testified earlier this honesty before a hearing of the senate foreign relations committee on u.n. peacekeeping efforts. after her testimony, bruce jones of the and foreign policymaker john negroponte testified on the missions and took questions on the relatively value of the u.s.' expenditures on peacekeeping efforts contrasts with the cost of u.s. soldiers being deployed abroad. this is just over 2 1/2 hours. the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. thank our witness. i know she has significant

responsibilities right now at the u.n. security council. ben and i had a chance this week to meet with her and all the members. quite educational. i hope on both sides. but we certainly appreciate you being here and certainly i will introduce you in just a moment. but today's hearing will review united nations peacekeeping operations and explore opportunities for reform to make u.n. peacekeeping work better in the u.s. national interest. as a permanent member of the security council and the larger contributor by far to the u.n. peacekeeping budget, the u.s. has a particular interest in how u.n. peacekeeping mandates are set and operations are carried out. the united states cannot be everywhere all the time. there's an important role for u.n. peacekeeping and supporting u.s. interests, for security and stability around the world. today's u.n. peacekeeping is evolving in many ways.

traditionally missions have focused primarily on negotiated peace agreements, inserting blue helmets to separate conflicting parties over these agreements and generally monitoring and keeping the peace. u.n. peacekeepers now are being asked to take on new and difficult responsibilities such as civilian protection, disarming active combatants or developing the capacity to engage on the anti-terrorism front. these new missions and mandates raise many questions which we certainly will be exploring today. what are the risks when u.n. peacekeepers actively engage combatants in a war zone? the peacekeeper forgo their neutrality in these instances and if so what are the implications for our interests. if the u.n. peacekeepers are asked to provide logistic support, what challenges does -- do -- what challenges does that raise. i am particularly concerned with

recent disturbing reports of sexual exploitation and abuse by certain u.n. peace keeping troops. the current u.n. policy is zero tolerance but such abuses continue with disturbing regularity. so, it's our hope to find some commonsense ways to address these issues in exploring these and other topics such as u.s. peacekeeping assessment. we, again, want to thank our distinguished witness for being here and i will turn it over to the ranking member for his comments. >> thank you, chairman corker, and i very much appreciate you convening this hearing on an important topic and i want to thank all of our distinguished panelists today, extraordinary individuals who have given so much to our country. we thank you all for your participation and your continued service to our country. particularly ambassador power, good to see you here. i have long believed the united nations at its best can be a powerful partner of the united states advancing global peace

and security, with far less cost and more effectively than if we act alone. when you had the u.n. presence it's a global presence. and that's far preferable than having a u.s. or sole one-country presence. the u.n. does many things right. they assist more than 60 million refugees and displaced people, fleeing conflict, famine and persecution with lifesaving assistance, provides food to 90 million people in 80 countries. it vaccinates 58% of the world's children, saving no less than 3 million lives. recently it launched the sustainable development goals which if fully embraced could have a powerful impact globally on reducing corruption. in short the u.n. is capable of and has already done a great deal of good in the world. but i believe that the u.n. could be stronger and much more effective if there were greater transparency and accountability across the entire organization. the u.n.'s continuing

anti-israel bias is deeply unhelpful to our shared interests in a peaceful, stable middle east. in the case of syria, the assad regime continues its indiscriminate barrel bombing and slaughter of civilians and those responsible spfor war cris have yet to be held accountable. but let's be clear, the united states could not ensure international security alone nor should it have to. the united nations and specifically the u.n. peacekeeping remains one of the best burden-sharing tools we have to help end war, protect the civilian population and secure territory. by drawing upon the financial and human capacities of all u.n. member states, the u.n. peacekeeping helps the united states share the responsibility of promoting global stability and reduces the need for unilateral intervention. united nations peacekeeping has managed to protect hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians with more than 120,000 military and police personnel, currently serving as part of 16 missions on 4 continents u.n.

peacekeepers represent the largest deployed military force in the world. there are more u.n. peacekeeping missions today because peacekeepers are being asked to do more in increasingly dangerous, remote and deadly operational environments. we need to recognize this and make sure that the united nations and the troops' contributing countries are given peacekeepers who are placed in harm's way the protective equipment, training, support that they deserve. peacekeepers themselves are often seen as legitimate targets for attacks by extremist groups and others. we saw that recently in the horrific attacks in mali where terrorists linked to al qaeda killed 20 people including an american from maryland. u.n. peacekeeping mission in mali has suffered 42 fatalities at the hands of the militants since january 2013. we know that the u.n. peacekeeping is a cost-effective tool when compared to other military options. the u.n. annual peacekeeping budget makes -- only makes up about 0.5 percent of the world's

total military expenditures. i think this is a particular important moment considering that we are debating the omnibus and dealing with the fiscal issues of our country and trying to balance our budgets. let me bring it closer to home. the u.n. mission, the cost per peacekeeper per year is about $16,000. in 2014, each u.s. soldier in afghanistan cost $2.1 million. moreover, according to the study by the gao, u.n. peacekeeping operations are eight times less expensive than funding a comparable u.s. force. this is not to say the u.s. share of peacekeeping duties should continued unchanged. i think the chairman has raised a good point about the reform in the united nations and the way they do their budget. the skill assessment should be reworked and i'm confident that ambassador power and her u.n. team are focussed on that goal as well. maintaining the legitimacy of the u.n. peacekeeping is essential. nothing will erode it faster than the horrific reports we receive of sexual abuse. i've long been concerned about

these disturbing reports of sexual exploitation and abuse. as the largest contributor to the united nations and as the permanent member on the u.n. security council the united states has a responsibility to assure that the united nations uphold the highest standards of professionalism and peacekeeping operations. the failure by the united nations to hold individual peacekeepers, their commanders and troops and contributing countries accountable for verifiable allegations of abuse is unacceptable. u.n. secretary-general bankey moon recently announced a series of proposals to combat sexual exploitation and abuse of peacekeeping at a meeting. that's only a start. more must be done by both the united nations and the member states, and i look forward to hearing about how the united states can continue to push for these effective reforms. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and having a robust discussion. >> thank you, senator cardin. we have two distinguished panelists today. we want to thank all who are here to share their wisdom. obviously our first person is

the permanent representative to the u.s. mission to the united nations, samantha power. we thank you for being here today with a very tight schedule. we also thank you for bringing haley back, who served so well with senator coons here and was one of the bright people we had here on the committee amongst many, but we thank you both for being here. if you could keep your comments to about five minutes or so, we'd appreciate it and then we look forward to "q" and "a." thank you. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, ranking member cardin, for convening this hearing and thank you all, distinguished members of the committee, for making time to be here to discuss peacekeeping. this committee is acutely aware of the extent to which conflicts on the other side of the globe can come back and threaten american security. we've seen time and again how conflicts can displace millions of people, upend markets and

destabilize entire regions. all too recently and all too frequently we've seen how such instability can attract and epable violent extremist groups who exploit the vacuum of authority to terrorize civilians, recruit new members and plan, launch, or inspire attacks. u.n. peacekeepers play a vital role in the international community's efforts to address war violence and instability. as president obama said in september, we know that peace operations are not the solution to every problem, but they do remain one of the world's most important tools to address armed conflict. peacekeepers can help resolve conflict, shore up stability, deny safe harbor to extremists and protect civilians from atrocities, all of which serve core american interests and reflect deep american values, while ensuring greater burden sharing by the international community. this administration has consequently been working aggressively to ensure that u.n. peacekeeping operations are better able to meet the demands

of international peace and security which as has been noted by both the chairman and the ranking member, those requirements have changed considerably over just the last 20 years. peacekeepers today are undertaking more missions. the number of uniformed personnel has risen from fewer than 20,000 15 years ago to over 100,000 today. they are assuming greater risk. two-thirds of peacekeepers are operating in active conflicts, the highest percentage in history, and they are assigned broad and increasingly complex responsibilities ranging from disarming armed groups to facilitating the safe delivery of humanitarian aid to protecting civilians from those who wish them harm. today, 98% of uniformed personnel in u.n. missions around the world are under orders to protect civilians as part of their mandate. this is not the peacekeeping -- your mother's peacekeeping, your father's peacekeeping, your grandfather's peacekeeping. it's evolved significantly.

it's never been more demanding and that's why in september president obama issued the first presidential memorandum on unilateral peace operations in more than 20s to strengthen and modernize u.n. operations including by building partner capacity, providing u.s. support and leading reform of u.n. peacekeeping. i just want to briefly, mr. chairman, touch on a few key lines of effort that we have pursued. these are described in greater detail in my written submission. first we are working to ensure that countries with the will to perform 21st century peacekeeping that they have the capacity to do so. one way we are doing this is through the african peacekeeping rapid response partnership or a prep. the united states is investing in the capacity of six african countries that have proven themselves leaders in peacekeeping. in exchange these countries have committed to maintain the forces and equipment necessary to

deploy rapidply. this initiative builds upon the global peace operations initiative launched under george w. bush which is the primary tool for building partner nation peacekeeping capacity it will help ensure that more soldiers deployed for peacekeeping missions will be fully prepared. i hope the senate and house will fully fund this important initiative in future years. second, we are expanding the pool of troop and police contributing countries and bringing advanced militaries back into peacekeeping. in september, president obama convened a historic high-level summit, the first of its kind, at the u.n. to rally new commitments to peacekeeping marking the culmination of a yearlong effort initiated by vice president biden at the previous assembly. 41 countries pledged nearly 50,000 additional troops and police. not only that more will come from advanced militaries who bring with them equipment and expertise that is critically needed on the ground. we saw this in mali in january

of this year when dutch attack helicopters helped bangladesh help repel terrorists. one part of our unrivaled contribution to global peace and security looking specifically for ways to leverage our military's unique capabilities to support peacekeeping operations including by enabling faster deployment by others. third, we are working to ensure a higher standard of performance and conduct once peacekeeping contingents are deployed, specifically in two critical areas. the complete fulfillment of their mandates and the combatting of sexual exploitation and abuse. the additional troops generated by the president's september summit will prove invaluable to both goals by allowing the u.n. to be more selective as to which troops it deploys and now giving it the leverage to repatriot poorly performing troops and police if necessary and especially, of course, in

instances where there are credible allegatiations of sexu abuse. when peacekeepers deploy in volatile situations they have to be prepared to use force to defend themselves, to protect civilians and to otherwise carry out their mandated tasks. too often in the past peacekeepers have shied away even when atrocities are being perpetrated. a report in march of last year found in 507 attacks against civilians from 2010 to 2013 peacekeepers virtually never used tos are to protect those coming under attack. thousands of civilians likely lost their lives as a result. this cannot continue and a growing number of troop contributors agree. the 50,000 additional troops and police should enable more capable, more willing troops and police to staff these missions. the same is true on sexual exploitation and violence, and let me just state the obvious here. we share the outrage of everyone on this committee, all the american people who are focused on this issue. peacekeepers must not abuse

civilians. sexual abuse and exploitation have no place, it goes without saying, again, in any society. it is especially abhor rant when comm taken advantage of the trust communities are placing in the united nations and those responsible must be held accountable. addressing this scourge will require continuing the important efforts be51 s begun by banke . it will also require more vigilance and followthrough from troop-contributing countries. there must also be far more transparency in these investigations to track cases and ensure that justice is served. the u.n. should be able to take advantage now of this newly expanded pool of soldiers and police by suspending from peacekeeping any country that does not take seriously the responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute

