screeria -- nigeria. - agriculture

secretary vilsack testifies about federal child nutrition programs. >> next, u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha powers testifies before the house foreign affairs committee. the committee is looking into how she and her staff plan to

advance u.s. interests within the international organization. the u.n.'s role in nuclear negotiations with iran and potential security council actions involving israel. this hearing is 2 hours and 10 minutes. >> this hearing will come to order and this morning we look at the role of the united nations and we look at the role of the u.s. there with ambassador saa maptha power. she has spent two years as the u.s. permanent representative to the u.n. and the ambassador has approached her job with great energy, great determination and perhaps best shown during last year's ebola crisis in west africa and in that case the administration and congress worked together to contain bowla and to save lives. ambassador, thank you for those

efforts and thank you for joining us today and the ambassador's testimony comes at an important time. if a finally run nuclear agreement is reached and the deadline is in two weeks, then the security council will be expected to remove international sanctions while preserving the ability to react to iranian cheating and given all we know about the nuclear program, cheating should be expected, the committee wants to know how in a case of cheating how a snapback would work. we know russia and china wouldn't make this easy and i've never known any u.n. process described as taking place in a snap. last week's revelation by a panel of u.n. experts that there has been not a single report of iran violating the u.n. arms embargo not only lacks any credibility, but calls into serious question the chances of

the u.n. snapping back any sanctions. the committee is disturbed to watch the u.n.'s anti-israel bias especially in the human rights council. more disturbing is that the obama administration seems to be on the brink of discarding decades of bipartisan support of israel against the u.n. onslaught. president obama has raised the dramatic step of allowing the security council to impose conditions related to a two-state solution rather than supporting negotiations between the parties themselves. ambassador as we wrote to you the other month an imposed plan will not get us closer to peace. nearby syrians are being slaughtered before the world's eyes. two years ago the united nations called the crisis in syria the worst humanitarian disaster since the rwandan genocide. yet, despite several u.n.

resolutions, the assad regime continues its indiscriminate barrel bombing and chemical weapons attacks. those responsible for these war crimes must be held accountable. ambassador, you have said this to your credit, but when -- when will that accountability come. the committee hears testimony tomorrow from some of the brave syrians who have appeared in front of the security council to share their stories of responding to assad's abhorrent attacks including chemical attacks. elsewhere, religious minorities are under attack unable to claim citizenship in burma or elsewhere, many have called the rohingyas the most persecuted minority in the world. burma's persecution has led thousands to desperately flee to overloaded boats many are rightly bothered by the united

nation's poor track record of protecting rohingyas. muslim girls can think they are finding safe haven but end up being trafficked, being sexually exploited and being led into a lifetime of misery. united nations peacekeeping by the way, despite many short comings has managed to protect innocent civilians and minorities in recent years the missions in the democratic republic of congo and mali and south sudan have saved lives. the committee wants to continue working with the ambassador to see that these missions are appropriately supported and we hope that something can be done for the rohingya people and that's easier if failing missions some decades old are closed and the horrendous sexual abuses are tackled head-on. u.n. reform shouldn't be limited

to peacekeeping. this summer when the u.s. scale of assessments is reviewed i trust the u.s. delegation will be working to spread the burden and give major donors greater say in management decisions. ambassador power you will be wrestling with many critical issues in the coming months. to say you have a difficult and even hostile environment at the u.n. is an understatement, but you do not appear to be one to shy away from the challenge. i look forward to continue to work with you on these pressing matters. we thank you again for being with us today, and i will now turn to mr. elliott engle, the ranking member of new york for his opening statement. thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing and ambassador power, welcome. thank you for your testimony today and more importantly, for your distinguished service. as far as i'm concerned you are certainly the right person at the right time to be our u.n. ambassador and we're lucky to

have you. across seven decades, the united nations has done a great deal of good. millions say from starvation diseases like smallpox, peacekeeping missions that have brought stability to war-torn regions, we must acknowledge that the u.n. is far from perfect. we need to improve the organization's management, enhance transparency and strengthen internal oversight and we must continue to speak out forcefully when member states used the u.n. as a platform to unfairly single out israel. in my mind the best way to address these problems and to advance american foreign approximately see priorities is to maintain our engagement with the organization. u.s. leadership at the u.n. has headed off deeply biassed and one-sided resolutions targeting israel. we cast a lone no vote against the inquiry into the situation in sgaza. we've helped scale back the

anti-israel efforts in the human rights council overall and it's been a joke as far as i'm concerned. we pushed back against the resolution recognizing palestinian statehood and we've rejected efforts by the palestinians to use the u.n. to gain concessions from israel outside of the context of negotiations. i want to thank you, madam ambassador because you've been such a champion for israel. the israeli ambassador of the unsaid last week that if it weren't for the help of the united states and you personally, israel and i quote him, would be in real trouble. when the united nations continues to attack israel it undermines the credibility of the united nations. i'm confident that you will continue to make clear madam ambassador, that the united states will continue to oppose any biased or one-sided resolutions at the u.n. and that we will not shy away from using our veto at the security council if necessary despite some of the

rhetoric we heard from president obama. even with strong american involvement, it's been paralyzed when it comes to a range of challenges because other members of the security council continue to block meaningful action. i would like to mention just a few, and i am eager to hear your view on these topics. i'll start with the civil war in syria. half the population of that country has been displaced and the entire generation is growing up in refugee camps. to be sure the u.n. has done a lot for refugee families in jordan, lebanon and turkey for syrian people inside syria as thrown through the u.n. but russian intransigence has prevented the u.n. in playing a more active role in helping the syrian people chart a better future for their country, and that's only the tip of the iceberg with russia. under vladimir putin's leadership or lack of leadership, russia has walked away from dechl democrat see and human rights. they threatened stability and

