lessons learned in each of these three conflict areas is as you pointed out is that we have in the african content partners who are willing to address the challenges from within the region. so they are committed to the solution and that's something that maybe is unique globally in the way terrorism issues are being addressed. so each of three examples you provided has the neighbors coordinating. it hasn't been easy. it takes constant diplomatic effort to coordinate and keep the momentum in each of these areas, but the solution you would want in somalia is a solution that contributes to countries. the region addressing its own problems. of course the bigger challenge there also is that these are governments that are also generally speaking weak and poor

and lack in capacity and a sustained clusolution over time that will require improved governance. it's a long term effort, but the commitment of the countries themselves to solving the problem is a virtue. >> i think the fight against terrorism across africa is every bit as urgent as it is in the middle east. we have allies that are putting themselves in the fight. african soldiers are dying and we are providing critical support, training, funding and resources, but unlike other places in the world we have significant numbers of willing allies who are sending their troops into the fight and it's made a real difference and we should be grateful for their partnership and i'm grateful for your service and for the chance to ask questions today. thank you. >> very good. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. i wouldn't to follow up on some of the questions that senator markey asked regarding the interaction of security assistance and assistance provided by the state department in 2014 it was the first time that dod funding for security assistance in africa surpassed that provided by the state department and it comes through a lot of different places, but in particular a rather opaque fund that the pentagon runs which is called building partner capacity which is about $10 billion globally is increasingly the source of dod funds to help promote military sales and standup military capacity. embassador i wanted to ask you about to what extent the state departments and the african bureau has read in to spend

building partner capacity dollars. this is $10 billion. a lot of it is spent in africa. to the extent to which you are read in and to the extent that individual embassadors have a say in how that is spent and make sure it isn't counteracting the work on the ground and your broader thoughts on this long-term transition away from the majority of money in these countries being state department money to department of defense money. >> thank you for that question. we work closely with africom on any activities that are involved in in africa. we have an annual strategy review meeting with them where our dcms from across africa and usaid and mission directors are invited to come. i'm there. my colleague from usaid is there

as well. and we look across the board as what they are plaininning to dod look at what they're planning to do in the context of our mission programs in terms of our own strategy. so we do work closely with them. our embassadors have veto power on any actions they are taking and any programs they are doing and in general if there's any disagreement we work those disagreements out between ourselves. so we're very much in synch with them. we wish we had that $10 billion to program on the continent of africa and we'd be doing some different things. they have the money so we want to help them channel that money to places where it will make a difference on the continent as we work to fight in security and terrorism together, but $10 billion would be a huge

contribution to democracy and governance. i describe my funding as scraping the jar to get just enough to do the job that we have to do. >> tell me how much do you have in democracy and govern i can'tness. >> let me get back to you with that figure. >> i would submit it's well less than what the department of defense is spending in the building partner capacity account, which is not broken down on a country by country basis so as members of the foreign relations committee all we know is there's $10 billion spent. for members of the appropriations committee it's probably a topic that should get more attention. let me ask one additional -- >> can my colleague yield for one second? we'll give you some extra time. i think you're raising a

fundamental point. we have a couple of members that have served in the armed services. it's been a growing problem and we get to the mda bill there may be efforts to expand dod's role in traditional areas. >> there's obviously been a long term shift of diplomacy away from the state department to the defense department. that's what happens when you're engaged in very dangerous places, but i guess i am not as optimistic as the witnesses as the ability to coordinate this work on a country by country basis. >> it's an effort. i have the figures here. we're looking at increasing that funding in the president's request increasing support for d&g programs in africa. the request for that sector is 20% above what we did in 2015.