credible allegations. the fourth and final priority, mr. chairman, is to press for bold institutional reforms within the u.n. itself. we've seen the u.n. secretary make profound changes to peacekeeping from improved logistics and sustainment to a more comprehensive approach to crisis situation that integrates military police and civilian tools but much, much more needs to be done and we've spearheaded efforts to enact further reforms including longer troop rotations to preserve institutional memory, penalties for troops who show up without the necessary equipment to perform their duties and we will continue to work aggressively to cut costs. the u.n. has already, thanks to u.s. leadership, cut the per peacekeeper cost by roughly 17% since 2008. we are also working to advance the reforms proposed by the secretary-general's high-level independent panel on u.n. peace operations which are intended to address inadequate planning, slow troop deployment, uneven mission leadership, breakdowns in command and control and a current set of rules around

human resources and procurement designed for the conference rooms of new york and not the streets. let me conclude in all of the areas i've just described we've seen improvements and the united states has played an instrumental role in making them possible. but there is much more to be done. we are not satisfied with peacekeepers fulfilling only parts but not all of their mandates, with peacekeepers standing up to protect civilians in some but not all situations or with soldiers being held accountable for crimes or misconduct, some but not all of the time. the role played by peacekeepers today is too important for the sake of our own interests and security as well as the millions of innocent people around the world whose lives may depend on peacekeepers we will continue working to strengthening peacekeeping so it is tailored for the 21st century threats peacekeepers face. we support your continued dialogue on these matters. thank you. >> thank you very much for those comments. senator isakson and i were in

darfur years ago and just infuriated by the caveats that the u.n. peacekeepers had. they could only fire at people when they were fired upon. you had women going out collecting wood from their villages being raped, abused. people being murdered and yet those caveat existed and we've evolved as you mentioned. this is not our father's peacekeeping mission anymore. as we've evolved these missions, though, and people now are placing themselves as peacekeepers more in the center of conflicts, in some cases taking sides, how has this changed the way the u.n. is viewed in these peacekeeping missions? i assume you believe this is in our national interest for us to be in this -- certainly i do. but how has this changed the way these blue hats are viewed in these areas? >> thank you, senator corker. it's an excellent question. i think one of the lines that the u.n. struggles to work -- to

walk is that it has on the one hand peacekeepers that are charged within a aggressive enforcement of mandates which entail protecting civilians, not just protecting peacekeepers themselves as was once the case. you have that on the one hand. then you have u.n. country programs that often look indistinguishable. they're all driving around in white vehicles unarmed, passing out food, providing shelter, trying to provide counseling to those who have been victimized by sexual abuse. so, it's been challenging, the blurring of functions across these missions. but the only thing worse than confronting that challenge of having people in society distinguish who does what is actually having people in these societies rely on peacekeepers, know that the mandate says protect civilians and have those peacekeepers bunkered and more interested, again, in necessarily -- in collecting a paycheck and then going home than actually being out and

about and delivering on the promise of that blue flag. so, again, it varies per conflict area. i think we've come a long way, but as i noted the statistics are not inspiring. i mean, there are still many troop contributing countries who send their troops in without the very strict guidance that you will be sent home if you don't enforce the mandate you're given. >> yeah. as i understand it, i know -- i appreciate the comment senator cardin made about the cost. but as i understand it for some of these countries, even though the cost to us is far less than having u.s. soldiers there, it's still the pay for these soldiers is far greater than they would otherwise receive in their own countries and actually that money i guess goes to the countries. and so they're benefiting financially, these countries, in sending troops there. is that correct? in some cases, in some of the lower-income countries. and is that feeding the situation of actually having troops there that are not, if you will, carrying out their

mandates in an appropriate way, not qualified, not equipped? talk to us a little bit about what is driving having folks within the peacekeeping missions that are -- that are certainly not conducting themselves in a professional manner. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, again, it reflects a real understanding of the dynamics in some of these missions. again, the performance is uneven. the motivation is uneven. the incentives for troops is ineven. if you take, for instance, rwandan peacekeepers, they are totally driven by what happened in their country 21 years ago. and actually view protecting civilians as a way of showing the world what should have been done when the genocide unfolded in rwanda. contrast that with other troops, again, who institutionally are not given the guidance from capital that they need to be out and about, that, yes, there are

risks entailed with patrolling, but there are risks also that are entailed by being bunkered. i think on the question -- the very specific question of the stipend as senator cardin said, this is a very good deal for the american taxpayers. these are extremely difficult environments. not only because of the risks of militia and government forces targeting peacekeeping, peacekeepers as they're out and about, but also just the conditions in terms of logistics, access to water, i mean, these are missions that are not expending resources in the manner that our missions do when they deploy internationally. the logistic tale is not nearly as fulsome, so i think it's important to incent them. sometimes they are investing in ways we don't have full visibility into, sometimes in

professionalizing their militaries, sometimes in other parts of their government. but i think senator cardin's point is very, very important. we are getting a lot out of the 100,000-plus troops who are active in these conflict areas. these are places where if you look at mali or lebanon, places that are cutting-edge theaters in terms of terrorism and extremism and if it weren't u.n. peacekeepers who were there putting their lives at risk, it may come to the united states at some point in order for us to advance our security. >> as it relates to the issues of the abuse that's taken place that is obviously abhorrent, you fairnek people on both sides of the aisle, have concerns about the u.n.'s ability to actually put reforms in place. i mean, we understand how the u.n. operates and i know you talked about the leader's desire to create reforms. we sent a letter suggesting that we have on-site court-martials

by the countries that, by the way, these -- these particular soldiers actually report ultimately to, not by the u.n. itself. we also made some other suggestions. what is your sense that those tim types of reforms can be implemented relative to peacekeeping? >> well, as ambassador negroponte behind me i think will -- attest, through the life of the u.n. you have a challenge always on reform in the sense that there are two sense that you have to secure, will and followthrough. the first is with the countries that comprise the u.n. so, every troop contributing country to peacekeeping has to be prepared to look at the kinds of ideas that you put in your letter, that we've been pushing in new york, and implement in their own military changes to ensure followthrough -- oversight in the first instance and followthrough on investigation and accountability whether a court-martial or some kind of prosecution in civilian

court. again, there's probably no one size fits all solution because every country has its own set of procedures, again, for following up on abuse of any kind. then there's the u.n. itself, which has to be much more aggressive in shining a spotlight on those countries that are not taking the steps that are needed. i think that we've seen, you know, improvements -- i mean, this is, again, not something one should cite as an improvement. it should never have been the case that it was otherwise. but where those individuals who were alleged to be involved in sexual abuse now are not being paid by the u.n. they are being recalled to their capital. training and vetting now is changing so that there is training on preventing sexual abuse and exploitation. you had an idea, i believe, in your letter about a claims kind of commission. i think the u.n. is looking at creating a victim support trust fund which is something, of course, we would wish to support as well. it's going to require going back to member states and getting resources to put into that, but maybe some of the docked pay of those against whom there are

allegations could be used in service of such a fund. and then i think having more aggressive on-site investigative capacity so that less time passes between an allegation and actual followthrough. lastly, the two aspects of reform come together in order to secure reform, meaningful reform that actually matters for potential victims or people who have already been victimized, there has to be more transparency between what's actually going on in the field and then what we're made aware of in new york. too often we hear from ngos or journalists about sexual abuse and exploitation rather than from the u.n. itself. if we were to go to a developing country and try to enhance their capacity, their training on the front end, but their capacity to investigate on the back end of the allegation, we have to this know who has been accused of doing what in what period and be in a position to offer support. if there are countries shirking their responsibilities to carry

out investigations we have to know so we can look at our bilateral leverage and whether we have to suspend some assistance if there's a pattern of not taking serious the zero tolerance policy. >> thank you. my time is up. as a courtesy i do want to move on. i do hope through questioning at some point -- i know the president has made additional pledges to the u.n. beyond our normal peacekeeping budgeting and i hope at some point it will come to light as to where those resources are planned to come from, but thank you, again, for being here. senator cardin? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ambassador power, for your service to our country. i want to -- as i said in my opening statement, i'm a strong supporter of the mission of the united nations and the incredible progress it has made in global issues. i want to talk about transparency and accountability. it's come up quite a bit on several subjects. one of the i think clearest ways to try to help the safety of

civilians to hold president assad of syria accountable for violating international war crime-type activities. so, do we have your commitment as our ambassador in the united nations that we will seek full accountability by president assad for the war crimes that he has committed in any of these negotiations that take place in regards to the resolution of syria? >> thank you, senator. well, let me say that one of my more unsuccessful days in my office since this body was good enough to confirm me for my job was pursuing a referral of the crimes, the war crimes and crimes against humanity carried out in syria, to the international criminal court. that was a resolution we brought to the u.n. council, notwithstanding our own nonparticipation in the icc. we believe that that is a venue that should be looking at

chemical weapons attacks and barrel bombs attacks and s systematic torture and, of course, that effort at a referral was vetoed by russia and a veto supported by china. >> i do understand there's going to be negotiations that will involve the united states. and the united states is going to have to sign off on those negotiations. do i have your commitment that the -- your position at the united nations will be to hold president assad accountable for the type of activities you just described? >> the ultimately settlement in syria is going to be between the opposition and the syrian government. we -- the united states position on accountability i hope is well known. we are absolutely supportive and have been aggressively supportive in building an evidentiary base so as to ensure that assad and other people responsible for war crimes are held accountable. the precise -- >> it's not up to the government and opposition to determine whether a person has violated

international standards on conduct of war, war crimes or global. it's a global accountability. >> i think there are two separate issues. one is what is the standard, the threshold question, for what forms of accountability -- where accountability should be provided or whether prosecution or a truth commission -- there are a whole set of tactical questions of how accountability should be pursued. there's a related, overlapping question of what the terms of a political settlement would be. i mean, this -- this is not something that is on the verge of happening, so i think the details on accountability have not yet been fleshed out, and it's something we should consult on, but i want to underscore the final agreement has to be something that both the opposition and the government can get behind. >> i understand that. it doesn't quite answer my question. let me make my position clear, and i think the members of this committee. if president assad is not held

accountable, there will not be support for any solution in regards to syria. i'll just make that pretty clear from the beginning. let me talk to issue number two on transparency and accountability. the chairman has already talked about that, is the abuse allegations. if this is not done in an open manner, whether it's complete understanding and disclosure of what is taking place, the confidence factor of those responsible for these abuses being held accountable will not be there. >> i agree completely. i mean, i'm not sure what to add. the -- as i said, there has been insufficient reporting back to the security council. we have now taken sexual abuse and exploitation and made it an issue to be discussed in the security council. the secretary-general has now committed to reporting back -- >> and i've seen the specific