democracy across europe. this war has left thousands dead tens of thousands wounded and more than a million displaced. we need to expose the kremlin's lies wherever and whenever we can so i commend you for shining a light on the hard facts of the u.n. with regard to iran we are all eager to see what a comprehensive nuclear deal will look like. i'm particularly concerned about -- i'm particularly concerned about who will determine if iran is in violation of the agreement. what happens if we think iran has stepped over the line, but russia and china disagree? i'm also concerned about how and when u.n. sanctions against iran will be lifted. the u.n. is going to have a big role to play and i'm eager to hear about how this process will move forward. finally in our own neighborhood, i am very pleased that the mandate for the u.s. international commission in guatemala was recently renewed creating similar conditions in honduras and el salvador would make a big difference in

fighting impunity and i think we can work together. thank you again for appearing today. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. so this morning we are pleased to be joined by ambassador samantha power. she is the united states permanent representative to the united nations and a member of the president's cabinet. prior to her appointment to the u.n. ambassador power served as special assistant to the president and senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights on the national security staff at the white house. ambassador power is the pulitzer prize-winning authedor of "a problem of hell." america and the age of genocide. we thank you for being here today and without objection, the witness's full prepared statement will be made part of the record and members will have five calendar days to submit any statements or questions or extraneous material for the record. ambassador power i would ask you if you could please summarize your remarks and then

we'll go to questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, congressman engle. thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank you also for your leadership in advancing america's national security interests and our values in the world. >> last week i traveled to ukraine where i had the chance to see up close what happens when the rules undergirding our international peace and security are ignored. at a shelter for displaced families in kiev i met a mother who told me how her husband and 2-year-old child had been killed in february when a shell struck their home in a village in eastern ukraine. the shelling, as you all know was part of a sustained assault by combined russian separatist sources and the victims, just two of the more than 6,300 people who had been killed in the moscow-manufactured

conflict. shortly after the attack, the mother fled town with her five surviving children in a van whose roof and doors had been blasted out. her plea, one i heard echoed by many of the displaced families i met from eastern ukraine and occupied crimea was for the fighting to stop and for their basic rights to be respected. as the members of this committee know we are living in a time of daunting global crises. in the last year alone, russia continued to train arm and fight alongside separatists in eastern ukraine. a deadly epidemic spread across west africa and monstrous terrorist groups seized territory across the middle east and north africa committing unspeakable atrocities. these are the kinds of threats that the united nations exists to prevent and address yet it is precisely at the moment that we need the u.n. most that we see the flaws in the

international system, some of which have been alluded to already. this is true for the conflict in ukraine in which a permanent member of the u.n. security council is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity that it was entrusted with upholding. it is true of the global health system that despite multiple warnings of a spreading ebola outbreak including those from our own cdc was slow to respond to the epidemic and it is true of u.n. peacekeepers who too often stand down or stand by when civilians they are responsible for protecting come under attack, thus leaving populations vulnerable and sometimes open to radicalization. representing our nation before the united nations, i have to confront these and other short comings every day, yet though i am clear-eyed about the u.n.'s vulnerability, the central point i want to make to this committee is that 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 its 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. let me quickly outline five days that we're 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 multilateral sanctions regimes in history. the combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing iran to the negotiating table and ultimately to laying the foundation whereby we were able to reach a framework agreement that would if we can get a final deal

effectively cut off every pathway for the iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon. consider our response to the ebola epidemic. last september as people were dying outside hospitals in west africa hospitals that had no beds left to treat the exploding number of ebola patients, the united states chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the u.n. security council dedicated to a global health issue. we pressed countries to deploy doctors and nurses, to build clinics and testing labs and to fill other gaps that ultimately helped bend the outbreaks exponentially rising curve. america did not just rally others to step up. we led by example. thanks also very much to the support of this congress deploying more than 3500 u.s. government civilian and military personnel to liberia which has been ebola-free since early may. second, we are reforming u.n.

peace keeping to help address the threats to international peace and security that exists in the 21st century. there were more than 100,000 uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the u.n.'s 16 peace-keeping missions around the world. that is a higher number than in any time in history. with more complex responsibilities also than ever before. the united states has an abiding, strategic interest in resolving the conflicts where peacekeepers serve which can quickly cause regional instability and extremists group as we have seen in mali. while we have seen peacekeepers serve with professionalism in many of the world's most dangerous operating environments environments, we've seen chronic problems, including the failure to protect civilians. we are working aggresively to address these shortfalls. to give just one example, we are persuading more advanced militaries to step up and contribute soldiers and police to u.n. peacekeeping.

that was the aim of a summit that vice president biden convened at the u.n. last september where colombia, sweden indonesia and more than a dozen other countries announced new troop commit ams and it is the message i took directly to european leaders in march when i made the case in brussels that peacekeeping is a critical way for european militaries to do their fair share in protecting our common security interests particularly as they draw down in afghanistan. this coming september, president obama will convene another summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of commitments and generate a new set of capabilities for u.n. peacekeeping. third, we are fighting to end bias and discrimination at the u.n. day in and day out we push back against efforts to delegitimize israel at the u.n. ask we fight for its right to be treated like any other nation. for mounting a full-court diplomatic press to help secure

israel's permanent membership into u.n. groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded to consistently and firmly opposing one-sided actions in international bodies. 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. we will continue to confront anti-israel bias wherever we encounter it. fourth, we are working to see -- excuse me, we are working to use u.n. tools to promote u.n. rights and affirm human dignity, as we did by working with partners to hold the first-ever security council meeting focused on the human rights situation in north korea in december. we use that session to shine a light on the regime's horrors, a light we kept shining on a panel

