ever. we have just in the same period that there have been some comments made in the public have achieved things working with the state of israel and the united nations that many would not have thought possible. something which i mentioned in my opening statement, the first-ever general assembly dedicated to combatting
anti-semitism. so just last fall we opposed 18 u.n. general assembly biased and one-sided resolutions against israel. and indeed in december as you know not only did i vote no on a hastily-produced one-sided resolution, but also i and secretary kerry and the president were able to mobilize a coalition to join us. so we will, again continue to work extremely closely with israel in new york. and, you know, as you know well we have a record of standing when it matters for israel. i think that the one thing is important to point out is there are occasions, there have been occasions such as last summer during the gaza crisis where we worked with the state of israel itself and our israeli colleagues in new york on a security council resolution. and that never came to pass. it never actually came to a vote because we were not able to
secure sufficient support for it across the council. but again we will look to see what will advance israel's security and what will advance peace in the region. and stand, again consistently for israel's legitimacy and security. >> i appreciate your comments. so the language that was repeated in several print "reevaluating our approach," what did that mean? >> well, again to distinguish a couple aspects of this, we and our predecessors and i think all of you have long-supported a two-state solution achieved through a negotiation process. because of some of the comments that were made in the election period, it wasn't clear -- and i will note also some of the actions of the palestinians as well of course which were allude today in your opening comments
it isn't clear what the prospects for those negotiations are. so our objective as an administration, again which i assume is a shared objective, is what can we do to diffuse tensions? what would it take to get those negotiations back on track? and so those are the kinds of questions president obama is asking. and as the new israeli government comes together we will be in close contact with our israeli friends to think through, again what would lead us to the destination that we all agree is in the interests of both the israeli people and the palestinian people. which is the achieving of a two-state solution through a negotiated process. >> i appreciate those comments. certainly as long as i've been in congress i have been hopeful that there would be a two-state solution negotiated through a negotiation process. and that's why it was so
disturbing when the administration made that statement that they were reevaluating their position at the united nations. and i am hoping as i hear you, you are walking back that position. and that position is not the position of the administration. >> what i'm saying is that we are looking at how we can support what we have long supported which is efforts to secure a two-state solution. and in order for a two-state solution to come into existence the parties will have to reach agreement with one another, absolutely. >> i wanted to make that absolutely clear because the history is clear. as you go back to oslow and taba and all the very serious negotiations and in many of them it was the palestinians that walked back and walk away. as you know whether it was president clinton or president bush. and so i do hope that in our
lifetime we can see a negotiated two-state solution that is negotiated with both parties and we can see peace in the region of the world. so i thank you very much for your comments. >> thank you, congresswoman. [ technical difficulties ] >> thank you very much. in this administration you tend to be sometimes the lonely voice in speaking up for human rights around the world. i commend you for that. i have a couple of specifics. last week in the summit of the americas in panama, a group of cuban pro-democracy activists as well as a number of american citizens were attacked by among others the head of the cuban intelligence in venezuela. after the attacks the u.s. citizens were the ones detained.
i have a picture here, madame chairwoman, of this colonel attacking an american citizen. by the way, there are multiple videos that show it was not a fight. it was an actual attack. it has been shown already and expressed by the press. so this is the head of the cuban intel in venezuela attacking a u.s. citizen. this picture is of two individuals, the one with two black eyes is an american named gus. the other woman is a woman from the -- lady in white. they were among the attacked. again, here we have a picture of the americans and the cubans that were accompanying them who were the ones who were detained for being attacked. here's my specific question. now that we know that it was members of the cuban regime who attacked these folks unprovoked attack, and now we know there are multiple videos showing
that, what specifically is the united states going to do to hold the cuban regime accountable for this egregious attack on american citizens, violent attack of american citizens and cuban activists in panama? >> thank you congressman. and thank you for being so outspoken on human rights in cuba and well beyond. let me just say that while i know there are differences of opinion up here on some of the moves that the obama administration has made with regard to cuba. that's probably an understatement. we do sincerely believe that the engagement we now have with this regime is going to give us more leverage over time. that said, the human rights conditions in cuba remain deeply disturbing. >> madame ambassador, time is so limited. but specifically we had americans attacked.
violently attacked. i show that. we know who attacked them. we have videos that showed that they were attacked. what specifically is the united states going to do to hold accountable those in the cuban regime who attacked u.s. citizens? speaking of leverage -- now supposedly we have more leverage. >> yes. >> what specifically are we going to do? what are we doing to hold those folks who attacked americans -- i don't remember, i'm sure it happens but it's rare when americans are attacked by folks from another embassy. >> yeah. >> where we have videos. what are we going to do to hold them accountable? what are we doing? >> well first of all i would welcome the facts that you have which i don't have the details that you have. i did myself issue a statement as i believe did the state department on the attack when it occurred over the weekend. >> we can usually count on you doing that. i'm grateful for that. >> but i think, again we now have channels in which these
issues get raised. we're in a process of normalization. we're not going from zero to 60 overnight. we're in constant dialogue with you, constant dialogue with cuban civil society. so, again as this process moves forward, it is our job to show those individuals who exercised their peaceful rights that we have their backs, that we will defend them and we will raise -- >> please, ambassador very briefly in the 30 seconds that i have. in july a ship sending illicit arms to north korea was captured intercepted in panama. you have been very vocal on that. what are the consequences for the castro regime for sending illicit arms in violation of the u.n. sanctions to north korea? so far the consequences have been a meeting with the president of an hour even though president didn't meet
with the prime minister of israel when he was here. but he spent an hour with the dictator of cuba and his family. so far the consequences of the north korean shipment or of all these other atrocities has been recognition, normalization. what specifically are we going to do to make sure that the castro regime is being held accountable for shipping illicit arms to north korea? >> well, as you know that incident occurred before the normalization process was announced in december. so, again i think it does highlight that the -- in the prior -- with the prior administration's policy -- or this administration's prior policy in place we still -- >> except negotiations have already taken place. >> -- along the lines you're describing. in new york what we have done is condemn cuba for its involvement in that incident. we have secured something that sounds very bureaucratic and technical, but in my world is important which is an implementation notice out of the actual sanctions committee which documents cuba's role in this.