recommendation. and they're good. but you got to followthrough on it and it's got to be done in a way that the international community, the activists, those who are following this can be confident that those that are responsible have truly been held accountable so that this will not happen in the future, will not be tolerated in the future. you said zero tolerance which we agree. that's i think the important point. that it's not just a closed investigation, that we have an open closure of this issue and a commitment on how to go forward these matters will be handled. >> i think right now, senator, it's very fair to say that victims who come forward do so at their own peril and don't do so with confidence that having taken that risk, having potentially ostracized themselves in their own communities, that there's even going to be accountability on the back end and that has to change entirely. i suspect if it does change, you may well see more people coming forward. >> so let me get to my third point on transparency and accountability and that is the budget system at the united

nations. it's anything but open and clear and transparent. that's nothing new. it's been that way for a long time. it's hard for me to understand why our assessment on the peacekeeping is 28.36% if i'm correct which is almost three times higher than the next country and is significantly higher than our general allocation for the u.n. budget. that doesn't seem to me to be transparent way to budget. so, can you just briefly inform us as to the u.s. position in regards to a fair allocation of the u.n. budget in an open, transparent manner? >> thank you, senator. the formula on which the u.s. share of the peacekeeping budget is -- is a very complex formula. let me say in brief that it's some combination of our share of the global economy plus a premium that we pay by being a permanent member of the security council and getting particularly with the veto getting to dictate

whether a mission comes into existence or whether it doesn't along with the other permanent members as a whole along with the rest of the security council. so, we pay a premium for being a permanent member. we were able to secure the cap on our regular budget, the formula would actually have us pay at a higher rate if not for the 22% cap that ambassador holbrook secured now going on 15 years ago. the one thing i want to stress is that our emphasis is on ensuring that countries that are contributing more and more to the global economy are paying more of their share. and we're in the midst of scales negotiations now on our share of the peacekeeping budget. our emphasis, again, has been on ensuring countries that -- whose -- you can see their economic growth, but you don't see a correlation in terms of their contribution. we already, the chinese contribution to peacekeeping, has more than doubled in the last ten years, and i think we can anticipate that the chinese

share will be up around 10% which will be a tripling of its share. similarly the russian contribution has doubled, again, china and russia being two of the permanent members -- >> we should point out that china is one fourth of the united states, less than one-fourth and russia is one-eighth of the united states. it just seems to us that the 22% cap, we understand that, and we -- that was well -- well deserved the way that came out. it looks like that the united nations is equalizing through the peacekeeping percentage and that the 22% cap is being violated because of our higher contributions to the peacekeeping efforts. just urge you that the more transparent this process, the better it's going to be i think received politically in our country. and we do think the 22% is a fair number and we think it should be honored and should be

honored in the peacekeeping. >> i just want to underscore when the agreement was secured on the 22% cap, no similar agreement was secured as it related to peacekeeping. in fact, the -- having the 22% cap actually helps us in the peacekeeping realm because 22% becomes the baseline on which these premiums are agreed to. i want to stress, we are -- we share the same objective. we want to get other countries to step up and pay their share. we still believe that if you look, again, at what this means for u.s. national security, i think this is, again, a version of the argument you made at the beginning, that having -- even when you compare it to nato where the united states bears the lion's share of defense investments, that having the rest of the world paying 72% of the peacekeeping budget is a good deal for the american taxpayer. >> and my last point, and i hope this will be covered as the

cher chairman said by others. the safety of civilians incredibly important. you stressed the number in september. it seems to me it's not a matter of numbers, that personnel. do they have the will to go in and stand in front of civilians to protect them. and we haven't seen that. so, i'm not sure i was comforted by your reply that we have a greater capacity by number if we don't have greater capacity by will, the civilian population's going to be at great risk. >> if i may, senator, just respond briefly. the point that i emphasize in my testimony was we have succeeded now in getting contributions -- commitments, i should say, not yet advanced militaries. europe had gotten out of peacekeeping in the last 20 years and we think it's really important that they get back in. there is no necessary correlation between being an advanced military and having the

political will to put yourself in harm's way to protect civilians, but we think, again, giving the u.n. a choice, now it has a pool from which it can choose. and if there are people who show insufficient will who want to spend more time in their bases than out and about protecting civilians we think having this pool which includes better militaries and better aviation and engineering and infantry capabilities, giving the u.n. that selectivity is going to mean over time that the -- that the performance of these peacekeepers is going to improve. so numbers alone don't mean anything if you have 50,000 commitments of people who don't have political will, but we see in that pool actually substantial commitments from those we think do have that will. >> before turning to the senator, i want to thank the ranking member for bringing up an issue that is brought up consistently, certainly on our side of the aisle also. and i want to thank him for that. i do want to just, you know, emphasize that with nato, which i know is not within your jurisdiction, we have become the

provider of security services. and our nato allies, generally speaking, the consumer of security services. and, you know, the same thing is happening with the peacekeeping at the u.n. i know it's a different set of actors, but the very people that stymie our efforts to enforce, china, for instance, is taking advantage of us. so, yes, it is in our u.s. national interests that we have peacekeeping missions and that we have stability and security around the world, but i think we continue to be not as good as we should be at forcing other nations to be responsible. so, i want to thank senator cardin for bringing this up. it is infuriating, infuriating, to have the lack of transparency that does exist at the u.n. i think over time will erode -- erode -- support. it's already, you know, not particularly high because of the many issues that we see going

unattended, like not dealing with the ballistic missiles that are being fired by iran in vice of 1929. so, i would just say, i'm glad there's bipartisan concern. i hope that you can address it. with that, senator purdue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me also echo that, too. i want to compliment the ranking member for continuing to bring this up. i wanted to talk about that just a second. right now we're spending about $2 billion just in the peacekeeping portion of the united states. i think that's our contribution. because of the assessment disagreement we're some 3 $45 million in arrears i think in terms of what the u.n. says we owe them. i'd like to point out also, mr. chairman, that it's not just the percentages here in relation to the size of the gdp. it's also i think should be taken into account the percentage of gdps in these countries that are spent on their own military that also bears to the global security

situation. so, i think given the situation we have in the u.s., madam ambassador, you know, in the last few years, 35% to 40% of what we've been spending is borrowed, i think this is a very timely time to have that really serious conversation in the u.n. i applaud you guys for doing that. i have two quick questions. first, i want to thank you for what you're doing, given your high school years in georgia, we claim you and we're proud of what you're doing. so, i want to talk about hezbollah, and i wa the to talk about lebanon just a minute. in '78 unifil was the force there. resolution 1701 in 2006 strengthened the mandate to preclude the illegal transport of weapons into lebanon, and yet we know today they have an estimated 120,000, 150,000 rockets, guided weapons. it's very troubling. it looks to me like that if that mandate were directed to keep

weapons out of lebanon that they're failing against that mandate. can you talk a little bit about their current role there and the fact that 1701, what's the role, again, 1701 and wove he've had reports that there have been threats around reprisals if they report violations. what can we do to strengthen unifil and preclude lebanon from the illegal transport of these dangerous weapons? >> thank you. unifil has, i think, played a a role in calming the situation, but there's no question that hezbollah has been able to maintain and expand an arsenal and we have and continue to urge unifil to be more aggressive in patrolling, in monitoring, in speaking out about violations of the unifil mandate.

and i think that what you've seen actually in -- over the -- in recent months is more -- at least more transparency on the part of unifil. i mean, part of the challenge here, as we know from confronting terrorist organizations in other parts of the world, when you have -- when you're not at war with those terrorist organizations, you are using political pressure, particularly by lebanon's own sovereign institutions which are themselves very weak as we know from the current paralysis in lebanon. you are shining a spotlight. you are trying to ensure interdiction of weapons before they even get to the theater in question. so, unifill is not a perfect fix for everything that ails lebanon or for the threat posed by hezbollah, but it has a responsibility to be vocal and to take very seriously its reporting mandate, also so countries in the region including our friends, know what

is happening in an area from which threats have come, you know, routinely in recent decades. >> also let me just ask you to add a comment or two about in syria the u.n. disengagement observation force has actually within drawnle withdrawn on the syrian side because of the fighting there. can you speak to their role now and how are they interacting with idf? and i have one last question. >> thank you. you're right, that there's been a reconfiguration, this is something done in close consultation with the government of israel given the stakes here. it is a response to the fact that al nusra made advances, you know, on one side of the line. and we right now this is -- >> actually kidnapped some of the u.n. forces for a couple of -- >> exactly, senator, they did. and the release of those forces had to be negotiated, and i will

say even that incident showed it's not the same as civilian protection, but an unevenness in how the different units responded which, again, is life in the u.n. some holding on to their weapons, refusing to be cowed and others handing over their weapons and unfortunately in a manner that left them weaker and where those weapons had to be replenished. but we view this as a temporary relocation. we still believe the prior configuration is the stabilizing confissi configuration but the israelis are well aware that the circumstances don't lend themselves to putting the observers on the other side of the line. >> the last question i have with the time remaining, ambassador, is the chairman mentioned it, but the violations of iran. we've been concerned since the jcpoa that iran would violate our agreement incrementally. they're violating the u.n. agreement, not incrementally but in a major way. resolution 1929 and 2231, with the launch in october and then

we had reports just the last week or so of a second launch. what's the u.n. doing in relation to those violations in the sanctions that back those up? >> thank you, senator. yes, this is something that i've had occasion to talk to the chairman about, and it's music to a u.n. ambassador's ears when resolution 1929, resolution 2231 just roll off the tongue of members of congress. resolution 1929 was an incredibly -- has been an incredibly important foundation to the international sanctions regime. the ballistic missile launch from october is a violation of 1929. as soon as we confirm the launch, we brought it to the security council. we now are going to be discussing it on tuesday. the u.n. machinery always works slowly. the panel of experts is looking at it. we provided all the information that we have on it. and, you know, in a way the security council is an important venue for increasing the political costs on iran when they violate resolution 1929.

i would note, of course, that the jcpoa is aimed at dismantling iran's nuclear weapons program so that the threat that iran poses in any aspect of its military is far -- is much diminished. the security council sanctions body operates by consensus. this is manage that over time benefits the united states. but on something like that, it means we have to convince all members of the committee also to support our desire, designations or any further form of accountability. >> so, what is the u.s. trying to move forward in terms of strengthening the sanction -- >> we've got to get the u.n. machinery. and we'll get the report back from the panel of experts. we'll discuss in the committee and then we'll look at what the right tool is. i think it's very important also to look at the bilateral tools we have. we maintain sanctions as you know and will even after implementation day on ballistic missiles, on counterterrorism and on human rights, and i think many of the individuals involved in the ballistic missile program

have already been sanctioned as with you well know over the years so trying to secure the nexus is a challenge we need to take on. but i think looking at the security council and our bilateral tools as complementary is very important in this regard. >> thank you. thank you again for your service. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. i -- you know, senator cardin and i both emphasized with the security council two days ago that, look, let's face it, the possible military dimensions, peace, we thought they might get a "d" minus, they got an "f." total hoax. total hoax. nonaction here is just going to empower them to continue to violate, and i think what the ambassador just said is the u.n.'s going to do nothing -- nothing -- because china and russia will block that from occurring. so, i do hope they're preparing their bilateral efforts. it's disappointing that, again, we provide the resources that we do and yet we have countries

that will not cause other countries to live up to their obligations and block that. so, very disappointing. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman corker, and ranking member cardin, and thank you ambassador power, for your tireless service and advocacy and your leadership in representing us at the united nations and your passion for the difficult demanding mission you're carrying out on behalf of our nation. i share the concerns expressed by many colleagues about the active enforcement of the jcpoa and ongoing work to enforce u.n. security council resolutions. i was pleased to hear there's an upcoming meeting of finance ministers around the u.n. security council and look forward to continuing to work closely with you and secretary lew and others in the administration to make sure we are using all the tools we can to enforce the sanctions that remain in place and reimpose sanctions should iranian behavior demonstrate the necessity of doing so.