discussion i hosted in april with escaped victims of the regime. one woman told being forced to watch the executions of fellow prisoners who committed the quote, unquote crime of daring to ask why they had been imprisoned while another woman told how members of three generations of her family her grandmother, her father and younger brother had starved to death. this is important for u.n. member states to hear. fifth, we are doing everything within our power to make the u.n. more fiscally responsible, more accountable and more nimble. both because we have a responsibility to ensure american taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and because maximizing the efficiency of the contributions means saving more lives and better protecting the world's most vulnerable people. since the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year we have reduced the cost per peacekeeper 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 substantial drawdowns in coat devoir and haiti and other missions. i spoke about my recent visit to ukraine. across the range of ukrainians from the mother who lost her husband and 2-year-old child in the assault by combined russian separatist forces to the brave students who risked their lives to take part in the maidon protesters against the government to the young members of parliament working to fight corruption and increase transparency, what united them was the yearning for certain basic rights and the belief that the united states could lead other countries and the united nations in helping make their aspirations a reality. i heard the same sentiment when visiting the u.n.-run camps of people displaced by violence in the central african republic and south sudan and in the ebola-affected community of guinea liberia and sierra leone at the peak of the outbreak.

some may view the expectation that america can help people overcome their greatest challenges and secure their basic rides as a burden. in fact, that expectation is one of our nation's greatest strengths and one we have a vested interest in striving to live up to. daunting as it may feel in the face of so many crises, but we kvnt do it alone nor should we want to, that is why it is more important than ever that we use the u.n. to rally the multilateral support needed to confront today's myriad challenges. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you ambassador. myself and elliott epgel have had frequent conversations on this issue of iran's nuclear weapons capability and i indicated several years ago that this was going to be the primary focus of this committee was trying to prevent what i worry will be the undetectable nuclear breakout capability of iran.

i want to ask you about this iran agreement and u.n. snapback sanctions. if we have cheating on the part of iran as they've cheated on every other agreement so far this -- i would presume is going to be a real problem if we go forward and we don't get the verification in this agreement. that has to be in the agreement so now we take up this dispute resolution panel as it's called. this issue which would likely include the six powers and iran. the international atomic energy agency will also continue reporting on iran's program under this -- under this suggestion here, but here's my question. you've got russia and china playing a role. so it's not clear to me how u.n. sanctions realistly would snap back once the cheating is solved

and i would add the caveat that we would also probably see a situation where russian, chinese, french, german companies are back in iran, commerce is flowing and it's going to be very difficult to stop, certainly not at a snap. so walk me through that, if you would. >> excuse me. thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me very much agree with the comment you made earlier that nothing that happens at the u.n. tends to happen in a snap. i've lived that firsthand, but let me also underscore that president obama and the entire negotiating team and certainly i as a member of the administration also embrace your premise that we cannot trust on the basis of past iranian actions on the basis of current iranian actions outside the

nuclear sphere. so i think there are two very important aspects, both of which you touched upon, but just to elaborate on that show that any agreement that we reach would be predicated, in fact on a lack of trust. so the first is in fact one of the most intrusive inspection regimes imaginable and the ability to monitor what is happening along the nuclear supply chain to an unprecedented extent. forever commitments related to the additional protocol and the modified code. i mean, these are things that are going to last well below the life of this agreement and it's about recognizing that, of course, there are dangers of covert capabilities being brought online and that's what this inspection regime is oriented around, but the second

manifestation, i think, of the lack of trust is the snapback mechanism and one snapback mechanism, of course is within our own hands and there are many sanctions that the president of the united states would be able to snap back with the stroke of a pen, but in my world, president obama has been very clear from the very beginning that we cannot allow a procedure for snapback to be left in the hands of russia or china for the very reason that you indicate. while it's true that we were able to get the multilateral sanctions regime through the security council, again, the toughest, i think in the 70-year history of the united nations, it is not therefore follow that in the event of breach that we would be able to get that same resolution through a second time, and so while i can't get into the specifics of the mechanism right now because we're at a very delicate stage

of the negotiation and all of this is being worked through to the finest detail, i can say, number one congress will be briefed as soon as the -- as soon as the deal gets done if it gets done, and number two we will not support a snapback mechanism or an agreement that includes a snapback mechanism that leaves us vulnerable in the manner that you are fearful of. in other words we will retain the sanctions and architecture back in place without russian or chinese support. >> i think that has to be the focus because it took so many years for the international sanctions to be put in place so that those companies terminated their business with iran and now we have a situation that is a result of the way this is beingy in negotiated to position themselves to get back into the country. the other aspect to this as you

say, we are going to have an effective sanctions regime. that would imply then that what the iranians are telling the world which is that there is not going to be any investigation on their military bases that the international inspectors are not going to be able to have access to those types of sites and as you know that's where they've done a lot of their training or their testing is on those military sites. that would put us in the precarious position in an agreement that would be like the '94 framework agree. of north korea and it would be to actually go into those types of sites and the cheating would be in a case like that, not even detectable. >> so again this is why 367 members of this body and the majority of our colleagues on one side of the aisle and a vast majority on the other side of

the aisle. >> in other words an overwhelming letter in this institution saying we do have to have the international inspectors have this ability to the go on to those military bases and those other sites, anywhere at any time that has to go on this negotiation. let me raise another issue, too, and that is an issue that i know you've spent a lot of time on at the united nations but despite the deal with russia to remove assad's chemical weapon, it is clear he still has some of them. it is clear he's still using them especially having them dropped on aleppo and, madam ambassador, given to protect the assad regime, what can the u.n. do in particular the security council, to effectively confront the crisis in syria? and i'll just -- ask you for your thoughts and i mentioned

