[Senate Hearing 115-345]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-345
NOMINATION OF HON. NIMRATA ``NIKKI''
HALEY, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE U.S.
AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 18, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-612 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
TODD, YOUNG, Indiana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RAND PAUL, Kentucky CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
Todd Womack, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 1
Graham, Hon. Lindsey, U.S. Senator from South Carolina........... 1
Scott, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Carolina................ 3
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 4
Haley, Hon. Nimata ``Nikki'' Haley, of South Carolina, nominated
to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
Hon. Nikki Haley by Members of the Committee
Questions submitted by Senator Robert Menendez............... 73
Questions submitted by Senator Marco Rubio................... 91
Questions submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin............ 95
Questions submitted by Senator Todd Young.................... 110
Questions submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen................ 111
Questions submitted by Senator Johnny Isakson................ 113
Questions submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons.......... 114
Questions submitted by Senator Tom Udall..................... 115
Questions submitted by Senator Tim Kaine..................... 119
Questions submitted by Senator Edward J. Markey.............. 121
Questions submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley.................. 125
United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2334 (2016)... 129
Explanation of the U.S. vote on UNSCR 2334....................... 133
``Russia: The Threat, the International Order, and the Way
Forward,'' by Ambassador Samantha Power........................ 137
The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States... 145
(iii)
NOMINATION OF HON. NIMRATA ``NIKKI'' HALEY, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio,
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Portman, Paul,
Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey,
Merkley, and Booker.
Also Present: Senators Graham and Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee will come to
order.
We had a few conflicting things happening at 10:00 a.m. and
so we started at 10:10 a.m. to make sure our ranking member
could be with us.
We have two very distinguished guests with us today from
the State of South Carolina--Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator
Tim Scott. The way the order is going to work today, they will
be introducing our outstanding nominee. They are going to say
some brief comments. We are going to make some opening
comments.
As is the norm, I will not question at first. I will save
my time for interjections, and we will move directly to Senator
Cardin. But we welcome our nominee, we welcome our
distinguished friends, and with that, Lindsey, if you want to
lead off, we would love to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Graham. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It is a great honor to have you here in our
committee.
Senator Graham. Well, thank you. You are probably the only
one who would say that. So I am--[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. I will second it.
Senator Graham. I am having a hard enough time staying on
the committees that I am actually assigned to. So I may drop by
more often. John McCain would be real pleased to see me drop by
here more often.
You are going to hear a personal story that I think is
uniquely American. So as Nikki begins to explain who she is,
where she comes from, and how she got the job she has got, I
think you are going to be really proud of our country. And I
will not get in the way of that story other than to say it is
one of the most compelling stories in American politics, and
all of us in South Carolina are proud.
As to the U.N., I consider myself an internationalist. The
chairman has been working on trying to deal with modern
slavery. I think the U.N. is a body that can do a lot of good
but needs to be reformed. Most Americans are losing trust in
the body.
Twenty resolutions against Israel and six against the world
at large is probably a body that needs to refocus on the world
as it really is. I think Governor Haley will talk about her
desire to stand up more forcefully for Israel, and I think it
is time for America to stand up more forcefully for Israel in
the U.N.
She will talk about reform. I am the chairman of the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations with Senator
Leahy. We are in charge of the U.N.'s budget, the State
Department's budget. And let me tell you a little bit about the
body.
PEPFAR and other programs that the U.N. administers have
saved millions of lives. The new Secretary-General, I had a
long talk with him a couple of days ago, really encouraged by
his vision for the United Nations. He was in charge of refugee
programs throughout the world. So he understands the body. He
has been out in the field.
And I think Nikki Haley and the new Secretary-General will
form a partnership that will reform a body that is long
overdue, and the first thing out of the new Secretary-General's
mouth was, ``I intend to reform this body to make you more
proud of the way it functions.'' In that regard, he will have a
good partner in Governor Haley.
She has been the Governor of our State in some of the most
difficult times you could imagine--a thousand-year flood, the
massacre of nine people in a church in Charleston. She has
handled some of the most difficult experiences in modern South
Carolina with grace, poise, determination, and dignity.
Trust me, it has been a tough year or so for South
Carolina, and Governor Haley has brought us together and gotten
us to places we should have been a long time ago. I think that
skill set is exactly what the U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations needs.
You can learn the details of foreign policy, but you either
have the ability to persuade people, you have the ability to
transform organizations, or you do not. Now I have seen her
persuade people who have dug in for literally centuries about
now is the time to move the Confederate flag. I have seen her
bring international business concerns to our State by engaging
in a fashion to convince them that of all the places you could
do business in the world, South Carolina is where you need to
be.
Bottom line, America's voice in the United Nations needs to
be strong. It needs to be somebody that can bring people
together. It needs to be a voice that understands what America
is all about.
I think Nikki Haley, our Governor in South Carolina, is the
right person at the right time. She represents a combination of
intellect, determination, grace, and the understanding of
America that the world needs to hear. I know that if she is the
Ambassador for our country to the United Nations, the United
Nations will be better off, and our country will be in good
hands.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Now I will turn to Senator Scott, who in his very brief
amount of time here has brought great consciousness, I think,
to our body and clarity. We thank him for his service, his
unique perspective on so many issues that we deal with, and we
look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and
members of the committee. It certainly is a pleasure for me to
be here introducing not only my Governor, but my friend who I
have gotten to know over many years.
And her story really is the epitome of the American dream
coming to life. Her parents migrated from India to Canada and
then to rural South Carolina back in 1969. Her father,
brilliant man, college professor. Her mother, an entrepreneur,
started a clothing boutique store where Nikki figured out how
to work. Thank her mom for that today.
According to my staff, and this is perhaps the most
important part of my introduction, she attended a school in
upstate South Carolina that in 2015 was the number two football
team in the country, Cory Booker. [Laughter.]
Senator Scott. This year, they were the number one team.
They also are known as the Clemson Tigers, and her daughter is
a student at Clemson as well.
She learned how to get along with folks. She learned how to
study. She learned how to be a student of the things that
mattered in life. And over time, that transcended everything
that she did.
I met Nikki back when I started serving in the South
Carolina House of Representatives in 2009. She had already been
there. She served three terms in the South Carolina House of
Representatives. Before she was in the House, she led the local
chamber of commerce, becoming the president of the National
Association of Women Business Owners and was elected in 2004 to
the South Carolina House.
I was able to see firsthand the way she embodied the
American values in her leadership, something that we all have
grown to love and appreciate about her. In 2010, she became the
first female Governor of South Carolina and only the second,
second in the Nation Indian-American Governor in our Nation.
Under Governor Haley's leadership, South Carolina's
unemployment rate hit a 15-year record low. New jobs in every
single county in South Carolina, representing the greatest
names in industry. From the Boeings of the world to the
expansions of the BMWs, to the attraction of more investment
from Michelin, to Bridgestone, Nikki Haley during her term
created over 82,000 jobs in South Carolina.
Nikki is also a champion of transparency and accountability
in government, two things that I and many of us hope to see
more of at the United Nations. In 2015, as Lindsey has already
mentioned, during some of the darkest hours our State has ever
known, the Mother Emanuel massacre, Nikki Haley led not only as
a Governor, not only as a strong leader, but as a mother, as a
human being that was impacted by such an atrocity. She led our
State to come together.
With those types of leadership skills, bringing people
together under the worst of times, under the most difficult
conditions is something that she specializes in. The United
Nations will be better because Nikki Haley will be a part of
it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you both. I know that you have other
business, and you are welcome to go deal with that business,
but we thank you for being here.
And Governor Haley, we thank you for putting yourself
forward. We look forward to your comments in just a moment.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
The Chairman. The United Nations Security Council was
created after World War II to create stability and to maintain
security in the world, and yet as we look around the world
today, it is failing in its cause of peace and security. We can
only look to Syria, where over a half a million people have
been slaughtered, people have been tortured, chemical weapons
have been used against people, and yet the United Nations
Security Council has been unable to do anything to counter what
has happened there.
Russia has remade the map by invading Georgia in 2008,
again in Ukraine, and yet the United Nations has been unable to
deal with that issue.
China is violating all kinds of international norms in the
South China Sea, and yet the United Nations Security Council is
unable to deal with that issue. As a matter of fact, United
Nations Security Council has been unable to deal with the
issues that it has agreed upon, its own resolutions, whether it
is North Korea and the violations that are taking place and the
half-hearted efforts that have taken place by members to really
push and enforce strong sanctions.
In Iran, we have the same issue where an agreement has been
reached, and yet Iran continues to violate especially on
ballistic missiles, something that, again, the United Nations
Security Council had agreed to.
And what it has done instead is continue to pursue anti-
Semitic measures. The Permanent Five have two members that
actually are causing the world to be less safe, and that is
Russia and China.
So we have a built-in issue here, where any of those
permanent five members can veto the actions of the rest and
keep the United Nations from rightfully dealing with issues
that need to be dealt with. As a matter of fact, the gap
between what the United Nations was meant to be and what it has
become has never been wider at this moment in time.
The U.S. is the largest contributor, 22 percent of the
normal dues. We pay 29 percent of the peacekeeping dues or
participation. We also give billions of dollars to other
organizations that are affiliated. And yet we see in the
peacekeeping mission violations of sexual exploitation and
abuse and yet again, it seems, no real action.
And yet I believe the United Nations can and should play an
important role. I believe it is and can play an important role
in conflict areas in delivering humanitarian aid. But I think
we are at a pivotal point, and that is why I am excited that
our nominee is here today.
While our former Secretary-General, to me, in many cases
for me it was hard to determine if he even had a pulse when big
issues were being dealt with by the world, I will say the new
U.N. Secretary-General, Guterres, seems to me to be somebody
that really wants the United Nations to do what it was intended
to do. I had several very strong conversations with him over
the last several days as the United Nations was dealing with
some current business, and I have a feeling you are going to
have a much better partner when confirmed to this position.
I know that Governor Haley is a fierce advocate for U.S.
interests. All of us who have met with her in our offices have
seen that. I really do believe that she is a person that knows
the United Nations needs tremendous reform and change, and I
really believe that we have a right to demand that as the
largest contributor, as the greatest country on Earth. I think
that our nominee will, in fact, demand that, and I think we
will, in fact, see very positive changes when she is confirmed.
And with that, I turn it over to our distinguished ranking
member and my friend, Ben Cardin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, Chairman Corker, thank you for the
manner in which this hearing has been arranged. Thank you very
much for all the courtesies that you have shown.
Governor Haley, thank you. Thank you for being here.
Governor Haley. Oh, it is my pleasure. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. It is a very difficult time to serve in
government, and it is a very difficult time to serve at the
United Nations and serve in a critically important position for
our national security and our global affairs. So we thank you
for being willing to step forward to serve your country.
I want to thank your husband and son, who are here, because
this is going to be a family sacrifice. So you are going to
have to share your mother and your wife with our country and
with the global community, and we thank you for being willing
to do that.
Chairman Corker, you are correct. In the meeting I had with
Governor Haley, it was most impressive to see Governor Haley's
passion for U.S. values, and her statements as to how she sees
the role at the United Nations I found to be very encouraging.
So I thank you very much for that opportunity.
International institutions like the United Nations are
under tremendous stress as is the entire liberal international
order of the last seven decades. The United Nations plays a
vital role in the maintenance of the current international
order, which has served the United States well since 1945. As
Ronald Reagan said, ``We must,'' in his own words, ``determine
that the U.N. should succeed and serve the cause of peace for
humankind, for the stakes are high.'' I could not agree more
with our former President.
So we will need a strong, principled voice at the United
Nations who is committed to reforming and strengthening it. I
firmly believe in a world where America works with our allies
and partners, a world that is governed by just laws and
institutions, a world where we champion our values, both at
home and abroad. And in many ways, the United Nations is the
premier international forum to engage in such activities.
Much will be said about your experience today, and I am
concerned, I must say, about your lack of foreign policy
experience, and we will talk a little bit more about that as we
go through this hearing.
One area where I was particularly impressed with your
leadership was when you publicly called for the removal of the
Confederate flag from South Carolina's State capitol, an effort
that was ultimately successful. Your actions not only
demonstrated your willingness to address hate and bigotry, but
also your ability to build and work with coalitions, which will
be critically important if confirmed to be our United Nations
Ambassador.
It is my hope that your shrewd political sensibility,
history of coalition and consensus building, and desire to
undertake new challenges will help you in the early weeks and
months of your tenure, should you be confirmed.
If confirmed, you will lead the fight for American values
at the United Nations by standing up against violations of
international humanitarian laws, against war crimes, against
human rights violations, and against crackdowns on democracy
and freedom of speech.
You will face complex challenges like today's global
humanitarian crisis. People are fleeing their homes on a scale
not seen since World War II, all at a time when climate change,
food insecurity, and water scarcities are increasing tensions
and instability across the globe.
These are challenges that cut across borders that the
United States alone cannot meet. The United Nations is uniquely
placed to address these problems, and we must engage it
robustly to advance America's interests.
The United Nations and the global community need U.S.
leadership promoting our core values. The United Nations'
failings are well known. Less known is what it gets right--
vaccinating 40 percent of the world's children; assisting more
than 55 million refugees fleeing war, famine, and human rights
abuses; providing food to 90 million people in 80 countries and
maternal health work that has saved the lives of 30 million
women. Many of us have traveled around the world, and we have
seen the faces of people who are here today and families that
are here today that would not have been but for the work of the
United Nations.
The United Nations has also launched the Sustainable
Development Goals, which, if fully embraced, could have a
powerful impact globally on reducing human rights abuses,
poverty, and poor governance, in addition to reaching important
benchmarks in women and children's health, economic
development, and education. I was particularly proud to promote
the U.S. leadership on Goal Number 16, which is a special and
unprecedented international commitment to improving governance
and reducing corruption, which are critically important to U.S.
national security interests.
The SDGs, as they are known, are extraordinary and
ambitious goals that can be achieved in concert with American
diplomatic and development efforts. They represent among the
best of what the United Nations can do as a convening power.
Another dimension of that convening power is the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For 25 years,
the nations of the world have come together to try to tackle
the most existential threats to humanity, climate change. There
has been substantial attention paid to the Paris Accords, and
rightly so. But Governor Haley, I want to know your thoughts
about America's larger role in climate diplomacy leadership
around the world.
The United Nations can and must be more effective in
dealing with challenges affecting the world order. U.S.
leadership is essential. I do not believe we strengthen the
United Nations by enacting across-the-board funding cuts to the
United Nations, and yet I do believe we can all agree that the
United Nations must do better in many areas. For it to achieve
its full potential, it must change.