i've had the opportunity to visit u.n. peacekeepers in the field in a number of countries and have seen both the positive that they can accomplish in countries like liberia and in the drc and some of the very real challenges particularly where as you noted in your opening testimony there is a disconnect between the mission to protect civilians and the training, equipment, leadership and inclination or will to do so. so, start, if you would, by just focusing on whether there's a mismatch between u.n. security council mandates and what troop contributor countries are really trained and prepared to do. i was very encouraged by the president's leadership in renewing a call to more advanced militaries to deliver not just logistics and intelligence and supplies, but trainers and troops. how do we connect the mandates, the mission and the capacity to deliver in the field? >> thank you, senator. let me come back, maybe if i could, just by way of response

to something senator corker mentioned before, which is the contrast with nato. i mean, this -- i just want to underscore, this really is an example where we have national security interests in peacekeepers, in troops from other countries performing ably. this is not a nato situation where we are carrying a disproportionate share of the troop burden. we're carrying a large share of the financial burden and that's something, again, we're working to ensure is allocated more fairly. i think on the mandate troop contributor disconnect, which is real -- and i think it's real across the board -- the first thing you have to do is get more quality troops. it has been, as you know well, a supply-driven market in so far as the u.n. basically goes begging bowl in hand to different countries. there's no, you know, standing army, you know, that exists in new york.

the secretary-general doesn't have anything at his disposal beyond which he can extract from u.n. member states. and that process had yielded very uneven set of troops and police to participate in these missions. some who have extensive military experience at home and we know are capable troops, but once they get in a peacekeeping setting, they don't fundamentally believe in the civilian protection mandate, they want to go back to traditional principles of peacekeeping from the way peacekeeping was done back in the '70s and the '80s and that's just not the world we're in. so, i think the first answer is you increase the sophistication, the training, the professionalization of the troops and there's going to be an effect on the ability to perform the mandates. but the second answer is on us as permanent member of the security council, which is there needs to be more prioritization in the way that the mandates are put in place. it's hard in the real world to

prioritize, because you look at a situation like that in south sudan or that in congo and what of the tasks that those peacekeepers are slated to perform would you give up? you know, would you give up demobilization, would you give up security sector reform, would you give up human rights monitoring, would you give up attention to child soldiers, sexual -- of course, not. and so you need to make sure that the missions are right-sized. you need maybe to do some sequencing in terms of building out some of those capabilities over time. and the u.n. country team and our own bilateral assistance needs to be involved in strengthening state institutions. whether it's the eastern congo or south sudan, u.n. peacekeepers de facto are having to perform the work of states because the states themselves are so weak. and so, again, there's no pannicia and for all complaints we have about u.n. peacekeepingi

would challenge all of us to imagine what any one of those countries would be like without this, you know, somewhat stabilizing presence, but it is not going to be a cure-all for as long as you have state institutions that don't function or leaders that are corrupt or militia on the loose who are interested in carrying out horrors against their civilians so -- >> i've seen exactly those challenges in countries i referenced among others, so i continue as an appropriator to advocate for funding peacekeeping and for dealing with some of these challenges so, it's very encouraging to me to see your engagement and hard work on reform because for this to be cost effective and yet reflect our values, we need to make real progress in the areas around accountability and protection of civilians that you just referenced. let me just ask sort of a last question and take what time we have to answer. i'm concerned about sort of growing the universe of capable peacekeepers both in africa and globally. china made a pledge of a standby

force of 8,000 peacekeepers and i'm interested in what you think is the future where they will or won't be deployed, what this commitment means, and i'm concerned about the african union and aprep and would love to hear how you see that playing out going forward and how we can sustain that investment in a continent-wide force. >> thank you. well, again, i just -- i want to stress how unusual president obama's personal leadership on this has been and he's basically told us that anything he can do to ensure that these commitments are followed through on, he's prepared to invest his own time and the vice president the same, so this is -- we are dealing with this set of challenges at a level that i don't think we've seen before and with a degree of aggressiveness that we haven't seen before from the united states. notwithstanding the fact that, again, on a bipartisan basis, i think successive administrations has seen the value of this tool in the american and multilateral toolbox. i think that on aprep and the

china question kind of come together a little bit, we have a major issue in terms of the delay between the time a mandate is given a u.n. peacekeeping force and the time in which troops and police are deployed into theater. now, again, some of this just goes back to the troop contributing countries and their ability to turn on a dime and train and get configured and get their equipment all lined up. aprep is designed to take these six miltaries, all of whom have a good record within peacekeeping of being aggressive in protecting civilians and being -- having the political will to go to dangerous places, and we aim to then ensure, through deepening our provision of equipment and the particular forms of training we offer, that they can get into the theater more quickly than they have been up to this point. a lot of them lack their own ability to lift themselves, so sometimes we have to be involved as we were in the central african republic to swoop in and

actually carry people into harm's way. but they need to acquire over time the lift and the self-sustainment and, again, this ability to if not be formally on standby, to be ready to go when the 911 comes. china's commitment of 8,000 troops is a very large piece of business and was a very significant announcement out of president obama's summit. i don't think we yet have a sense, nor does the u.n., of how they imagine allocating that set of forces over time. right now they have just deployed their first infantry battalion ever and that is in south sudan. the reports are quite promising in terms of how active those troops are out and about, but also protecting civilians and the displaced person camps so, you know, we need to look and see how the u.n. chooses to use that commitment. rapid response, if that were something that china could put

on offer, or that you could actually lose less time between the time the international community comes together with the consensus that a mission is needed and the time when troops show up, i mean, it took in south sudan, you know, we're two years after the original deployment and there's still not at full troop strength. and that's a recurring pattern across, so we would welcome rapid response, of course. we also need to make sure that any peacekeepers that deploys has the mindset where they're willing to protect civilians and put themselves at risk for the sake of the mandate. >> thank you, madam ambassador. >> thank you. senator gardner. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you, madam ambassador, for your time and testimony today. thank you, of course, as well for your service to this country. i want to follow-up a little bit what chairman corker and senator purdue were asking about, and that's security council resolutions 1929 and 2231, of course, we know there was a second ballistic missile test from iran which is a clear

violation of these resolutions. after the first launch in october we referred as you said the matter to the united nations. and called on it to, quote, review this matter quickly and recommend appropriate action. on october 22nd i believe you action. on october 22nd, you said -- full and robust enforcement is and will remain critical. as of today, as the united nations security council taken any action? and i believe the answer is no, and the meeting is tuesday, correct? >> no, discussions are a form of u.n. action, so we've had multiple discussions. >> the tuesday meeting, can you describe the actions that will be taken in the tuesday meeting?

>> we will hear back, well, probably not yet hear back from a panel of experts, but if we're in a position to confirm the recent launch, we will take that to the council. and we'll get an update from the u.n. as to whether the report has come back. >> and we still haven't taken action on the last launch. >> again, we have taken action. we've brought it to the council, and the experts will report back. >> what other actions other than taking it to a panel, talking about it, having a meeting? >> we're looking at the bilateral --

>> what unilateral decisions are we looking at taking? >> many of the actors involved in missile launches are already sanctioned under u.s. law. >> are we rescinding any previous relief? >> the jcpua, the sanctions relief will not occur until after the initial steps have been taken, and the iaea has verified that the initial steps have been taken. >> so, more important than the ballistic missile concerns? >> taking away, i don't want to talk about relative importance, but ensuring that iran doesn't

develop a nuclear weapon is very important. >> and you mentioned exploit vacuum of authority, by not imposing sanctions, are we allowing exploitation of a vacuum of authority? >> this administration has put in place, the body, the congress in the first instance, and amplified and extended, the most devastatie ining sanctions in t history of the u.n. i don't think there's a void or vacuum. iran has seen the consequences of violating international norms. and we have a sanctions snapback that many thought we could have secured as part of the deal,

which would have allowed any single country to snap back without compliance in the deal. and sanctions are a very important tool, and is one of the reasons why we're in place to ensure that iran doesn't develop a nuclear weapon. >> but nothing has been done except for meeting on a panel with experts? >> the work that iran does to try to ensure that the u.n. security council does not discuss launches is a testament to the stigma they associate with bringing it to this panel. this is, is something that iran,

which of course wants to become a nation like any other nation within the u.n., they find it very frustrating that they continue to be scrutinized. the fact that the council keeps the oversight and increases the political cost is an important step. >> in october, many members of this committee sent a letter talking about the ballistic missile. talking about penalties -- but we've done nothing, imposed no penalties as a result of the two launches, is that correct? >> i want to underscore the importance of the broader -- i

feel like i have answered this question you just posed several times. so, let me try a broadening approach. our response to missile launches is a defense response, it's everything that has come out of camp david and our engagement with the gulf countries, the iron dome, and all of the other bilateral defense arrangements with the country of israel. >> they've launched twice. is that working? >> one has to, if one is thinking in terms of regional defense, one has to take measures in order to try to ensure that our partners in the region have the tools to defend themselves. even if you had a designation against someone in the ballistic

missile program, the deterrent measure will be regional defense. if i were here, and we had designated another actor, i don't think that would address your concerns about iran's ballistic missile program. nor should it. but iran has systematically ignored u.n. security council measures. the sanctions were so crippling, because the other countries in the international system would be sanctioned. >> doesn't that concern you about their willingness to comp comply? >> that's why we have snap back. the president said this is not

predicated on trust, with iran's past behavior. >> if we're going to senator cain, i want to reiterate what we did with the other members. regardless of how people may have voted on the agreement, we understand it's what is governing our actions here. and we want to make sure the agreement is implemented in the way it's laid out. i think there's been a concern there's an air of permissiveness that's being developed, that will cause the likelihood of any pushback over time to get less real. and that's what he's getting at, and i think what people on both sides of the aisle are concerned about. 1929, they should not have any ballistic activity.

and this is an issue that i think many people on both sides of the aisle are concerned about. i can't speak for everyone. and we're seeing not very vigilant steps being taken, and it's setting a precedent for the future. with that, senator cain. >> thank you. you gave an interview on december 4, and you noted that more progress needs to be made in uniting the anti-isil coalition. would there be more support if congress were to vote and debate on that after 16 months of war? >> thank you, senator, i think people are puzzled as to why,

given the priority that the american people and the bipartisan basis, both houses of congress attach to the anti-isil struggle, and the attention that has come to it, as to why we can't arrive to come consensus to be able to enshrine in legislation that which we say is true, it has the bipartisan backing of the american people and of congress. so, i think it would be an important signal if we can get that done. >> it strikes me that at least three of the u.n. security council nations, britain, france, and i'm said to say, russia, have had their legislative bodies vote to

approve military action against syria and iraq. is that correct? >> i understand that's true, and germany, denmark. >> last week, the chairman of the senate armed forces committee said this, senator mccain, not approvingly, but when he was asked when an authorization vote would happen in congress, he said it could take an attack on the united states of america. would it be a good idea for congress to wait that long, in terms of your job? >> no, it would not be a good idea for congress to wait that long. i think it would, this should be one issue that everyone in the country can agree upon. even those who have differences over tactics, over the number of

trainers, or, you know, different asfepects of the operation. everyone should agree that defeating and degrading isil and showing the world that this is something backed by congress, rendering these operations sustainable over a long struggle, it would be invaluable. >> the president started this war against isil on august 8th, 16 months ago and a year ago friday, the only vote that's happened in congress, december 11, 2014, authorization reported out to the senate floor and no action was taken on it. the rand corporation issued a report to the pentagon saying that relying upon the 2001 and 2002 authorizations at a minimu% involved legal gymnastics that were not helpful and urged congress to take action.