last month ranking member angela and i had a policy bill directing the pentagon to a no-fly zone over syria's skies and this would be for aleppo and other areas that are routinely routinely bombarded and, you know, of course, the united states can't do this on its own. it would need strong support and participation from our allies and partners in the region and many of them have been asking and offering by the way, their support and asking for this kind of a step. a no-fly zone that would protect the civilian population there. tell me about your engagement on that issue and where that might stand with the the united nations. if i could just a quick comment on your additional comment on iran to simply say that there's been a lot of rhetoric from the supreme leader, from the iranian

president, and from many within iran and there's a lot of politics going on and i think it's not helpful for us to get into the psychology of what any particular iran leader is thinking or saying. >> well, ambassador it's not difficult to interpret what he's trying to message. when he routinely starts the mornings with rallies of death to america. >> i understand. absolutely. >> i interpret that he means what he's saying in these cases. >> all i wanted to underscore before to your importance a question instead of comments is president obama will not accept a deal in which we do not get the access that we need in order to verify compliance. >> thank you. >> we want to hold the president to that. thank you. >> i'm sure you will. so on syria let me first address the chemical weapons issue. because of the credible threat of military force back in 2013

we were able to forge an agreement with the russians one of the rare instances, as you know, they've used their veto four times on syria-related issues including a referral of some of the worst atrocities we've seen since the second world war and a referral of those crimes to the international criminal court and they've vetoed that and they've vetoed very mild condemnnatory language. we lived their alliance with the syrian regime and the costs and consequences of that every day. i mentioned in my opening remarks ukraine and the permanent consequence of a permanent member trying to lop off part of someone else's country to use a veto in this disgraceful way is extremely disturbing disturbing. however, in this one instance we were able to team up in order to get this dismantling regime put in place. the obcw and the u.n. stepped up

in an unprecedented way, building the airplane as they flew it. and as a result, we have the removal and/or destruction of 100% of the declared chemical weapons program, but you're absolutely right. we also have alarming and grave reports that the syrians seemingly incapable fighting without drawing on chemical weapons have now found a new way even with the dismantlement of the declared chemical weapons regime which is to turn chlorine into a chemical weapon. >> we are pushing at the security council and we just in the last few months secured another resolution again somehow getting russia's support to make it very clear to the world that because chlorine is a household product doesn't make it not a chemical weapon when it is put in a barrel bomb and dropped on civilians and we made that clear in the hopes that that would be a deterrent and

threaten further measures. we are now at the point where we need accountability for these creams and we are pushing. i don't want to get ahead of diplomatic discussions and pushing russia to take ownership of this to use their influence behind the scenes and to move forward and get something through to the -- we need a big political push in terms of negotiations. those negotiations have kind of not really progressed since the last geneva conference. it's really been a period of protracted stalemate, but the regime, of course, has suffered a series of military setbacks russia and iran themselves of course share at least one additional concern with us which is the growth of isil in syria and so we are pushing russia on

the security council and outside of it to join with us here and make a serious political push so that we can get a kind of peaceful transition one that brings about an end to the assad regime which would gas its people and has committed such unspeakable atrocity but one also that would not leave syria vulnerable to isil actually coming in and filling the breach. on the no-fly zone, finally i don't have a lot to add. you know that every day we are looking into the tool box and trying to ascertain which tool is appropriate in which circumstances on the humanitarian, on the sanks and on the support for the training equip program, we've done an awful lot to influence the situation inside syria and a no-fly zone if implemented and executed would entail using military force against the syrian regime and our judgment is that at this point the risks of doing so would exceed the potential benefits because of

the number of extremists again that could conceivably benefit from sucha -- >> remember, the main beneficiary right now, ambassador as the regime drops those chemical bombs on aleppo, it is the isis fight ersers that, you know, the middle class that the free syrian army are battling on the outskirts. so it is a case in this instance of the regime working in tandem with isis in order to collapse basically the resistance of isis up in the north, but anyway tomorrow this committee will hear from the brave responders who were recently back from their efforts to say if these were physicians who were out there to save civilians from these chemical attacks on the nature of the chemical attacks but thank you for your good work. i need to go to mr. engle ambassador, thank you very much. >> thank you, sir.

>> ambassador, as i said in my opening remarks let me acknowledge the very strong work you've done in defending israel at the u.n. you listed several instances in your written testimony and i want to acknowledge your personal commitment to pushing back against efforts to delegitimize israel at the u.n. the ridiculous nonsense from the u.n. human rights council which consists of some of the worst defenders of human rights really makes that council, in my opinion, a joke and undermines the credibility of the u.n. itself. the president recently gave an interview with israeli channel 2 news in which he said that the u.s. was reevaluating and i quote him, how we approach defending israel on the international stage around the palestinian issue unquote. i understand that this reevaluation will not affect our security relationship with israel.

the president made that clear, but, frankly his remarks are troubling as were other remarks he's made on the same subject. reevaluating the ways that we defend israel on the international stage could have ominous consequences and it's obviously very concerning for those of us who seek to strengthen the u.s.-israel relationship. if the u.s. priority is achieving a permanent two-state solution giving israel another reason for unease will not help that goal. so i want to ask you, what is the status of this re-evaluation and what is it based on? >> thank you congressman engle. first, as you yourself have noted, the president was very clear in that interview and has consistently been clear that we are not reevaluating our bond with israel our security and military relationship, the tremendous friendships that exist between the american people and the israeli people.