So let me share with you some areas where I hope we can
work to reform and change the way the United Nations does its
business. First, the United Nations must be fair. One of the
persistent weaknesses across the U.N. system has been its
biased and ugly approach to issues related to Israel. This must
end.
The responsibility for doing so starts with the member
states and our Ambassador, if confirmed, with your voice. The
United States must continue to use its voice and its vote to
call out and push back against resolutions and other actions
that aim to isolate Israel, our unique ally in the Middle East.
I remain deeply disappointed by the U.N. Security Council's
passage of a blatantly one-sided resolution this December, and
it is absolutely unacceptable, though telling, that the
attendees at that session applauded after Resolution 2334's
passage, underscoring the isolation and bias against Israel.
Second, Russia's cynical obstructionism in the United
Nations Security Council must be addressed. I agree completely
with Senator Corker. The war in Syria has resulted in more than
400,000 deaths and the displacement of millions. Russia has
vetoed six U.N. Security Council resolutions that could have
reduced the violence, further exposing the vulnerability of the
international system to Russia's aggression.
Atrocities committed in Syria amount to war crimes, and
those responsible must be held accountable. That is our role in
the international community to make sure that, in fact, takes
place.
Third, U.N. peacekeeping must be strengthened. United
Nations peacekeepers deploy to conflicts around the world, and
as a result, the United States does not have to do it alone.
U.N. peacekeepers help end war, protect civilian populations,
and secure territory. But troop quality and effectiveness must
be increased, and the United Nations must aggressively address
sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers. No other
issue has so profoundly eroded the trust of local populations
or the confidence of the international community.
Fourth, the United Nations must reform its internal
management through simplification, flexibility, and
decentralization. It must focus more on quality and less on
process and on people rather than bureaucracy. It must be
committed to building a culture of accountability and
protection of whistleblowers.
I am confident that the U.S. has a strong partner in reform
with the new Secretary-General. I agree again with Chairman
Corker. I think that Secretary-General Guterres represents a
strong leader who takes this position with a stronger
background than any previous Secretary-General of the United
Nations. He led the U.N. refugee agency. I urge you to work
closely with the new Secretary-General in accomplishing the
purposes that we need to accomplish.
Finally, we must shore up the U.N. humanitarian response
system, which is under extraordinary stress. Brutal conflicts
and violent extremism are devastating the lives of millions of
people, but the international assistance being provided is not
keeping up with the need and scale of the problem.
South Sudan is a tragic example of the struggles in the
U.N., and the international system which is faced with corrupt,
entrenched leaders who put their interests and lives ahead of
the people with devastating results. Tens of thousands are
dead, and millions are being displaced, and are hungry and
vulnerable.
The Security Council members must resolve to use the U.N.
as a platform and a voice to speak up for the people whose
voices often go unheard as well as those working hard on the
front lines. We must do so not merely because it is the right
thing to do--the United States has a profound moral obligation
to lead on these issues--but also because it is squarely in our
national interest to do this. The United States is better
served when we address these issues through the United Nations
than to face it alone.
For all of its shortcomings and, more importantly, for all
of the unsung good that it does, it is almost impossible to
imagine a world without the U.N. For 70 years, it is where the
world has come together to reaffirm norms and values and work
through the most pressing shared challenges facing humanity.
Our national security is strengthened when we are at the
table at the United Nations, and the United Nations is more
effective when American leadership and values are on display.
In a time when the world is in turmoil, it is in the interest
of the American people for the United States to support and
maintain cultural alliances, and institutions that create
stability--they are more important today than ever before. We
have already seen instability and unrest bring crisis to our
own doors.
In addition to the United Nations, there should be little
debate about the essential role of the Euro-Atlantic
institutions in maintaining peace and security in Europe and
elsewhere since the end of World War II. In the 20th century,
Europe has been divided by wars and rivalries. Today, Europe
faces its challenges, but the progress in creating a stable and
free Europe through such institutions as NATO, the EU, and the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has
contributed immeasurably to European peace, stability, and
prosperity and to the American strength, well-being, and
leadership in the world as well. The vitality and endurance of
these institutions serve the interests of the United States.
So let me just mention one last point. I was particularly
disturbed by President-elect Trump's comments over the weekend
about NATO as being obsolete, repeating a statement he had made
earlier. Vladimir Putin wishes it were, but it is not.
So I am anxious to hear your views, Governor Haley, on
NATO, on the importance of our alliances. We need to be
reassuring our allies, not threatening to abandon them. With a
strong and sustained U.S. leadership, the United Nations will
continue to be the indispensable force for a better world.
America's Ambassador to the U.N. is essential to that effort.
Governor Haley, I will look forward to hearing from you
today and learning more about your vision as to how the United
Nations can better serve the international community.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Cardin.
As I listened to your analysis of the United Nations, much
of which I agree to, I know that being the United Nations
Ambassador is really more about reform and causing something
that is dysfunctional to function. And in many ways, having a
Governor, a Governor with your energies could well be again a
very--a very inspired choice.
I know you have a number of family members here. I have
noticed members always treat nominees with much greater
kindness when their family members are with them. If you would
like to introduce them, you are welcome to do so.
We look forward to your opening comments and questions.
Again, thank you for being willing to serve in this capacity.
STATEMENT OF HON. NIMRATA ``NIKKI'' HALEY, OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
NOMINATED TO BE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Governor Haley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Cardin, for your comments. And I certainly look forward
to discussing all of those things with you and the rest of the
committee.
I do have my family behind me because I have never been
able to do anything without the support of my family.
And so, to my left, I have my favorite younger brother,
Gogi Randhawa, who owns his own business and is an
entrepreneur.
I have my parents, Dr. and Mrs. Randhawa, who reminded my
brothers, my sister, and me every day how blessed we were to
live in this country.
I have my amazing husband, but also the coolest first man
ever, but he is also a combat veteran. Michael is behind me.
And next to him is one of my pride and joy kids, and that is
Nalin, who is wearing a suit today, which he would prefer not
wearing, but he does have his basketball shoes on.
[Laughter.]
Governor Haley. So I pick and choose my battles as a mom.
I have my in-laws, Bill and Carole Haley, who have been an
amazing support to me and a second set of parents to us as we
have gone through struggles.
And then I have my favorite older brother, Mitti Randhawa,
who is also a combat veteran, and his wife, Sonya.
And then I have lots of friends behind them as well, and so
I told them if I started to mess up, one of them needed to act
like a protester. So we will see if that----
[Laughter.]
Governor Haley [continuing]. If that happens.
The Chairman. I think she is going to do very well at the
United Nations.
[Laughter.]
Governor Haley. So, with that, I would like to say,
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, distinguished members
of the committee, I come before you today both humbled and
honored to be considered to represent the United States of
America at the United Nations.
Just as other nominees for this position have done, I am
here to outline my vision and discuss my qualifications. My
story is an American story. I was born in Bamberg, South
Carolina, the daughter of immigrant parents from Punjab, India.
My parents had comfortable lives in India, but they chose to
give up those comforts and move to America with just $8 in
their pockets because of the freedoms and the opportunities
this country offers.
Our family's experience is unique, but it is also familiar
because it is one that has been repeated many times by many
people in American history. Growing up in a small rural
community in the South, our family was different. We were not
white enough to be white. We were not black enough to be black.
My father wore a turban. My mother wore a sari.
Our new neighbors did not quite know what to make of us. So
we did face challenges, but those challenges paled next to the
abundance of opportunities in front of us.
My dad was a professor at a small historically black
college. My mom was a social studies teacher and started a
clothing store from scratch. I started doing the books for the
family business when I was 13. It was not until I got to
college that I realized that was not normal. But it was normal
to me. In my family, we worked.
I was also privileged to take advantage of the educational
opportunities that America affords, and I am painfully aware
that the chance for 13-year-old girls to read and learn and
grow is something that does not exist in far too many places
around the world today.
I went on to serve in the South Carolina General Assembly
and to be elected and re-elected Governor of the Palmetto
State. Serving the people of South Carolina has been the
greatest honor of my life. During the 6 years of my
governorship, our State has faced many challenges. But South
Carolina today is stronger economically and more united
culturally than it has ever been before, and I could not be
more proud.
While South Carolina will always be my home, I am eager to
begin this new chapter. International diplomacy is a new area
for me. There is much I am learning about the intricacies of
the U.N. and its associated agencies. I do not claim that I
know everything or that leadership at the U.N. is the same as
leading South Carolina.
But diplomacy itself is not new to me. In fact, I would
suggest there is nothing more important to a Governor's success
than her ability to unite those with different backgrounds,
viewpoints, and objectives behind a common purpose. For 6
years, that has been my work day after day, in times of
celebration and in times of great tragedy.
I have negotiated deals with some of the largest
corporations in the world and convinced them to make South
Carolina their home. I have been the chief executive of a
government with more than 67,000 employees and an annual budget
of more than $26 billion. And we have achieved real results.
South Carolina is a different, stronger, better place than it
was 6 years ago.
Like most government agencies, the United Nations could
benefit from a fresh set of eyes. I will take an outsider's
look at the institution. As I have in every challenge in my
life, I will come to the U.N. to work and to work smart.
I will bring a firm message to the U.N. that U.S.
leadership is essential to the world. It is essential for the
advancement of humanitarian goals and for the advancement of
America's national interests. When America fails to lead, the
world becomes a dangerous place. And when the world becomes
more dangerous, the American people become more vulnerable.
At the U.N., as elsewhere, the United States is the
indispensable voice of freedom. It is time that we once again
find that voice.
The job of U.N. Ambassador is different from being
Governor, but there is one essential element of leadership that
is the same, and that is accountability. A leader must be
accountable to the people she serves. Should you confirm me as
Ambassador, I will be accountable, first and foremost, to the
people of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, accountability means being honest with
ourselves. As I appear before you today, when we look at the
United Nations, we see a checkered history. The U.N. and its
specialized agencies have had numerous successes. Its health
and food programs have saved millions of lives. Its weapons
monitoring efforts have provided us with vital security
information. Its peacekeeping missions have at times performed
valuable services.
However, any honest assessment also finds an institution
that is often at odds with the American national interests and
American taxpayers. Nowhere has the U.N.'s failure been more
consistent and more outrageous than it is--than its bias
against our close ally, Israel.
In the General Assembly session just completed, the U.N.
adopted 20 resolutions against Israel and only 6 targeting the
rest of the world's countries combined. In the past 10 years,
the Human Rights Council has passed 62 resolutions condemning
the reasonable actions Israel takes to defend its security.
Meanwhile, the world's worst human rights abusers in Syria,
Iran, and North Korea received far fewer condemnations. This
cannot continue.
It is in this context that the events of December 23rd were
so damaging. Last month's passage of U.N. Resolution 2334 was a
terrible mistake, making a peace agreement with the Israelis
and the Palestinians even harder to achieve. The mistake was
compounded by the location in which it took place in light of
the U.N.'s long history of anti-Israel bias.
I was the first Governor in America to sign legislation
combating the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions, or
the BDS movement. I will not go to New York and abstain when
the U.N. seeks to create an international environment that
encourages boycotts of Israel.
In fact, I pledge to you this. I will never abstain when
the United Nations takes any action that comes in direct
conflict with the interests and values of the United States.
In the matter of human rights, Mr. Chairman, whether it is
the love of my family's and America's immigrant heritage or the
removal of a painful symbol of an oppressive past in South
Carolina, I have a clear understanding that it is not
acceptable to stay silent when our values are challenged. I
will be a strong voice for American principles and American
interests, even if that is not what other U.N. representatives
want to hear. The time has come for American strength once
again.
There are other elements of accountability as well. As
Governor, the South Carolina constitution required me to report
annually to the people of my State on how their security and
prosperity were being advanced by their government. In fact, I
gave that State of the State address just one week ago.
I was able to tell the citizens of South Carolina that we
now invest more dollars in public education than ever before,
that our reserves have doubled while our debt service has been
cut in half, and more South Carolinians are working today than
ever in the history of our State.
Without fundamental changes at the U.N., I cannot envision
making the same kind of report to the American people as their
Ambassador. We contribute 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget, far
more than any other country. We are a generous nation. But we
must ask ourselves what good is being accomplished by this
disproportionate contribution? Are we getting what we pay for?
To your credit, the Congress has already begun to explore
ways the United States can use its leverage to make the United
Nations a better investment for the American people. I applaud
your efforts, and I look forward to working with you to bring
seriously needed change to the U.N. If I am confirmed, I will
need you, and I hope to have your support.
In short, Mr. Chairman, my goal for the United Nations will
be to create an international body that better serves the
interests of the American people. After the passage of the
infamous U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism in 1975,
U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan came to the unsettling
realization that, as he put it, ``If there were no General
Assembly, this could never have happened.''
Today, over 40 years later, more and more Americans are
becoming convinced by actions like the passage of Resolution
2334 that the United Nations does more harm than good. The
American people see the U.N.'s mistreatment of Israel, its
failure to prevent the North Korean nuclear threat, its waste
and corruption, and they are fed up.
My job, our job is to reform the U.N. in ways that will
rebuild the confidence of the American people. We must build an
international institution that honors America's commitment to
freedom, democracy, and human rights. I hope this can be done.
I believe it is possible. And I know that if you confirm me, I
will do all I can to see that that happens.
Some say we live in cynical and distrustful times, but I
believe we all carry in our hearts a bit of idealism that
animated the creation of the United Nations. I know I do.
With your blessing, I will represent our great country in
this international forum. I will do it in ways that I hope
bring honor to our country, our values, and our national
interests.
Thank you very much for your time.
[The Governor Haley's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Governor Haley of South Carolina
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, distinguished members of
the committee, I come before you today both humbled and honored to be
considered to represent the United States of America at the United
Nations. Just as other nominees for this position have done, I am here
to outline my vision and discuss my qualifications.
My story is an American story. I was born in Bamberg, South
Carolina, the daughter of immigrants from Punjab, India. My parents had
comfortable lives in India, but they chose to give up those comforts
and move to America with just eight dollars because of the freedoms and
opportunities this country offers. Our family's experience is unique,
but it is also familiar, because it is one that has been repeated many
times, by many people, in American history.
Growing up in a small rural community in the South, our family was
different. We were not white enough to be white, not black enough to be
black. My father wore a turban, my mother a sari. Our new neighbors
didn't quite know what to make of us, and so we faced challenges. But
those challenges paled next to the abundance of opportunities in front
of us.