it is just my hope that we will do that and it is my hope that it won't take a kind of cataclysm that was suggested disapprovingly by senator mccain thinks as i do that congress should act. you talked about european nations having scaled back peacekeeping operations. colombia stepping up in september and saying they want to devote 5,000 troops to the u.n. peacekeeping mission. colombia is also a peacekeeping participant in the multinational force and observers in the sinai as of relatively recently. we sometimes wonder whether u.s. engagement in a diplomatic way can make a difference. colombia is an example of failed state to international security partner in a way we can be proud. three administrations, the clinton administration, the

bush administration and the obama administration have had a dedication to that. talk about nations like colombia coming in to providing peacekeeping forces for a first time and the degree to which we can encourage them. >> thank you, senator. we view that commitment in very much the same way. it seemed also a real reflection of, you know, however difficult the peace process is and there's a lot of work left to do. but their confidence that they are going to get to where they need to get to free up resources, to be part of international peace and security. latin america has a huge contribution to make, one of the significant features of the president's summit was a number of latin american countries announcing they are prepared to do peacekeeping out of hemisphere because they have been dedicating their forces in haiti. i want to particularly commend uruguay, working with the

colombians, this is how it will work for us, this is how it will work for you. i want to commend mexico which has announced it will break new ground and be involved in peacekeeping for the first time and it's in discussions on the form that will take. if we could just touch upon -- it's such an important point, the larger point pulling out from latin america, which is the dividend for us when we make progress in terms of democratization. i'm just back from sri lanka. in the wake of its defeat of the ltte, the people who coined the suicide bomb really regressed in terms of creeping authoritarianism, horrible atrocities carried out in the war and no accountability for that. there's been a change in government. not only do we see them domestically taking on issues of accountability with the

reconciliation but we see their behavior within international institutions transformed. the stand they take on human rights resolutions, syria, north korea, et cetera, is shifting. so i want to just dwell on this point because sometimes one looks at the u.n. and it's just this black box where we're not getting the returns that we want. we're not getting the votes that we want. the way that the u.n. changes over time is countries that comprise it change. and, you know, they become more at peace within themselves. they democratize and get their institutions stronger. we see the payoff in the critical mass of countries that we have to work with in new york. more than half of the countries in the u.n. are not democratic. that affects the extent to which the u.n. is a tool on human rights enforce, et cetera. thank you, sir. >> thank you. the vote has gone off and

senator isakson is next. after him is senator menendez. i would ask, if you would, to chair the meeting while you're asking questions. >> i'll be very brief because i've got to go to the floor, too. >> senator murphy is next after menendez. if we could keep it going and i'm going to bolt and come back and thank you both very much. i know it will be orderly. if menendez is not back. >> i'm going to be very brief. i have to be on the floor. it's required reading that every member of congress should read samantha powers' book. it it had been read, a lot of the problems that we're talking about, the peacekeeping resolutions and things like that, we'd be a lot further along than we are today. it's a great book. senator corcoran and i went to rwanda. my first question to you, are we

as a country adopting the principle? >> we're not a substantial contributor of peacekeeping so these principles so far have been embraced by, you know, the big countries putting thousands of troops in harm's way. we have 40 police officers and 40 military officers, all of whom we're incredibly grateful for.fwñ so we haven't yet but more for that reason than any substantive objection. i can convey that back. >> let me make my point. when i read your speech, it was in the printed speech, you talk about the principles which they were developed from which is a learning lesson from what you pointed out in your book. their key peacekeepers need to affirm that their troops will be have the authorization to use

force when necessary and don't have to call back to headquarters to get approval, correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> that's our problem in the middle east. we don't have that type of authorization for the rules of engagement of our own troops and i commend you for raising it on this question but it's a bigger question in terms of our being able to be effective and that is, having the troops for peacekeeping or for war, to have the actual authority for use of force they need to carry out their mission. it kind of struck me that we were congratulating sri lanka and korea and a lot of people who provide the peacekeeping troops and yet we as a country have very limited rules of engagement authorization right now in our own country. that's my reason for bringing the point up. >> if i may respond, senator, briefly while you're here, you know, my impression is not that. i think that what president

obama has conveyed to secretary defense and to the chairman and to his commander, general austin and the commanders on the ground is a desire to, you know, offer strategic guidance, discuss any big shifts in the strategy at a senior level and make sure that we are, you know, on the same page. but there is a huge amount of tactical and operational flexibility that these commanders have. and i think you've seen certainly the president say publicly what he has conveyed in the situation room which is if there are ideas for how we can pursue this campaign more expeditiously, in ways that, you know, increase the security dividend for the american people sooner, i want to see those ideas and i'm in these meetings, we were discussing the way ahead

in our anti-isil strategy and i, again, have not heard the commander is not getting the flexibility that they seek. >> thank you for your answer and thank you for your service and my last question is not a question but a statement. i think your wagon is loaded, gets a new load every day. i think you're doing a terrific job but i would underscore, as i leave, senator cardin's remarks, the more transparency, the better for the u.n. there's a lot of suspicion, misunderstanding and a lack of trust in the general public. the more transparency we can have, particularly on who is paying what and how they are paying their share would be helpful to the u.n. mission to carry out its intent from the beginning. >> senator, that gives me a chance to invite you to new york so you can get immersed in those budget numbers firsthand. but we would really welcome visits by members of this body. and we'd give you a good and

deep tour of the u.n. and so many of the africa-related issues that you've worked so hard on. as you know, the u.n. is on the front lines. >> invitation accepted. >> okay, great. >> senator murphy? >> thank you, senator isakson. good morning, ambassador power. on the evening of the president's sunday night speech, there was a series of social media postings by a wonderful reporter from "the new york times." she wrote a piece based on those observations the next day and the title was u.s. strategy seeks to avoid isis prophecy. and the idea is that if you really understand the fundamentals, the building blocks of the religious perversion of isis, it is built upon a prophecy, a belief. ultimately they are going to be in a military contest on the

ground with the united states and military powers. and i suspect that that acknowledgement is part of what made the president in that speech talk about not only things that we should do but things we shouldn't do. i understand we're not going to be putting u.n. peacekeepers on the ground inside a complicated, violent civil war anytime soon. but from a broader perspective, can you talk about, as we try to confront organizations that are in countries like mali that have peacekeeping forces, that are trying to goad the west and, in particular, the united states into a military confrontation, why multinational and multiethnic forces are going to be better positioned than a majority u.s. force to try to preserve peace and order and maybe as part of that answer talk about the contributions

that majority muslim nations made to peacekeeping or could or would in the future. why we should pay attention to more investment in peacekeeping. >> thank you, senator murphy. it's a complex question and set of ideas within it. i think a key to effective deployments is legitimacy, and one of the things multinational deployments can offer but can also forfeit as we've been talking about in the context of sexual abuse is a perception of legitimacy, that the whole world is behind a peacekeeping mission.

i think having a 65-nation coalition enhances legitimacy. and the fact that countries from the region are part of that against isil is very important and was important for the president to secure that kind of regional support. the one thing i would note in areas where terrorists are active and mali now with 44 deaths of peacekeepers over the life of a mission that has only been in place for a few years underscores, is that there can be a mismatch between u.n. peacekeeping and even robust u.n. peacekeeping which we support and the principles show that other countries support and these kinds of environments where extremists and terrorists, yes, they may make the united states their number one target if they have that opportunity. but if there are no americans around, they are perfectly prepared to target dutch

peacekeepers, burkina faso peacekeepers. this i agree very much with the logic of the article that you've described and found it very powerful. and i will use the question as an occasion to alert the committee to how the extent to which peacekeeping has been seen as a soft target for terrorists and extremists in those environments that they inhabit. and that's something we have a significant national interest in hardening these missions to ensure that they have the training that they need to operate in these ever more not only complex environments and you combine conflict and the actual fact that the peacekeepers themselves are a target and how to give you an example how the defense department has been responsive in this regard, we are doing more and more counter ied

training for peacekeepers. talk about not your mother's peacekeeping, if anybody would have imagined at the outset of peacekeeping that people would have to train against ieds that were presumably targeting the peacekeepers themselves, i'm not sure that peacekeeping would have ever gotten off the ground. i think your larger point is right. having countries that know the language is a critical component. that have cultural overlap with those countries in which they're operating is very important. the only other challenge is that sometimes countries could be too familiar with a country. if the immediate neighbor -- that's one of the reasons they went to the u.n. peacekeeping it was to try to inject more distance and one wouldn't be seen as being a stakeholder on one side or the other. all of these factors need to be taken into account. >> let me add my thanks to senator isakson.

for the number of heavy lifts you undertake for us in new york. thank you for your time and i'll turn it over to senator menendez. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. in appreciation of the chairman's courtesy, i will not ask for unanimous consent for anything i want right now since i'm here alone. let me, first of all, say i appreciate your service to our country. and i have a high regard for you and my own personal view, if left to your own devices, on some issues you might be more forward leaning. you don't need to respond to that. it's just my observation. having said that, however, let me enlarge this conversation about peacekeeping. i know some of my colleagues have broached this subject already. peacekeeping is, yes, very important in the sense of what the core of this hearing is about, but part in the way to

keep the peace is to make sure that the will of the international community is observed and that it isn't violated and if it is violated, there are consequences so that hopefully a continuation of that breach doesn't lead to the outbreak of war and, therefore, what flows from that. and so i want to come to the issue of iran. i know several of my colleagues have pursued the core of the missile test. first of all, i'd like to ask you, would you agree with me that for well over a decade, iran, as you have said in response to some of my colleagues' questions, did move their nuclear program foward to a point. in which it got so big, almost too big to fail in the bank context, this is actually too big to end. so they violated the international will purposefully and in doing so were able to get

to a point that they largely wanted. would that be a fair observation? >> yes, they violated international resolutions and built up their program. again, i think this is probably not the venue to get into the extent of the program. but such that -- >> that's pretty well documented. and on plenty of public discourse as well. but the point is, they violated international resolutions for the better part of a decade. >> absolutely. yes. >> and during those violations, they progressed for a good period of time without the type of sanctions regime that was largely generated by the congress, not by the executive branch. and so i look at that and look at your acknowledgement that they have not recognized security council resolutions and i say to myself there is a history here and a pattern. if you'd go visit the archives building with me, all over its

mantel it says past is prologue, and i have a real concern that what we have here is a lack of will by the united states and, as a leader in this regard, by our partners in going ahead and making sure that iran understands that you cannot violate the international will without consequence, which i consider even though i did not support the agreement that to the extent that the agreement is going to produce any benefits, iran must clearly understand that there will be consequences for not following that agreement. and the message seems to me that we are sending and have sent in various iterations is quite contrary. so we basically have no real action. i heard your responses about referring it to the committee and having discussions. i get the u.n. process. but the bottom line is, there's been no real actions. no consequence.