which is something they and the other parties involve strongly objected to. our challenge as you know is the nature of the security council and the permanent memberships and those who stand in the way of more significant action. but again, these are precisely the kinds of incidents that we will not change our response to. we will continue to work through the sanctions committee. we will continue to speak out. we will not pull our punches on violations of international law. >> ambassador, thank you. madame chairwoman, thank you. >> thank you very much. good to see you madame ambassador. >> good to see you. >> let me follow up in regards to the discussion you're having with our ranking member and just agree with her that i believe that the two-state solution is the only option that's going to achieve peace and security in the region. and also for the united states. i also know -- well, let me just say i have legislation actually that i've introduced for several years now calling for congress to go on record supporting a
two-state solution and a peace process. having said that i want to make sure we were clear that it's important that both sides mr. netanyahu and mr. abas agree that a two-state solution is the ultimate outcome and achievable in what they are seeking also. i know during the last few months we've had some dialogue back and forth with regard to whether or not mr. netanyahu wanted a two-state solution and this process to move forward. so i hope that this chain of events that has taken place since then that we're back to now agreeing that the palestinians, the israelis deserve a two-state solution and we're going to encourage that to continue. and i think that the u.n. is going to be very important in your role in that. but i do know we have a little bit of history on what took place as it relates to concern about whether or not the two-state solution was still a viable option in both parties.
policy as well as throughout the region. now, let me just thank you for a minute with regard to working with us to secure the contribution for the permanent memorial at the united nations in honor of the victims of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade which this committee supported. it's really important that the united states and the united nations represented us at the unveiling on march 25th. so i have to thank you, ambassador, for that. and also ambassadors sissin for ensuring u.s. participation. the african-american community is deeply appreciative of the involvement of our country in that transatlantic slave trade memorial. boko haram, you know this is one year now marks the kidnapping of over 200 nigerian girls. now, having said that, there are over 800,000 girls that have
been abducted from their homes in nigeria totally. it's very important that the u.n. continue its involvement and the united states. we supported the u.n. security council's resolution calling for adding them to the sanctions list. congressman honda and pitteninger and myself we sent you a letter and ask they be included. and you did. and i guess these recent events now have shown us that we've got to do more. so i'm wondering what the united nations is doing and what we can do to support the international community to address the kidnapping of these young girls in boko haram's whohorrific actions in nigeria and also their connection to isis and what you see as the next steps. >> thank you, congresswoman lee. and thank you for your leadership on the slavery memorial which is important not only as you know in commemorating the horrors of the past but also because of the
very real occurrence of slavery in the present including probably the fate of the girls and how they are living those that are still in the presence of boko haram are being coerced by boko haram. on boko haram in brief bilaterally as you know we right from the beginning offered up intelligence and other assistance basically any assistance the nigerian government wanted in order to respond to boko haram's capture not only of those girls but also boko haram's rampage through the northern part of nigeria. we are -- we have also been very supportive of the regional, the so-called multinational task force that has come into existence now with chad cameroon in nigeria trying to contest boko haram militarily. we recognize it's not a military solution alone of course because of the governance issues and
economic deprivation in northern nigeria is going to need to be addressed over time. they have professed allegiance to isil. you need all the different lines on messaging, cutting off financing and again there needs to be a military component. because of the election in nigeria, we see ourselves now at a cross roads where this effort can be ramped up significantly. the president-elect has committed himself. he made this a campaign issue. and we are hopeful that with nigeria determined to tackle, again, the underlying issues in the north but most specifically to find out where the girls are not just the 200, but what could be many more than that. and not just girls but of course boys who are pulled out of classrooms and shot in the head just for wanting to learn. boko haram meaning education is forbidding.
but with nigeria at the core willing to help resource this with our support bilaterally and for the force itself and with our again continued messaging that it needs to be military but also a whole set of other steps to be taken that we can move into a new phase. just recently in the tail end of the election season in nigeria nigeria began to step up its involvement in the north. and boko haram is on its heels far more than it has been. but until they are eliminated entirely no boy, girl or citizen in that part of nigeria or now into chad and cameroon is safe. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chair. thank you ambassador. and i want to say personally i appreciate your work in the past with issues dealing with northern ireland. as somebody who worked for
shaims, it's much-appreciated. i wanted to follow-up on something brought up and you talked about the normalization process. one of the things that somebody from south florida that you know, you come to know whether you go to school at the university of miami or just through your constituents is one of the big issues that i think that is important for any normalization process and i wanted to get your take on whether or not you think it's part of it that i hear are the constituents that came from cuba that have property claims that felt like when they left they would be returning in short order and weren't able to because of the castro regime seizing their property. part of the normalization process in my mind i think would help go a lot easier and i don't know if this is part of it but i'm just curious is property claims, land homes, businesses, going to be part of any negotiation for normalization for cuban exiles in florida who are still alive
and believe that once the castro regime would fall that they would be able to reclaim that property? >> thank you congressman. let me say that we are now at the very early stage of a normalization process. and so the dialogues that we have begun are dialogues on whether or not we can establish diplomatic relations, dialogues incumbent necessary in order to establish diplomatic relations to reopen embassies perhaps. and we have started substantive dialogues in talking about issues like trafficking in persons which we were just discussing communications, you know telecommunications, information exchanges et cetera. but we absolutely believe that these channels need to be used to push issues that are of concern of course to american citizens, to people living in this country that includes human rights which we spoke
briefly about. it includes property claims and property efforts property restitution. there are issues of u.s. fugitives who are present in cuba that we can't ever forget about and need to work through a law enforcement dialogue. so, again, we're at an early stage but nobody is losing sight again of the needs and the demands of american citizens. >> i know one of the arguments is is, well, we do certain business with china and other countries that are communist in nature. but i think that what is lost in the whole dialogue is that we have constituents in our state, in our districts that come to us and ask us and beg us. and, you know, mario obviously is much closer to this than i am, but it's so much more real than just doing business with countries like china and trying to compare those two things is just wrong. one of my other questions that i
had it deals with kind of a political question, but i'm just curious. when you come to an end of a second term of a president and the policies that are in place under the obama administration, the administration in which you serve, how is your job affected by the policy positions that this president takes whether it's regard to iran, russia, what have you? and the other people that you deal with knowing that whoever the next president's going to be, whether it's hillary clinton or somebody on the republican side might do things differently. do you get a sense that people sort of hedge their bets? or do you just got to go with what you got right now and that's the reality that you live in? or do you do any kind of future planning? >> well, i think like my predecessors who would have been in similar situations living through the beginning now of
presidential election cycle we have to do just what's in the interest of the american people. and the u.n. in particular if we are to reform, let's say peace keeping, and deal with sexual assault by peace keepers or deal with peace keepers who duck and cover instead of protecting civilians. we have to make investments now that may not even see their full return, you know until two or three years hence. i think there is a certain continuity, again, in the commitment that americans have you know, to defending israel's legitimacy and security within the u.n. i think we have something resembling a bipartisan coalition that recognized we're in a stronger position when we've paid our dues and when we're leading from a position of strength. and so, that's something the obama administration's been able to working very closely with this committee has been able to ensure. and there's such a great commitment on the part of the american people including constituents off in places you wouldn't always expect to
atrocity prevention, to trying to counter monstrous entities like boko haram. things happen far more slowly than i would like at the u.n. because we've got to herd the cats of 193 countries or in the case of the security council, 15 countries. we need to keep running along on the agenda on the peace keeping agenda. better advanced within the organization and then we hand off the baton to somebody who is running quickly and will carry that cause forward. >> thank you. thanks for being here today. i'm going to change to threats thatrd worldwide global threats.