My Dad was a professor at a small, historically black college. My
Mom was a social studies teacher and started a clothing store from
scratch. I started doing the books for the family business when I was
thirteen. It wasn't until I got to college that I realized that wasn't
normal, but it was normal to me--in my family, we worked. I was also
privileged to take advantage of the educational opportunities America
affords. I am painfully aware that the chance for thirteen-year old
girls to read and learn and grow is something that does not exist in
far too many places around the world today.
I went on to serve in the South Carolina General Assembly and to be
elected and reelected governor of the Palmetto state. Serving the
people of South Carolina has been the greatest honor of my life. During
the six years of my governorship, our state has faced many challenges,
but South Carolina today is stronger economically and more united
culturally than it has ever been before. I couldn't be more proud.
While South Carolina will always be my home, I am eager to begin
this new chapter.
International diplomacy is a new area for me. There is much I am
learning about the intricacies of the U.N. and its associated agencies.
I don't claim that I know everything, or that leadership at the U.N. is
the same as leading South Carolina.
But diplomacy itself is not new to me. In fact, I would suggest
there is nothing more important to a governor's success than her
ability to unite those with different backgrounds, viewpoints, and
objectives behind a common purpose. For six years that has been my
work, day after day, in times of celebration and in times of great
tragedy.
I have negotiated deals with some of the largest corporations in
the world, and convinced them to make South Carolina their home. I have
been the Chief Executive of a government with more than 67,000
employees and an annual budget of more than $26 billion. And we have
achieved real results. South Carolina is a different, stronger, better
place than it was six years ago.
Like most government agencies, the United Nations could benefit
from a fresh set of eyes. I will take an outsider's look at the
institution. As I have in every challenge in my life, I will come to
the U.N. to work--and to work smart.
I will bring a firm message to the U.N. that U.S. leadership is
essential in the world. It is essential for the advancement of
humanitarian goals, and for the advancement of America's national
interests. When America fails to lead, the world becomes a more
dangerous place. And when the world becomes more dangerous, the
American people become more vulnerable. At the U.N., as elsewhere, the
United States is the indispensable voice of freedom. It is time that we
once again find that voice.
The job of U.N. Ambassador is different from being a governor, but
there is one essential element of leadership that is the same, and that
is accountability. A leader must be accountable to the people she
serves. Should you confirm me as Ambassador, I will be accountable,
first and foremost, to the people of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, accountability means being honest with ourselves. As
I appear before you today, when we look at the United Nations, we see a
checkered history.
The U.N. and its specialized agencies have had numerous successes.
Its health and food programs have saved millions of lives. Its weapons
monitoring efforts have provided us with vital security information.
Its peacekeeping missions have, at times, performed valuable services.
However, any honest assessment also finds an institution that is
often at odds with American national interests and American taxpayers.
Nowhere has the U.N.'s failure been more consistent and more
outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel. In the
General Assembly session just completed, the U.N. adopted twenty
resolutions against Israel and only six targeting the rest of the
world's countries combined. In the past ten years, the Human Rights
Council has passed 62 resolutions condemning the reasonable actions
Israel takes to defend its security. Meanwhile the world's worst human
rights abusers in Syria, Iran, and North Korea received far fewer
condemnations.
This cannot continue.
It is in this context that the events of December 23 were so
damaging. Last month's passage of U.N. Resolution 2334 was a terrible
mistake, making a peace agreement between the Israelis and the
Palestinians harder to achieve. The mistake was compounded by the
location in which it took place, in light of the U.N.'s long history of
anti-Israel bias.
I was the first governor in America to sign legislation combatting
the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest, and Sanction, or ``BDS'' movement. I
will not go to New York and abstain when the U.N. seeks to create an
international environment that encourages boycotts of Israel. In fact,
I pledge to you this: I will never abstain when the United Nations
takes any action that comes in direct conflict with the interests and
values of the United States.
In the matter of human rights, Mr. Chairman, whether it's the love
of my family's and America's immigrant heritage, or the removal of a
painful symbol of an oppressive past in South Carolina, I have a clear
understanding that it is not acceptable to stay silent when our values
are challenged. I will be a strong voice for American principles and
American interests, even if that is not what other U.N. representatives
want to hear. The time has come for American strength once again.
There are other elements of accountability as well.
As governor, the South Carolina constitution required me to report
annually to the people of my state on how their security and prosperity
were being advanced by their government. In fact, I gave that State of
the State address just one week ago. I was able to tell the citizens of
South Carolina that we now invest more dollars in public education than
ever before, that our reserves have doubled while our debt service has
been cut in half, and that more South Carolinians are working today
than at any point in our state's history.
Without fundamental changes at the U.N., I cannot envision making
the same kind of report to the American people as their Ambassador. We
contribute 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget, far more than any other
country. We are a generous nation. But we must ask ourselves what good
is being accomplished by this disproportionate contribution. Are we
getting what we pay for?
To your credit, the Congress has already begun to explore ways the
United States can use its leverage to make the United Nations a better
investment for the American people. I applaud your efforts, and I look
forward to working with you to bring seriously needed change to the
U.N. If I'm confirmed, I will need you, and I hope to have your
support.
In short, Mr. Chairman, my goal for the United Nations will be to
create an international body that better serves the interests of the
American people.
After the passage of the infamous U.N. resolution equating Zionism
with racism in 1975, U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan came to
the unsettling realization that, as he put it, ``if there were no
General Assembly, this could never have happened.'' Today, over forty
years later, more and more Americans are becoming convinced by actions
like the passage of Resolution 2334 that the United Nations does more
harm than good. The American people see the U.N.'s mistreatment of
Israel, its failure to prevent the North Korean nuclear threat, its
waste and corruption, and they are fed up.
My job--our job--is to reform the U.N. in ways that rebuild the
confidence of the American people. We must build an international
institution that honors America's commitment to freedom, democracy, and
human rights.
I hope this can be done. I believe it is possible. And I know that
if you confirm me, I will do all I can to see that it happens.
Some say we live in cynical and distrustful times. But I believe we
all carry in our hearts a bit of the idealism that animated the
creation of the United Nations. I know I do.
With your blessing, I will represent our great country in this
international forum. I will do it in ways that I hope bring honor to
our country, our values, and our national interests.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you for those comments.
We will begin a 7-minute round, including answers from the
nominee, and we will start with Senator Cardin and go to
Senator Johnson.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Haley, first of all, thank you for your
presentation. I find it very encouraging, very refreshing. You
have hit points that I strongly agree with--about not staying
silent when our values are challenged. You indicated that to me
when we were together in my office--and made your point about
America being the indispensable voice of freedom.
So I am very encouraged by your statement. So let me get
specific, if I might, and talk a little bit about Russia.
Russia certainly has not been a voice for freedom under
President Putin.
A free country has free and fair elections and does not
interfere with other countries' free and fair elections. Russia
has not only interfered with our elections, they are
interfering with other elections, including in Europe.
A country that believes in freedom allows civil societies
to function. It allows opposition a fair opportunity. Mr. Putin
imprisons his opponents and kills them, if need be.
A free country does not invade another country and take
over territory. Russia has invaded not just Ukraine but is in
Georgia and Moldova and other countries.
My first question to you, involves speaking up when you say
that you will and your statement that staying silent is not an
option, so speak to me about Mr. Putin and Russia.
Governor Haley. Well, thank you, Senator Cardin, for that
question, and I think that Russia is going to continue to be at
the forefront of a lot of issues that we have to deal with.
What I will tell you is Russia is trying to show their
muscle right now. It is what they do. And I think we always
have to be cautious. I do not think that we can trust them. I
think that we have to make sure that we try and see what we can
get from them before we give to them.
They certainly have done some terrible atrocities when you
look at things in Syria and how they are working with Iran, and
I think that we have to continue to be very strong back and
show them what this new administration is going to be. And it
is going to be an America that shows exactly where we stand,
what we are for, what we are against, and how we are going to
proceed.
And I think that we need to let them know we are not okay
with what happened in Ukraine and Crimea and what is happening
in Syria, but we are also going to tell them that we do need
their help with ISIS and with some other threats that we all
share, that we have to move forward.
Senator Cardin. Does Russia have legitimacy in Crimea?
Governor Haley. I do not think--I think what we saw with
Crimea and Ukraine is a big concern because I think it is
Russia trying to make sure that they are inserting themselves
in places that they want to continue to insert themselves. The
problem is there is no boundaries with Russia. They do not have
boundaries. They consider that whatever they want, they will.
It is the same thing with NATO. They do not want to see
NATO become stronger or more powerful.
Senator Cardin. But the EU and the United States have made
it clear they will never recognize Russia's incursion into
Crimea. Do you agree that Crimea is Ukraine? It is not Russia.
Governor Haley. I do, and I think that we have to make that
very clear to them. And I think that is what we have to show is
our disappointment in those things.
Senator Cardin. And talk to me a little bit about the
sanctions we currently have against Russia.
Governor Haley. We do.
Senator Cardin. We have been able to get Europe to go along
with those sanctions.
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Cardin. Do you agree that those sanctions should
not be at all reduced or eliminated until Russia complies with
the Minsk Agreement?
Governor Haley. I think that Russia has to have positive
actions before we lift any sanctions on Russia.
Senator Cardin. Some of us have filed legislation to
strengthen the sanction regime against Russia--getting
additional tools, additional power to impose additional
sanctions. Do you support additional sanctions if Russia does
not change its behavior?
Governor Haley. I think that what I do believe is important
is that we get together with the National Security Council and
the President-elect, and we decide a plan for Russia--what we
expect from them, what we plan on looking at as we go forward,
what violations will trigger additional sanctions. And when we
say it, we should do it and follow through with it.
Senator Cardin. The Philippines have been an ally of us for
a long time. Under their current president, they have
sanctioned extrajudicial killings. People have been killed that
have not gone through court proceedings because they are
suspected of using drugs. Do you agree that that violates basic
human rights?
Governor Haley. I am sorry. I missed the first part of that
question.
Senator Cardin. The President Duterte of Philippines----
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Cardin [continuing]. Has sanctioned extrajudicial
killings.
Governor Haley. Right.
Senator Cardin. Does that violate basic human rights?
Governor Haley. It does, yes.
Senator Cardin. And you are prepared to speak up about that
in the United Nations?
Governor Haley. Yes, I am. I am prepared to speak up on
anything that goes against American values, and the American
values is something that we should talk loudly about all the
time to all countries because I think it is the values that we
hold dear, and it is at the core of what the United States
American heart is all about. We have always been the moral
compass of the world, and we need to continue to act out and
vocalize that as we go forward.
Senator Cardin. I mentioned the Sustainable Development
Goal 16, good governance. I talked to you about expanding that
so that the United States' leadership in good governance,
fighting corruption, would use the model that we have used in
regards to fighting modern-day slavery and trafficking. Will
you work with us and in your role in the United Nations to
strengthen the U.S. role in fighting corruption globally?
Governor Haley. Absolutely. I think that is who we are as
Americans, and I think that is what we need to do to make sure
that we continue to fight corruption. Because if we fight
corruption, we will move closer to peace.
Senator Cardin. There has been some suggestion of a
national registry for subgroups of Americans. It has been
talked about in regards to Muslim Americans that perhaps there
should be a registry. Could you just tell us your view as to
whether it is acceptable to have a registry for subgroups of
Americans?
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for that
question because I think it goes to maybe some discussions that
had been had by President-elect Trump early on, and this
administration and I do not think there should be any registry
based on religion. I think what we do need to do is make sure
that we know exactly which countries are a threat, which ones
have terrorism, and those are the ones that we need to watch
and be careful and vet as we go forward in terms of who comes
into the country.
Senator Cardin. I understand vetting people who come to
America. I am talking about American citizens. Is there any
justification for any registry of subgroups of Americans?
Governor Haley. No, there is not.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Johnson.
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Haley. Good morning.
Senator Johnson. Governor Haley, welcome.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. I want to thank you for your willingness
to serve. The testimony from your State Senators and outlined
in your own testimony here, you have been a very effective
leader in South Carolina. So you are obviously going to be
leaving a State you love, a job you have performed well in,
taking on a pretty significant challenge.
It is striking, quite honestly, to listen to the chairman
lay out point by point how ineffective the U.N. has been, how
Ranking Member Cardin says that the U.N. must change. It must
be fair. People must be held accountable.
In your testimony, you point out going back 40 years, then-
Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan said if there were no
General Assembly, this could never have happened.
So you are taking on a challenge here to reform a U.N. that
has been unreformable. Do you have a game plan for doing so?
Governor Haley. It is what I have done all my life. I love
to fix things, and I see a U.N. that can absolutely be fixed.
There are reforms that need to be taken place in a lot of
different areas. There are things that the U.N. does well, and
we talked about the food and health organizations, what they
have done with the AIDS epidemic. All of those things have been
very good.
But we have to look at certain issues. If you look at we
have 16 peacekeeping operations. Some are very successful. Some
are not. And we need to go back and look at when we get into a
mission, what is the end goal? Is it happening? Do we need to
shift and do things differently, or do we need to pull out?
You look at Sierra Leone, and you see it started off rocky,
but it ended up very strong. If we look at South Sudan, it is
terrible. But you also have to look that we are not getting
cooperation from their own government, and that requires us to
go back and look at that and see what can be salvaged from
that.
So I see peacekeeping reform from the standpoint of not
just those issues, also when it comes to the whistleblower
issues. We have seen fraud. We have seen sexual exploitation.
We have seen corruption of all kinds. And the whistleblower
protections are not strong enough. People are still too afraid
to speak up.
We need to make sure that the countries that are
contributing troops hold those troops accountable when they go
and make these violations. That is not happening, and they need
to understand that if we have to pull out their country's
troops altogether, we will do that. Because many of those
countries actually make money off of the peacekeeping missions.
And so I do see lots of areas of reform that need to
happen, but that is where I thrive. That is what I look forward
to is making real change at the U.N.
Senator Johnson. So to a certain extent, what you are
describing is shining light on these situations, sexual
exploitation, highlighting that to hopefully effect change and
reform. In testimony, you also talked about leverage, and that
would be the funding that the U.S. provides.
Would you have a particular game plan in terms of how we
would use U.N.--or U.S. funding to the U.N. to gain that
leverage to actually enact some reforms that, again, that have
been pretty hard to enact over the last 40 years?
Governor Haley. Absolutely. I think that we need to go into
every part of the organizations of the U.N., but one in
particular is you can look at the Human Rights Council, and you
have to really question what is the goal of the Human Rights
Council when they allow Cuba and China to serve on those? They
basically are protecting their own interests while they are
going after other countries to make sure that they give them a
hard time.
And so do we want to be a part of that? Do we want to
leverage funding for that and say we do not want to do that? We
have done that with UNESCO before, and we have also--you know,
we have got decisions to make on those types of organizations.