in 2015 it was $286 million and our figure for our request for '16 is $311 million. so it's really a drop in the bucket when you compare that to $10 billion. >> it's another way by which we communicate our priorities to these countries. so when we are looking at $300 million on a good day in democracy assistance and then we're handing out potentially ten times that amount of money in an account that has very little oversight from the united states congress it tells these countries what we think is most important and as part of this balance it's difficult to do when the numbers are that skewed. to that end, i don't know exactly who to put this question to, in these three conflict zones that we're talking about, can you talk a little bit about

this mystery which is the attractiveness of a sunny ideology that are often dominated by muslims and the story has to be partially about schools that are on the ground funded by some of our allies in the middle east and some of it has to do with young men who go to the middle east to get taught in schools funded by our allies in the middle east. what is the level of seriousness about the countries on the ground in understanding and trying to tackle this problem of radicalization that happens in these funded schools either in theater or back in the middle east. >> i think it's a real concern on the part of many governments in the region and we hear that from those governments.

as you pointed out there are likely a variety or a number of different vehicles through which these ideas or this ideology penetrates a society. this is not something that is limited unfortunately to areas of africa. we see it in southeast asia and other places where you have to historically have this approach or an approach to religion and faith that is tolerant of other traditions and that is being kind of worn down by this ideology and that causes polarization and causes intolerance and conflict and so it's a problem globally. it also relates probably to the spread of media. people have access to media coming from different parts of the world and there have been media funded through -- coming out of certain regions that have

propgated or emphasized a view. it's a major concern in these countries. i think when we talk about what -- you have to look at the particular circumstances almost at the community and the village level sometimes or what are those influences and that's where the difficult work of counter extremie yicism will be identifying through data and understanding drivers at a local level. it's a hard issue to address amidst of what is a phenomenon of the infiltration of this religious view. >> i'll say in ending my time, we can spend money chasing these dollars around the world, but we are never going to be able to keep up. it's probably a better strategy to ask why these dollars are moving into areas like africa out of the middle east, out of the pockets of our friends, probably a better use of our time and money. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you.

i want to thank our panelists and i think you can see there's a lot of interest in what we had to talk about today. if you could, we'll have questions i know after this, if you could respond fairly quickly we'll take questions until the close of business on thursday. we thank you for your service to our country and if you could with your crew we'd like to shift out to another panel. thank you very much.

our second panel will consist of two witnesses. the first witness is mr. mardea. any corrections needed there sir? thank you. assistant administer. second witness will be mr. christopher furmunya. central director and associated directlier at the national democratic institute. we'll recognize mr. dia first with his opening comments and if you would follow. thank you both for sharing your knowledge with us today.

go ahead, sir. i'm really honored as director of the region bill of africa united nations program to be invited as a panelist. this is my brief appearance. i have submitted a longer text so i will try to limit my remarks to within five minutes. my purpose today will be two-fold. first i want to briefly update you on what we have learned about establishing africa and second i will share our view on the possible diplomatic approach to mitigate the threats to what is referred to as africa's arch of instability. let me before i start put a

sense of perspective even though we are discussing africa, the continent is doing extremely great. for the last 15 years it has grown 5% per year since 2000. violent extremism is among the risks to parts of africa. the growth has been cut from 3% to 1%. gdp contracted 1% in 2015 and countries saw a reduction of 25% of terrorism following terrorist attacks. we estimate that at least 33,000 people have died on african soil since 2011 as victims of violent extremism and 6 million are currently displaced due to radicalization. mr. chairman, over the last two years we have held a number of

consultations, conducted a series of studies and commissioned research to better understand the violent extremism in africa. these various studies and research converge in showing three major findings. one, while the drivers of radicalization are multi faceted and defy analysis, their major roots are to be found in the combination of poverty and low human development and that makes sense in economic and political exclusion and weak social contracts with high level of divisions among ethnic or religious lines. two, the most fertile grounds for radicalization are the boarder areas which are in most of the countries neglected and governed and weak governance and

low infrastructure. three, while there are a number of come moddies which drives radicalization there are important differences between countries. for example socialo economic factors. in areas where political grievances are factors in kenya. we embarked on the diplomatic approach to address the multiple drivers and enablers of radicalization. we have launched a four year initiative on preventing and responding to violent extremism in africa which focuses on supporting institutions, governments and communities and individuals to address the drivers and related factor.