i think one of the most severe threats we deal with other than the issue of weapons of mass destruction and issues such as terrorism is cyber. and, you know, what's happening in the world, whether it's attacks like china as an example stealing billions of dollars in other countries russia from the united states and other countries, including a lot of our allies but also the destructive attacks, which was really the first time we had a destructive attack in the united states. i'm wondering from a united nations point of view, dealing with all of these countries, where is the status of the cyber issue? have we taken a position on how to deal with this problem as far as cyber is concerned? and if in fact you know we're able to prove united nations, and i don't know what mechanism that would be that we can show that certain countries like a north korea or someone wouldn't
make those attacks, would the united nations be in a position to introduce sanctions in order to punish or use as a deterrent? >> thank you so much for the question. i mean, let me start by agreeing whole heartedly with the premise that cyber threats are one of the most serious national security threats that the united states faces, and it's something that we're seeing now take effect around the world. even the vatican's website apparently, was hacked just over the last couple of days. so -- >> it's going to keep happening all over the world. >> it is going to keep happening. so i think what you saw, of course, in response to the horrific north korean attack on sony is that we moved out with a very strong executive order, but so a unilateral action within our own capability. i went door to door in new york
to my security council counterparts and made it very clear that this was not something that one could consider sort of off to the side as something -- it was something that actually had the kind of economic and even physical effects of a more conventional attack inso far as sony being shut down. and also the coercive part of that. i raise this issue in the security council in the session i mentioned that we convened on the human rights situation, north korea. because usually, the human rights atrocities that a regime is committing is also a canary in the coal mine in terms of other threats of this nature. so we're looking, i think, at what the next step is to ensure that other countries, again, see this as being a threat of comparable gravity to the more traditional attacks that u.n. is used to dealing with.
we're not there yet we can move swiftly in the security council particularly giving with the presence of those who might resist this. again, to get people to see this like other kinds of attacks. but we are moving out with information sharing, with technical advice as to how countries and companies can strengthen their defenses. and now we put in the cyber executive order which goes beyond the attacks carried out by north korea,ic that's something we will seek to multilateralize, and, of course, through regional cooperation agreements. >> from your role as ambassador of the united nations, give an example of china. china has been stealing billions of dollars from our country and other countries throughout the world. the good news for the united states, because a lot of that information was classified.
a company was able to show the connection connection, a lot of these attacks, and an example, and many customers in "new york times," washington post, major, major companies, and we had the information but yet, it's important that we continue to have a relationship with china because who they are how powerful they are the fact that we owe them a lot of money. but we still, you know, need to deal with them. and i think the best way to deal with china is through commerce. and that hopefully will pull us together. from your role in knowing as an example the evidence that we have with respect to china and your role in the united nations, how would you handle the chinese situation as an example? >> the chinese situation -- >> about attacking us we had the evidence to attack us. what we really need to do is get china to help us with the global
type of system to handle these cyber attacks because just stealing from countries all over the world, trade secrets, that type of thing. it's been estimated in the united states, there's over $1 billion stolen every year. how do you see that in the framework of your job to deal with this on a global level? we can have our laws and try to do that in the united states. it's not going to stop if we don't deal with the global issue and have sanctions or some type of deterrent to have these other countries deal with it. >> yes. so let me start by saying again, i think the bilateral tool that we have now put in place through this executive order, this cyber executive order can be really impactful. because when there are significant harms carried out by either companies are government institutions or private hackers who have government affiliations affiliations, this is a tool that we can use in order to hold accountable, punish people who do that.
and deter and, indeed, incapacitate, deny their access to resources they might use in order to -- to sort of strengthen their arsenal in these aggressive actions. the challenge which i alluded to a little too implicitly before in terms of u.n. security council action is that china is a permanent member and a veto holder. so our ability to move beyond the bilateral through the security council turns on china's willingness to support such an effort. >> my time is up. i would suggest that we really focus that as a high priority, especially within the security council on these countries that are cyber attacking other countries throughout the world. >> i agree with that, and if i may add one point. just because we may not be able to move an enforcement action through the council does not mean we cannot use the bully pulpit of the council or use that forum to raise the alarm, either about one country's action or the threat as a whole. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chairman.
good afternoon. i'd like to return this discussion to the iranian nuclear negotiations for a moment. secretary kerry and others in the administration have said enhanced sanctions at this point imposed by congress would not be realistic because our partners, our negotiating partners, you know, really are chomping at the bit to do business with the iranians. yet, we're told that sanctions will snap back in the event that there's some kind of major violation to this agreement. now, seems to me like that is wildly unrealistic. how could we expect sanctions to snap back at a time when we know it seems that the russians right now are lifting their sanctions by selling these antiaircraft missile systems to the iranians which would basically prevent the united states or other nations from enforcing a nuclear agreement if the iranians were to have violated it? so i guess the question is, do
you think it is realistic that sanctions would snap back in the event of a serious violation given the russians? and the u.n.? i mean, i can't imagine they would support us on this. >> it's an excellent question. it actually gives me an occasion to respond to one of congresswoman granger's questions or issues she raised in her opening statement. so let me try to take a clean shot at this. first, let me distinguish the two kinds of sanctions that we are talking about here and that have brought iran to the negotiating table. the first are the very significant bilateral sanctions that we have brought to bear, including congress' licensing and the executives use of secondary sanctions against those countries doing business with iran. those are extremely important, and they were reenforced and amplified by one of the toughest
sanctions or multilateral sanctions regime in history, which was achieved over several resolutions up in new york. so it's -- i think implicit in your question. but it's just so everybody's on the same page. of course, we will retain as the united states the u.s. sanctions architecture as we see the extent to which this deal is implemented. as we see inspectors seeking access to sensitive sites and whether or not they're able to secure that access. in other words we retain a huge amount of power and snap back capability ourselves well beyond the u. in n. security council. >> you think those are sanctions that would be effective without our international partners? >> well particularly because we have the ability to put in place secondary sanctions. i do think -- and because so much of the world's business occurs in u.s. dollars and because so many companies want access to u.s. markets, i do.
