we did so with the united kingdom, with france and west germany. and i think doing something like that irrespective of what further tangible outcome we were able to secure from the council is going to be very important and perhaps broadening that. mr. chairman, the one thing i feel compelled to say is that when you say they are going with

breakneck speed to dismantle, it's very important to remember that that is a good thing. that's what we want. at breakneck speed, the dismantlement, that, understanding again that there is pay-for-performance as part of the do. the way we've incentivized in moving forward and allow the inspectors in. sometimes in the way this is discussed you think that is not a good thing. that is a good thing. that is the point of the deal. >> i understand that. i understand they are dismantling and tak the centrifs and we're all i can do continued development. i understand that. look, again, i don't want to re- debate the agreement. what i think we're focused on right now is that the international community knows that they violated 1929, and in essence they are violating the

spirit where are called upon not to do this. we all know that the u.n. security council is not going to take action. that is what is important to us because we believe after they get the sanctions relief come after the dismantle these antiques that are using right now, these ir ones, but don't push the envelope and we believe that you and others thereby not taking even bilateral actions yet are helping create permissiveness. even the we like and respect you we have a policy difference. this is not directed at you. it's directed at the u.n. security council. >> thank you, mr. chairman very much. thank you for all your great work, ambassador in what's global and complex but you serve a country so well. thank you. and we come back to the good for second in syria when i look at

assad, when i look at all of his supporters inside the country is upwards of 30% of the army as soldiers who will not be viewed well when there is a peace agreement by the other cities soldiers have been trying to depose assad for all these years. similarly, the alawite soldiers are fighting for you. so they will be looking for protection if there is a peace agreement. and i think secretary kerry is doing a great job in moving us towards that but it will have to be protection for these people to avoid, i think it would be foolish not to participate. this is what happened in iraq, what happened in libya, what happened in egypt. so they will be looking for protection that kind of looks to the u.n., looks to these blue helmet soldiers to come in and

to get some level of guaranteed that there will be protection for them if they lay down their guns. otherwise i don't see a resolution of it. i just see a protected -- protracted law, no matter how hard you try you wind up with an ever continuing conflict. so could you talk about that a little bit and what role u.n. peacekeepers could play in a post peace agreement? understanding we are far from that, but just looking at, anticipating a potential role for the u.n., also other multinational force to move in and to give some guarantees. otherwise i don't think assad is ever going to leave. just look at it from the perspective of human nature looking at what's happened in all the other countries. they will be dead, they will be

killed. the revenge motivation is just going to be so high given the tragedy that affected these are the families and then we ar have yet another psycho we are participating in. how could the u.n. or another multinational force play a constructive role? >> there's no shortage of very complex dimensions to imagine a political settlement for syria but you've put your finger on i think one of the hardest issues of all, which would be any notional reintegration of syrian moderate opposition forces with sears in government troops -- syrian government troops, was the air force which have involved in barrow bombing and chemical weapons used or the infantry. i mean, it is going to be extremely difficult. i think that, and that you say we are not at this point out the

discussions, but in order for there to be an agreement on a political transition by mutual consensus, which is the catchphrase from geneva and is the operative principle from vienna, that is going to one of the questions both sides are asking because it cuts any other direction as well when moderate opposition forces go back to their home communities, what happens to them if the forces that control remain, you know, in large government forces. so where the confidence building comes from, who the guarantors are of any reintegration, what, this gets back to senator cardin's question earlier, with the accountability mechanism is whereby there could be some healing or truth telling and punishment for those who committed the worst violations,

all of those have to be worked through. >> on both sides. >> on both sides again, yes, absolutely. now, in terms of the near term, we have a cell, you know, very extensive presence in syria at a shrinking but nonetheless would be a significant consideration for any outside country thinking about deploying troops to syria. we have al-qaeda's affiliate al-nusra as well, part of what is being worked through in the end is definitions of who is a terrorist and who isn't. at a strategic level and idea everybody could go against these forces together, but i think what you would need if, you know, if one was going with the troop presence on the outside, you would have to make a judgment that a troop presence would do more good than harm. that it would invite and create more confidence to have that confidence, those alawite's and