i think what we are -- what we are engaging right now is a moment in which it's not exactly clear how progress toward a two-state solution is likely to be made. and so we are in daily touch, as you know with the israeli government, the israeli national security adviser is here in washington, i believe, still as we speak meeting with our national security adviser with the government now formed, deepening those discussions again about how we find a path forward toward a two-state solution recognizing as i know and we all do that that is the way in which israelis and palestinians can live durably side by side in security and in dignity. with regard to the area of concern that you have flagged, the united states the obama

administration have consistently opposed the delegitimization of israel. we've pushed for the legitimization of israel and i can give a lot of examples of that. we uniformly oppose one-sided actions, designed to punish israel and we will continue to do so. i want to be very clear in most cases, in many cases, at least, we are actually able to build coalitions and prevent things from coming up to a vote as we did in december when i cast a no vote and we were able to deny the palestinians when a resolution was brought forward and it was biassed and it was hastily jammed upon the council and we were able to forge a blocking coalition. i awes want to know that there are occasions in which we worked with our israeli counterparts up in new york on affirmative u.n.

resolutions on things that israel thinks can advance its interests and so i think it's hard to speak about hypotheticals and i would caution against doing so during the gaza crisis last summer where i know you were very engaged, we came very close working with israel on the u.n. security council resolution that we thought could potentially be additive as that crisis was winding down. in the end it didn't come to pass, but again the text and the content of what we're talking about would really matter and suffice it to say, i want to underscore that the united states would oppose any resolution that we believe is biased or would undermine israel's security. >> thank you for that answer, and it goes in line with your written testimony and we have consistently and firmly opposed one-sided actions and international bodies will continue to do so and it's a welcome message, but how do you

anticipate this pledge manifesting as the french and others pursued a security council resolution that could set artificial timetables for negotiations? >> again we have not seen or i have not seen a french resolution. we read in the press the same things you read and ouiwe've certainly heard about various texts, but since i've got to new york there have always been texts circulating related to the set of issues and i think again, i'm not going to speculate on hypotheticals and we're not negotiating any security council resolution. >> let me just say in conclusion, what's disturbing about some of the remarks that the president has made is that there is the hint or maybe not even a hint that perhaps next time around on some of these resolutions rather than vetoing them, the anti-israel biased resolutions we might just

abstain and that of course would allow it to pass. when some of us hear that, we cringe because if we can't count on the united states to stand firmly behind israel against these ridiculous one-sided biased resolutions then i think it makes the u.n. almost worthless in terms of trying to be a group moving the process along rather than beating up on israel with the built-in bias at the u.n. so when we hear those remarks from the president it disturbs many of us that have supported a two-state solution and support israel's right to exist and fight against the legitimization of israel all of the time. >> thank you. >> so thank you. >> representative ileana ros-lehtinen chairman of the subcommittee of the middle east and north africa.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman and madam ambassador, thank you for being so kind to my interns before this session. following up on the excellent remarks that were made by ranking member engle, as we know, president obama issued a not-so-veiled threat to israel that the u.s. might not be able to support a veto of the french resolution of the u.n. security council and palestinian statehood. you use the word oppose and we will oppose, but will the united states, yes or no, veto any resolution at the u.n. that forces, and imposes this two-state solution on israel. what will our position be? will we veto you say we oppose but will we veto? that would send a strong message. >> again given that we worked last summer on the u.n. security council resolution with israel, that we were potentially prepared to support and we weren't able to get everybody on the council to rally around.

i think it's perilous to make planket staple, but i want to underscore, we have consistently opposed and we will oppose anything that is biassed and anything that would undermine israel's security and i think our track record is very solid here. >> thank you. i think that's that track record that worries israel. i applaud you for saying we are going to root out the anti-israel bias that exists and sometimes you don't have to look too far to find that bias. moving on to u.n. reform, can you provide to this committee later in a written form a breakdown of exactly how much money across the entire u.s. government have we contributed annually to the u.n. since 2011? i would appreciate that madam ambassador. and regarding the iranian nuclear deal and iran and the sanctions we have on iran. recent reports indicate that the administration will not only

seek to lift sanks on iran's nuclear program, but also lift sanctions on iran for its ballistic missile program and its conventional military support for terror and its abysmal human rights record. will the administration lump these on iran as nuclear related? when we tried to bring it up they said they are not nuclear related, but it seems to lift sanctions, everything is nuclear related. >> first on your first question, thank you for not asking me to do that math on the spot. it would have been deeply humiliating. >> tough for me to do that too. >> and then second, on iran, absolutely not i think is the answer to your questions. we will -- the sanctions that we, the united states have put in place that are so important on human rights given the human

rights record which we support should remain in place. >> thank you. if i could continue, last week a u.n. panel stated that the u.s. has neglected to report iranian sanctions violations which the administration has denied. has the administration failed to report or refer violations of security council resolutions to the sanctions committee and has there been a formal or informal directive from the white house to not fully implement or report on violations of security council violations? >> absolutely not, and i myself are involved in raising sanctions violations that iran has carried out. we've also even over the life of the last delicate phase of negotiations instituted more sanctions designations under the existing bilateral framework

that congress has been such a critical part of. so there's no pulling of the punches during these negotiations or ever. >> thank you. >> lastly, i remain concerned about the security situation in haiti. just last week this committee sent staff to rate toe report back on the status of its elections and several people in the security and dip the maic sector expressed concerns that pulling u.n. troops out during an election year was a huge mistake and that the haitian national police may not be ready to ensure stability and security. what is the justification for the troop withdrawal at this critical juncture and why were those concerns ignored and will you commit to keep the few troops that will remain in haiti after the elections are finished, we hope, in 2016? >> thank you. i myself was in haiti in january asking many of the same questions that you've just