but i think your question on the second layer, which is the u.n. security council still very important. and i want to assure you that we are not going -- we are going to secure an arrangement to allow for snapback in new york that does not require russian or chinese support. so in other words -- we are not looking at a situation where in order to snap back we would have to do a separate new resolution along the lines of what we did in 2010 because we recognize that today's russia, frankly, is a different russia than that? 2010. and we want to retain this authority and capability within, again, within our own power. >> so you're saying to me that snapback sanctions on our part would be effective you know, given ayatollah -- if we were to impose them now congressionally
they would not have a snapback, but sanctions would? if we passed enhanced sanctions by congress. we were told this is unrealistic, won't work, our partners won't support us, we'll be isolated on our own, at the same time, if the russians and chinese won't participate in the snapback sanctions our sanctions will somehow be effective. i don't understand. i feel like i'm hearing two different -- >> clear answer to that. >> yeah. >> right now iran is in compliance with the jpoa, the iaea has -- people have expressed, including earlier, a lot of skepticism about the ability to verify. it has been granted the access it needed to verify. in the one instance it raised an issue with iran of concern. iran addressed that issue. you're looking at a jpoa that has been respected. and thus, the idea of imposing sanctions at this point would seem very much at odds with the recent track record to distinguish that then from the scenario that we were talking
about earlier which is a snapback scenario, which is when iran is in violation of any future comprehensive agreement. and that violation would be clear by virtue of the fact that either iaea gets the access it needs, reports that iran is carrying out the nuclear related steps that it has pledged. these are very different scenarios. >> i see my time has expired. only thing i want to conclude with it seems to me that our russian partners seem to be sitting on the other side of the table right now, given what i just learned about what they're selling to the iranians now. i just don't have a whole lot of confidence that the u.n. is going to be an effective partner with us, at this point in the event there's a violation given that the russians seem to be aliea allied. they're trying to undermine our power and influence everywhere in the world, including the middle east. >> thank you so much. and thank you, ambassador for being here with us for the work you do and the service to our country. sorry that my colleague from
florida left my other colleague from florida. in negotiating with cuba, it's going to have to be a game of give and take. yes, we have claims on the cuban government cuban americans who feel they've lost property. whether they abandon that property, or not, is a question that has to be settled. the american cooperations that lost property in cuba rightfully, not rightfully, but they did actually lose property. and that has to be settled. but then, i always bring up something that makes people sitting in your chair at different hearings kind of scratch their heads. because in all honesty, most people hadn't thought about it. and that is one of the most popular type of musics in this country salsa music. and salsa music for anybody who is into music knows that it's a new york creation of many cuban rhythms. and for years, we've been
dancing to and listening to salsa was compositions and arrangements that belong to cubans in cuba. whose relatives are alive, and not a penny ever paid in royalties to them. and i've spoken to some people in the business who tell them, we could be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars if not more. and when you see a movie and you see live music in the background, chances are it was something written in cuba by someone who didn't leave cuba who stayed in cuba and never got a penny. so those discussions are both sided. then you have the issue yes, there are people living in cuba that this government would want over here for allegedly or actual crimes they committed here. but the cubans have a list of people who are hanging around the 50 states and the territories who they claim have sabotaged and done other things in cuba. so my whole point is it's not a one-sided issue. these negotiations will continue
to be very delicate because we have claims on them but they have claims on us, too. and going to come into a lot of money, except there's no record of how much we owe them. i just wanted to do, ask you one question because my time will run out. and that is in light of the president's plan to remove cuba from the state-sponsored terrorism, which i strongly support, how can the u.n. be of help to united states in normalizing diplomatic relations with cuba? in other words taking cuba off the terrorist list, is that a plus for our getting more support from the u.n. to help us with this whole issue? >> thank you, congressman. and thank you for raising the other issue, which i confess i had not reflected on before despite being a big fan of salsa music. with regard to the u.n., what i can say is up until the
president's decisions from december, cuba has been a very even to call it a polarizing issue would be probably an understatement. there is an annual resolution in the general assembly in opposition to the u.s. embargo against cuba that usually passes, basically, with the support of a majority of countries within the u.n. but also with only a couple of no votes. usually us and i think on occasion israel. and so we have been very isolated within the international system, which i raise and, again, earlier exchange over cuba. because i think the steps that we have taken have actually made it easier, i felt for me to be heard on cuban human rights issues than i was before. because every time i would raise cuban human rights. and again congressman, maybe
something i could direct at you. in the past, when i would raise my human rights concerns there have been 600 short-term arbitrary detentions of cubans in the month of march alone. but when i would raise that in the past all i would hear about was the embargo. and now i feel i have a clean shot at making the case because the diversion. and frankly, this is all the people were doing was using it as a diversion. but we were very isolated. and now we are no longer isolated. and i think, we are in a stronger position to raise our human rights and democracy concerns about cuba. so that's one example. and we do that whether it's with regard to individual prisoners. we tried for a long time to get an independent investigation into the death of peya. and i tried that also within the u.n. cuba, again, this may change, has had a lot of support from some of the usual suspects but also from some you wouldn't expect. and so, we want to again, we
are very, very sincere that any process of normalization or in the event that the state-sponsored terrorism designation goes ahead and is rescinded, that does not mean cuba gets a pass on the human rights issues of concern. indeed, i think, that we will be more successful in forging coalitions and putting more pressure, not just from the united states, but also from some of our european friends and others if we can get, you know, our own issues sort of put to one side and focus on what really matters, which is the fate of the cuban people themselves. >> well, i thank you. i thank you for your work on all of this. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you madame chair. you know, at the sound of -- i'm sorry, at the risk of repeating myself with some of my peers on the stand, i want to tell you a little bit about my background as i make my observation. i have the real privilege of serving as a pilot representative when i served in the air force to the start two
and start three implementation with the russians. and i learned even as a young captain that this lesson and i'm certain this is true. and that is if someone wants to cheat on a treaty such as this, they can find a way to do that. there's no question in my mind that's true. i could give you many, many examples of why i believe that. but the reason that those strategic negotiations worked with the russians and the united states is that there was a modicum of trust between them. in which they were carried out and verified. and we believed we could work with them because we both wanted the same thing. i don't believe that's true at all with our negotiations with iran. and i appreciate your efforts to move forward and very important issue. but i think that you and i or the administration and i view their willingness to comply with the treaty in a different way. if i could make one other observation and i'll ask my question. there's been much talk about the
snap back sanctions. and i think you and i would agree that the -- it took extraordinary effort on your part. and i know that you are an important part of that. an extraordinary effort on the administration in order to put the sanctions in its place. and i would say that they are fragile. and i think has surprised many of us they've held as well as they have. but imagine, if you would, two years from now when multiple countries, thousands of companies with millions and perhaps billions of dollars of investment on the line and in every industry, oil and finance and shipping and aviation, i don't think you're going to see snapback sanctions. i think it's going to be an ooze back at best. slippery and slimy and full of holes. and we've already admitted we will lose china and russia. and i think we're likely to lose france, as well. and once that happens, i don't know how you stop the dam from breaking. because when other countries see these primary partners violating any snapback provisions, i don't
know how we dissuade them. having made those comments and i'm not asking you to reply, because we appreciate your response to this point. my question primarily is this and that's with the iaea. and many of us are frustrated and i'm sure you are, as well with their inability. and this isn't a criticism of them. it's ha criticism of their iranian partners. their inability to get specific answers to a long list of questions regarding primarily iran's military installations and the role those have played in the development of their previous weapons and atomic weapons or nuclear weapons programs. do you share that frustration? and if you do, why do you think they're going to be any better as they try to implement and carry out this agreement? >> thank you, sir and i'm unable to resist the temptation of responding just to your opening comments. they are, of course, very
legitimate concerns when it comes to the lack of trust for iran. we share it. this agreement framework. predicated on a lack of trust rather than trust. that's why we're phasing sanctions, talking so much about snapback. and i'll come back to your ooze back point in just a second. >> can we agree to call -- >> i think what is really really important is the extent of the transparency regime. to ratify the additional protocol, the modified code, which requires them to declare anything not after it's already up and running and built but, you know, when the idea has struck. and the extent of the presence with which we haven't seen. the jpoa is only over a finite period of time.