ss we are working in countries supporting partners to development and implement national policies and strategies. community and faith based intervention to prevent youth radicalization and deescalate conflicts. we promote social co heesh at the community level working with local and national governments to provide basic social services to citizens. we support implementation and we work with governments. we have learned that programs combining diplomatic response offer the best approachesextrem.

for africa to meet its full potential responding to and preventing terrorism is key. this requires working together. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of the national democratic institute i appreciate the opportunity to discuss terrorism and instability and make the case for why democracy and good governance should be a central component of any counter terrorism and strategy in africa. for more than 30 years we have worked around the world to establish and strengthen political organizations and

promote citizen participation and accountability in government. the institute has constructed programs that work with 50 of africas 54 countries and have been fortunate to be part of those countries for the past two decades. terrorist activity in africa over the past decade threatens to destablize the dmoecontinent roll back some of the gains. some the third wave of democratization that began in the 1990s groups are catering to the islam grip and have caused tens of thousands of deaths and tremendous economic and social dislocations for civilian

populations. some of these extreme organizations operating in africa are eager to establish alliances with extremists in other parts of the world. notab notably al qaeda and isis. in supporting counter terrorism efforts that seek to defeat these groups militarily and must at the same time assist the affected countries to address the root causes and triggers of the rise in the extremism and violence. the motivation of today's terrorists in africa is deeply rooted in a pattern of religious believes, however it is note worthy that governance failures have impacted this phenomenon and created an enabling environment in which

extremismism tlooihrives. when a state collapses it allows for huge swaths of ungovernable spaces. all failures to provide citizens with access to meaningful life and liberty and property. the social contract between the state and the citizens is broken. discontent with governments that are viewed as il legitimate or ineffective is a fertile ground for recruitment as disaffected individuals may easily embrace extremism hoping to access a better life, political power or voice and the resurgeriance linked to this violence.

o owe pressed citizens that are denied access to opportunities are more vulnerable to extremism indoctrination by activists who in turn promise to fulfill their needs. efforts to counteract must address poor governance as a part of the overall strategy. based on institutional lessons learned through my experience and what i hear from democratic activists and leaders across the continents i would strongly offer three recommendations for your consideration. any counter terrorism strategy for africa should be grounded in the consolidation of daemocracy

and good governance such that it can be sustained. we cannot afford to defeat violent extremism now only to take up the same fight down the road. two, regimes should not get a pass from the international community solely because they are good partners in the fight against terrorism. shrinking space and overt of violation of citizens rights and freedom and the undermining of constitutional rule and meaningful elections breed discontinen discontinent that form fertile ground for violence and extremism. good partners can and should be good performers in democratic governance. these two principals are not mutually exclusive. in fact, they are mutually

reinforcing. africans of this generation are fearful of reliving the experience of the cold war era in which dictatorships survived just because some leaders were allies of the west at the time. the fight against terrorism should not become a substitute for the cold war of this century. democratic governance is critical to every counter terrorism strategy before citizen grievances are not allowed to breed extremism to deprive extremismists of grounds and sustain the peace long term.

excessive deprivation in both economic terms and access to political voice and freedoms and civil liberties make young people vulnerable to the recruitment incentives of extremist movements. let me say that dispute the enthusiasm of a few years ago and some remarkable accomplishments in the last two decades, democracy in africa is under attack. it is challenged by external threats from extremist terrorist organizations and on the other hand in some cases by internal threats by regimes that fail to deliver public services, combat corruption and protect rights and freedoms. the international community should do everything in its power to rid the continent of these threats. friends of africa must make sure that they do not willingly or

inadd verntly allow themselves to become accomplices. thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee for this committee. this is a brief summery of my statement and a longer statement will be submitted for the record. >> without objection it will be entered in the record. we thank you both for your testimony. >> i want to thank both of you for your oral presentations as well as your full statements that are being made part of our record. i've had a chance to look through it and it certainly reinforces the concerns that i've had. i want to get more gradient you lar here. although we have to deal with the immediate issues, if we don't deal with the underlying