as many soldiers on the government side and in sunni moderates on the other side are going to actively those troops are going to protect them if they get attacked. iif you look at u.n. peace keeping missions, that's not always the case around the world. some troop contributors, that's not a role they played eagerly even if that's part of the may day. you could look at a regional force or a green hat force of some kind. you still ask the question, our troop contributors ready to invest themselves in enforcing this agreement? is that something that some of her allies would be a part of? the only caution i would give in terms of original force which is something i think is being looked at and again all the costs and benefits of all these have to be thought through, on the one hand you would have the language, the cultural affinities. but in the case of many of the regional players they have been stakeholders in this conflict. the ideas they would then be seen as impartial.

so finding a confidence building mechanism that doesn't run afoul of being seen to be a party to the conflict and where they would be willing to put their troops in harms half of this agreement is going to be one of the challenges we have to think through, if the party is deemed an outside force, a necessary part of this political agreeme agreement. >> i don't see how you can avoid it. i just think the recrimination coefficients is going to be historically high. the carnage has just been so great on both sides, bitterness, acrimony will not settle down for decades. we need some mechanism as an intervention that allows for a period of reconciliation, of healing. and i think in the absence of a very well thought out plan that is put together, i think it should be put together sooner rather than later. just as a concept that could

move into assuaged concerns that all parties are going to have, that the removal of assad doesn't ultimately lead to a repetition syndrome, breaking out inside the country and yet a different cycle that seeks to extract a revenge against those who they have grievances. i just think the sooner we kind of think that through and what we're going to put in there, i think the better the conversations that we can have to get some assurances, to the more responsible parties to want to end this war, that the death toll is just going to continue to mount. so removing assad vicious once debt. i think the next, it has the company by a set of guarantees. i feel very good knowing you are there, and secretary kerry this

there. thank you so much. >> thank you for being with us. you can see that we're getting close to the end. i do want to chase for a moment if i could conversation you had with senator kaine. i guess, to your colleagues at the united nations think that some of congress and the american people do not want to defeat isis? >> i don't think they would have the impression. my response was that they're puzzled as to what we can come up with an authorization -- >> partly puzzled by the fact it administration has told over and over and over again here at this committee, secretary kerry, secretary carter, the white house, sending over notes that they have all the authorities they need to continue the fight against terrorism that was authorized in 2001, is that confusing? >> again, we were -- i was a

speaking come if i may just, i was as big into the legal authorities question. i don't think anybody questions was not the trend has authority to carry out the campaign we are carrying out. i think the question is as a political symbol and as reinforcement of the effort we are making that there should be an ability to get consensus here. >> there is consensus. i mean, the president -- >> i'm sorry, my response was on the aumf. >> it's a little game being played that's difficult for me to understand. on the one hand, witness after witness after witness comes up and tells us that all the authorities that they need. and then people like you and others come up and talk about how it would be nice. i guess i don't get it. i voted for an authorization in 2013, help craft it to go against assad. we turn away from that. certainly this committee is willingoing to take a tough isss with a declaration of war is

occurring. and as the president declared war on isis? as he declared war on isis? as he laid out a strategy publicly to defeat isis? such as want to say, i'm sorry this cutesy that's been occurring recently especially over the last two weeks, i'm having difficulty understanding when i agree with the administration. they have every authority that they need to defeat and destroy isis. so i don't know what's up. maybe the president's receiving criticism and is trying to deflect about to congress somehow get out of the little current. but all i can say with you, i'm in full agreement with the administration that the 2001 authorization, while serving on the edges, gives them the authority to do everything they could possibly want to do to destroy isis. and i believe that everyone in the world, everyone in the world