i concede that point. but the iaea has reported compliance. and as i mentioned earlier in the instance when it had a concern, raised that with iranians and they complied. you may say, well that's just because iran's on its best behavior because it wants to get a big deal in order to get -- >> and if i could comment on that. could you say iran is on their best behavior? and yet, look what they're doing from yemen to syria. >> but to stick to the nuclear issue. i can speak to the other issue. i deal with the other issues every day on yemen, syria iraq. >> i know your point. but it's worth making the point as well. this is as good as it's going to get with them. >> this is as -- i'm speaking very narrowly about the nuclear issue. i don't think there's been any improvement in iran's behavior on the host of other issues you've mentioned and, again, that we all work on in cooperation with one another most days. the fact that every part of the nuclear supply chain is going to be monitored by the iaea in the declared sites, the ones with
know about, state of the art technology daily access, et cetera. but coming back to the nuclear supply chain. that that's the issue where the covert concerns get raised. they would, as you know, have to have an entire covert nuclear supply chain. not just uranium mines that nobody's ever heard of, uranium mills, storage facilities nobody's ever heard of. that takes a lot of work. a whole lot of subterfuge. and we retain the ability we demonstrated. also have our own independent ways of judging what's going on on the ground. we'll also see quickly whether or not they're getting the access it seeks, and we will have a means of resolving any standoff in that regard. we'll go in favor of the iaea. we come to a point where they are or they're not. just to say that's one of the issues along with the changes that need to be made at iraq. those questions will need to be
answered in the first phase before any relief is forthcoming. >> and my time is well expired. thank you, if i could just conclude reemphasizing what we have explored here if they want to cheat, they can find a way to cheat. they still could find a way to cheat. and iaea is very frustrated because they haven't answered questions, provided information i'm deeply concerned that will be the case two years from now. >> they could. if the same argument applies as you know right now with all of the sanctions in place the same argument about whether they're able to cheat. the difference is we'll have more inspectors on the ground and more of an ability to catch them. right now at a two to three hch three-month breakout time. >> i'd be happy to buy you a beer and continue. >> okay. >> thank you madame chair. ambassador, welcome, good to see you. >> thank you. >> i'm going to mix things up a little bit. and ask you something not related to cuba iran or israel. i have a sense, even though i just arrived that was pretty well covered before i got here.
just a hunch. i want to ask you a couple of questions that are near and dear to i know both mine congresswoman lee, and ms. granger, and that is the way that women are treated and the potential for exploitation and what we're doing about it in u.n. peace keeping missions and in u.n. funded operations. but i also want to ask you about the notion of training women peace keepers. i know we know that the challenge in having more women peace keepers at the u.n., there are not a lot of women in military and police roles. so as a result, you know, there's a very small pipeline. i recently learned about a special training program that is for female military officers.
it was first of its kind initiative, u.n. women in india in partnership with the center for the united nations peace keeping. developed and conducted a special technical course for female military officers. and it was in new delhi. and apparently, there were officers from 24 troop contributing countries that participated in the course. and it essentially is going to sort of build our bench. obviously, it is important to have in circumstances a woman on the front lines of the u.n.'s peace keeping efforts versus men. not that men can't do a very effective job. but obviously with cultural sensitivities and gender sensitivities, having more women for a variety of reasons is really important. so i wanted to ask you about that program ask you if you knew, if you knew enough about that model to suggest that maybe
we could expand it and use it for training going forward. but generally what else can we do to train more women and put more women in peace keeping roles at the u.n.? and i'll ask you the other question at the same time. and that is just the ongoing efforts to deter sexual exploitation in u.s. peace keeping operations. i mean, obviously, there are u.n. peace keepers are operating in countries where there are a lot of challenges. but we have sexual abuse in u.n. peace keeping missions similar to what's gone on in our own military. and i'd like to know what steps are being taken to address that issue. because obviously anything we can do to reduce and use our leverage financially to affect change there is important. >> okay. thank you so much, congresswoman, for the change of pace. and for the excellent questions.