causes it will be short-term success. we have incredible tools. undp is an incredibly important part of our international efforts to help develop the prosperity in countries that we hope would provide the long term stability necessary and they have done an incredible service in developing democratic opportunities around the globe and the united states and our development and security assistance, these are tools that can provide incredible opportunities for stability globally and yet we point out that in africa we have not been as successful as we need to be so therefore my question to both of you what has worked that we should build on? i see your specific recommendations. i understand. incorporate good governance and deal with education and the underlying economic issues, but how do you take the current

programs that are available through private organizations or government, how do you take those programs and build on the ones that are the most relevant to the stability of africa and what programs need to be reconfigured because they're not providing the returns for the investments that are being made? can you be a little more specific here? >> thank you, senator. let me first state that when i was listening to the previous panel what you said was music to my ears. you said that it boils down to good governance. this is the fight that we're doing first in africa and it's good governance. in this country we have seen pore governance has been the major root causes of not only economic development. we have good practices. the issue that we are seeing

here is that most of these countries have very limited space and cannot deliver the good practice that we are doing. t i think the solution is not only limit ourselves to military solution, but military and human rights and then economic development, but the good practices that we having put them to scale. i think the international community has to understand the issue of terrorism is a global issue and this country cannot do it alone and in the spirit of partnership we can scale up the good practices. just coming from kenya and egypt where i saw an excellent partnership between the two countries in the region where they are doing initiatives. we haven't discussed it a lot in the first panel. at the boarder that's where we

saw problems. i think if there's good funding we can scale up those initiatives. >> senator, the national democratic institute obviously doesn't have the luxury of governmental entities such as you said or even more international organizations such as undp, but with the resources that we've always received graciously from some of the agencies we've tried to put a lot of emphasis on developing civil society because when you look at the statistics or the studies done by organizations and i reference that in my written statement, 75% of africans aspire to live in democratic society. so the demand continues to rise. unfortunately the supply is

shrinking and programs that can allow for the expansion of political space would bring most citizens into the process. it would allow the citizens to advocate for the proper management of resources that are created within these countries. so i would put a lot more emphasis on strengthening civil society and strengthening organizations because some of them are very active, including in royal areas and some of the areas that have been impacted by these grievances. i understand in nigeria there are a number of groups that are engaging with internally displaced persons, that are engaging with some of the persons dealing with trauma and organizations such as those sometimes have received support from organizations in helping

build their capacity to be effective advocates on behalf of citizens. >> i agree with both the points you made. i think boarder issues are -- it's a good point and we need to concentrate. they're more complicated because the problems can go across boarders and therefore the country -- we're not sure which host country is responsible unless you have partnership between the two countries and it makes it complicated. i think civil society is a critical factor in good governance and if you don't have a civil society it breeds problems. let me get to the third point and that is the reality or perception that you can get a free pass from the united nations or the united states if you are working with the international coalition to fight counter terrorism and that what you do internal in your country

will not really be a major importance to the international participation and support. that to me whether it's real or perceived could be a huge problem in dealing with civil society or dealing with good governance or democratic institutional development. share with me your concern as to whether the leaders of countries that are working with us have the view that the international community will give them a free pass on governance issues as long as they are part of our coalition against violent extremism. >> thank you, senator. for us human rights is the b bedrock of whatever we do and it's not negotiable. >> are you willing to pull out of a country if you can't get the cooperation that you need from the leaders? >> what we do is we support -- >> i understand, but are you willing to pull out of a country. if you said it's the bedrock, if

you have a corrupt regime and you're doing good work in that country, but part of that is going to support a corrupt regime are you prepared to pull out. >> when you pull out there's a cost to the communities served. so we make strong declaration the secretary general and the high commissioner of human rights make these strong declarations, but i think we could be better off to support capacities and support communities and help countries deal with human rights. this is a voice that we have to put strongly, but whatever we do human rights is embedded in our programs. it's a countries we have to infuse in societies and government. it takes time. it is um bedded embedded in wha >> senator, i would say the perception is real and that you hear it as you travel across the continent. even with partner organizations within civil society that when you go through the list of