understands that congress wants to see that happen. >> let me be clear. the president has himself as unit made clear that he has the authority to prosecute this campaign effectively. i was responding to senator kaine's comment that a number of the other countries in the coalition have gone through a domestic legislative process of late -- >> they didn't have the authority to do what they were doing. they didn't have the authorities come is that correct? >> i would correct? >> i would have to go case-by-case but i'm not only with the domestic legal -- >> certainly uk's unwillingness -- >> i think they need to go to the exercise they've gone through. i think this is a reason though that the question is a little bit more in the air than has been over the last six months up in new york. >> i think it is in the air for -- >> but the president has the authorities he needs. there's no resurrecting are

surfacing this issue for any other reason. >> you agree 100% the president has the authority? >> absolutely. >> has the president declared war on isis by the way speak with i believe he said we will defeat and destroy isis spent look, we thank you for being here today and certainly respect the job that you have to. very polite and intelligent but sometimes i take issue with you what i feel like you are carrying too much, administrations lie but i understand sometimes you feel compelled to do so. i thank you for being here and we wish you well as you take the monster the action against 1929 being violated over the next week or so. thank you. >> our next panel will consist of two more outstanding witnesses. the first witness is the honorable john negroponte, vice chairman a form united states permanent representative to the

u.s. mission of the united nations, same job are former witness is occupying your our second witness will be dr. bruce jones vice president for policy program at the brookings institute. i can we take ambassador power for being here. both of you have witnessed what just happened we hope you can summarize your thoughts in about five minutes to look forward to questions that begin thank you for being here. >> and john, why did you start? >> thank you, chairman corker, ranking member, it's a pleasure to appear before you at this point to discuss united nations peacekeeping, subject of importance to the united states security. when i was ambassador to the united nations this subject was frequently on the agenda of the u.n. security council, and during my tenure the arab peacekeeping operations were stood up in sierra leone and

liberia among other countries and, of course, we also renewed a number of operations that continue to this day, such as in the democratic republic of congo, western sahara and so forth. i want to state categorically at the outset my conviction that united states support for u.n. peacekeeping operations is in the overwhelming national security interest of our country. there are three major reasons for which i hold this view. i call these three arguments first, cost. second, the boots on the ground argument and number three, legitimacy. i will explain each of these thoughts further. first with respect to cost, united nations has more than 100,000 troops deployed in peacekeeping operations around the world today. the approximate cost of deploying these forces is $8 billion per year, which, of

course, is a small fraction of what we spend in our own national defense budget. our share of these costs is less than $3 billion. a small fraction again, and some luster is -- illustrative the figures were cited by senator cardin. a small fraction of what it would cost to deploy united states forces on similar missions. this is not a trivial argument. in today's world and with the high cost of deploying u.s. forces to overseas missions, clearly it is an important advantage for us to know that we have considerably less expensive options available to us regarding whose forces may be available to carry out an intervention we need to be in our interest. second, the boots on the ground argument. this of course is enlargement related to financial costs, just as we been up from the lower

cost of u.n. peacekeeping, budget as compared our own defense spending, we also do not people our own combat forces to these situations. this is a huge benefit. it is hard to imagine sustained public support for a hypothetical situation where in u.s. combat units were deployed to five or 10 peacekeeping operations abroad. the cost in u.s. blood and treasure would be unacceptably high in the spotlight on the situations in which u.s. forces were involved could undermine that kind of support and patience required in some of these very difficult situations. so support for u.n. pk oh say system having to contemplate these possibilities. it also enables us to think about choices. other than a stock selection between u.s. boots on the ground

on the one hand, or nothing at all. and third, legitimacy. how many times have we undertaken or contemplated intervention without the legitimating united nations security council resolution? in early 2003 i was in the well of the security council arguing for a chapter seven security council resolution permitting the use of force against iraq. we failed to achieve that resolution, and soon thereafter intervened in iraq with a coalition of the willing. i'm not saying that a pko would've been appropriate at that point in time in iraq. but what i do want to highlight is that we subsequently paid a high domestic and international price for anything in iraq without the support and blessing of a u.n. security council