these are issues very close to my heart. and they should be easier to fix than they are. in terms of the program that you reference, we're very excited about this we're constantly talking about it publicly as a way of encouraging more countries to institutionalize programs like this. we actually just recently passed another security council resolution. sort of set the framework for this. and in that, we explicitly called on countries to increase the recruitment of female soldiers and female police within their own militaries and called on the u.n. also to make more of a point when it engages a tcc, a troop contributing country or police contributing country to actually send a demand signal this is what they want. as you know, the numbers are strikingly small, but i have
seen in the field in places like darfur the effects it has when women police officers are the ones to go and engage young women who have been raped in route to get firewood. it's a wholly different dynamic and the sense of shame and that you know trying to tell that story to a male foreign, you know not even from your own country or community, but from somewhere that doesn't speak your language and it's a guy, sort of really, really challenging and compounds the pain these people are experiencing. so we, the united states, since 2005 have trained about just over 5,000 women peace keepers through our program. but we also through our national action plan on women, peace and security the implementation of 1325 have made a commitment to try to increase that. i think the more we talk about it, the more we emphasize it, it's a big priority for the secretary general. but the way the u.n. works of
course, is the secretary general's at the mercy of what each of the member states puts forward. i think our embassies can put also can be engaging and, again, encouraging that kind of recruitment. but as a general rule, the u.n. tends to amplify what the dynamics are as you suggested, within the composite member states of the u.n. the world we need to change is the world inside member states. and that's why having the political push is important. but we need to do it at the ground level. in terms of sexual exploitation and abuse, i think the u.n. has improved its vetting for troops and police who were going out into the field. individuals who have been alleged to carry out these acts are sent home while investigation takes place. there does, though, need to be far more follow-up in the host country. what happens is they go home and again, the u.n.'s relationship with it. may not be a u.n. presence in a particular country tends to
become atrophied. we need to work through our embassies to also keep the pressure on those countries that say, yes we're going to do an investigation. but then, you know enthusiasm for that can melt away, you know, once the individual's back in the host country. it's, again, we're nowhere near where we need to be but there's much more of a top down commitment from the u.n. bureaucracy, an awareness that this is a priority. and, again we need to see results in the field. >> madame chair, just ten seconds more of indulgement only in i can ask, we obviously have members travel around the world and have meetings with a lot of your host countries, and to the degree that you we are able to raise issues from our perspective so they are not only hearing them from you. >> yes that would be true. >> can you -- if you could find a way to let members know as we're about to, as we're approaching recesses, where we
know they're going out, it would be -- i know many of us would be happy to do that. >> great, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> just briefly. but as it's obvious that they're turning their attention away from direct negotiation going to the u.n. and iccc, how does that affect their actions at the u.n. the icc affect the u.s. financial assistance the palestinian authorities? i see another $440 million request for the authority in the fy '16 budget request. i would ask that. but also ask you in the same vein if you expect them to file formal charges between israel
and the icc. what are you doing to try to discourage this? and if it's true they've already begun preliminary investigation, how is the u.s. opposing the icc's involvement? >> thank you, congresswoman. first, as you know, we did not believe that the palestinians were eligible to become a party to the icc. we have made clear privately, publicly, many many times over that we oppose their decision to go to the icc, that it would be counterproductive. further, poison the atmosphere as we were discussing earlier improve and hopeful that the parties can improve so that the aspirations of the palestinian people, you know, can be advanced which is not something that this icc track is going to secure for them. a two-state solution will secure
that for them. so on the funding question, we are reviewing our assistance. as you know the government of israel has made a decision to release some revenue in part because at its core, much of the assistance, whether it's the assistance that goes through israel or assistance that comes from this body is assistance that we use in order to deepen the security partnership, to counter violent extremism. the lesson we want is you know for the palestinian territories to be radicalized for youth to not have a place to go for people not to be paid. i mean, we know who exploits those kinds of environments. i think we're in close touch. and it's a, you know, day-to-day discussion about how we go forward on the assistance question. finally, on the icc's own relationship to this issue the prosecutor has announced that she is undertaking a preliminary
examination. so it's prior to the investigation stage. there are a lot of questions that she will need to sort through. again, we believe that one of those questions should still center on the eligibility question given that two-state solution has not been secured between the two parties. and while we were not a party to the icc, we, again engage both the palestinians to deter them from taking any further action and, of course we engage the court, both ourselves and through state parties to the icc to try to make very clear what the consequences of moving forward would be for what, again, we should all be for, which is peace and security in the region between the two parties. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. first of all, i thank you, madame chair for asking the question about the icc. and wonder where the chair is
going. and i won't pursue that point. but i'd be interested if you have any additional information keep us updated. and i do want to say to mr. stewart at the end, i appreciate his pursuing the question with regard to the military sites. in fact, i just recently asked secretary kerry that exact question. because after dozens of briefings that i've been a part of, there seems to be no progress in the other military sites. and he assured me that there could not be and there would not be a deal unless there was absolute inspection by iaea at the military site. so i must say i've been asking this question for months and i was pleased to hear from the secretary that this is absolute given if there is going to be a deal. otherwise their view that no deal is better than a bad deal.
so i thank you for bringing that issue up. i'd like to ask another question that we haven't touched base. we have the whole world to deal with. but what about russia? what are they really up to? i thought their recent statement about selling antimissile equipment was an interesting one to iran. i've asked for a long time what does russia really want? on one hand, they're part of our alliance to try to get a deal from iran. on the other hand, they continue to stir up problems, not only in ukraine, but in syria and yemen and iraq. so i know that you and the secretary have looked for various incentives that will bring russia into step with the
world community. and could we be on the verge of new cold war? can you enlighten us as to your views as to russia's intention in the world? why does russia -- and we know they continue to support the assad regime. to what extent is this driven by russia's battle with terrorism in the caucuses. is russia still profiting from arm sales to the assad regime. i'd be interested to know your view of russia's role in their region and in the world and in our future relationships. >> thank you, congresswoman. it's a question that given russia's role as a permanent member of the security council i grapple with every day and see different manifestations of every day.
first, it is really, really important, particularly today and this week to point out that russia's aggression in ukraine has not ceased. there was a significant drop in violence. but now that situation has escalated. and it has escalated in large part because the separatists backed by russia did not withdraw their heavy weapons as they were supposed to under the agreement from the front lines. because russia maintained a presence, a regular army presence within eastern ukraine, including command and control and training, the convoys expected by the community. i think we were expecting the 24th such convoy that moves across the border blatantly.
it causes us again and again at a time we would like to see the agreement be implemented and move out of this period of confrontation, diplomatic and economic isolation of russia we now have to be thinking, again about what are the consequences going to be of further aggression in ukraine? so you have that as the most egregious example of russia's defiance of international norms. alongside that, you mentioned the support for assad support even as we work together to dismantle assad's declared chemical weapons program. you know, this is a regime that drops thousands of barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods uses chlorine against children and adults for that matter. and, yet, the russian support for that government continues. it's again a huge problem and it has really paralyzed the u.n. security council where i sit
every day, which is responsible for security and cannot meet that responsibility because of russian obstruction. you have all of that and the internal situation in terms of the human rights crisis, civil society and others are facing anybody who speaks out being vulnerable, independent media being cracked down upon. of course, the recent assassination of leading opposition figure and just a really difficult situation for anybody who wants to express their views or assemble peacefully, et cetera, inside the country. and we, again, always make our views known on this, speak out, and make those concerns, again known publicly and privately. so you have all of that on the one hand. but, again back to congressman stuart's, the exchange i had with him. on the other hand, you have they did stand with us through the negotiations. they were a -- and remain on
the, again, the declared chemical weapons program. a critical part of dismantling that program and getting rid of you know, more than 1,000 metric tons of toxic chemicals they would use as a weapon of war if they were still within the country. on isil, on the stopping trying to stop the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. we have very, very useful technical discussions, and i think that is an area where cooperation needs to continue. of course, russia's definition of a terrorist and our definition of a terrorist you know tend to be different. but on isil and on al qaeda you know, again that's something that we need to work on together. so we're in we're entering into a period where we will cooperate on areas that are in our national security interests and presumably, that's the logic of their cooperation, as well. and we will take measures as we need to when they defy international norms and commit aggression in their neighborhood
or beyond. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> before we go on, that in the past five weeks, i've been to ukraine twice. and with bipartisan very high ranking delegations from congress. and we sent a letter to the president, the president that ukraine made a very impassioned plea for weapons for them to defend themselves. they're very, very concerned about what's going on there. >> thank you very much madame chairwoman. by the way before i say anything else, i do need to thank -- i always get your name, jennifer, your name wrong. but during this crisis and the americans were being attacked in panama city. i contacted her, we contacted her, they put us in contact with the dcm in our embassy in panama, they were responsive. it's important to note that. i'm grateful for that. so thank you.