posed. >> i think what's important is the environment in haiti is very different from the environment post-earthquake. we had huge engineering battalions that were part of the u.n. mission in haiti who were removing rubble now. most of the rubble, almost all of the rubble in the country has been removed. so what we've seen is yes, a drawdown in terms of the authorized number of troops and that's something the united states has helped spearhead in part back to the chairman's comment at the beginning and recognizing that the system is massively stretched around the world, recognizing we have to answer up here also in terms of the budgetary demands that u.n. peacekeeping makes on the american people as well as on other member states, but mainly in this instance recognizing that foreign police units, mobility, more mobility fewer engineering battalions that basically you needed a recalibration of the mission according to new circumstances. so it is true that there has been a significant drawdown, but there is still a substantial

infantry presence and there is still the ability to do rapid response and we've introduced more helicopters to allow troops and police to move more quickly across the country, and a lot of the functions that the u.n. peacekeeping mission had been performing are now migrating to the so-called u.n. country team the development professionals and the election experts and so forth. that's not reallyare ing my migrating. you're right the haitian national police have a long way to go but the strides they've made over the last two or three years of extraordinary and the product of u.s. and other member state bilateral support as well as the u.n. training that's gone on there. >> thank you so much. haitian americans have greatly enriched our community and we pay so close attention to haiti. >> ambassador, thank you for your service not only in government but before you joined

the government. thank you forrior work in exposing opposing genocide, particularly the armennian genocide. i want to echo the ranking member on the protection of israel at the united nations. we were all concerned by some indication that the administration would cut back that support. it's good to support israel. it's even better when it's difficult. and i want to praise the administration for standing with israel at the npt consensus review process where in order to prevent actions, we not only oppose the actions but we opposed, because we had to the

entire agreement. so hopefully that answers the question as you have here when you committed to the ranking member that it is our position to veto one-sided anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. the president has recognized that involving the u.n. in the details of the peace process is not a way to advance peace. obviously, the u.n. might adopt a resolution that had a few noncontroversial provisions. two-state solution, peace and security for all. but would we veto any u.n. resolution that tried to codify the parameters of a peace deal and included controversial elements in that codification? >> thank you congressman sherman. i think that's a reprise of the

congresswoman's question with a slight shift. i really am going to resist making blanket declarations on hypothetical resolutions. our position again, i think, has been very clear for some time. i have said again we would oppose anything that was designed to punish israel, that would undermine israel's security. but i think again it's perilous. there's no resolution in front of us. >> i'll move on to less hypothetical questions. furst rnd current u.s. law, the administration is required to cut off palestinian aid if the palestinians per sue or support charges against israel at the icc and i'm confident you'll follow the law on that one, spirit and letter. i won't even ask that as a question because i know of your

dedication to law. the united states constitution vests specifically porover all international commerce especially sanctions -- or particularly sanctions in the united states congress. the administration has the area of trade recognized that the congress is the primary arbiter and has asked us to pass a statute providing limitations in structure. but i want to make sure that the administration will follow article one of the constitution when it comes to sanctions on iran. we've got this review process. i would hope that you would negotiate a deal in switzerland so good that congress universally supports it. but that may not be the case. imagine a situation in which there is a deal that is cut. the administration supports it. but less than one-third of either house has indicated support for the deal.

there are news reports that you will prevent a lifting of u.n. sanctions at least for a month to give congress a chance to go through the process of review. will you be allowing a lifting of u.n. sanctions during the statutory review process? >> thank you. i thought you were going to another hypothetical, but you went directly to an issue i know that's in the news. it is useful and appropriate, needless to say, for congress' voice to be heard and i think the bills that have come now through both houses provide -- >> and signed by the president. >> pardon me? >> and signed by the president. >> and signed by the president provide a structure for that voice and there's some

preductability topreduct able predictability to it. our view is we'll be able to defend any deal that is good enough for us and we'll come up here and seek to do so. on the precise sequence it is clear that there are now two bodies whose voices will need to be heard and how that will work is again one of those details -- >> you're saying it's possible if the united states congress declares by over a two-thirds majority in both houses that we reject the deal. if we establish u.s. policy on this deal per suant to article 1 of the constitution you might still be at the united nations undermun undermining that policy -- >> we'll have the ambassador answer the question, but we're going to try to get everybody in with their five minutes. >> just simply to say that's a hypothetical and about what the vote in congress would be we feel this would be a deal we

could be defend where we can convince congress to defend the deal. the precise choreography of how it works through, that's still a matters for negotiations. >> thank you so much. now we turn to mr. christopher smith, chairman of the committee on africa, global health and international operations. we'll try to do those in five minutes so everyone will have a chance. >> thank you, madam chair and welcome ambassador and thank you for your testimony and for your work. more than a decade ago, madam ambassador, sex trafficking and sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping was exposed in the democratic republic of congo. i chaired a hearing. i met with peacekeepers trying to get a real plan to try to mitigate and hopefully eradicate

that hoffur if horrific abuse. they did a magnificent job at the u.n. trying to get zero tol lance. some of our witnesses then and some would say still there is a lack of compliance with that blue helmet bulletin. last year the advisory committee said nearly half of the allegations reported in peacekeeping missions involve most egregious form of sexual exploitation abuse of minors. they cited haiti, liberia and sudan and south sudan. may 15th the office of u.n. oversight evaluated efforts to combat abuse by u.n. peacekeepers and found troop contributing countries who retain the primary responsibility to investigate

misconduct apparently are not doing a very good job. questions about the quality of the investigative standards, wide variations in sanctions that weakened the commitment to zero tolerance. and the penalty is often simple repatriation and disbarment from any future u.n. peacekeeping deployment not prosecution and jail. oios made some recommendations, six of them, that i think bear consideration on an expedited basis. perhaps you can speak to that. they also noted there was a real lack of helping victims, particularly little girls, who have been abused. secondly, let me ask you about a syria war crimes tribubal. in 2013 i wrote an op ed for "the washington post" and again a series of hearings. david crane the former prosecutor from the sierra leone special court, and he and so many others made it clear the