resolution. by definition, a u.n. peacekeeping operation have consensus support within the p5, and the blessing of the security council resolution. this is an important political and legal advantage which should not be dismissed lightly. senator corker, ranking member cardin, i know there are issues regarding the effectiveness, comportment and leadership of some pko's, these are issues that will require continued attention and effort from troop contributing and w. and members alike. and given our leadership role in the world and our status as the u.s. largest single financial contributor, we have a special responsibility in this regard. but whatever imperfections or blemishes might exist in the u.n. peacekeeping set up, it is our responsibility to help address these issues in a

constructive way with steady engagement from the u.s. and others. i foresee continued improvement in the performance and utility of pkos, even the more creative use and addressing some of the very difficult security challenges around the globe. so thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee on such an important topic, and i'd be pleased to try to answer any questions. >> dr. jones. >> thank you very much, chairman corker, ranking member cardin. thank you for having the appear before this body, thank you for your leadership and sustained attention to this issue. we've covered a lot of ground so i will be brief and just try to raise a couple of points, reinforce points embrace a couple of additional ones. i think this body will understands the purpose of peacekeeping is to give the united states a tool for what i describe is manning the outer perimeter, or for burden sharing in conflicts where we have interest but we don't want to have to deploy u.s. forces are tackle the issue ourselves. i think that is well understood. i think it's important to

remember in the majority of the cases with you in is deployed, it is not deployed alone. it is often a regional organization and to you and cody plug-in hybrid operation that we don't focus on that in a. the u.n. is an important part but not the only part of the equation and we need to sustained attention to the way that regional organizations expand the reach of the u.n. and reinforce what the u.n. can do. that being said i should vote highlighted the u.n. has a burden sharing tool, gives us the capacity to reach across the globe to get indian troops to work with us in central africa or brazilian troops or european forces working with us in haiti that regional organizations can't perform. so for all its flaws and weaknesses the u.n. is the only genuinely global burden sharing to we have and i think it's an extremely important at a time when senator murphy i think mentioned colombia but there others like korea and indonesia and brazil, rising democracies

want to do more on the international stage that it is illegal to have to do that. so how do we improve the human performance? i think this is having four dimensions come effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy and leadership. effectiveness, i want to reinforce something ambassador power said which is bringing countries with advanced military capabilities back into the human. a number of you stress the complexity of the challenges the u.n. confront. i think we have to be clear eyed and the fact that any number of cases the u.n. is operating in the theaters and those are not challenges that can be met by troops with low order capabilities. look at the situation and mali, a different context, we have to see peacekeeping have within it troops, countries with advanced military capabilities to perform the functions the protections of civilities. i am very supportive of the efforts to bring european advising states back into

peacekeeping. and additional point i would make come and begin senator murphy touched on it is the art of the ways the u.n. can structure its missions. there's an alternative which is multinational force operations were a single member state takes the command and that sometimes an effective tool because there is member states like canada and australia and others who have a far higher degree of capability of command and control and intelligence than the u.n. secretariat has that his disposal and that variation of using a multinational force to something i think which we think about about more than we sometimes do. quickly on efficiency, nobody would accuse the u.s. of being an efficient organization but it has made an important step forward with the creation of the department of field support which is a separate folder structure into managed the u.n. field operations. the absurdity is the politics of the general is only means the department of field support

still has with all its decisions past the department of management. so the same tool that manages workshops and conferences in europe has to approve all the decisions of a more nimble tool and i think one of the things that i could do this work to change that so that the department of field support has more direct authority to oversee an opponent peacekeeping operations without that kind of extra layer of kind of a dual key system which is inefficient. we have to keep working on the scale of assessment issues. third, the things have been set of x. -- sexual exploitation. exploitation. exploitation. it is reckless in that this is an issue of a minority of troops and omissions, it severely erodes the legitimacy of the u.n. on the ground and in capitals. you've all set a number of things already about the united states putting the right kind of pressure on the u.n. to live up to a zero-tolerance policy, which rather belatedly ban ki-moon came to. that gets to my last point which