And so I do think it can be leveraged, and I do think it is
something that we should be open about, and it is something I
look forward to exploring further.
Senator Johnson. So you will not shy away from threatening
and actually enacting, withholding U.S. funding to get real
reforms out of the U.N.?
Governor Haley. I will not shy away, and I need your help
to do it. Because I need to be able to say that I have Congress
backing me up, saying that if this does not change, the funding
will stop. And I think that that could be great leverage.
Senator Johnson. I agree with your assessment of the real
harm, the damage of the most recent anti-Israel resolution.
What can we do to repair the damage? Have you given that any
thought?
Governor Haley. I have given it a lot of thought, and I
think it is going to take time, and I think it is going to take
effort by more than just me.
First, we need to go and make sure that we let Israel know
that we are an ally and that we will be an ally, and it is
important because what happened with Resolution 2334, it
basically said that being an ally to the United States does not
mean anything. And if we are a strong ally, if we always stand
with them, more countries will want to be our allies, and those
that challenge us will think twice before they challenge us.
What we saw with 2334 was it not only sent a bad signal to
Israel, it told the entire world that we do not stand with
anyone. And I think that that was a terrible mistake, and we
have to come out strong. We have to be incredibly vocal. We
need to probably fight harder than we have fought before.
And it will not just be me. It needs to be from this
Congress. It needs to be from the National Security Council. It
needs to be from the President-elect, and we need to speak with
one voice.
Senator Johnson. I was in Israel the Sunday before that
resolution, and I had about an hour-long meeting with Prime
Minister Netanyahu, and we talked about that. Tried to push
back on it, but I do not think there is anything we could have
done to deter this administration from basically poking a stick
in his eye and Israel's eye.
I certainly saw the consulate there in Jerusalem. Have you
taken a position, would you support moving the embassy from Tel
Aviv into that consulate? It is really just a matter of
changing a sign.
Governor Haley. Absolutely.
Senator Johnson. Is that something you--would that be one
of the actions we can take to repair the damage of that
resolution?
Governor Haley. Absolutely. Not only is that what Israel
wants, but this Congress has also said that that is what they
support.
Senator Johnson. So we have talked about U.N. reforms. We
have talked about repairing the damage of that U.N. What other
priorities, moving into this position, would you really
concentrate on?
Governor Haley. I think the biggest part is how we
represent America going forward. We need to represent our
country from a point of strength. We need to remind the rest of
the world that we are the moral compass of the world, and we
need to express our values as we go forward.
We need to let them know that we are not one that is going
to be gray anymore. When we say something, that is where we
stand. And when we say we are going to do something, we need to
follow through and do that.
And I think that we--the strength that we show from the
beginning and the way we handle it through our actions and my
work with the Security Council and how we move forward dealing
with other countries is going to do that.
Senator Johnson. Well, again, Governor Haley, thank you for
being willing to serve. We look forward to working with you to
effect those reforms.
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And Governor Haley, congratulations on your nomination.
Governor Haley. Thank you. Good morning.
Senator Menendez. Thank you for stopping by to visit with
me. I think everybody here is impressed by your personal and
professional story, and certainly, nobody doubts your
commitment to public service.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. However, the world in which we live in is
complex, and the United Nations is an enormous organization
with a wide mandate in which we have to carefully navigate our
own interests, those of our allies, confront direct and
indirect threats, and build consensus around some of the most
confounding and complex problems.
So with that in mind, I would like to ask you a broad set
of questions. I think some of these can be yes or noes, others
may require a little bit more of an answer, and then move to
some specific areas.
Do you believe it is in the national interests and security
of the United States to continue to preserve and promote the
international rules-based order that we created after World War
II?
Governor Haley. In terms of----
Senator Menendez. Of our national interests and security,
to continue to promote and preserve the international order and
rules-based structure we created after World War II?
Governor Haley. Yes, sir. I do.
Senator Menendez. Do you believe that as part of that
rules-based structure, the inviolability of borders and
territorial sovereignty is an essential part of that?
Governor Haley. I think that--are you referencing Israel
and the Palestinian Authority, or are you----
Senator Menendez. No. I am just saying in general, as part
of the rules-based order, do we--do you believe that the
inviolability of borders of a nation and its territorial
sovereignty is an essential element of that?
Governor Haley. I do.
Senator Menendez. Okay. And do you believe that there
should be serious consequences for violation of the
international order?
Governor Haley. Again, I believe it is up to the
circumstance, but yes.
Senator Menendez. Okay. So when you say ``up to the
circumstance,'' what circumstances of violations of the
international order would you believe there are not serious
consequences for, and which ones should there be serious
consequences for?
Governor Haley. So I think with every situation, it is
important that we discuss it with the National Security
Council, with the President-elect, and we have a plan. What we
do not want is knee-jerk reactions. What we do not want is just
quick answers to things. We should have a plan on every
situation so that we know what our end goal is and what our
mission is.
Senator Menendez. I would hope that there are some things
that are so overarching that we do not have to convene the
National Security Council to say that is a violation of the
international order. For example, do you believe that Russia
violated the international order when it annexed Crimea and
invaded Ukraine?
Governor Haley. Yes, I do.
Senator Menendez. Do you believe there should be serious
consequences for such actions?
Governor Haley. I think there should be consequences that
we say, but if we are going to do that, we need to follow
through on them and make sure they happen.
Senator Menendez. I agree with you. We should always follow
through. But you do believe there should be serious
consequences for violating that.
Governor Haley. Yes. Yes.
Senator Menendez. So in that regard, we have a series of
sanctions that have been levied against Russia. Many members of
this committee and others in a bipartisan basis have been
promoting a new round of sanctions because of what they have
continued to do in that regard, what they have done in Syria,
what they have done in trying to interfere in our own domestic
elections.
And my question to you is do you believe that those
sanctions that are there should be preserved until there is a
dramatic change by Russia? Do you believe that they should be
enhanced? Knowing what we know today, forgetting about what may
happen tomorrow, what is your view on sanctions as it relates
to Russia?
Governor Haley. I certainly think they should be preserved,
and I do not think they should be lifted unless we have seen a
strong change from the Russian government.
Senator Menendez. Okay. Do you believe that Russia
committed war crimes when it ultimately indiscriminately bombed
civilians in Aleppo and hospitals in Aleppo?
Governor Haley. Yes, I do.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you this. When you sat with
the President-elect, I assume that in taking this role that has
a global magnitude to it, you had some discussions about what
the role would be like and what not. Did you discuss Russia
with him?
Governor Haley. We discussed, basically, the international
situation, and I think that the President-elect is coming in,
again, with a fresh set of eyes. He wants to look at each and
every country. He wants to look at all of the threats that face
us, and I think that he wants to work with the national
security team to come up with a plan with each and every one.
Senator Menendez. Did you specifically discuss Russia with
him, though, as part of that?
Governor Haley. Russia came up. Yes, it did. Just from the
standpoint of that we were going to have issues with Russia.
Senator Menendez. Uh-huh. There were no greater specificity
than that?
Governor Haley. No, sir. There was not.
Senator Menendez. Did you discuss China?
Governor Haley. Yes, we did.
Senator Menendez. Uh-huh. And in what context was that
discussion?
Governor Haley. The same thing. Just it was more about the
issues that we had and the countries we were going to have them
with, but it did not go into detail as to what those were going
to be.
Senator Menendez. These two countries obviously are
Security Council members----
Governor Haley. Yes, they are.
Senator Menendez [continuing]. And part of your challenge
is getting them not to be using their vetoes in ways that
actually have undermined, in my view, the international order
versus promote it. You know, I totally agree with you when in
your opening statement you said U.S. leadership is essential in
the world, essential for the advancement of humanitarian goals,
advancement of America's national interests, and when we fail
to lead, the world becomes a more dangerous place.
But I read some of the President-elect's comments that seem
nothing short of denigrating towards our international
commitments and international organizations like the U.N. I
could read a litany of tweets, but I will just choose two.
``When do you see the United Nations solving problems? They do
not. They cause problems.'' Then at the flip side of that, he
says ``China is filling the vacuum left by Obama at the U.N.''
So it is either an entity that is worthy of being used to
help promote U.S. national interests and security interests, or
it is not. And if you are worried about ``China filling the
vacuum,'' it is because there is something worthwhile to pursue
because you do not care about losing and having a vacuum filled
if the entity is of no value.
So my question is how do you reconcile those comments with
concerns that if the United States pulls back at the U.N. that
China will fill the void? Have you talked to the President-
elect about the value and the effort that you are willing to
undertake, leave your governorship and go to undertake in terms
of making the U.N. as a strong institution that will promote
our national security?
Governor Haley. I have talked to the President-elect about
that, and when this position came up, he said that he wanted me
to have a very strong voice in the U.N. And he wanted us to
have a higher profile in the U.N. and to really use it to work,
and so I do think that, obviously, you know, any comments that
the President-elect has made, those are his comments.
What I will tell you from my standpoint is I think that we
need to go back to what the U.N. was intended to be. And we
host the U.N., and that should give us great leverage in the
way that we handle that. We are going to be dealing with some
tough partners on the Security Council, you know, whether it is
China, whether it is Russia, those that do veto. But we also
have to remember, we have a veto. So we can keep bad things
from happening.
The other side of that is we still need both those
countries. We are going to need their help. We need China's
help when it comes to North Korea. We need Russia's help when
it comes to ISIS. We have got to find ways to let them know
when we disagree with them, we should not be afraid to say when
we disagree with them.
When we need to work with them, we should tell them exactly
what the end goal is and how we need to work with them. And the
way we will get those vetoes not to happen is to show how it is
in their best interests for their country to make sure they do
that.
You see China right now pulling away from North Korea a bit
because they see the missiles that are being built. They know
what is happening, and we just have to encourage them this is
not good for China. And then when you do that, that is when we
can start seeing more pressure being put on North Korea.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Governor for----
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Gardner [continuing]. Your willingness to serve.
And thank you to your family for being here today. And thank
you for your leadership during a time of shame in this country
and tragedy in South Carolina. You made America proud for your
action.
Governor Haley. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Gardner. Last week we had an opportunity to hear
from Rex Tillerson, the nominee for Secretary of State, who
talked about the importance of U.S. global leadership.
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Gardner. We had a great interaction about the need
for the U.S. to share our values around the globe because
nobody else will do it. In his testimony, he talked about
security. He talked about liberty. He talked about prosperity
and the great need to share those values because, in his words,
he said, ``We are the only country able to protect--to project
those values with authority.''
In 1950 in the observance of the fifth anniversary of the
creation of the United Nations, President Truman stated that,
``The United Nations represents the idea of a universal
morality, superior to the interest of individual nations. Its
foundation does not rest upon power or privilege. It rests upon
faith. They rest upon the faith of men and human values, upon
the belief that men in every land hold the same high ideals and
strive toward the same goals for peace and justice. This faith
is deeply held by the people of the United States of America,
and, I believe, by the peoples of all other countries.''
It seems like we have a United Nations today composed of
people that are pretty far from the idea and the vision that
President Truman outlined. It is this idea of faith of men and
human values. The faith of men and human values apparently in
Russia is illegal annexation of Crimea. Human values to North
Korea means torturing its own people, 200,000 people in
political concentration camps. Values--human values in Iran
mean the leading sponsor of terrorism around the globe.
The United Nations recently, as we have talked about here,
passage of Resolution 2334, and I encourage everybody here to
watch the video of the reaction of the Security Council after
the United States abstained from our leadership. Raucous
applause broke out in the Security Council. Contrast that with
the passage of Resolution 2270 at the Security Council, passage
of a sanction against North Korea that has hundreds of
thousands of people in political concentration camps killing
its own people, torturing its own people, starving its own
people, and there was silence. The world apparently applauds
when we attack our ally, but sits by silently when we condemn
dictators.
So, to you, Governor Haley, how does the United States
continue to project our values in the absence that we have
shown the last eight years to assure that we are going to be
indeed working with the world on those ideas that Rex Tillerson
laid out of security, prosperity, and liberty?
Governor Haley. You know, I think that so much of this goes
back to the fact that the world has seen us gray. They have not
seen a black and white of where we stand and where we do not
stand. We need to stand, and we need to stand strong. The world
wants to see a strong America. That is what they were used to.
That has faded, and it hit the ultimate low with Resolution
2334, because when it shows that we will not will not even
stand with our allies, that is a sad day in America, and it is
a sad day for us in the world.
I do think that what we will now start to do is show our
strength. We will not be afraid to stand up. When we decide to
make an action, we are going to follow through with it, and we
are going to make sure that that is known. And I do not think
we will be shy about the values of America and about what we
are trying to achieve in bringing peace to the world. And we
have to be loud and strong about that, and I intend to do that.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Governor Haley. And we have
talked about the importance of projecting that strength of
leadership.
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Gardner. And I want to talk a little bit about
alliances. Your role is particularly important to be the face
and voice of the United States and that commitment to our
allies. Organizations, alliances, such as NATO, matter, and
matters greatly. And so, is it--is it your commitment to
strengthen our global alliance, strengthen alliances like NATO
through the work that you carry out at the United Nations?
Governor Haley. Absolutely. We need as many allies and
alliances as we can possibly get. At this point, it is not a
numbers game. It is about addition because if we go and do
sanctions, sanctions just by the U.S. does not work. Sanctions
when we combine and work with alliances, that makes progress.
And so, so much of what I look forward to doing is not just
expressing the ideals of the United States and where we stand
and the agreements and disagreements that we have. It is also
building coalitions so that we look so strong, everyone wants
to be our ally.
Senator Gardner. And when it comes to calling out in public
forums at the United Nations, no matter what country they are
in, no matter where they are in the globe, when a dictator is
corrupt, when a dictator abuses human rights, we will call it
as we see it. You will not be afraid to do that. Is that
correct?
Governor Haley. You should ask the people of my General
Assembly in South Carolina. I have no problem calling people
out.
Senator Gardner. Very good. Thank you, Governor Haley. Last
Congress, Senator Menendez and I worked together on passage of
the North Korea Sanctions Policy Enhancement Act. It is the
first standalone, mandatory legislation on North Korea this
Congress signed into law. It mandated sanctions on North
Korea's ability to proliferate. It sanctions human rights
violations and abuses. Just last week additional sanctions were
levied by the administration, and it sanctioned for the first
time ever mandatory cyber sanctions, requiring them to be put
in place. In 2016, the Obama administration led and helped with
those two security resolutions through addressing North Korea.
Have we effectively enforced the North Korea Sanctions--
enforced sanctions on North Korea? We effectively made sure
that they are effective as well as United Nations sanctions,
the 2270 Resolution. Have they been effectively enforced.