countries that have become poor performers, some that were initially on a positive trajectory but have been backsliding that those countries happen to be partners in the fight against terrorism and it's a perception that then on the minds all of the declarations and all of the work that has been done to support civil society in the past. the example that you raised earlier is very clear. it's obvious they have been backsliding, but it's still viewed as a good ally and what many civic leaders then pose is the question of whether this regimes are getting a pass solely on their corporation on that front but then mutually reinforcing and you could be a good partner on the counter terrorism front and still be a good performer on the democratic

governance front. >> i agree. it's not a choice of either/or. it has to be both. there's no question. if it's otherwise you get short-term gains but long term you're not going to succeed with the type of stability that will provide not only an opportunity for its citizens, but also eliminate the gap that is used for recruitment of extremists and i'm afraid we have focussed on the counter terrorism from a military point of view with partners at times to the exclusion of dealing with the development of good governance in a country and it seems like this hearing has only put a spotlight on that so hopefully we can figure out and just in response to the u.n., you've got to be prepared to walk away if you don't have a partner that is providing a fair opportunity to the people of their country and it's sometimes difficult because you know there are needs out there that you have to deal

with, but if it's not getting through and if it's supporting corruption, then the better alternative is to look for a new opportunity rather than continuing the existing partnership. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. now what he said though is unlikely to ever occur is it not? let's be honest with each other. >> you want me to answer that? >> i think you answered with your laugh, but it's not going to occur, is it? >> there's a way of opt minimum way of doing is not to walk away from the countries but invest in the countries. building the social contract and empowering the communities for them to also fight for human rights. that's the investment i think worth doing. >> just to underscore the point, we look for a way to provide h humanitarian help and to deal with human crisis that exist, but if the host country believes

they're going to have a partner regardless of their own activities you lose the ability to change the underlining problems with that country. >> we talked, the first panel was here and we went down this same line of discussion. there's no question is there that the fact that citizens understand that we're going to hang because the terrorism issue is acute, the other issues are longer term. they know we're going to hang in there with them on the counter terrorism piece. there's no question as a malfeasance relative to governments and other issues that that creates ill will towards the united states is there? >> is that a question? >> yes. >> obviously it creates a lot of doubts in the minds of the people and we are also dealing with a segment of the population

that's going to increase. it's the young people and it's the activists and journalists and we know that africa is a young continent so the bulk of the population is this in category of people who have aspired to be governed differently and who love and respect the united states for these values and they're the ones being put in this position when government is not anti-terrorism legislation that is used to shrink political space and silence voices so we end up not creating friends with a segment of the population that is the continent of the future. >> and that spurs by the way a magnet for folks to be attracted more so to terrorism, right? so it just feeds on each other. so let's just step back. we all understand this presidential race under way and we understand those of us here understand that we spend 1% of

our u.s. budget on foreign aid, but there's no question that during the presidential race there will be discussions about foreign aide. i don't think that's -- it's possible for that not to occur so people listening to this testimony today, listening to the fact that we're on one hand dealing with corrupt leaders that are not treating their populations properly, sending them money that in many ways keeps them in power and if they partner with us on counter terrorism even more so, on the other hand we have people, we have terrorism, we have people that are being treated unfairly and we actually have one of our committee members here that constantly is focussed on this issue so just stepping back and as we debate our nation's fiscal issues and our nation's interests, which i think may be more so in this presidential year may be discussed than in times in the past, if you would,

both of you, advocate to me why you believe that our continued involvements in countries like the ones we're discussing is an important thing for the united states to be doing? >> well, chairman, simply put as i said earlier although terrorism could be generated by poor govern gaance in a countryt is a global public good or global public bad, it belongs to the international community that's why it behooves us to fight them wherever they are. i'm not saying you should give them a free pass, but you have to fight it. that's why aide is important in this fight. >> mr. chairman, i agree with