is this is also about leadership. we are coming to the end of ban ki-moon start editing it should be a matter of time before the united states will get into the business of selecting a new secretary-general to pay attention to the question of whether they'r focused on the effectiveness and efficiency of the u.n. and contribute to international peace and security and to work closely with the secretary-general when she or he is selected and other members of the p5 to make sure she has available a deep roster of talent on which to draw in selecting top officials for the management of political and peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. i will end it there. >> thank you both. i know we got off on all different topics but it sure we have the opportunity to talk to the ambassador. we thank you both. we know you are both friends, and so i hear this will be part of the record which is appreciated, this is more of a conversation. as we have moved, i mean, you know, you both have experienced

the frustration of seeing peacekeeping operations where people were being abused and brutalized, and yet the caveats that existed kept peacekeepers from really being able to intervene. so we moved anymore forward moving matter which for my standpoint is welcomed, as we've seen helpless people be brutalized in certain areas. what are those some of the challenges that, from our perspective, we most need to think about relative to that? in essence, it's an extension in some cases actually carrying out semi-kinetic activities, right? so what are some of the things that we as a body out to be thinking about as we progress down that path? >> thank you very much. it's an excellent question. and i think it's extremely well put. it's interesting to observe at

the u.n. i think you face two challenges. one, over time as countries with more advanced capabilities, europeans and others, have not been participating in peacekeeping. the practice sort of loaded to the capabilities of the troops. and so the willingness to go out and undertake kinetic activities to protect civilians, defeat forces, has diminished. getting more capable troops back into peacekeeping is the first necessary step. i think an important question is what can the united states due to stiffen their will or to ensure that they will have will or support? one thing i would put on the table is, by the way i would say i'm not among those who thinks that the united states has to put troops into peacekeeping. i do not think that is the correct approach. i think the united states has a unique capabilities in air lift, intelligence that are more important. and i would add to it over the

horizon extraction. we are good as country to put troops on the line and take risks. first of all it's helpful if you are more capable troops but if we will are willing to provide over the horizon defense capabilities to the risk they are taking this lesson as i think we can be any stronger position encouraging people to take those risks, take those fights if we are willing to help them if they get stuck. >> if i could add. first of all i would definitely agree with dr. jones that capacity building, at a think that's what he is talking about, really one of the most important challenges, if not the most important challenge we face with respect to u.n. peacekeeping. there was also mention earlier in the testimony this morning about the problem, the time it takes sometimes to mobilize some of these missions. i think the city council, the peacekeeping department has become more effective at that. i would add with respect to

capacity building the challenge we have in ensuring that this is sort of a uniform level of capacity amongst the officers that are leading these different nations around the world. i'm not aware that the u.n. has any kind of peacekeeping academy. it would seem to me if you have a military deployment that is in excess of 100,000 people around the world, i mean, we have an academy for each of our four uniformed services in the united states. and i wonder if some kind of training institution where you would cycle current and potential leaders, future peacekeeping missions, whether that wouldn't be an idea worth consideration. we will have to sit down at the drawing boards and think about how you do that, anyway that's what i did i would like to leave for your consideration. >> dr. jones, you mentioned you

don't think it's appropriate for the of the ground troops if you don't involve. as it relates to our nato efforts we have everything involved. money, equipment, personnel. and begin with a provider of security services and, unfortunately, most of the members of nato are consumers of security services. here we are the largest provider of monetary resources, and as i understand it we have committed 42 officers to be part of peacekeeping. just for the record, so that you tease out why it is you said what you just said, you say we shouldn't be involved with ground troops because -- >> thank you. .com and it comes up a lot. it's come up a lot in the last year as the administration has been pushing the europeans and other states to do border one of the responses are you going to come are you going to put troops in? as i said i think the things that only the united states can