Governor Haley. I do not--sanctions are only as good as if
you enforce them, and clearly there is more to do in North
Korea. And when a line is crossed, to not say anything is going
to be a problem. And so, I think North Korea is definitely one
to watch. I think we are going to have to work closely with
China to show the threat of what is happening.
And we cannot let up on North Korea. What we are seeing
right now is production of nuclear weapons, and he does not
care. He is going to continue to do it, and we have to continue
to make sure that we are making our voices loud, that we are
talking about North Korea, and that we continue to put the
pressure on China and other countries to make sure that North
Korea does start to slow down.
Senator Gardner. And what should we do with China in order
to get them more active in enforcing the sanctions against
North Korea and their ability to help de-nuclearize the North
Korean regime?
Governor Haley. I think that North Korea has started to do
that themselves because China is now nervous, and China has
already started to pull back economically. And China has the
greatest threat to North Korea, and they know that.
And so, what we have to do is let China know this affects
China. This affects their region of the world. This affects us.
Not talk about it within our--from our results and what it will
do to the United States. Talk about it in terms of China, and
really encourage them to say you are the one that can make a
difference here. And I think that we just push them in that
direction.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Absolutely. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Governor
Haley.
Governor Haley. Good morning.
Senator Shaheen. Congratulations on your nomination.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you for spending some time with me
yesterday.
Governor Haley. I enjoyed it. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Me too. And as I said to you then, I have
been impressed by your work as the governor of South Carolina.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. And I very much appreciate in your
statement your commitment to the U.S. leadership in the world,
and to your comments about--your conversation with the
President-elect about being a strong voice at the U.N. for the
United States.
But I have to say that unfortunately, as strong as I
believe our ambassador to the U.N. can be, the President's
words are often taken with much more weight. And I am disturbed
by some of the President-elect's comments that are different
than those positions you have enunciated here about the
institutions that the United States helped create after World
War II, about the U.N. He recently called it in a tweet just a
club for people to get together and talk and have a good time.
In interviews this weekend, he criticized NATO. He was
amazingly nonchalant about the future of the European Union and
the Transatlantic Alliance. And I see the potential for real
negative consequences because of that failure to recognize
those institutions that have helped promote the security of the
United States, and have helped--have helped us as we have tried
to lead in the world.
So, I appreciate that you have said that you have the ear
of the President and that you will be part of the national
security apparatus. I think that is very important. But how
will you avoid the conflict between your efforts at the U.N.
and the Security Council and the President-elect's tweets,
his--the positions that he is taking on many of the issues that
will come before the Security--the United Nations?
Governor Haley. You know, I think that what the President-
elect has put out there are his opinions as they stand now.
What I do think is going to happen is I look forward to
communicating to him how I feel, as I do--I know the rest of
the National Security Council does as well. It is important
that we have alliances. I know the President-elect realizes
that. It is important that we create coalitions, and I know
that he realizes that as well.
And so, his comments are really coming from the fact that
he does have a fresh set of eyes. He is looking at those
things. But my job is not just at the U.N. My job is to come
back to the National Security Council and let them know what I
know, which is I want to bring back faith to the U.N. I want to
show that we could be a strong voice in the U.N. I want to show
that we can make progress and have action in the U.N. That is
going to happen from my actions and from the things that I do.
And that is how I will show him that the U.N. matters.
NATO obviously has been an alliance that we value, an
alliance that we need to keep. And I think that as we continue
to talk to him about these alliances and how they can be
helpful and strategic in the way that we move forward, I do
anticipate that he will listen to all of us, and hopefully that
we can get him to see it the way we see it.
Senator Shaheen. Well, so do you agree with his suggestion
that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger, better leader than
Angela Merkel?
Governor Haley. I think that what he is looking at, just
like he is looking at associations, he is looking at
opportunities, and he is trying to find opportunities where he
can relate to different leaders and work with different
leaders. That is not a bad thing.
Senator Shaheen. It is not a very good way to relate to
Angela Merkel.
Governor Haley. No, it is not, and I agree with you on
that. But I do think that is where he is trying to go is see
what relationship he can have with a lot of different leaders.
And I think our goal is pull out the best we can in who we can
deal with without having to talk negatively about someone else.
Senator Shaheen. I was--I appreciated your comments about
disagreeing with the idea of a registry for any particular
group in the United States, for Muslims. In the past you have
criticized then candidate Trump for proposing a ban on all
Muslims traveling to the United States. Do you continue to
believe that that is unconstitutional?
Governor Haley. Yes, I do, and I made that clear during
that time just as I always speak up when I think something is
wrong. But I do want to add that the President-elect has
corrected his statement and said that he does not believe there
should be a full ban on Muslims. He does believe that we should
be conscious as we are looking at the refugee crisis and
otherwise that we do not take people from many areas of threat.
Senator Shaheen. Today about 60 percent of all maternal
deaths take place in humanitarian situations like refugee camps
or areas that have been affected by conflict, and in these
settings, women and girls are often cut off from healthcare.
You pointed out in your statement that you appreciate the
challenge that so many young women and girls face around the
world in terms of access to the advantages we have in the
United States.
Many of those lives have been saved and can be saved with
access to proper care, including prenatal care, voluntary
family planning, and skilled birth attendants. And the United
Nations Population Fund is the world's leading provider of
lifesaving care for mothers and their babies in humanitarian
settings. They with the World Food Program, with UNICEF, with
the UNHCR.
So, if confirmed, would you continue to support those
efforts by UNFPA?
Governor Haley. I will support any efforts that help
educate, help plan, help let them know what contraceptions are
in place so that we can avoid any other further action. I am
strongly pro-life, and so anything that we can do to keep from
having abortions or to keep them from not--knowing what is
available, I will absolutely support.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I very much appreciate that because
I think sometimes the idea of access to family planning
services is conflated with abortion, and it is a very different
issue.
Governor Haley. Right.
Senator Shaheen. And this is a way to avoid abortions,
unplanned pregnancies.
Governor Haley. Absolutely. You are quite right.
Senator Shaheen. So, thank you very much for that comment.
As governor of South Carolina, you took the position that
Syrian refugees were not being properly vetted, and so you
questioned whether they should be allowed to settle in South
Carolina. As ambassador to the U.N., the U.S. has had a role in
galvanizing global support for refugees. Do you see that the
position--how will you be able to resolve the position that you
have taken in South Carolina with your new role as ambassador
when it comes to refugees?
And I am out of time.
The Chairman. Very briefly.
Governor Haley. It is hard to give a brief answer to that,
but I will say that, first of all, our refugee program in this
country is one that is valued and has done a lot of good. And
when it comes to refugees, we have to remember those that we
have always tried to help, those that have been persecuted for
any reason.
I will give a personal story in that my husband when he was
deployed to Afghanistan, there were two interpreters that kept
his unit safe, and they kept them without harm. When it was
time for that unit to leave, those two interpreters staying,
they would have been killed. And so, what the refugee program
rightly does is it allowed them to go through and vet those
interpreters. Those interpreters are now in the United States.
They are now having jobs and contributing members of society.
The issue with the refugees in terms of the Syrians, as
governor of South Carolina, we always welcomed the refugee
program. It changed when it came time to the Syrian refugees,
and that was at a time where I did have a conversation with
Director Comey, and I said tell me if this is any different
than the way we have handled it before. And that is when
Director Comey said we do not have enough information to vet
these refugees. And I said, so you cannot vet them the same way
you vet others, and he said we do not have the information. And
that is when I said we cannot take refugees from Syria until I
know that I can protect the people of South Carolina.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Before moving to Senator Young, Senator Rubio
asked me a question a minute ago. I know that this has nothing
to do with today's hearing. But a lot of committees swear
nominees and witnesses in and have them stand up and do that,
and some do not. Whether they do that or not, they are bound by
exactly the same obligations to Congress in that you have to
tell the truth when you are in front of a committee. I know it
came out relative to the last hearing we had, and I just wanted
to make sure everyone understood that.
Senator Young.
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you,
Governor.
Governor Haley. Good morning.
Senator Young. Good morning, and thank you for your service
in the past and your interest in continuing to serve.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Young. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
grants to Congress the power to declare war. Going to war, of
course, is one of the most serious decisions a nation can make,
and the founders explicitly gave that authority to make the
decision to the American people through their elected
representatives. The U.S. has not declared war since World War
II, and instead have periodically relied on authorizations of
the use of military force.
Two and a half years after we started bombing ISIS in Iraq,
Congress still sits on the sidelines in terms of exercising
this most important responsibility. We are instead relying on a
2001 authorization for the use of military force. It strains
credibility at best and I think sets a dangerous precedent.
Perhaps some are concerned about going on the record in
support or in opposition to the war against ISIS. Our
warfighters and their families, like your husband, have
demonstrated incredible courage in taking the fight to
terrorists. I believe members if members of Congress show just
a fraction of their courage, we can fulfill our constitutional
duty to vote on an AUMF focused on ISIS. Friends and foes alike
should know that our Nation is all in when it comes to taking
the fight to ISIS and other groups.
So, I know Senator Kaine has been actively engaged on this
issue. Others have been involved in this fight for some time. I
understand that details and wording matter of such an
authorization or declaration as it were.
I just want to go on the record early and clearly here in
the Senate that I am in favor of Congress showing courage in
exercising its constitutional responsibility with respect to an
AUMF focused on ISIS. Do you believe, with that long lead in,
that Congress should pass an AUMF, an authorization for the use
of military force, against ISIS?
Governor Haley. Well, understand that any time--first of
all, Congress does have that authority, and that is an
authority that should be respected always. I think that when
you talk about any sort of war or any sort of military
interference, it is important to have a plan, and it is
important to have an end goal. I say that as the wife of a
military combat veteran. I say that as a sister, because
families, once they send their loved ones into harm's way, they
want to know that Congress and the President-elect has a plan.
And so, with that, ISIS is an extreme threat to America and
the rest of the world. I do think that they have to be dealt
with. I just think it needs to be done responsibly, knowing
that we have measurables on what we are looking for, where the
end goal is, and knowing exactly where the start and stop is.
Senator Young. Okay. I wanted to see how you thought
through that issue. I agree with measurables. That takes me to
another topic with the understanding that we cannot defeat or
take on the world's ills through hard power alone.
Governor Haley. Agreed.
Senator Young. It is a mix of hard and soft power in order
to counter what has been called violent extremism by the U.N.
and by the United States. We are going to have to certainly
defeat the perverse--perverted ideology of radical Islam, and
do so by engaging in and winning the war of ideas.
So, based on your preparation for this hearing, what is
your assessment of the U.S. government and the United Nations'
current performance in the war of ideas abroad against Islamic
terrorists' ideology, and what do you specifically think needs
to be improved? Back to measuring success, how do we measure
success in the war of ideas?
Governor Haley. Well, I think that, first of all, we need
to speak with one voice, and that is something that has not
happened. I think it needs to be the President-elect, I think
it needs to be the National Security Council, and I think it
needs to be Congress along with the U.N., that when we say this
is a problem, then we follow through with it, and we finish
what we start. I think that is incredibly important. And that
way when we are all speaking with one voice, the rest of the
world knows this is serious to us. We mean business, and we are
not going to stop until it is resolved.
Senator Young. How will you divine what that one voice is?
Will it be based on legislative, sort of, resolutions coming
out of Congress? Will it--and legislation signed into law by
the President, directives of the of the executive branch that
you will take with you to the United Nations? Is that how you
will determine what that----
Governor Haley. My hope is that the President----
Senator Young [continuing]. Voice is that you would echo?
Governor Haley [continuing]. My hope is that the President-
elect, the National Security Council, and Congress work
together to decide what that looks like, because I think that
is very important. If in any way any country in the world or
ISIS sees a break in any of us, that will show us weak, and I
think we need to all stand together and be very strong if we
are going to go take this on and finish it.
Senator Young. And then to measure success, how do we
measure success in the war of ideas?
Governor Haley. When they are no longer a threat and when
they are no longer causing harm to Americans.
Senator Young. Are there any incremental success measures--
public opinion polling, surveys? Those come to mind for me, but
I am sure there are probably some other sophisticated tools.
Governor Haley. It is hard to find anyone in America today
that does not understand the threat of ISIS.
Senator Young. Okay. In your prepared statement, you cite
some of the failures of the United Nations, and they are
multifaceted: mistreatment of Israel, preventing the North
Korean nuclear threat. I think the failure to act on Syria also
belongs on the long list of U.N. failures. Hundreds of
thousands of Syrians have been killed. Half the country's
population has been uprooted. Much of the infrastructure lay in
ruins. This is a genocide.
Governor Haley. Absolutely.
Senator Young. I do not think we remind the American people
and the international community frequently enough that a
genocide has occurred here. Would you agree the U.N. Security
Council has failed with respect to the Assad regime and the
catastrophe in Syria? Yes or no.
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Young. In your opinion, why did the U.N. Security
Council fail to act more forcefully with respect to the Assad
regime and the catastrophe in Syria?
Governor Haley. I look forward to getting into the U.N. and
finding out why they think hitting Israel is so much more
important than dealing with Syria.
Senator Young. Well, I think it is because Russia
consistently employed a veto. Russia vetoed at least six U.N.
Security Council resolutions focusing on the Assad regime. You
indicated Russia committed war crimes in Syria I believe in the
hearing here today. I am glad you acknowledged that. Do you
agree that both at the U.N. in New York and on the streets of
Aleppo, Moscow has acted as an active accomplice in Assad's
murder of his own people?
Governor Haley. Yes, I do.
Senator Young. All right. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. If I could, I cannot let this
pass. It would be my observation, and everybody has their own,
that the AUMF issue has nothing whatsoever to do with courage.
Nothing. That if there was an authorization for the use of
force that gave the President all means to fight ISIS and that
was it, and it was, like, 12 words, you would have, like, 11
votes. And if you add one that said he can use all means, but
you cannot do this, you cannot do this, you cannot do this, and
you can only go into X countries, it would have 10 votes.
And so, the fact is that there is a divide, and we have an
authorization that is legal, that everybody has come before our
committee has said is legal. And at a time when we did not want
to show division as it related ISIS, it just seemed it was
better, instead of getting to a hung place here, it was better
to stand behind what most people believe to be a perfectly
legal basis upon which to fight ISIS. But I am more than
willing to take it up.
There is a divide about whether the Commander-in-Chief
should have all means available to him to fight ISIS. It is a
philosophical divide. And I would just say one more time--I say
it strongly--has nothing whatsoever to do with courage.