now they have a second test and we are talking about verifying but at the end of the day it took place and there will be no real consequence. we would like to see the security council be the venue for a multilateral consequence but we hear nothing in the interim about an individual consequence. we see a set of circumstances which i predicted, as well as a whole host of others, that we were going to basically sweep this under the rug and ultimately dismiss it, which is now the resolution that is presently being circulated at the iaea to close this chapter, because we want something bad enough, we are willing to go ahead and overlook and, in doing so, i think we make a grave mistake. we did that with cuba because we wanted to create relationships with cuba even though they violated security council

resolutions and shipped missiles and migs to north korea. nothing happened to them. when we want something bad enough, and when i say we, the administration, wants something bad enough, they are willing to overlook. and that is a dangerous proposition. a dangerous proposition. so what is it that we are going to do to send a real clear, unequivocal, unambiguous message to the iranians that notwithstanding the nuclear portfolio that we could be robustly active and take actions on non-nuclear issues. well, this is a non-nuclear issue. and conversations is not an action. >> thank you, senator. so let me use this also as an

occasion since senator corcoran is back to address a comment he made earlier, which is in keeping with what you're saying, which is his impression of a greater permissiveness in terms of your statement that somehow if you want it bad enough, you're willing to overlook. the way that this administration and our predecessors responded in new york, to prior concerns, over the life of the regime, it hasn't changed. there's no difference in the way we go through this procedure what we seek to do in new york at the u.n. security council. and frankly, there's not even much difference in terms of what resistance we face from the predictable quarters. the security council regime, as you well know, built out and put

force multiplied on the sanctions congress put in place and it is that regime that caused iran to make a series of concessions that, you know, the three of you here were not deemed satisfactory, but went well beyond what would have been achievable without the sanctions regime and gives us the confidence again that this is a good deal and one that will dismantle iran's nuclear weapons program. the objective we have -- >> with all due respect, i'm not talking about the deal anymore. we're past that. >> no, we're talking about -- >> i'm talking about making sure we have enforcement of -- >> agreed, agreed. but, again, the accusation is that we are seeing things differently than you because we have a vested interest in seeing this deal implemented. we have a collective, as i think

all of you agree, vested interest in seeing this deal implemented because we don't want iran to ever again obtain a nuclear weapon. that is our objective. and we have put in place measures, whether it's the expanded verification and monitoring and even the pmd for all of the dissatisfaction that's been expressed about the report and our approach to it, fundamentally the iae was able to get access that it hadn't in the past. the snapback of the sanctions regime is an incredibly important tool in our arsenal and it is leverage. senator corker said the other day at the security council that we will have given up all our leverage on the front end. that's just not true. we will have that hanging over implementation, reporting of violations going forward, and we will have in our toolbox the bilateral sanctions measures that as a way of responding to lesser incidents of noncompliance and lesser violations.

so, again, the u.n. security council is one venue and we will do as we've been doing for a decade which is call a spade a spade, bring forward violations, increase the political cost, ensure that iran is isolated for its violations of 1929 now and 2231 once implementation day progresses. but we also have a set of other tools aimed at getting at iranian bad behavior, including -- >> mr. chairman, if i may, since my time has expired. let me just make a comment. i appreciate your answer. you're very good at answering but not answering. so, let me just say that you talk about snapback. those sanctions that you admit and the administration has increasingly admitted brought iran to the table. they expire this coming year. and you all negotiated away, at least as i read the agreement, the ability for the administration to support a re-authorization of it which i intend to push for.

because the snapback means nothing if you can't snap back something that is meaningful. and the administration just won't talk about that re-authorization because as i read the agreement, they're not -- they don't have the wherewithal to agree to a re-authorization. they gave it away. and then last point, you know, another example, enforcing resolution 1701, the transfer of arms to hezbollah, you know, during the review of the iran nuclear agreement in defending the lifting of the u.n. arms embargo the administration repeatedly emphasized that u.n. security council resolution 1701 remains in place. and that prevents the weapons -- the transfer of weapons to hezbollah and we're going to make sure that's the case. since the announcement of the jcpoa hezbollah has continued to receive arms from outside of lebanon.

so, what steps have we taken to stop the transfer of arms to hezbollah? >> thank you, senator. i addressed this question earlier for senator purdue. but it's a very important question. i think the point that was made over the course of the discussion about the jcpoa is that authorities that this body was under -- and we were understandably concerned were going away or could go away at some point under the jcpoa, many of those authorities were elsewhere in other security council resolutions so i think that was the invocation of 1701 in that context. look, as i said earlier, hezbollah is a terrorist organization. and unifil is a peacekeeping mission. and unifil's job is do everything in its power to deter hezbollah from amassing weapons to call a spade a spade and to call them out when they are to alert us and other stakeholders

to anything that comes to their attention that, again, is alarming in this regard. you know, as you know over the life of unifil i think it has had a constructive effect on events on the ground. i don't think the government of israel would support its perpetuation if it hadn't. is it a panacea for hezbollah? not, it isn't. and no, it won't be. we've sounded the alarm and shine the spotlight and do the things it can do, but, you know, in terms of armed confrontation with hezbollah that's not something unifil is doing. we're trying to enhance capabilities of troops who comprise unifil. it's one of the stronger missions because of the european presence and we hope to have a broader pool of troops to draw from to make sure the mission is right-sized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just say that no consequences

is a green light to violations and that's what i see us doing. >> turn to senator markey while senator menendez is here. it is true that it is highly unlikely that the u.n. security council will take any action relative to the violations of 1929, is that correct? >> again, we are -- we have already taken action. >> the answer is yes. >> we have already taken action. we've brought the issue to the council -- >> but as far as sanctions, penalties, it's not likely that russia or china will go along. >> i share with your assessment on russia and china. >> when you say it's untrue what i said, relative to -- >> that the administration was being more permissive in terms of sanctions violations. that's what i heard you say. >> still, we'll see. nothing's happened yet. what i said was that the leverage shifts to iran. they are at breakneck speed dismantling so that they get the sanctions relief they're after which we would expect.

now people believe that in january or february they will get all of the sanctions relief they're after. and for you to say that snapback is a real tool when it's contingent upon the countries participating implementing back those sanctions and we have countries like russia and china which probably, likely, we know are not going to push back against this issue, if there are incremental violations, all of the leverage is with iran. that is a fact. it's not incorrect. it is with iran because there's no way that this administration is going to consider challenging an incremental violation because they know all iran has to do is step out, and they know that russia and china and candidly probably our western friends in europe are not really going to force them to comply. it is a true statement, not an untrue statement, that the

leverage ends up with them because they have what they want. we've given it up. and we have partners at the u.n. security council that are not going to cooperate with us. senator markey. >> let me interject for one second. i apologize to senator markey. i think a lot of us share that frustration. i just urge us to work with our european allies on the timing of a response to the violation of the ballistic missiles. we all share the frustration that there's unlikely to be sanction action by the security council. but i do think we have -- if we demonstrate action with our european partners particularly in the p-5, i think it would be a signal to iran that these types of activities aren't going to go unchallenged. >> senator markey, would you mind if i just respond very briefly? i'm so sorry.

but just i want to underscore that when we went to the council once we confirmed the violation on october 10th, we did so with the united kingdom, with france and germany. i think doing something like that irrespective of what outcome we're -- what further tangible outcome we were able to secure from the council is going to be very important and perhaps even broadening that. mr. chairman, i just -- the one thing i feel compelled to say is that when you say they're going with break neck speed to dismantle, it's very important to remember that that's a good thing. that's what we want. that break neck speed, the dismantlement, that -- so understanding, again, that there is pay for performance as part of the deal, that the way that we have incentivized them moving forward and allowing the inspectors in. sometimes the way it is discussed you would think that is not a good thing. that is a good thing. that is the point of the deal.

to get them to dismantle their program. >> i understand that. i understand them dismantling antique centrifuges and we're allowing them to continue development of r-2s, r-4s and r-6s and r-8s. i understand that. again, i don't want to redebate the agreement. what i think we're focused on right now is the international community knows that they violated 1929 and in essence they're violating the spirit of where they're called upon not to do this and 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, after they dismantle these antiques, that they're using right now, these r-1s they'll push the envelope and we believe that you and others there by not taking even bilateral actions yet are

helping create an air of permissiveness, even though we like and respect you, we have a policy difference here. this is not directed at you. it's directed at the u.n. security council. senator markey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. thank you for all your great work, ambassador. i know it's global and complex, but you serve our country so well. thank you. could we come back if we could for a second to syria. when i look at assad, when i look at all of his supporters inside of the country, he has upwards of 30% of the army as sunni soldiers who won't be viewed well when there is a peace agreement by the other sunni soldiers that have been trying to depose assad for all these years. and similarly, the aloite soldiers that are fighting for

him. so they'll be looking for protection if there is a peace agreement. and secretary kerry and his team are doing a great job in moving towards that. there will have to be protection for these people to avoid and to, and i think they would be foolish not to anticipate this. what happened in iraq. what happened in libya. what happened in egypt. so, they're going to be looking for protection. and that kind of looks to the u.n. it looks to these blue helmeted soldiers to come in and to give some level of guarantee that there will be protection for them if they lay down their guns. otherwise, i don't see a resolution of it. i don't -- i just see a protracted war where no matter how hard you try to negotiate a peaceful settlement, you just 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 that we're far from that. but just looking at, anticipating a potential role for the u.n. or some other multinational force to move in and to give some guarantees. otherwise i don't think assad's ever leaving. you know, you just look at it from a perspective of human nature and looking at what's happened in all these other countries, they'll be dead. they'll be killed. i mean, the revenge motivation is going to be so high given the tragedy that's affected these other families and we have yet another cycle that we've participated in. so, how could the u.n. or another multinational force play a constructive role? >> well, you've -- there's no shortage of very complex dimensions to imagining a political settlement for syria, but you 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 syrian government troops who have been -- whether -- the air force which have been involved in barrel bombing and chemical weapons use or the infantry. i mean, there -- it is going to be extremely difficult. i think that -- as you say, we're not at this point of the discussions, but in order for there to be an agreement on a political transition by mutual consent, which is the catchphrase from geneva and is the operative principle for vienna, that is going to be one of the questions that both sides are asking. because it cuts in the other direction as well. when moderate opposition forces go back to their home communities from which they've been purged, what happens to them if the forces in control

are, you know, remain, you know, in large, you know, government forces. so, where that confidence building comes from, who the guarantors are of any kind of reintegration, what -- this gets back to senator cardin's question earlier, what the accountability mechanism is whereby there could be some healing or, you know, truth telling and punishment for those who committed the worst violations. all of those modalities have to be worked through. >> on both sides. >> on both sides, again, yes. absolutely. now, in terms of the near term, you know, we have isil with a protracted -- you know, very extensive presence in syria that is shrinking, but nonetheless would be a significant consideration for any outside country thinking about deploying troops to syria. we have nusra as well. part of what is being worked

through in vienna is definitions of who is a terrorist and who isn't so there can be at a strategic level that everybody could go against these forces together. but i think what you would need, if -- you know, if one were going with a troop presence from the outside, would -- 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 soldiers on the government side and sunni moderates on the other side are going to have to believe that those troops are going to protect them if they get attacked. you look at u.n. peacekeeping missions as the first part of the hearing that's not always the case around the world, right? that some troop contributors that's not a role they play eagerly even if that's part of the mandate, so you could look at a regional force or a green hatted force of some kind.