do include air lift, intelligence and some of the command-and-control functions you just referred to. i wouldn't be doctrinaire about it. i don't think there is no circumstance for the united states would put troops in the we have historically in 1995 the united states had troops under the command of canadian led multinational force. we have done it. it's not impossible to do, but by and large it seems to me that we are better off with other troops are willing to be in the front lines of this. senator murphy talked about the notion of a multiethnic and of a national forces. the simple reality is that the united states is going to attract attention. that are going to be a lot of people who want to fight the united states and i think were superb raising a red flag to april would put u.s. forces on the ground in these situations and we are much better off performing functions that only we can provide as well as i

mentioned over the horizon, russia and support operations come and ask others to be on the front lines. >> is generally the same approach as has been discussed by most, that is in syria would like to have air the faces on the ground, more predominantly in western faces, right? it just helps ensure that there's more cohesive nature, if you will, relative to what's happening on the ground. typically we've had a policy effort not to use troops are not going to be demanded by people other than u.s. officers come is that correct? >> we have occasionally violated it. u.s. forces were under canadian command and multinational forces but i think as a general rule the right policy and more to the point as i said they're simply too many occasions in which participation in the united states would change the political picture of the forced

the ways what amplified the resistance rather than the opposite. >> whereas the enablers don't necessarily have that same kind of a profile, and yet there's over the country as capable as we are of producing these vital enablers to these missions. >> ambassador, you have had this role. you have been at the united nations. senator cardin, which i appreciate deeply, raised the payment, the amount we, we have 22% of the world's gross domestic product and get we contribute 28.5% of the budget here. our other, quote, associates if you will, at the united nations obviously are not doing their part, otherwise out about would not be 28.5. we find this essay in this case that nato is where we desire for things to happen. it seems more so than others and, therefore, we end up being

financially exposed more than others. you've been in this role. tell us on the perspective what we as a country can do to seek equilibrium in the call to other countries to play their appropriate role. >> it's frustrating. i mean, and i think you are right, center, to talk about the qaeda mysteries ways to which the budget is negotiated. and very often right at the end of the just before christmas before everybody gets in the rush to get out of there and some of it 3:00 in the morning the u.n. budget gets agreed upon, and so you sometimes get some rather anomalous situations that will arise. i think we just have to keep working on that. i recognize that we have not been as successful as we ought to have been in keeping the peacekeeping assessments down. but again, in proportion to what it would cost to field of the kinds of sources -- forces for

our own military expenditures, for our own defense establishment, we are talking about relatively small amounts of money and, therefore, i just think we need to do our best, but recognize that we may not achieve everything we hope to achieve in those negotiations. but i'm also reassured that some countries now are putting up more resources than they had before. i'm glad you that china is going to be something on the order of 10% per peacekeeping which is i recall correct is a significant departure from 10 or 15 years ago when the contribution was a fraction of that. >> senator cardin. >> ambassador, as you are describing the u.n. budget process i thought you were describing the u.s. budget process. >> i don't know where they learned those lessons. >> dr. jones, thank you very much for your service. cucumber with a great deal of expertise on the united nations having worked as advisor to the

secretary-general. ambassador negroponte, you served in that position as ambassador and dessert and other positions with foreign policy so i want to follow on reform issues. and i'll tell you why, but first let me suggest to the chairman, your suggestion on training is a very important suggestion. i serve on the board of visitors in the u.s. naval academy and i see firsthand the availability of training at the u.s. naval academy for some of our allied countries. we do train at our service academies foreign students. i think an arrangement with the united nations with regard to the peacekeeping command may very well be a viable option to get greater capacity, and i would ask our staffs to take a look at that to see whether or not we can look at how our service academies could assist in this regard. it also helps us because having