icc is not up to the task. we need a regional court like yugoslavia sierra leone and rwanda and prosecute both in iraq and syria those on either side or any side committing these terrible atrocities. ior thoughts on that. and the committee on ngos recently voted down the application for consult tative status known as freedom now. the no votes came from china russia cuba iran nicaragua and azerbaijan and others. i've worked with nicaragua for years. a great organization. on the same day the palestinian refugee center which works with hamas and hezbollah was approved. what are we trying to do to help freedom now get their accreditation? >> i'll try to move quickly through each of these very

important issues. freedom now couldn't agree more, they are doing some of the most important work to highlight the plight of political prisoners. i use their work to reinforce whatever they are campaigning on. and just very sad fact is the ngo committee in which members are elected by u.n. membership often by the regions is stacked with a group of countries who don't themselves tolerate ngos in their own countries. and so it's almost everyfrustration that one feels about who gets elected to this or that in the u.n. body stems from this same issue that regions are not taking sufficient responsibility for the integrity of who they are putting forward on behalf of their client. we're not giving up. we're working behind the scenes

with freedom now. it goes from this smaller ngo committee. we have a smaller chance to overturn the vote. in the united nations as a whole, a body of 193 countries, more than half are not democratic. we always have our work cut out for us. we've been able to score a number of important victories and we're going to dedicate ourselves to that and welcome the support of congress leveraging relationships. second, working backwards on syria, i remember your op ed and i think it's a very important idea that you have put out there. the issue with the icc it may well not prove up to the task but there's no way to get icc jurisdiction that doesn't go through either the syrian government, which hardly wants to hold itself accountable, or through russia which by supplying and supporting the syrian regime is implicated in

some of those atrocities. the same atrocities would apply if we replicate the yugoslav tribunal. that goes back to the first point i made in my remarks at the outset which is this deform hit in a way where a permanent member of the security council can block the creation -- whether an icc referral or creation of international criminal tribunal like yeohou are describing. chairman royce raised this saying they'll be held accountable. the question is when? in the last six months we've seen perpetrators are the crimes carried out held accountable not only at the icty where they had been held akontable but in serbia proper, bosnia -- >> thank you so much. i apologize. >> i'll find a way to get to it

afterwards. >> now pleased to the raunknking member on the subcommittee on the western hemisphere. >> ambassador thank you. five latin american countries pulled their ambassadors from israel. i'm talking about chile, peru, el salvador, ecuador and brazil. i'm wondering what oefrtefforts are we making to urge those countries to send the ambassadors back. we've sent letters to those countries urging them to get -- to be engaged again. are we making any effort to urge them to send the ambassadors back? >> i think i'm going to take that question. all i can really speak to is what i do every day in new york which is lobby those very countries not to take the positions they generally take on the very specific issue of their level of representation.

i don't have an answer for that but will get back to you quickly. >> that's going to bring me into the human rights commission. the u.n. human rights commission. i personally feel that they are not effective when you have a cuban sometimes leading the human rights commission. since the president made his announcement, the abuses have increased. people put in jail. women are beaten just to go to church and this human rights commission, i never hear anything regarding the abuses on the island. i know at one time cuba was in charge of this commission. that's the biggest joke i ever heard. what can we do to get them to speak up about the abuses on the island? this is a crackdown on the very people that we're trying to help

supposedly. >> thank you again. let me just say on the question of the conditions inside cuba, i couldn't agree more. there have been -- i just looked up these numbers on the way over here. 600 arbitrary detentions in may alone and 2300 over the course of this year in 2015. there remains a significant human rights crisis inside cuba. i want to underscore the effort at normalization is aimed at getting at some of these issues. clearly it's not having an overnight effect. i don't think anybody could have expected it would. over time more access to information, more internet more exposure to americans and american values is going to actually help -- help ensure that cuba over time liberalizes.

we have to speak out about -- >> i was going to add, if nobody speaks out about it -- >> i certainly do. >> but what efforts are being made? >> if i could, in addition to the earlier follow-up i owe you, i'll send you the public statements made by senior u.s. officials even since the changes in our relationship with cuba were announced. i don't think we've held our tongues at all. i myself also make a point of meeting with dissidents who have -- may well have been murdered by the regime. we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. if i could distinguish that from the human rights council human rights council is vulnerable to the flaws that you and congressman engel and others have pointed to already in this hearing and that others have

made clear their views on. it is, again, a body in which a country that does not have a good human rights record can end up in a leadership position. that's officially true. it's also a body the united states by virtue of being a member has used to create commissions of inquiry for syria that would otherwise not exist. that has moved the ball very substantially on lgbt rights. it created a commission of inquiry for north korea that documented the systematic horror the gulogs are inflicting every day in a way that had never been done before. a special repertoire for iran that would not exist if it weren't for the human rights council. like a lot that exists at the u.n. it is not us, it is not -- >> we expect maybe this will

also happen towards cuba? >> i think one of the effects over time in the u.n. system of the steps the president has taken vis-a-vis cube apeople will be focusing less on the embargo and on u.s. policy which has been a diversion from the human rights situation in cuba. now we'll have a better chance of drawing people's attention to the human rights crisis in cuba. >> we turn to mr. dana rohrbacher of california. >> thank you very much madam chairman, and madam ambassador. thank you very much for your service. you are much respected. your energy and your commitment and although there are some things we obviously disagree on, i want to associate myself with my colleagues' concern about the blackout of reporting of human