ambassador, you mentioned a number of issues with russia that, you know, the assad, i think that the concept that he was reformer, that's been thrown out the window. you mentioned again, the support for assad the russian support for assad you know you've got the weapons to iran. there's a million things that we can mention and i'll forget many and you'll forget many. obviously the invasion of the ukraine, they're continuing aggression in the ukraine, the invasion, still have troops in georgia. and so -- p i will tell you, previous administration at first thought that putin was a person that you know, he looked into his eyes and read his soul. and eventually president bush realized and called him very cold human being. have we reset the reset? and i'm not saying this as a gotcha thing. is there an understanding? and i think from your words. you clearly understand that.
is there an understanding that the -- the, you know, treating and disregarding which was a reset, disregarding past abuses? and remember, the reset was done after the invasion of georgia. is there a different attitude now as to how we deal with the russians as opposed to kind of like, well don't worry about it, we're okay, we're buddies. is there a different understanding now of the true nature of a regime that i believe is human rights abusing regime? >> well, i think, russia has taken actions that have resulted in not only the attempted lopping off of part of a neighbor, but the attempted neutering and progress that
they'd made internally. including throwing out asaid. for the lawyers groups and independent journalists and anticorruption crusaders within russia. so the relationship, of course, is now one that takes on these issues. i mean, if back in 2009 if you had been told by virtue of u.s. and european sanctions the ruble would have depreciated russia was going in a different direction. but i want to stress, this isn't -- i mean sanctions just as with iran are not an end in themselves. we're not interested in sanctions that are hurting the russian economy for the sake of sanctions. we're interested in putin ending his aggression in ukraine. our dialogue with the russians
on syria is rooted in an argument that has not proven persuasive up until this point. which is, actually, we both have an interest in seeing the end of the assad regime. because the assad regime made possible the growth of isis across syria and, indeed, it was a safe haven, of course, for those isis soldiers that then went into iraq and took over mosul and inflicted such suffering on so many. we still believe that our shared interests in combatting terrorism in ensuring the chemical weapons are not used and they don't become a routine weapon of war anywhere. and that includes chlorine should allow us, still, notwithstanding, the very significant deterioration in the way that we engage with them by virtue of sanctions and virtue of their aggression in ukraine. we still believe there have been to be areas of tactical cooperation that we maintain.
and the discussion earlier of sanctions evasion is one example. it is in our interest for russia to be a country within the u.n. system that observes the international sanctions that russia is a part of putting in place. we need. even if we want to put in place something that's of great interest to congresswoman lee and others have mentioned. sanctions on the protagonists in south sudan who are pulling ethnic -- just killing them because they're of the wrong ethnicity. we have to go through russia in the sanctions committee of the united nations security council. so we don't have the option of just turning our back and writing off this country. but we are very clear eyed about the differences and the disturbing trends. >> madame chairwoman thank you. >> thank you very much sudan, i co-chaired the bipartisan caucus on sudan and south sudan. and we've worked for many, many, many years on a bipartisan basis
addressing the humanitarian crisis in south sudan which is now deteriorating. according to usaid, more than 1.5 million people have been displaced. 2.5 million people are facing food insecurity in south sudan since the outbreak of violence in december 2013. now, with the recent collapse in the peace talks, i believe it's very, very critical. and the caucus also believes it that the u.s. government increased pressure on the parties to reach a negotiated settlement and to work to bring u.n. sanctions into force. so, madame ambassador, can you tell us what the dynamics are at the united nations? you mentioned russia as it relates to sanctions. but we've asked for the establishment of an arms embargo. you know, we can't seem to get that done. also the current u.n. peace keeping troop levels in south sudan want to know are they
being maintained at the current level? what do we need to know from this committee's vantage point that we need to do to make sure those peace keeping forces are funded. and then finally, with regard to u.n. peace keeping mission in haiti, i believe the troop reduction will take place very soon and will go down to what they were prior to the devastating earthquake in 2010. what's the time line of this reduction and how will this affect the security in haiti. >> thank you, and let me, if i could, just take this occasion since we haven't had too much time to talk about our budget requests, take advantage of the opening that you've given me to make a fervent appeal that are the president's budget requests be fulfilled, in part because of, well, frankly the whole host of issues that we've discussed up until this point. because i think what you see
with the haiti drawdown is that we are -- and with the drawdown in liberia that is recommencing now that the ebola crisis has abated, at least in liberia nobody can be overconfident about that given its presence elsewhere in the neighbors. but you can count on us. we are looking at every mission and seeing where can we recalibrate, right size, in the case of haiti, just to pick up where you ended haiti's entering into a process where elections are occurring. but they've also massively increased the capability of the haitian national police. i was down there in january and was told by the u.n. police commissioner that it takes ten international police to do the work of one fully trained haitian police, which is not normally not necessarily the ratio one would expect but that's a testament to how far they would come with the u.n.'s help. but i just -- i cannot stress how alert we are to the
expanding size of the demands we're making on this committee and on the congress and the appeal to american taxpayers that i feel i continually have to make. but it is for these causes that are critical to our national security. and so, if we can draw down in haiti right size because we don't want to in any way squander the gains that have been made. if we can consolidate in liberia, we have to increase in south sudan. it's actually a modest infusion considering the scale of the threat. we have to fortify the mission in mally because terrorists are taking on peace keepers, and today, we had another incident where there was a suicide attack at a u.n. base. it was a horrific situation. but when you go through the list of the peace keeping missions we are asking you to help us fund, there's just not one mission that you would take off and say you know, even cypress, which is the mission that everybody sort of cites is funded largely not by us but actually by the
parties themselves and, indeed, of course, given the number of crises in the world, the last thing you would want to do is destabilize something when there's a peace process that we want to ensure reaches results over the long period that crisis has existed. but my point is just join us in this, if you could in this process of looking at these missions. we've cut the cost by 18%. it can go down more we're pushing every day on that. we're shrinking the size of missions because we know there's a certain fluidity. we know there's not an infinite pie here. but we are carrying over into this year significant deficit from last year, hopefully less of one than we thought we were going to be carrying. and thus while our appeal looks bigger this year, the actual requirements are just a little bit lower even than they were in 2015 for 2016. at least the requirements that we expect. on south sudan briefly, as my time is up, we have put in place through this recent security council resolution now you might
call it a pressure architecture. so we have a sanctions regime. and now we will need to go forward in collaboration with our friends who are trying to broker this peace process with designations on those who are spoiling and responsible for the breakdown in talks. we have to be strategic about that. and think about how to ramp up, perhaps, or what the right sequencing is. and the resolution also references an arms embargo. and we are very drawn, as are you, to the idea that of course, stemming the flow of arms to this region may be another factor that could change the calculus. but the biggest issue in south sudan is the leaders, the very leaders that this congress and our administration and our predecessors supported have not put the interests of their people above their own parochial desire for power or self-preservation. and that is the road block that we have to lift and pressure has got to be part of that. >> thank you, again, iffer your
did not vote. i thought for sure the women's bill would pass and they did not vote for it. host: next weekend in los angeles is the annual "los angeles times" next weekend in los angeles is the annual los angeles times festival of books. and book tv will be live. both april 18th and 19th from the university of southern california campus. nick o'mele is the deputy publisher of the "l.a. times." when and how and why did the l.a. times start sponsoring this book fair? >> the "los angeles times" started this about 20 years ago. it's the 20th anniversary of the festival of books. and it was an important way that the newspaper could engage with
the community. could provide a space for all kinds of people. from publishers authors authors, thinkers, but also chefs and artists and actors and actresses to come together to celebrate los angeles as one of the creative capitals of the world. >> and what can we expect next weekend in los angeles? >> we're going to have over 500 authors, celebrities musicians, artists, et cetera as well as hundreds of book zellsellers, publishers, and cultural organizations across nine stages. there's something for everyone. bring your kids. bring your grandparents. there's a huge amount of stuff going on. some notable names candice bergen, t.c. boyle roy choy the chef. brian grazer. your favorite billy idol. joyce carole oates.