a more diversified student body at our academies prepares us for the global missions that our military command needs to be aware. so i thought that was a good suggestion. i would ask if our staffs could perhaps follow up on that and see if that's a viable option. i want to talk about the absolute scales of assessment and how these numbers come about. i put in context to assert who strongly supports the united nations and its missions and its budget. but if we were to put a u.n. reform bill on the floor of the united states senate, that type of amendments that would be offered and the types of potential restrictions of the u.s. participation in the united nations be a majority vote, perhaps even a 60-vote threshold, is real. and the reason for that is because the lack of transparency in the united nations, and the

illogical way they go about their budget. we talk about burden sharing and we recognize that it's disproportionate. u.s. taxpayers have been asked to take out a much stronger commitment than to develop countries, those who have the capacity could do a lot more. it's true in nato. it's true in our coalitions. it's true in individual participation globally, and it is really true in the united nations. so i understand that we are getting a good value for our contribution to the cache but i never doubt that the i agree with you completely, and it's the peacekeeping missions are critically important to the u.s. but it seems to me we've not been as effective as we need to india transparency and reform within the united nations process. and if we don't deal with this in a way that is understandable

to the u.s. political system, then it could be negative consequences to the u.s. participation at the united nations. so it's for that reasons i can't justify a 22% budget allocation of than 20.5% on peacekeeping. particularly in light of all the other commitments the u.s. taxpayers are making to international security issues. i just like to get your advice as to how the most effective way for this is senator and for the congress to weigh in any constructive way so that we can get the type of reforms we need in the united nations. >> well, you know, i'm not as current on these issues as i was when i was serving in that position, but i inherited, i was the beneficiary of richard holbrooke's successful negotiation with respect to the last big arrears situation that

we come at it took incredible work on his part. the kind of work that only richard holbrooke was capable of and it was jawboning with the membership, with the secretariat, working hard with the congress, like ms. power bring it is a good council down to visit the senate, which i think was a very, very good idea and i think it would come and i'm sure you imported this message to them when you met with him. and that's how those are the right people to ask that message to. i think it just requires an intensive diplomatic effort with these countries to try and correct that situation. i'm pleased we have a 22% assessment for the general assessment for the u.n. holbrooke that the issue somewhat resolved if our member correctly it was 26-point something an outcome of a percentage point or two since he reached his agreement. i think we'r we've just got to k that one really hard. and what i would hate to see happen is that the readers become so large that it becomes

some kind of a crisis situation -- our readers -- with regards to whether or not we're going to continue our support or, which would undermine our spoke with united nations and i think i think you were describing. >> i don't have much to answer i would just add one point of contents which is sort of ironical. i've spent a lot of the last few years hearing countries talk about united states is in decline, relative decline in the united states and all this kind of stuff. i profoundly disagree with that underlying notion to the reason i mention this case it would look at the skills of assessment it was about 30% at the height of the post cold war period, declined about 25% and a continual progress to bring the scale of assessment and one with our share of world gdp and it's gone back up to 28% since the global financial crisis. because we're done much better

in recovering from the global financial crisis than the number of our allies and partners. there's an irony at the moment where as people talk about just declined -- >> as i understand it the difference between 22% and 20% have sought harsher in the global economy. it's justified by our seat on the security council, which many of us interpret as to bust the 22% cap. >> is both because the formula starts with what is the share of gdp. you pay a premium by being rich, the rich countries pay more than poor country and they would pay an additional premium by virtue of being a prominent member. it was going down as our global share of gdp went down at it's gone back up a little bit so it's just worth remembering the irony. i don't disagree with anything ambassador negroponte said. this initiative is going to have to be made an important priority with the incoming secretary-general. i have to make it clear that to sustain support for the united