Senator Cardin. Could I--Mr. Chairman, if I could just--I
agree with everything the chairman said there. I just want to
go on record as saying that, except for one point. And that is
there is serious concern as to whether the current
authorization used by the Obama administration and potentially
to be used by the Trump administration covers the military
actions that they have pursued. There is a serious challenge
about that.
The Chairman. Yeah, there is, and, you know, the
administration has made their point. I happen to have agreed
with that point. I do want to say that Senator Kaine and
Senator Flake have brought this issue up several times. I am
more than willing to engage in a discussion. I just think that
when you are going to authorize the President to do something,
it is best for Congress not to micromanage what is being
authorized in that regard.
There is disagreement there, and that is something that we
might flesh out. But I just want to say one more time, the
courage issue hits a nerve. Nothing whatsoever. As a matter of
fact, sometimes it takes courage to do the things that make
sure that people see our country as being unified and not
divided over something that I know we are unified on. Everybody
on this panel wants to see us defeat ISIS.
There are some issues we may want to resolve, but we are
unified in that regard. And showing division is not something
that I feel is particularly good for our country to do at this
time, but I am more than willing to debate it. You might want
to say one other thing.
Senator Young. Yes. To the extent I offended or impugned
the courage of any of my colleagues, I, of course, want to go
on record and say that was not the intent. But I do think that
we will have to lay into this issue, continue to very publicly
exchange views on it. And I do think that that requires courage
because it is an uncomfortable topic to broach.
So, thank you. With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you so much. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
Governor Haley, thank you very much for coming to my office and
sharing your views. And it is great to have you here today, and
great to have your family here. And I want to thank your
husband and your older brother for their service in the
military. You obviously have an impressive story here to tell,
and we appreciate you being here.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Udall. I am a--I am a very strong supporter of the
United Nations, and I believe that strong U.S. leadership is
needed to ensure that the United Nations remains a viable
institution in the future. I have been extremely alarmed by
some of the President-elect Trump's derisive comments about the
U.N., and I am very concerned that his statements have harmed
our efforts in that body. And it is good to see that you are
clarifying some of those.
The most discouraging is that he has insinuated or allowed
the perception that the United States will no longer take a
leadership role, and you are saying today, I think, that you
are going to assert that role. That he would have cut off
funding and would end our participation and important aspects
of the U.N.
This is not a formula for success. U.S. leadership is
paramount. If we left a political vacuum, it would likely be
filled by countries that might not necessarily share our
interests, such as Russia and try and China. I hope that I am
mistaken, and I hope you will be an advocate for U.S.
participation in the United Nations, and I believe you have
stated that here today.
It is very clear that Russia attempted to influence our
election. If you are confirmed to serve as ambassador to the
U.N., will you stand up to Vladimir Putin and against Russia's
attempt to interfere with our electoral system?
Governor Haley. We should stand up to any country that
attempts to interfere with our system.
Senator Udall. And what will your message to your Russian
counterpart on the Security Council be with regard to their
attempts to influence the U.S. elections?
Governor Haley. That we are aware that it has happened,
that we do not find it acceptable, and that we are going to
fight back every time we see something like that happening. I
do not think Russia is going to be the only one. I think we are
going to start to see this around the world with other
countries. And I think that we need to take a firm stand that
when we see that happens, we are not going to take that softly.
We are going to be very hard on that.
Senator Udall. And your--it sounds like you are going to
stand strong and tough on this.
Governor Haley. Without question.
Senator Udall. Now, last September, the world passed a
milestone in carbon emissions reaching 400 parts per million.
2016 I think was also the hottest on record in terms of our
climate. We are moving closer to more--a more unstable climate
future, a future that could threaten my home State of New
Mexico with heat waves and dangerous droughts, and your state
with increased coastal flooding and perilous storms. And that
threatens stability, I think, across the globe. And a lot of
people talk about climate refugees. We have talked about other
kinds of refugees here.
Do you agree that the United States is indispensable and
must maintain its leadership in the Paris Agreement in order to
ensure that countries abide by their climate obligations?
Governor Haley. I think that the climate change situation
should always be on the table. It should always be one of the
issues that we look at. But I do think that when we look at the
Paris Agreement, we should acknowledge what we do believe it is
right, but we do not want to do it at the peril of our
industries and our businesses along the way. As governor of
South Carolina, what you would see is we would work really hard
to recruit a company to--from another country, and then by the
time they saw the regulations and the burdens that were put
down on them, they started to pull back. We do not ever want to
interfere with our economy.
But I absolutely think that climate change should always be
on the table as one of the factors that we talk about.
Senator Udall. But you are not one to say you are going to
tear up the Paris Agreement, and the United States, which has
helped to bring all these countries together and for the first
time in a generation, we have countries together that you are
going to walk away from that.
Governor Haley. I think that we want to work on the things
that we believe work, can benefit the world and the United
States. But if we do see burdens that are costing our
businesses, then I do think that that is something that I would
not agree with.
Senator Udall. Well, are you--are you--are you committed to
stay a part of the Paris Agreement and work towards climate
change objectives and goals?
Governor Haley. Climate change will always be on the table
for me.
Senator Udall. Now, we talked earlier about U.N. Resolution
2334. This was a resolution about Israeli settlements. These
settlements have been greatly expanded in recent years. The
settlement dispute goes way, way back many, many years. In
fact, Ronald Reagan said in 1982, and this is his statement:
``The United States will not support the use of any additional
land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional
period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze
by Israel, more than any other action, could create the
confidence needed for a wider participation in these talks.''
That position on settlements has been a bipartisan policy
of the United States going back to President Johnson. Are the
settlements that break up the possibility of a future
contiguous Palestinian state harmful to achieving a two-state
solution in your opinion.
Governor Haley. I think what was very harmful to achieving
a two-state solution was Resolution 2334, because the whole
goal has been to have Israel and the Palestinian Authority at
the table talking. That should be the role of the United
Nations, and as we go forward, is to support that. When we
basically abstained from 2334, we made Israel more vulnerable.
We made America more vulnerable and that we do not stand by our
allies.
We need to let the two bodies resolve this themselves. That
is what has always taken place. And I think it is dangerous
when the U.N. starts to tell two different bodies what should
and should not happen.
Senator Udall. Well, you--all those things you said were
also in Samantha Power's statements. But are you committed on
settlements to the bipartisan policy that has stood for over 50
years in this country----
Governor Haley. I understand.
Senator Udall [continuing]. The U.N., the bipartisan policy
our country has taken on settlements?
Governor Haley. I do understand the issue on settlements. I
will continue to--I do understand how they think that could
hinder peace, but at the same time I will always stand with
Israel and make sure that they know we are an ally and the rest
of the world knows that we are an ally.
Senator Udall. But the question is, are you committed to
the bipartisan policy on settlements----
Governor Haley. Yes, I am.
Senator Udall [continuing]. And the expansion of
settlements? Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. I think, if I understand
correctly, what she is saying is she supports a two-state
solution, but understands the parties themselves have got to
resolve it. And the U.N. Security Council inserting themselves
into that process, as it has been, can be very detrimental.
Governor Haley. Yes, thank you.
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, the statement,
and I would like to put the full statement of our U.N.
ambassador, Samantha Power, in the record at this point.
[The information referred to is located in the Additional
Material Submitted for the Record section of this transcript
beginning on page 133.]
Senator Udall. She said specifically what you have said.
The United States supports this two-state solution, many of the
things that our ambassadorial designate say here. But the issue
of the resolution--the issue of the resolution was about an
expanded settlement policy. And she has committed to stand with
that bipartisan policy, which I believe you answered the
question yes when I said----
Governor Haley. Well, I----
Senator Udall [continuing]. Are you going to stand with the
bipartisan policy that has this--not only this administration,
but every administration since President Johnson has supported
on the expansion of settlements?
Governor Haley [continuing]. And I want to clarify because
I do not want there to be any gray in this. What I think
happened with 2334 was a kick in the gut to everyone. And so,
we can think what we want to think on settlements, but you have
to go back to the fact that the U.S. abstention, when that has
not happened since 2011 at all, against Israel was wrong. And I
think the fact that we have not allowed the Palestinian
Authority and Israel to resolve this themselves is wrong. And I
think for the U.N. to have inserted themselves into that, I
believe is wrong.
So, I want to make sure that I am clear on record as to
saying what I think about Resolution 2334.
The Chairman. I appreciate it. I think there may be some
factual dispute about your last statement, and I think we had
some discussion about that in committee. I just want to--I do
not want to leave that last statement hanging without a retort.
And with that, Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Haley. Good morning.
Senator Flake. Good morning. Thank you for your testimony.
Thanks for coming to my office and visits that you have made,
and appreciate also your family.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Flake. It is great to have them here, and
appreciate the sacrifices they have made in the past for your
public service and will make in the future, as well as their
military service for our country.
I have seen examples of the U.N. working well, and
obviously seen examples of dysfunction. I happened to spend a
year of my life and my family, we went to the country of
Namibia in 1989 to see U.N. Resolution--Security Council
Resolution 435 be implemented, April of 1989 to April of 1990,
and watched where the U.N. can work and work well. That was a
process by which Namibia achieved its independence from South
Africa. That resolution was passed a decade earlier, and it was
finally implemented then. And Namibia is a fine democracy
today, much owing to the United Nations and the role that the
Security Council resolution played there. And so, I have seen
it work.
But also, you mentioned in your testimony many examples of
the dysfunction, and a lot of that has to do with the General
Assembly, or UNESCO, and other organizations, but also plenty
of dysfunction with the Security Council. And the failure, as
has been mentioned, to take a position and take a stand with
regard to Syria will, I think, be judged harshly by history.
Governor Haley. That is right.
Senator Flake. But let me talk just a bit about
peacekeeping. We have seen examples where peacekeeping has
worked as well. U.N. peacekeeping forces on the Golan Heights,
for example, for years kept the peace there. A lot of
peacekeeping now is done obviously on the continent of Africa.
I have a particular interest obviously there.
The U.N.--the U.S. contributes $2.6 billion peacekeeping--
in peacekeeping activities. That is about 28 percent of the
entire U.N. budget. It is about 22. But peacekeeping, as you
know, it is a more--even more of a disproportionate number. The
next highest is China with just 10 percent.
We talked a little bit earlier on about South Sudan and the
situation there. That is an area where peacekeeping is not
working well. The focus of the mission there has been changed a
bit. We are trying to make sure that, I think, the quote is
``protection of civilians, human rights monitoring, support of
delivery of humanitarian assistance, and implementation of the
cessation of hostilities agreement.'' That is not going well.
What can we do to make the situation better there? That is
a particular focus of our peacekeeping activities.
Governor Haley. With South Sudan?
Senator Flake. Yes.
Governor Haley. You know, I think that, first of all, we
should look at all 16 of them. Secondly, I do want to point out
that we are pushing on 29 percent for the peacekeeping budget.
And according to the Helms-Biden Act, it really should be at 25
percent, and we need to be conscious of that.
First of all, I think what is very important is we have to
start encouraging other countries to have skin in the game.
They have to start being a part of the peacekeeping process,
because by doing that, they will want to see more transparency.
They will want to see more accountability in the way that
peacekeeping missions are handled.
When you look at South Sudan, I think there is something to
be said that we have to make sure that the security is already
in place when we go to do a peacekeeping mission. The
peacekeeping officials are not meant to fight. They are not
meant to get involved or take sides on anything. They are there
to keep the peace. And so, our goal should be go in, keep the
peace, get it settled, and get out.
And what we are seeing in South Sudan is the government
does not agree with the fact the peacekeepers are there. And
so, that is a problem, and we need to know that if we are doing
good, we want to stay. If we are not doing good, then we need
to get out. And I think it is extremely hard to see that the
government is against us because it is kind of going against
what we are trying to do with the peacekeeping mission to start
with.
Senator Flake. You mentioned 16 peacekeeping operations.
Nine of those are in Africa.
Governor Haley. Yes, they are.
Senator Flake. The last six that have been approved by the
Security Council are in Africa as well. And I am happy to hear
that you are going to delve in and see how we are doing with
those. What other metrics can be used--I know Senator Young
mentioned that--in terms of whether or not we are getting bang
for the buck out of our involvement?
Governor Haley. You know, it is one of those where you do
have to decide before you even take on a peacekeeping mission
if it is something that can see success, if we can get to a
resolution. And I think that part of that is making sure that
there is a secure base to start with, making sure that we are
taking care of things.
If you look at the peace missions in Africa, it has been
devastating to see this sexual exploitation, the fraud, the
abuse that is happening. And we have to acknowledge that some
countries are contributing troops because they are making money
off of that. And so, if they are not willing to make sure that
they are punishing the violators, then we need to actually pull
that country's troops out because they are harming the peace
process.
The last thing we want is for U.N. peacekeepers to go into
a country, and for people to be scared, and for people to be
vulnerable, and I think we are seeing that right now, and
mostly in Africa. And I think that is a problem because once we
have transparency of how this money is being spent, then we can
bring accountability to the actions that are being taken,
strengthen the whistleblowing process, and make sure that we
are actually doing what was intended to do.
And I think this is extremely important because when we
start to become more transparent and accountable, we will start
to see the waste of the dollars, and you will not see the U.S.
putting 29 percent in. You will see them putting in less than
25, and we will see countries starting to really have skin in
the game, which I think is hugely important if we are going to
continue peacekeeping missions.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you. I am glad to hear you
knowledge the problems that have--we have had with these
peacekeeping missions. To see the sexual abuse and whatnot
going on there is just devastating.
Governor Haley. It is.
Senator Flake. And you are right, for those countries in
which peacekeepers are there, not to have trust in the U.N.
process there is devastating. So, I hope that we are more
proactive to make sure the offending countries with troops
there are dealt with more quickly. And I appreciate the
testimony and look forward to--for the discussion.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. Without objection, I am going to
ask that we go ahead and enter into the record U.N. Security
Council Resolution 2334 so everyone can discern for themselves
what it actually said.
[The information referred to is located in the Additional
Material Submitted for the Record section of this transcript,
beginning on page 129.]
The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Governor Haley, for being willing to serve. Thank you for your
history of speaking truth to power. I enjoyed the time we spent
together discussing some of the issues you are going to face.
Appreciate you being here before the committee.
And so, I say this respectfully. I sort of feel like the
hearings we have had, this hearing and hearing on Secretary of
State nominee Tillerson, have occurred in an alternate
universe. I hear loud and clear what you are saying about
needing for the United States to be clear about where we stand
and strong in our values, and I think that Mr. Tillerson used
the same phrasing over and over again And I think we would all
agree that those should be goals of U.S. foreign policy.