patton oswalt. giants segel, paula peretti. john scelasi the science fiction writer. tavis smiley. octavia spencer. there's something for everyone. families foodies, hipsters, students spanish language programming. more than 100 conversations on everything from california, crime noir to digital privacy rights to the future of the american identity. >> what kind of reaction do you get from the community to a bookfest? >> you know, it's been an immediate success. when it was started 20 years ago it right away became a cornerstone event in los angeles culture. people market out all year long. it's been a signature event. it's been kind of a way the "los angeles times" invites folks from all around the community to come celebrate this great city. it's grown to one of the largest festivals of its kind. there's really nothing like it anywhere in the united states. it start the very simply
bringing together people who create books and people who love to read them but it's grown into this much broader celebration. among other things we have a big book award we give out every year, and this year we're adding something new. we're having something called an ideas exchange where malcolm gladwell is going to be in conversation with the "los angeles times" film critic kenneth tournuran. if you tloins npr you're probably familiar with kenneth turan's voice as npr's film critic sxwlp as regular viewers know, book tv will also be there. c-span bus will be there. and we have partnered with the "l.a. times" festival of books to create a book bag. and we will be hand those out from the c-span bus. and if you're familiar with the area, just off -- on the usc campus we're just about half a block from tommy trojan. is there a cost to attending the
festival? >> the bulk of the events are free. some of them are ticketed due to limited space. but this is really a chance to invite the country in to invite los angeles in in partnership with usc to look at california. california as, you know, the gateway to both latin america and the pacific rim. to look at some of the future -- some of the challenges the country faces in its future that are quite acute in los angeles, from drought and climate change to immigration and the multicultural diversity of this nation. across the board all kinds of exciting opportunities. >> you can go to the "los angeles times," latimes.com. you can also follow the bookfest @lafob, los angeles festival of books. mr. meelee, thank you for being on book tv. >> looking forward to seeing you folks next weekend. >> and again, book tv will be live on c-span 2 all weekend next weeks from the "los angeles times" festival of books, saturday and sunday, april 18th
and 19th. go to booktv.org to get the full schedule. a lot of call-in opportunities. a lot of panels. a lot ofknob non-fiction authors you'll be hearing from all weekend live on book tv. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, here on c-span 3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekends c-span 3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary. visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf, with the best-known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history, with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, "real
america," featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span 3 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> next a house foreign affairs subcommittee hears from u.s. ambassador to yemen gerald fierstein. he discusses the ongoing conflict in the country and the administration's partnerships and plans for counterterrorism in the region. from capitol hill this is about 90 minutes.
>> the subcommittee will come to order. after recognizing myself and ranking member deutch for five minutes soon as he shows up each for opening statements i will then recognize other members seeking recognition for one minute. we will then hear from our witness, and without objection mr. ambassador your prepared statements will be made a part of the record. members may have five days in which to insert statements and questions for the record subject to the length limitation and the rules. i'd like to note for the record that the subcommittee invited the department of defense to send an official to testify before us this afternoon but d.o.d. stated that they were unable to participate at this hearing and declined to come. but we got better of the deal because we have you, mr. ambassador. the chair now recognizes herself for five minutes.
on september 10th of last year president obama announced to the american public his plan to degrade and destroy the terrorist group isil. while making his case for america's role in the fight against isil the president highlighted our strategy in yemen and held it up as a model of success to be emulated in the fight against isil. yet about a week later the iran-backed houthis seized control of the capital and the government. despite this the administration continued to hail our counterterror operations in yemen as a model for success even though we effectively had no partner on the ground since president hadi was forced to flee. but perhaps even more astonishingly in what can only be described as alarmingly tone deaf and short-sighted, when press secretary earnest was asked at a press briefing if
this model was still skuflts after the yemeni central government collapsed and the u.s. withdrew all of our personnel including our special forces he said yes despite all indications pointing to the contrary. so where do we stand now? that's the important question. president hadi was forced to flee. saudi arabia has led a coalition of over ten arab nations in "operation decisive storm" which so far has consisted of air strikes only but very well could include ground forces in the near future. iran feels emboldened in yemen because of the leverage it has gained over the administration include the nuclear negotiations. but i commend the gulf countries, the gcc countries, for taking a strong stance against iran and stepping up to the plate in yemen. despite their action, the houthi actually control more territory now than they did before the saudi response.
our embassy is closed. our personnel have been evacuated. and there's no hadi government to speak of. and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, aqap, has taken advantage of the fighting and has capitalized on the deteriorateing situation in yemen, and we have very little visibility into the movements or their actions. i'm concerned that the aqap the al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, has gained ground in eastern yemen and has been left virtually unchecked to recruit and train. let's not forget it was aqap that was responsible for the paris attacks earlier this year or that it was al qaeda in the arabian peninsula that was responsible for overtaking a prison last month and releasing several hundreds of prisoners clg a senior operative of al qaeda.
aqap's leader is a follower of bin laden and like bin laden also seeks to strike western targets including right here in our homeland the united states. iran has reportedly dispatched a naval destroyer near yemen in a game of chicken over one of the most important shipping routes in the gulf of aden. this area is a gateway between europe and the middle east, and iran must not be allowed to escalate any tensions nor attempt to disrupt the shipping lanes. yet we continue to see the administration make the same mistakes it made in syria. and just like in syria today yemen is in utter chaos in large part due to iran's antagonism and meddling. but we must learn a lesson from syria and engauge in the yemeni crisis head on with a comprehensive strategy before it spirals further out of control. there will be no political so