you'd still ask that question, are troop contributors ready to invest themselves in enforcing this agreement, you know, is that something that, you know, some of our allies would be a part of? and the only caution i would give in terms of a regional force which is something that i think is being looked at and, again, all the costs and the benefits of all of these permutations have to be thought through. on the one hand you'd have the language. you'd have the cultural affinities, but in the case of many of the regional players, they have been stakeholders in this conflict, so the idea that they would 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'd be willing to put their troops in harm's way on behalf of this agreement is going to be one of the challenges we have to think through if the parties deem an outside force a necessary part of this political agreement. >> yeah. i don't see how you can avoid it. i just think that the recrimination co-efficient is

going to be historically high. the carnage has just been so great on both sides, the bitterness, the acrimony won't settle out for decades. and 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 and i think it should be put together sooner rather than later just as a concept, that could move in to assuage the concerns that all parties are going to have, that the removal of assad doesn't lead ultimately 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. and so 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 give some assurances to the more responsible parties who might want to end this war. that the death toll isn't just going to continue to mount. so, removing assad is just one step. i think the next -- i think -- but it has to be accompanied by a set of guarantees. that there's just not going to be mass carnage after it. but i feel very good that you're there and secretary kerry is there thinking through all these issues. thank you so much. >> well, thank you for being with us. i think you can see we're getting close to the end here. i do want to chase just for a moment if i could the conversation you had with senator kaine. do your colleagues at the united nations think that somehow congress and the american people do not want to defeat isis? >> i don't think they would have

that impression. my response was that they're puzzled as to why we can't come up with an authorization here together. >> puzzled by the fact that the administration has told us 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 '01, is that confusing to them? >> again, we were -- not -- i was not speaking -- if i may, i wasn't speaking to the legal authorities question. i don't think anybody questions whether or not the united states has the authority to carry out the campaign that we're carrying out. i think the question is, as a political symbol and as reinforcement of the effort that we're making that there should be an ability to get consensus here. >> well, there is consensus. i mean, the president -- >> i'm sorry my response was on an aumf.

>> if a little game is being played, then it's difficult for me to understand. on one hand witness after witness after witness comes up here and tells us they have all the authorities 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, helped craft it, to go against assad. and we turned away from that. so, certainly this committee is willing to take up tough issues when a declaration of war is occurring. and has the president declared war on isis? has he declared war on isis? has he laid out a strategy publicly to defeat isis? so, i just 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 he's trying to deflect that to congress somehow. i don't know what's occurring. but all i can say with you, i'm in full agreement with the administration, that the '01 authorization while certainly 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 you know 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 authorities to do what they were doing? they didn't have the authorities, is that correct?

>> i would have to go case by case and i'm not familiar with the domestic legal matters. >> certainly britain or the uk's unwillingness -- >> they have the parliamentary systems and they need to go through the exercises they've gone through. this is the reason, though, the question is a little bit more in the air than it has been over the last six months up in new york. >> i think it's in the air for -- >> but the president has said he has the authorities he needs. there's no resurrecting or surfacing this issue for any other reason. >> you agree 100% that the president has the authority -- >> absolutely. >> has the president declared war on isis, by the way? >> i believe he has said we're going to defeat and destroy isis, isil. >> we thank you for being here today, and we certainly respect the job that you have. you're a very bright and intelligent. sometimes i, you know, take issue with you when i feel like you're carrying too much the

administration's line. but i understand sometimes you feel compelled to do so. i thank you for being here. and we wish you well as you take demonstrative action against 1929 being violated over the next week or so. thank you. so, our next panel will consist of two more outstanding witnesses. the first witness is john negroponte, former united states permanent representative to the u.s. mission to the united nations, the same job our former witness is occupying. our second witness will be dr. bruce jones, vice president of the foreign policy program at the brookings institute. again, we thank ambassador power for being here. both of you have witnessed what just happened. we hope you can summarize your thoughts in about five minutes and we look forward to questions. again, thank you for being here. and, john, why don't you start. >> yes, sir.

thank you, chairman corker, ranking member cardin. it's a pleasure to appear before you this morning to discuss the united nations peacekeeping, a nations peacekeeping, a 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 air 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 interests 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. the united nations has more than 100,000 troops deployed in peacekeeping operations around the world. the approximate cost of deploying these forces is $8 billion per year, which, of course, is a -- 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 illustrious -- illustrative 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 might be available to carry out an intervention we deem to be in our interests. second, the "boots on the ground" argument, this, of course, is an argument related to financial cost. just as we benefit from the lower cost of u.n. peacekeeping budget as compared to our own defense spending, we also do not deploy 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 u.s. combat units were deployed to five or ten peacekeeping operations abroad.

the cost in u.s. blood and treasure would be unacceptably high and a spotlight on the situations in which u.s. forces were involved could undermine the kind of support and patience required in some of these very difficult situations. so, support for u.n. pkos saves us from having to contemplate these possibilities. it also enables us to think about choices other than a stark selection between boots on the -- 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 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 have 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 intervening in iraq without the support and blessing of a u.n. security council resolution. by definition, a u.n. peacekeeping operations has consensus support within the p-5 and the blessing of a 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 pkos, and these are issues that will require continued attention and effort from troop-contributing and other u.n. members alike. and given our leadership role in the world and our status as the u.n.'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 setup, 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 and even their more creative use in 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. i'd be pleased to try and answer any questions. >> thank you so much. dr. jones.

>> thank you very much, chairman corker, ranking member cardin, thank you for having me appear before this body, and thank you for your leadership in sustaining attention to this issue. we covered a lot of ground, so i'll be brief and just try to raise a couple of points, reinforce a couple of points and raise a couple of additional ones. i think this body understands the purpose of peacekeeping is to give the united states a tool for what i describe as manning the outer perimeter, for burden sharing in conflicts where we have interests but we don't want to have to deploy u.s. forces or tackle the issue ourselves. i think that's well understood in this body. i think it's important to remember in the majority of the cases where the up is deployed, it's not deployed alone. it's often a regional organization and the u.n. co-deployed in a hybrid operation. i don't think we focus on that enough. the u.n. is an important part of the equation but it's not the only part of the equation and we need to pay 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 the u.n., of

course, as you both highlighted as a global burden-sharing tool gives us the capacity to reach across the globe to get indian troops to work with us or brazilian troops to work with us or european forces work us with in haiti that regional organizations can't perform. for all its flaws and weaknesses, the u.n. is the only genuine global burden-sharing tool that we have and i think it's extremely important at a time when senator murphy i think mentioned colombia, but there are others like korea and indonesia and brazil, rising democracies, who want to do more on the international stage, and the u.n. is the only tool they have to do that. so, how do we improve the u.n.'s performance? i think of this as being -- having four dimensions, effective, legitimacy and leadership, i want to reinforce what ambassador power said and that's bringing countries with complex militaries back into the

u.n. i think we have to be clear-eyed about the fact that in a number of cases the u.n. is operating in theaters where a transnational terrorist organization is also operating. those are not challenges that can be met by troops with low-order capabilities. when we look at the situation in mali and in different contexts, we're going to have to see peacekeeping countries with advanced military capabilities to perform the functions of protection of civilians and implementation of mandates, i'm very supportive of the administration efforts to bring european and rising states back into peacekeeping. an additional point that i'd make and, again, senator murphy touched on it, is there are different ways that the u.n. can structure its missions. we focus on blue hatted organization and there's an alternative where a single member state takes the command and that's sometimes an effective tool because there are member states like canada and australia and others who have a far higher degree of capability and command and control and

intelligence than the u.n. secretariat has at its disposal and the variation of using a multinational force is something i think we should be thinking about more than we sometimes do. quickly on efficiency, nobody would accuse the u.n. 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 tool to structure and to manage the u.n.'s field operations. the absurdity is the politics of the general assembly means the department of field support still that to run all of its decisions past the department of management which is the headquarters tool, so the same tool that manages workshops and conferences in new york has to approve all the decisions of a more nimble tool the department of field support. and i think one of the things the united states could do is work in a coalition to change that so the department of field support has more direct authority to oversee and implement peacekeeping operations without the extra layer of a dual-key system which is inefficient and, of course, we have to keep working on the

scales of assessment issue. i think the u.n. makes a fundamental mistake when it doesn't recognize even though this is an issue of a minority of troops and missions, it severely erodes the legitimacy of the u.n. on the ground and in capitals. you've all said 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 goes to my last point and i'll end here, which this is also about leadership. we're coming to the end of ban ki-moon's term and i think it should be a matter of priority for the united states when we get into the business of selecting a new secretary-general to be paying attention to the question of whether they are focused on the effectiveness and efficiency of the u.n. in contributing to international peace and security and working closely with the secretary-general when he or she is selected and the other members of the p-5 that they

have political and organizational talent from which to draw for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. i'll end there. >> thank you both. i know we got off on a lot of different topics in the last panel that were a little different than the main subject but it's rare we have an opportunity to talk to the ambassador. we thank you both. we know you're both friends and let me just -- obviously this will all be a part of the record, which will be 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've moved in a more forward manner which from my standpoint is welcomed, as we've seen helpless people be brutalized in certain areas. what are, though, some of the

challenges that, from your perspective, we most need to think about relative to that? i mean, in essence, it's an extension of in some cases actually carrying out semikinetic activities, right? so, what are some of the things that we as a body ought 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 is sort of lowered to the capability of the troops. and so the willingness to go out and undertake kinetic activities to protect civilians, to defeat rebel forces, et cetera, has

diminished and that's a challenge, so getting more capable troops back into peacekeeping is the first necessary step. i think an important question is what can the united states do to stiffen their will or to ensure that they're going to have will or support? one of the things i would put on the table is that -- by the way, i would say that i'm not among those who thinks that the united states has to put troops into peacekeeping to ensure that. i do not think that that is the correct approach. i think the united states has unique capabilities in airlift and intelligence and other things that are more important. and i would add to it over extraction. if we're going to ask countries to put troops on the line and take risk, first of all, it would be helpful they are more capable troops because they're taking less risk by taking on that mission. but if we're willing to provide extraction and support and defense capabilities the risk they are taking is lessened. we can encourage people to take the risks and make the fights if we are willing to help them if they get stuck.