But President-elect Trump has downplayed Russian attempts
to influence our election. He has suggested that NATO is
obsolete. He has openly rooted for the breakup of the European
Union. He has lavished praise on Vladimir Putin and refused to
commit to continuing sanctions. He has criticized one of our
most important allies in the world, Chancellor Merkel. He has
promised to bring back torture, and he has called for Japan and
South Korea to take a look at obtaining nuclear weapons because
they probably cannot rely on our security guarantee any longer.
And so, I hear what you are saying, but can you understand
why right now the world perceives the Trump administration's
foreign policy to be the exact opposite of ``clear about where
we stand and strong in our values?'' I hear you are saying, but
can you understand why the world perceives the foreign policy
to be the exact opposite of what you are articulating it will
be?
Governor Haley. I understand that anytime there is a new
administration, there is always nervousness, and there is
always concern. It happened with President Obama. It has
happened with presidents before that. That is something that is
just natural. It is natural to the world to all watch the
United States, because we are such a leader, to see who would
who's going to follow it.
It is also natural for a candidate or an incoming President
to look at everything and to say things. Once you govern, it
becomes very different. And I think that what we have seen is
that once the President-elect gets to hear from his national
security team, I think what he says after that will be most
important. And I think those are the focuses that we are going
to have with the National Security Council and making sure that
we educate, inform him of what we know, inform him of
strategies, and then go along with whatever decision he decides
to make.
Senator Murphy. And I heard a version of this in your
answer to Senator Shaheen. So, you believe that after two years
of suggesting radical changes regarding U.S. policy about
conveying really muddled messages about where we stand, that is
all going to change after Friday?
Governor Haley. Not all of that will change after Friday.
But what I know is I am going to control the part that I can,
and what I can control is the U.N. And so, I am going to use
the power of my voice in the U.N. to talk about America's
ideals, and our values, and our strength, and our freedoms.
I am going to talk to the President-elect about the U.N.
and the opportunities for strategy in dealing with Russia, and
China, and North Korea, and Syria as we go forward. And I think
that we are going to have a lot of opportunities to make that
better. And I do think that my counterparts as well are going
to inform the President-elect's on what they are seeing.
And so, you know, that is how an administration works. You
surround yourself with people who do not just say yes to what
you think. They actually challenge you and they tell you of
other opinions, and what I know about the President-elect is he
actually will listen.
Senator Murphy. Let me--let me ask you about the future of
the U.N. You have a lot of Democrats in South Carolina that do
not get what they want all the time from the state legislature
and from their governor. And so, would you advise Democrats in
the state legislature in South Carolina to boycott the state
legislature if they do not get what they want, or for
registered Democrats in South Carolina to stop paying their
taxes if they do not get what they want from the state
government?
Governor Haley. Well, we have laws in place so they cannot
just stop paying their taxes, or they will deal with that.
Legislators have been known to do whatever they want, and I as
governor, I have seen that happen. So, it is two totally
different things.
Senator Murphy. I guess you understand why I am making the
point. The reason that we invest in the U.N. is not because we
expect to win every fight. It is not because we expect to have
our views prevail, but because we think it is important to have
a deliberative body in which differences can be expressed out
in the open rather than always dealt with behind closed doors.
And the risk of pulling funding because the United States
does not get its way is potentially catastrophic. The U.N.
provides food for 90 million people in 80 countries around the
world. It vaccinates 40 percent of the world's children. It
assists 55 million refugees and people fleeing wars, famine, or
persecution, and it provides maternal healthcare to 30 million
vulnerable women.
And so, I guess my question is, you are suggesting that we
should pull funding from the United Nations if we do not win
votes in the General Assembly.
Governor Haley. I have never suggested that, sir, and if
that is the way you took it, then that was not what I intended
to say. I do not think we need to pull money from the U.N. We
do not believe in flash and burn. It did not--was not anything
I considered as governor. It is not something I would consider
as ambassador, or anything that I would suggest back to you for
Congress.
I think that what is important is we look at every
organization, see if it is working for us, see if it is
something we want to be a part of, and then I will report back
to you as well as to the President-elect on whether that is
something we need to be a part of. I know that he had made
comments about the U.N., but those are not my feelings, and I
do not think that is what is going to happen.
Senator Murphy. I really thank you for that answer. I think
it is a really important answer, and so I want to just maybe
ask you to make that answer a little bit clearer. So, you do
not believe that we should be threatening to pull funds based
on outcomes in the General Assembly that we do not agree with.
You would pull funds if you do not think that programs are
effective, but you would not threaten to pull funds because we
do not get the outcome that we want from the deliberative
process.
Governor Haley. Right. My job is to make sure that we work
to figure out how we get the outcomes, and to negotiate, and to
make sure that I am working with those leaders and doing that.
If, for example, we see in the Human Rights Council that Cuba
is there and China is there, and we are not seeing the human
rights move in a way that American values are supposed to, yes,
I am going to come back to you and I am going to say this is a
real problem, just does not follow our mission. I may go there
and find out that there is a way to resolve that.
And so, with those, I will come back to you. But, no, I do
not think we should have a slash and burn of the U.N.
Senator Murphy. I appreciate that. I will just note that
since rejoining the Human Rights Council--we were out of it
from 2007 to 2009--once we rejoined, special sessions on Israel
dropped by 50 percent and resolutions on Israel dropped by 30
percent. So, engagement in these forums do matter. And I really
appreciate your answer to the questions.
Governor Haley. And I look forward to looking into that.
Thank you.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Very good. Thank you. Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
you and your family.
Governor Haley. Thank you. Good morning.
Senator Portman. Your family story is the quintessential
American story.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Portman. And in my view, it is a story that the
rest the world appreciates and respects when reminded of it.
And I think your very presence at the United Nations would be a
reminder of that and what makes our country unique. And I also
think your management skills that you have shown as governor
will be effective in encouraging the U.N. to be more efficient,
which is problem in my view.
I was once a member of the U.N. Human Rights Subcommittee
after the first Bush administration, and after I left that
administration--during that administration I served, and it was
a very interesting experience, you know. You had some
positives, which is talking about human rights. You also had
negatives, which is that human rights abusers used it for their
own political purposes.
And so, I do think, in response to your question to Senator
Murphy, that the opportunity for reform is obvious. And when
all of our taxpayers are paying roughly 22 percent of the
budget, I think they do expect to see a more efficient
organization that is more objective and more in keeping with
our values, and, again, the values that so many other countries
seek as well when they look at America's story that you will
represent.
We have talked about a lot of issues today. My view is that
we are in a more dangerous and volatile world in part because
America has not led. And if you look at what is happening on
the eastern border of Ukraine, or with Crimea, or in the South
China Sea today, or certainly what is happening in Syria, you
know, part of this is a lack of leadership. And I do think that
you also see a crumbling of the very foundation of the post-
World War II U.S.-led security umbrella that has kept the
peace.
And so, I guess my first question to you is just about
that, you know. How do you intend to support U.S. national
security interests, but also ensure that the U.N. is a more
effective body toward promoting a more peaceful and less
volatile world?
Governor Haley. Well, thank you for that question, Senator.
I think that, first of all, we need to really have a
conversation with other countries on the importance of them
having skin in the game, because when they have skin in the
game, they will care more about how those dollars are spent.
And I think that that is where we can really bring more
efficiencies to the U.N., more effectiveness to the U.N. when
we get more involved. That is something that I am going to try
and work on and see if we can get them to understand that being
present is not enough. Being invested is what is going to make
the U.N. stronger for everyone. So, that is the first thing.
I think the second thing is we have to have a very strong
voice. We have to be very strong on if there are resolutions
coming up and we are not seeing resolutions that deal with
Syria, and we are not seeing resolutions that deal with North
Korea, and we are not calling out the violators that are there,
that is up to us to bring up that conversation. It is for us to
start it.
Senator Portman. Yeah. Israel has been talked about today,
obviously a big issue at the U.N. And I would agree with what
was said today about the fact that this relationship is a
cornerstone of our strategy in the Middle East. They are our
best ally in the region. They are the one democracy in the
Middle East.
Let me focus on one specific issue, which is the boycotts,
divestments, and sanctions movement, BDS. and this is something
that I have worked on over the years actually with Ben Cardin,
the ranking member here. In fact, we have proposed a number of
legislative solutions, one of which is the law of the land now
that was passed as part of the Trade Promotion Authority bill
that requires us to look at BDS as a trade negotiating
objective in our trade agreements, which is--which is an
historic change in the way the U.S. has dealt with this.
Can you talk a little about that? What do you think should
be done with regard to countering boycott divestment and
sanction efforts against Israel, really the sense of trying to
delegitimize Israel, and a little bit about your experience in
South Carolina with regard to this issue?
Governor Haley. Well, first of all, I am very proud to say
as governor of South Carolina that we were the first state in
the country to pass an anti-BDS law in our state, and so, that
was trying to really make the point of how important we think
it is. I think as we go to the U.N., that is a point that has
to be made.
We have to look at the fact and call out the fact why is it
that the Security Council is so concerned with Israel? It is an
obsession that they have with Israel where they do not have
with North Korea, where they do not have with Syria, where they
do not have with other things that are going on. And so, it is
up to us to talk about the fact that you cannot have boycotts
against a country that is just trying to protect its people.
And I think that you are finding an authority, not a state,
that is actually leading the charge on this. And I think that
that is wrong, and I think that we are going to have to
continue to really be more aggressive, call them out, let them
know what is wrong, and then find out what their answers are,
because there is no good, fair honest answer on why they
continue to pick on Israel and why they continue to allow these
things happen.
Senator Portman. We talked briefly about this broader issue
of Russia, China, and other countries using disinformation and
propaganda. There has been a lot of discussion about the
meddling in our election here, which is a great concern of all
of us. Publicly I have heard the UK and Germany both express
concerns even recently on this topic.
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Portman. Certainly when I travel in Eastern Europe,
every country in the region is very concerned about this issue
of disinformation and, specifically, the effort to meddle in
democracies--fledgling democracies.
I wonder in your role as ambassador what you would intend
to do about that. There is this new Global Engagement Center
that has been set up at the State Department. Senator Murphy
and I worked on legislation that was passed as part of the
National Defense Authorization bill to establish this.
I think the U.S. is asleep at the switch. I think we have
not kept up with the--the counter efforts that have come our
way and to our allies, specifically with regard to technology
and being online. Can you comment on that and what you are
willing to do as ambassador to push back against this campaign
of disinformation that is being waged by some countries?
Governor Haley. Well, first of all, I applaud you for
wanting to improve our technologies and the way we handle
cybersecurity issues or other types of hackings and countries
getting involved in our business, because we are behind the
curve on that. And we very much need to get in front of it
because the rest of the countries are.
Having said that, we need to make it very clear that we do
not accept any country that tries to meddle in any of the
business of the United States, and that needs to be made loud
and clear. It needs to be made loud of any of the violators. We
need to be able to call them out by name, and we need to let
them know that this is not something that we are going to allow
going forward.
And I think this is going to be more of a conversation not
just for the United States, but for our European allies and
other allies around the world because they are feeling the same
thing. And they are concerned about the same thing, and in some
cases have witnessed the same thing.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, it is very good to see you here. And I want to
just thank you for bringing your family here. You add a proud
level of diversity to the leadership of our country, and I
think it is needed.
And I think your record is something in South Carolina that
there are many aspects of it that I celebrate, particularly
what I think you showed especially in the wake of a horrific
shooting. You showed grace and dignity in dealing with the
tragedy, and then you showed tremendous courage in removing the
Confederate flag from the Statehouse. And I have been in a
state of gratitude about that, in particular. So thank you very
much for showing a strength of leadership during very, very
difficult times.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Booker. You and I have had some time to talk in the
past, and we have known each other for some years. And you will
have to forgive me. I have three hearings going on at the same
time.
Governor Haley. So you are just here to say nice things
about me. [Laughter.]
Senator Booker. Touche, Governor.
Forgive me if some of these questions may have been covered
before.
Governor Haley. Understood.
Senator Booker. All right, so, Governor Haley, do you
support a two-state solution?
Governor Haley. I do.
Senator Booker. Governor Haley, do you believe that it
advances U.S. interests to provide food, jobs, homes, and hope
to the people of the West Bank and Gaza by decreasing the pool
of potential recruits or radicalized individuals to join
terrorist organizations like Hamas?
Governor Haley. Yes, I think that we need to do whatever we
can to protect the region, and I think that we need to make
sure that we are doing all we can to go against the threats.
Senator Booker. Yes, and I am grateful for your very
strong, steadfast statements in terms of the support of Israel
and pointing out what even a former U.N. Secretary-General has
pointed out about the biased nature of the U.N. against Israel.
But security for Israel is something that is of critical
import to me, and there are serious issues around the security.
But, again, as a security guarantor, does the aid that the U.N.
provide save the Government of Israel the expense of providing
assistance to the people of the West Bank? In other words, a
lot of the work that the U.N. is doing to provide basic
humanitarian aid, uplifting the dignity of people, access to
clean water, are these things critical as a larger part of
Israeli security and that of the beauty and the dignity of the
Palestinian people?
Governor Haley. I think it is. It is something I want to
get more information on, but I think that anytime that we can
help mankind, regardless of where they are and what country
they are in, the United States has always been there. So I do
think that anytime we can create peace, then we want to do
that. And so certainly, any services that we are giving to the
area right now, we will continue to look into and work on.
Senator Booker. And I hear, and sometimes I find it
problematic, that with the obvious realities of terrorism,
sometimes people's response to that is wanting to cut off that
vital aid that provides basic human needs. Is that something
that, those calls to cut off that kind of aid, does that
concern you?
Governor Haley. You know, I have not had anyone talk to me
about cutting off the aid, but I also think that it is like
everything else I have said. We need to look at each and every
mission, see what we are doing, and see how we can make it more
effective for the people in the area.
Senator Booker. Okay, I want to switch really quickly to
something you and I discussed together, and I think it is
important to do it on the record. We talked about the
challenges of the LGBT community even here in the United
States. We see 40 percent of all homeless youth in this country
are LGBT youth. Fifteen percent of LGBT youth miss school
because of fear of bullying.
On the international context, you see even more serious
challenges to the basic human rights and dignity of LGBT
citizens of the world.
Ambassador Power has been a champion of LGBT human rights.
She has really put it at the forefront of her work. She put the
issue at the heart even of the Security Council, which is a
pretty important and bold step.
She said in a speech that LGBT rights are human rights;
human rights are LGBT rights; and human rights must be
universal.