rights abuses in cuba. and let me just note this idea that -- well it's offset in some way by the fact there's going to be more internet connection between people and more communication with people of the united states. the people of cuba know when their neighbor has been arrested or beaten up in front of them. they don't need to see it over the internet. the people beating them up and throwing them in jail know, too. what they know is we've given up a huge amount of leverage over them and gotten nothing in return as they continue to oppress their own people. and i believe perhaps this travesty that we're discussing and describing here really reflects why some of us don't have faith that the united nations, considering that there's a cuban head of the

human rights commission that we don't have faith the u.n. is going to be doing the right thing to create a better world than the united states has to play perhaps a more active direct role rather than trying to spend our time maneuvering through the united states, all kund kund kinds of different resolutions. with that said, i'd like to ask you a little bit about ukraine. do you -- you were mentioning the -- being shelled at by the russian allies there in ukraine. how many civilians have died since this whole incident began? do you know?

>> 6,300 is the official number, but we think there's underreporting because the separatists don't allow access. >> of those 6,300 how many were separatists, in separatist towns and villages? >> that i don't know off hand. >> when i ask that question almost nobody knows. but it was my understanding. i went over to europe and met with some people involved in intelligence agencies in various countries, and they were telling me that in the ukrainian military, which was one-third made up of people who were not in their military but were instead in -- on the payroll of some oligarch they had heavy artillery and were indiscriminately shelling the separatist villages. do you know anything about that? >> you asked how many civilians have been killed. the 6300 figure is both civilian

and soldiers. let me also get you the breakdown on civilians if it exists. one of the issues that i raised in ukraine in my visit was how critical it is for the ukrainians to abide by international humanitarian law. it's critical for hearts and minds and -- >> is it possible the majority of the civilian casualties you're talking about were actually civilian casualties that were -- that were the victims of the ukrainian army and the oligarch that financed one-third of their army at one point? >> if i could say two things. i think it's highly unlikely based on the reports we've received. i want to underscore why this conflict started. russia moved troops and weapons and so forth into -- >> just so you know the russians would suggest it started when there was a violent

overthrow of an elected government. >> i don't make it a point of listening to president putin's claims. >> you should pay attention to everybody's claims and refute them if they can be refuted rather than dismissing them. i happen to believe that coup, meaning violent overthrow of -- >> violent overthrow of an elected government. had not happened. we would not be in this situation and the ukrainians would have been spared this. and you can go beyond that to where our european allies didn't offer the deal that he wanted and most people in ukraine don't like russia and didn't want to be in agreement with yaushrussia. it didn't start with russia going in to the separatist areas. that's not where it started. at least that's what they explained. >> thank you, mr. rohrbacher.

>> now we turn to mr. deutsche. >> madam ambassador thank you for appearing today. thanks for standing up for the human rights of the people of ukraine. i want to thank you for the outstanding work you've been representing this country and our values at the united nations. your efforts on the security council, your willingness to speak out, your efforts to get the u.n. to act and unlelenting pushback against attempts to delegitimize israel. in syria we cannot succumb to a condition you taught me called psychic numbing. thank you for pointing out the use of chlorine against one's people is the use of chemical weapons against one's people. also thank you for your efforts at the mpt conference that would have jeopardized israel's

security. i know that going forward you'll continue to use your platform to prevent all efforts to usy in united nations to deli jit legitimize israel. i appreciate the efforts you described at the human rights council, but i'd suggest the human rights council cannot be taken seriously. and i am someone who believes in engagement at the u.n. but i'm shocked by the decisions of the council including how some of the worst human rights abusers are allowed to sit on the council. cuba's ally venezuela plays a prominent role as well. i expect the same bias will apply when the investigation

into last summer's conflict in gaza comes out. i find it absurd that the council has only one standing agenda item, item seven, that refers to a specific country. and that country is israel. my question is why it says the human rights council's website it describes the election process but the general assembly takes into account the promotion and protection of human rights as well as their voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard, under your leadership, has the united states suggests any reforms can be made to the council so the members of the council perhaps have to recognize the importance of human rights as well. >> thank you congressman. let me say the language you've just read out was language negotiated -- hard-fought language negotiated by our

predecessor, by the bush administration, by the united states. unfortunately, simply putting that language in the kind of founding ethos of the human rights council doesn't make it such. regional groups put forward the candidates they seek to put forward and sometimes a whole set of back room arrangements and all kinds of bilateral issues at stake in which people agree to give votes to people based on things that have nothing to do with human rights. two reasons i would like to at least appeal to you to still consider the united states membership in the human rights council very worthwhile. the first is the very reason you point to which is the absurdity of having a single standing agenda on israel, not on korea or isil. it's ridiculous.

however, by the united states being on the council we're in the room and we're calling it out. since we joined the council, the number of resolutions on israel has gone from a half to a quarter. >> ambassador if i could interrupt. we're going to have to recess the committee for 15 minutes and then we'll readsjourn. i'm going to have to ask the members also that we be clearing the room. and afterwards we'll reconvene at that time. >> thank you very much, ambassador. >> thank you, congressman. >> the hearing will reconvene. we appreciate the work to make us aware of the security situation and to ensure the hearing here is safe to reconvene. i appreciate the cooperation of

our witness. thank you, ambassador. and we'll now go to mr. shabbott ambassador, for the questions he was going to ask. >> thank you mr. chairman. and welcome back. i first like to associate myself with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with respect to cuba. a great amount of skepticism there. i won't go into that in great detail because others did. the topic i'd first like to go into is the fact that russia, as we all know by force, has taken crimea and eastern ukraine, yet this administration still hasn't supplied ukraine with respectry necessary to defend itself. our allies have done very little to help. that's not really surprising. secretary kerry met with putin last month and, in