>> if i add. definitely i would agree with dr. jones, capacity building -- and i think that's what he was talking about in the first instance is 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. and i think the -- the security council and the peacekeeping department has become more effective at that. i would add with respect to capacity building, the challenge we have in ensuring that there's a uniform level of capacity amongst the officers that are leading these different missions 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 in excess of 100,000 people around the world, i mean, we have -- 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 of future peacekeeping missions, whether that wouldn't be an idea worth consideration. i mean, we will have to sit down at the drawing boards and think about how we'd do that. but that's one idea i'd like to leave for your consideration. >> dr. jones, you said you don't think it's appropriate for the u.s. to have ground troops, if you will, involved. you know, as it relates to our nato efforts, we obviously have everything involved, money, equipment, personnel. again, we're the provider of security services, and unfortunately most of the members of nato are consumers of security services. here, you know, we're the largest provider of monetary

resources, and as i understand it we've committed 42 officers to be part of peacekeeping. but 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, yeah. 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 the other states to do more, one of the responses has been, well, are you going to? are you going to put troops in? as i said i think the things that only the united states can do include airlift, signals intelligence, and some of the command and control functions that you just referred to. i wouldn't be docktry the tafra in 1995 the united states had troops under the command of a canadian-led national force in

eastern zaire. i think we're better off when other troops are at the front lines. senator murphy talked about having multiethnic and multinational forces. the simple reality is the suns > generally the same approach as has been discussed by most, and that is in syria, we would like to have arab faces on the ground more predominantly than western faces, right? it just helps ensure that there's a more cohesive nature, if you will, relative to what's

happening on the ground. typically we've had a policy, have we not, that u.s. troops are not going to be commanded by people other than u.s. officers, too, is that correct? >> we have had that policy. as i said, we have occasionally violated it. u.s. forces were under canadian command in zaire fairly briefly, but i think as a general rule it's the right policy and more to the point, as i said, there are simply too many occasions in which participation in the united states would change the political texture of the force in ways that i think would amplify the resistance to the force rather than the opposite. >> whereas the enablers don't necessarily have that same kind of a profile, and yet there's no other country as capable as we are of producing these vital enablers to these missions. >> ambassador, you have had this role. you've been at the united nations. senator cardin, which i appreciate deeply, raised the issue of just our payments, the

amount that we -- you know, we have 22% of the world's gross domestic product, and yet we obviously 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 our amount would not be 28.5%. we find this same to be the case. i've referred to it now three times at nato. it's where we desire 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, from your perspective, what we as a country can do to seek equilibrium and cause other countries to play their appropriate roles. >> well, it's frustrating. i mean, we -- and i think you were right, senator, to talk about the kind of mysterious ways in which the budget is

negotiated and very often right at the end of the year just before christmas, before everybody's in a rush to get out of there and somehow at 3:00 in the morning the u.n. budget g s gets -- gets agreed upon. and so you sometimes get some rather anomalous situations that will arise. but i think we have to just keep working on that. i recognize that we've 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 other kinds of forces, or our own military expenditures for our own defense establishment, we're 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 to hear that china's going to be assessed something on the order of 10% for

peacekeeping which is, if i recall correctly, is a significant departure from 10 or 15 years ago when their contribution was a fraction of that. >> senator cardin? >> mr. ambassador, as you were 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, sir. >> dr. jones, thank you very much for your service, and you come here with a great deal of expertise on the united nations, having worked as adviser to the secretary-general and, ambassador negroponte, you served in that position as ambassador and you served in so many other positions of foreign policy. so, i want to follow-up on the 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 of the u.s. naval academy. and i see firsthand the availability of training at the

u.s. naval academy for some of our ally countries. we do train at our service academies foreign students. i think an arrangement with the united nations in regards to their 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 we can look at hower on 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 of. so, i thought that was a very good suggestion. and i would ask if our staffs can perhaps follow-up on that and see whether that's a viable option. i want to talk about the absolute scales of assessment and how these numbers come about. but i put it into context to a

senator who strongly supports the united nations and its mission and its budget. but if we were to put a u.n. reform bill on the floor of the united states senate, the type of amendments that would be offered and the types of potential restrictions on the u.s. participation in the united nations, getting a majority vote and 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 that they go about their budgeting. we talk about burden sharing, and we recognize that it's disproportionate, that the u.s. taxpayers have been asked to take on a much stronger commitment than the developed 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's certainly true in the united nations. so, i understand that we're getting a good value for our contributions to the united nations. i never doubt that. i agree with you completely. and the peacekeeping missions are critically important to u.s. but it seems to me we have not been as effective as we need to in the transparency and reform within the united nations process, and if we don't deal with it in a way that's understandable to the u.s. political system, then there could be negative consequences to the u.s. participation at the united nations. so, it's for that reasons that i can't justify a 22% budget allocation and then 28.5% on peacekeeping. particularly in light of all the other commitments that u.s. taxpayers are making to international security issues. and i just would like to get your advice as to how is the

most effective way for this senator and for the congress to weigh in in a 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 -- and 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 and the secretariat, working hard with the congress like ms. power bringing the security council down to visit the senate, which i think was a very, very good idea. and i think it would be a good -- and i'm sure you imparted this message to them when you met with them. and that's -- those are the right people to pass that

message to. i think it's 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 left that issue somewhat unresolved. if i remember correctly it was 26 point something or other and now it's gone up a percentage point or two since he reached his agreement. but i think we've just got to work that one really hard. what i'd hate to see happen is that the arrears become so large that then it becomes some kind of a crisis situation with regard to whether or not we're going to continue our support or -- which would undermine our support for the united nations. >> yeah. >> and that's the danger that i think you're describing. >> absolutely. >> i don't have much to add. i would just add one point of context, which is sort of iro c ironical. i spent the last few years

hearing countries talk about the united states in a decline, you know, the relative decline in the united states, all that kind of stuff, the rising new powers. i profoundly disagree with the underlying notion. and the reason i mention it in this case when you look at the scales of assessment, it was about 30% in the height of the post-cold war period. declined to around 25% as we made continual progress to bring the scale of assessment in line with our share of world gdp, and it's gone back up over the last three years. it's back up to 28% since the global financial crisis because we've done much better in recovering from the global financial crisis than a number of our allies and partners in europe and others. so, it's a kind of irony of the moment, that whereas people talk about u.s. decline -- >> it's my understanding the difference between 22% and 28% is not our share in the global economy, it's justified by our seat on the security council, which many of us in interpret as to bust the 22% cap. >> it's both. because the formula starts with

what is the share of gdp. you pay a premium by being rich, so rich countries pay more per share of gdp than poor countries and then we pay an additional premium by virtue of being a permanent member. it was going down as our share of gdp went down, and now it's going up a bit. i agree with what ambassador negroponte said. it's going to have to be made an important priority with the incoming secretary-general 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're the only power that has interests in every region of the world and at the global level. so, we have an outsized interest here as well, and to a certain extent in all honesty, that reduces our leverage. everybody knows we have an

outsized interest in these things. >> because we have assumed greater burdens, we have even greater burdens. >> correct. >> i want to ask one last question, if i might. secretary, ambassador power was pretty firm and optimistic about the september 28th meeting of the countries that are contributing resources to the u.n. peacekeeping. the commitments she over -- she continues to state are just that, commitments. they have not been delivered yet. have you had a chance to review the september 28th 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 to that meeting by the administration, so i was there for that, and i've been

involved in helping the u.n. and helping the administration think through the preparation for it. i'm semi optimistic. i think that the europeans in particular as they've drawn down in afghanistan, they have capabilities they're not using in that context. they can contribute. the dutch and mali i think are the most important example of what we've seen so far. i think they've recognized, they have a deep interest that if they're going to come to terms with their migration and refugee problem, they've got to solve it in the places where they orri e originate. so, i'm somewhat optimistic, i would be much more optimistic and that is russia and ukraine. that's making some european allies to go back to old concerns and it will put pressure on european militaries to be worried about other things

than conflicts in africa. the two things unfortunately are happening at the same time. i think there is a genuine will from the yoeuropeans and korea lining i menti like i mentioned to be involved in peacekeeping. i think she's right to push the argument and i think the administration was right to pursue the initiatives, but there are other things that will diminish the full impact it might have had otherwise, unfortunately. >> i think we need to keep the spotlight on it. i think that was a great initiative by the president and it has to be followed up. the other thing i might add with respect to contributing countries is 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've been reluctant to do in the past. i mean, there's mention of colombia, for example, and brazil, too. 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 here is the access to people like you who are so respected and have the ability to share wisdom with us and experiences, and we know that every day when we 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 open until the close of business friday, but if you could respond in a fairly timely manner, that would also be appreciated. but we thank you for your service to our country, and we thank you for being here today. with that, the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you for the invitation.

tonight on c-span3, american history tv looks back at world war ii. at 8:00 eastern tom brokaw author of the book "the greatest generation" and then a look at ve day, first with the 70th anniversary celebration for the allied victory in europe and a flyover ceremony celebrating that anniversary. and later tonight the ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the allied victory in japan. this holiday weekend, american history tv on c-span3 has three days of featured programming, beginning friday evening at 6:30 eastern, to mark the 125th anniversary of the birth of president dwight david eisenhower, his grand daughters susan, ann, and mary eisenhower gather for a rare family discussion at gettysburg college, to talk about his military and political career as well as his legacy and relevance

for 21st century americans. then on saturday afternoon at 1:00, 60 years ago rosa parks defied a city ordinance for blacks to leave their seats on a city bus to make room for white passengers. her stand helped instigate the montgomery bus boycott. we'll reflect on the boycott and see what role lawyers played in that protest and the civil rights movement as we hear from fred gray, attorney for rosa parks, and montgomery bus boycott demonstrators. then at 6:00, civil war authors and historian william davis on the little-known aspects of the lives and leadership of union general liulysse ks. grant. and then a progress report on nasa's projects including the manned space program and the mariner 4 flyby of mars and before 9:00 writer and award winning documentary filmmaker rick burns on how the public

learns about history through film and television. american history tv, all weekend, and on holidays, too, only on c-span3. three days of featured programming this holiday weekend on c-span. friday evening at 7:00 eastern, congressional republican leaders honoring former vice president dick cheney at the capitol with the unveiling of a marble bust in emancipation hall. >> when the vice president had his critics just going off the deep end, as they often did, he asked lyn his wife, does it bug you when people refer to me as darth vader? and she said, no, it humanizes you. >> saturday night at 8:30 eastern, an in-depth look at polices in minority communities, speakers include former st. louis police officer reddit hudson, and washington place

chief kathy lanier. >> most people get defensive if they feel like you're being offensive so, you know, being very respectful, you know, in counters and requests if it's not a crisis, if it's not a dangerous situation, request versus demands, those things change the dynamics a little bit. >> and sunday afternoon at 2:00, race and the criminal justice system with white house senior adviser valerie jarrett and others. then at 6:30, portions of this year's washington ideas festival. speakers include virginia senator mark warner, former vice president al gore, and author annmarie slaughter. >> we've got to banish the word "he's helping" at home. all right? helping is not actually taking the burden off you. you are still figuring out what needs to be done, and you are asking him to help. he is not the agent, right? he's the assistant. and if we're going to get to where we need to go, men do have to be lead parents, or fully

equal co-parents. >> for our complete schedule, go to cspan.org. smithsonian institution secretary david skorton said the u.s. should consider broadening the reach and scope of the smith son yan and he focused on the importance of investments in arts and humanitie humanities. this is about an hour. >> each year about 30 million people visit at least one of the smiths smithsonian's museums or galleries or the zoo. the hope diamond and the other vast animals in this collection are so well known to us they provide a window into the past but they also help us anticipate