nations, it's impossible to explain to the american public why we pay an outsized share of this bill. it is true that we have an outside interest, an outsized interest in the performance. we are the only path pashtun with the outside interest as well and a certain extent in all honesty that reduces our leverage. >> because we've assumed greater burdens, with even greater burdens. >> correct. >> let me ask one last question if i might. ambassador power was pretty firm and optimistic about the september 28 meeting of the countries that are contributing resources to the u.n. peacekeeping. the commitments she continues to state are just that, commitments but they have not been delivered yet. have you had a chance to review

the september 28 results, and are you optimistic that, in fact, this will have greater participation by the countries that are capable of doing more? what's your prognosis on this? >> well, i was, had the honor of being invited so i was there for that and a big involved in helping you and helping the administration into the preparation for it. i'm semi-optimistic. i think that the europeans in particular as they have drawn down and afghanistan they have capabilities that are not using in that context. they can contribute to the dutch in bali i think of the most important example of what we've seen so far. i think they recognize they have a deep interest but if they're going to come to terms with their migration and refugee problem they got to go solve in the places where they originate so they have an interest in helping to stabilize conflicts in africa and beyond.

i'm somewhat optimistic. i would be very optimistic were it not for a very different reality, which is rush and ukraine which is causing european governments fully understandably to we prioritize actors of all the kind of concernconcerned about negativet the containment of russia center and that will put pressure on european defense budgets and could put pressure on european militaries to be worried about other things and conflict in africa. so the two things are happening at the same time. i think there is a genuine will from the europeans and some of the other countries like korea that are participating in u.n. peacekeeping. at the same time we're facing new challenges from china and russia and those will put different kinds of pressures. i think she tried to push the argument. it makes you -- administered was right to pursue this. >> thank you. >> i think we need to keep the spotlight on a. i think is a great initiative by

the president and has to be followed a. the other thing i might add with respect to protecting countries is that one encouraging region of the world in that regard is the willingness of certain latin american countries to contribute to peacekeeping, global peacekeeping, which they been reluctant to do in the past. suspension of colombia, for example, and brazil, to. so i thought that was encouraging and i think it's something that the u.n. needs to avail itself of. >> thank you. thank you both for your service. >> thank you. one of the great privileges that we have around it is the access to people like you who are so respected and have the ability to share with some with us and experiences. we know that everyday when they come to work so we want to thank you for your continued involvement in issues of importance to our country, for being here today. as you can see a lot of our members are present by asking

questions later. if you would, without objection, first of all the record will be opened until the close of business friday but if you could respond in a very timely manner that would also be appreciated but we thank you for your service to our country. we thank you for being here today, and with that meeting is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you for the invitation to [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> today the women's foreign policy group hosted a panel of foreign correspondents to talk about war and conflict reporting. live coverage on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> come into this house and there's so much to do. there's so much coming at you that there's no time to think or reflect. >> hi, everyone. we are here digging up so because we about to plant a garden. >> i will not be satisfied to will my husband and to every

single veteran and military spouse who wants a job has one. >> at the end of the day my most important title is still mom in chief. [applause] >> in 2008 michelle obama became the first african-american first lady when her husband barack obama was elected our 44th president. as first lady our focus has been on current social issues such as poverty, education and healthy living. launching the let's move initiative addressing childhood obesity. michelle obama this sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series first ladies, includes an image, examined the public and private lives of the women who fill the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. sunday at 8 p.m. eastern on american history tv, on c-span3. >> next air force and navy

senior officers on increasing the effectiveness of military operations. they testified before the senate armed services committeeom thursday for one hour 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good morning. committee meets today to continue our series of hearingse on defense before. we predict the effects of the goldwater-nichols reform on ourd defense acquisition management and personnel system. our past and the past few days have considered what most of you as the essence of goldwater-nichols. and the roles are responsible for chan'ector at defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the service secretaries and service chiefs, and the combatant commanders.to unde this morning we seek to understand how goldwater-nichols has impacted theat effectiveness of u.s. military operations and what reforms may be necessary.or we are pleased to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses who will offer insig