what my co-panelist just said and i would simply add in many countries american lives and american interests are also at stake. we may remember the initial bombs of the embassies that the terrorists did target american institutions, embassies and a lot of americans died in that process. so terrorist threats to americans whether they're on the homeland or trying to operate overseas their ultimate goal is probably larger targets than the villages that get destroyed in a number of african countries. so i think it's important to send forth the message that a stitch in time is worth nine and that we're all threatened by this phenomenon irrespective of where it finding itself at the present moment. >> but i think that the

challenge, you know, we -- i think some of the debate around let's go to the middle east, isis and people act as if we're going to do away with isis in the next year or two are missing the fact that they're the root causes are a long, long term, a long, long term issue. same is true in africa. the root causes there are a long term issue and i think as americans look at the resources that we have and the needs within our own country, sometimes the simple thought that we can deal with terrorism like that and maybe the lack of understanding that there are root causes within africa, within the middle east that are going to mean if this group is gone another group is going to be coming right behind it unless we're dealing with both sides of the equation. i think people in many cases miss that point because of the

dialogue that's taking place. would you all agree or disagree with that? >> absolutely, mr. chairman. it's not instant coffee dealing with this -- the root causes of terrorism. it has started years ago. it will take more years and as we say the toxic combination of poor governance, low human development and weak social contract has created this and this will take time to deal with. it's a long term investment. and again, if we combine and if we could scale into that long term investment and combine it with good security i think we will over time but it will take time. it's not a instant coffee battle in my view. >> i agree with you mr. chairman and i think that the message can

also be conveyed that first you have to stop the bleeding and then you can use democracy and good governance to build up a lot of these societies in a lot of these countries and the example that i've used in the past for example is the difference that democracy and good governance made in the situation of two countries that were both boarding countries to libya but dealt with the post libya crisis in a very different fashion. mali was being poorly governed. the government was accused of being very corrupt and maltreating minorities and cause ag lot of grievances. it wasn't able to control its boarders and there was a lot of illicit activities taking place in northern mali prior to the attacks by the terrorists that

really peaked in 2012. on the other hand the public, which is a neighboring country to mali and shares a direct boarder with libya because the government had better control of the boarders because the government was dealing with decentralization and allowing people at the grassroots level to make decisions that impact their lives directly, they were better able to deal with the aftereffect of the libyan crisis than mali and today they are not a very wealthy country, but it's s surviving in a neighborhood that is infested by terrorists on

it's norand it's to be commended by its effort. this is one example where a country that is not well endo youed is better able to manage the resources in a way that can give confidence that the people can respond to the needs. >> thank you. we're way beyond time. if i could just ask one last question. this is a little bit off topic, but we had a really sort of harrowing hearing if you will about u.n. peace keepers. and the abuses that are taking place and i'd just like to ask in closing when this is happening, what does that also do relative to populations and

their feelings about people who are working with them to keep peace, but also how does that fuel if it does how does that fuel additional attraction to terrorist groups. >> it's a horrible situation. it's not a wide scale but horrible. whenever it happens it puts a discredit on the good work that soldiers are doing in the u.n. at large and you have seen the secretary general condemning it strongly. >> he condemns it but it still happens and we see almost no action taken against it so condemning it doesn't mean anything to me. >> he has condemned it when it happened lately. he has dismissed the head of the mission. he has named the countries where the soldiers of coming. >> he's gone to jail. he's gone to jail. >> yeah.

and i think once the secretary general has named those countries whose soldiers has done it, it behooves the countries to -- >> prosecute -- >> that is like naming the terrorists as bad guys and doing nothing about it. >> the secretary general has also got a special coordinator from the u.s. to coordinate the efforts of the u.n. to address this despicable, i under, acts that shouldn't happen. >> not naming people, not naming countries. >> mr. chair, you would know that the u.n. has no space for prosecuting soldiers. it behooves those countries to do the prosecution once they are named. >> yeah. >> if i might, i'm going to join

with the chairman. ime not satisfied the united nations has done everything it needs to do. i understand you have the politics of dealing with the member states, but with the peace keepers, it was very, very late in the game and the action was not adequate and we know that secretary general is very sincere and we know that security council has taken action. but we have not seen the type of enforcement that we expect. i think the same thing is true with the various programs under the united nations. that is the development programs are critically important, but, if you are not prepared to break your partnership with a corrupt regi regime, then i think you are doing a disservice. i understand the humanitarian needs, dealing with particularly ngo types where we can do direct

humanitarian service. contracts with governments that are corrupt need to be prepared to walk away if we cannot get the type of progress. we don't expect progress overnight. if i can, one quick question to you, that is, how would you -- what would you like to see the united states do to respond to the perception we give free passes to coalition partners in regards to their human rights violations. is there something specific you would like to see us do? >> senator, i think you touched on some of the issues in the first panel. i think speaking out more publicly against the violations, but also taking actions that can assure or reassure the vast majority of africans in this country, when the united states says that democracy is one of

his core pillars of its africa policy, they mean it. there isn't a sense of leaders acting with impunity, even at the highest level. it undermines everything else. what you discuz in terms of resources, good governance programs, support programs and also a sense that these programs, to be effective, because you are talking about changing attitudes and behaviors and impacting and dealing with people who acted one way for decades and would now need to act differently. the same level of support is more likely to pay dividends than shut interventions because you need time to create relationships of trust that your technical assistants is

nonpartisan and means well in terms of raising the well being of citizens and putting in place process zs to go beyond one government or one leader. that requires time and so resources. i think that would go a long way. fortunately, for the three decades that the institute and other organizations have been doing this line of work, we established a relationship in this country that could have a huge impact if the resources were available. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you mr. d.a. i know you were speaking out regarding the u.n. it is not your area of expertise. i appreciate. i think you can understand where none of us at the panel are particularly thrilled with the way the u.n. has handled the peace keeping issues and prosecutions that take place. let me close with this. certainly this hearing has given

us a good sense of complexities that exist. we have similar complexities in the middle east, dealing with countries that, you know, leave these vacuums, discriminate against various sect that is are not of their own. so, this is a challenge we have throughout the world and we are dealing with issues like this. we thank you for your focus today on africa. as you mentioned, as you heard me mention with the last panel, there will be questions from members in whiting. we will close it as of thursday afternoon, if you could respond fairly briefly, we would appreciate it. we thank you for your expertise and knowledge. with that, the meeting with adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you.

on american history tv on c-span 3 -- >> there has never been a full public accounting of fbi influence operations. therefore, this committee has undertaken such an investigation. >> on real america, the 1975 church committee hearings, convened to investigate the intelligence activities of the cia, fbi, irs and nsa. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, the commission questions committee staffers, frederick schwartz and kurt smothers, fbi abuses and

intimidation of martin luther king jr. >> king, there is one thing left for you to do, you know what it is. you have 34 days to do it. this exact number has been selected for a specific reason. it was 34 days before the award. you are done. >> then, associate fbi director, james adams admitted to some of the accesses while defending a number of other fbi practices. then at 8:00, lectures in history -- >> the rest of us may, in a bad life, see a death or two. they see hundreds. so, they are the first to sort of see patterns or shifts in how people are going out of the world. so, they are the ones who sound the alarm. >> university of georgia professor steven barry on the role of a coroner and how they shed light on death in a society and threats to public health. sunday evening at 6:30,

secretary of state, john kerry who served in the vietnam war and became an opponent of the war spoke. >> our veterans did not receive either the welcome home nor the benefits or the treatment that they not only deserved, but needed. and the fundmental contract between soldier and government simply was not honored. >> at 8:00, on the presidency. >> one other person sitting at home watching tv, watched reagan deliver the speech. it was dwight eisenhower. he called the former attorney general and said what a fine speech ronald reagan just delivered. he then called a former assistant and said what an excellent speech. he wrote a multi-step political plan for reagan to follow.