If confirmed, can you just say a little bit about how you
plan to continue the leadership of the United States on this
issue, given the fact of really tragic realities going on
around the globe of not just abuse, not just harassment, but
physical torture and killings, imprisonment and killings of
LGBT people? And do you pledge, can you pledge here, that you
will maintain our country's positive voting record on critical
human rights resolutions and mechanisms for all people,
obviously, but including LGBT? And finally, under your
leadership, will the United States continue to work behind the
scenes to support the principle that LGBT rights are human
rights?
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I
think it is very important that we talk about America's values.
And when it comes to America's values and opportunities, we do
not allow for discrimination of any kind to anyone.
And that is something that I will always speak loudly
about. It is something that I will always fight for. And I
think it is important that we never have to deal with
discrimination in this country, and I do not want to see any
other country have to deal with discrimination.
Senator Booker. And specifically on LGBT rights, will you
be looking to be a champion of protecting their dignity, their
security, and their safety in the global human rights context?
Governor Haley. I will make sure that there is no one that
is discriminated against for any reason whatsoever, and every
person deserves decency and respect.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
I know Senator Shaheen asked a little bit about
contraception. If I may just drill down on that a little bit
more, the United Nations announced in 2012 that access to
contraception is also a universal human right that can
dramatically affect the lives of women and children in some of
the world's poorest countries.
As you know, women who use contraception are generally
healthier; better educated; more empowered in their households
and communities; and, economically, often more productive. And
women's increased labor force participation that is a result
often of having access to contraception boosts nations'
economies. This is giving women the power of contraception. It
has a profound impact.
Can you just speak generally, in the remaining seconds I
have, on how you will work with other countries to recognize
the benefits of access to safe and effective family planning
methods and support politics and policies that are supportive
of family planning?
Governor Haley. Well, and as we discussed, I am strongly
pro-life and will always be pro-life. And so to me, education
and contraception are important to those countries, so that
they know that they do not get put into a situation where we
have to sacrifice a life in the process.
So, yes, absolutely, when it comes to the education and the
contraception, I think those are incredibly important, that we
educate and that we make sure that those are provided to other
countries.
Senator Booker. And I just want to say, in closing before
the next round that, as I said to you in private, I am very
grateful that you are--that Donald Trump is including you, the
President-elect Donald Trump is including you in his Security
Council and in a significant role. I hope that you will be one
of those independent voices, as you were during the campaign,
that will speak truth to power no matter what the consequences.
Governor Haley. Yes, I will.
Senator Booker. Thank you.
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Haley, welcome.
Governor Haley. Good morning.
Senator Rubio. Congratulations.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Rubio. I, of course, had the opportunity to get to
know you and your family quite a bit about this time last year
in another endeavor, and came away from it incredibly impressed
and excited now about this opportunity you will have to
represent our country.
I wanted to summarize some of the testimony, because it is
going to lead to the question that I have to ask.
First, in your written statement, you said that in the
matter of human rights, I have a clear understanding that it is
not acceptable to stay silent when our values are challenged.
You also said that in terms of reforming the U.N., we need to
build an international institution that honors America's
commitment to freedom, democracy, and human rights.
In your testimony, you have said that you do not believe
that sanctions should be removed from Russia without positive
actions regarding the actions that led to the sanctions in the
first place. You testified as well that you believe that war
crimes have been committed in Aleppo by the Russian military.
You testified that the Russian Government has helped Assad
murder his own people.
In the Philippines, you acknowledged that the current
President of the Philippines has conducted--involved in
extrajudicial killings, violated human rights.
And, of course, you acknowledged that the Human Rights
Council of the United Nations, you called into question their
legitimacy because of not just their membership but their
pattern of behavior over the last--forever.
And therefore, I imagine by extension you believe that we
should consider returning to the Bush policy of not being a
part of it.
From your testimony--yet, I know you also understand, as
you said in your testimony, you have to be able to work with
countries all over the world at the Security Council and the
General Assembly on critical issues.
So I take it and gather from both your testimony, from all
of the testimony, that, if confirmed as Ambassador to the
United Nations, you are going to have to deal with countries
whose behavior violates human rights and international law. And
yet you believe it is possible to speak truth to those
countries and their horrendous human rights records and yet
still negotiate with them on issues of importance at the
Security Council when necessary.
Governor Haley. Absolutely. I do not think we should ever
apologize for the American values, and I do not think we should
ever shy away from talking about them.
At the same time, I think it is very important that when
negotiating with other countries and when we are dealing with
them, they know exactly where we stand, they know where we
support and agree. They know where we disagree. And they also
know what our intended goals are in terms of working together.
And that is what I have had to do as Governor. That is what
you do when you deal with legislators and international
officials. And I think that is what we will be doing there.
But I do not think that we have to compromise one to get
the other. I think that we make sure that we always stand firm
and strong for what we believe in.
Senator Rubio. And on an unrelated topic, in March 2015,
and many times afterward, our current Secretary of State told
this Senate that the Iran nuclear deal would not be legally
binding on the United States. Yet, the outgoing administration
attempted to use the United Nations, in particular the Security
Council through Resolution 2231, to go around Congress on the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and attempt, as they
claimed, to create a binding, legal obligation under what they
claimed to be international law related to a flawed new Iran
nuclear deal.
I would first ask, what is your view of this use of the
Security Council to go around Congress, and, in particular, to
go around the Senate's constitutional role to provide advice
and consent on treaties?
Governor Haley. Well, I think I have been on record that I
think that it was a huge disappointment. I think that it
created more of a threat. And I think that we are going to have
to do a lot of things to fix what has happened.
Senator Rubio. If confirmed, would you advise the
President-elect never to use the United Nations to try to
circumvent Congress, especially the Senate, on international
agreements?
Governor Haley. Yes, I would, because I think Congress and
the Senate are extremely important that we work together with
the U.N. to make sure that anything that is proposed is always
supported by Congress, as we go forward.
Senator Rubio. And this is related to one of your answers,
but I think for a point of clarification, because I know you
were asked about the recent Security Council resolution with
regards to Israel and the Palestinian question, and I think you
recognized that, as part of that agreement, it assumed, for
example, that portions of Jerusalem are occupied territory,
that portions of Jerusalem are, therefore, by definition,
settlements.
I believe you would agree when I say that Jerusalem is not
a settlement.
Governor Haley. Right, I agree.
Senator Rubio. And so you continue to see--it is important
to understand, and I think that is what the chairman was
getting at when he talked about some dispute over the meaning
of that resolution, that it, in fact, assumed and accepted as
fact the notion that basically any Israeli presence in Judea
and Samaria constitutes a settlement.
So I think that is the key point. I also think it is not
true to say that this is the longstanding policy of the U.S.,
to somehow try to organize and utilize international
organizations to force a negotiation. What has been, in fact, a
bipartisan commitment, and I think certainly what our partners
in Israel would like to see, is a negotiation between the two
parties involved with assistance from the international
community as a forum potentially, but certainly not by pre-
imposing conditions and the like.
And I guess my question, you have already answered this.
Had you been the U.N. Ambassador and had been asked to abstain
on a vote of this kind, would you have agreed to do so?
Governor Haley. I would never have abstained. I do not like
when legislators abstain. I certainly think that it has to be a
huge exception when you do abstain. I think that that was the
moment that we should have told the world how we stand with
Israel, and it was a kick in the gut that we did not.
Senator Rubio. Well, I thank you. And I just would close by
pointing out that the United Nations actually came about as a
result of the work of someone from Tennessee, the former
Senator from Tennessee, Cordell Hull. So it is appropriate that
you are chairing this meeting here today. It all comes back to
Tennessee.
The Chairman. It always does. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. I thank you for reminding everyone who has
tuned in that that is the case. Thank you.
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
The Chairman. I would just say I know that you all have a
special relationship for lots of reasons that have not been
involved here. Senator Cardin and I were talking earlier, and
there are some things that you have very good instincts, and
you have been a Governor, and I think going into an
organization that needs reform, having been a Governor, someone
who solves problems, is something that is going to be very
useful.
I would also say that this committee at large has spent a
lot of time in places all around the world and has an
understanding of things that, coming into this, may be somewhat
new to you. And I think the committee as a whole, if you
utilize it, can be very useful to you as you undertake what you
are going to be undertaking at the United Nations. And I think
everyone here, especially as they have seen you in operation
today, would be more than glad to do so.
Governor Haley. Well, and I plan on using this committee
quite a bit, and look forward to having you, if confirmed, to
the U.N. so that you can actually speak with the Security
Council members, and they can hear from you, because I think
that is hugely important, that it is not just me speaking, that
they hear from Congress as well and know how important all
these issues are to the United States.
The Chairman. Thank you again.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thanks, Governor Haley. It was good visiting the other
day.
Governor Haley. It is always nice to talk to a fellow
Governor.
Senator Kaine. Indeed. Once a Governor, always a Governor.
Governor Haley. That is right. That is right.
Senator Kaine. Authoritarian nations around the world are
cracking down on freedom of the press, and that is a freedom
that is part of the 1947 U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. And
even nations that are allies--for example, Turkey and Egypt
where we have significant alliances--have seen real declines in
press freedom. I think recently a study came out suggesting
Turkey may be the principal violator of press freedoms now in
the world.
What can be done through the U.N. to promote a free press
around the world?
Governor Haley. Well, you know, I think the United States
has always promoted freedom of press. And while those of us
that have been in elected office may not always like it, it is
the way it is supposed to be. The press has a job to do, and we
should allow them to do it.
And so I think, again, that goes in with American values,
that we should talk about that. And that is something that I
would be happy to express.
Senator Kaine. So you agree that efforts to restrict the
press would be a clear violation of not just the U.N. charter
but American values?
Governor Haley. Absolutely.
Senator Kaine. And that would include blacklisting members
of the press corps whose coverage you do not like, ridiculing
individual journalists who are doing their job.
Governor Haley. Are you trying to imply something?
Senator Kaine. Not about you. Or imploring voters not to
trust the media. That is sort of a violation of our leadership
role in trying to promote a free press, would you not agree?
Governor Haley. We do always want to encourage free press.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
With respect to Israel and Palestine, you answered a very
direct question from Senator Murphy about whether you believe
the longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy with respect to the
goal would be a two-state solution between the Jewish state of
Israel and an Arab state of Palestine. That was the phraseology
of the original 1947 U.N. resolution.
To the best of your knowledge, is the Trump administration
committed to maintaining that 70-year bipartisan commitment?
Governor Haley. I have not heard anything different.
Senator Kaine. Okay. If as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
there are actions taken by Palestine, violence incitement,
rocket attacks from Gaza, that threaten the prospects of peace,
would you be firm in calling those out?
Governor Haley. I will be firm in calling out anyone that
is trying to disrupt peace around the world.
Senator Kaine. And so if it is Palestinian actions or
Israeli actions that you think threaten the bipartisan
commitment toward a two-state solution, you would not hesitate
to speak out?
Governor Haley. I think that we will always have those
conversations. What forum we have those conversations in may be
different, but, yes, I will always have those conversations.
Senator Kaine. Okay. This committee forwarded a resolution
to the floor last week stating that the U.S. should not allow
Security Council actions that would either dictate peace terms
or recognize unilateral Palestinian actions but would instead
encourage the parties to find the path forward. I think it was
reported out unanimously.
We have all been disappointed by the lack of progress on
this issue. How could you use your role as U.S. Ambassador to
help find--it may not seem like it is right around the corner,
but we always have to be trying--to help find a path toward
achieving the goal that we have had for so very long?
Governor Haley. You know, I think that as important as it
is for the United States to see Israel as an ally, it is just
as important for us to want peace in that area. And so I think
it is important that we support the two coming to the table,
that they continue to have those discussions, and that we
encourage other Security Council members, rather than putting
forth or allowing resolutions like that, to instead show their
support for how they want the two to come together and have
those discussions.
Senator Kaine. Senator Young asked you a question. You were
having a discussion about Syria and about why there had been
insufficient actions here. He pointed out that Russia had over
and over again vetoed Security Council resolutions about Syria,
and it was not really a surprise. It was probably understood
that they would veto them. But there is still a value in
putting a resolution on the table even if a Security Council
member is going to be veto it, just to point out sort of who
will stand up for principles and who will not.
We had all of this report about Russian effort to influence
the American election, and it is not the first time. They did
it with respect to the Brexit election. There is significant
discussion about what they may be doing with respect to the
French presidential elections, and with elections for the
German Chancellor as well.
Would you be willing to speak out for the integrity of
nations' electoral processes and work with colleagues to
present a Security Council resolution counter Russia for their
activity to try to influence the elections of other nations?
Governor Haley. Yes, Russia or any other country that tried
to commit that act.
Senator Kaine. You indicated that you were an opponent of
the Iran deal. Would you support the U.S. unilaterally backing
out of the Iran deal at this point?
Governor Haley. I think what would be more beneficial at
this point is that we look at all the details of the Iran deal.
We see if they are actually in compliance. If we find that
there are violations, then we act on those violations.
I think watching that very closely is important. What we
did is we gave the state sponsor of terrorism a pass that, even
after 10 years, they will not be held to any sort of
prohibitions on building nuclear weapons, and we gave them
billions of dollars to do it.
So I believe that if that has passed, and if that is where
it is, we need to hold them accountable and watch them as we go
forward.
Senator Kaine. I would encourage you to read the agreement,
because what you just stated about the agreement is quite
inaccurate. There are many, many restrictions in the agreement
after 10 years, specific restrictions in perpetuity. The first
paragraph of the agreement says that Iran, pursuant to the
agreement, will never seek to develop, acquire, or otherwise
construct a nuclear weapon. So the notion that there is no
restriction after 10 years, I do not know where you got that
from.
The notion that we gave them money, we did not give them
anything. There was money that was Iran's that had been frozen.
We released access so they could get money that was theirs in
exchange for their agreement to restrict their nuclear weapons
program and guarantee in perpetuity not only to not have
nuclear weapons but allow inspections by the International
Atomic Energy Agency that accurately reported to this body that
Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program, and we disbelieved
them and started a war and found out that they were right.
So I would encourage you to read the agreement because if
you think those things, I can see why you were against it, and
I can see why you might want to back out of it. But actually,
that is a completely inaccurate reflection of the agreement.
I would also encourage you to speak to intelligence and
military officials in Israel, many of whom now say that they
think the agreement is working with respect to the nuclear
aspect of Iran's activity. There is other activity that is very
troubling that we obviously need to be very aggressive in
countering.
That is all I have. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator. And I would just say
that while, yes, I will look into that, what we all need to
remember is a nuclear Iran is very dangerous for the entire
world, and it is important that we look at all the details of
the agreement, which I will do, and make sure that they are
actually following through on the promises that were made.
Senator Kaine. I appreciate that.
The Chairman. And I think your emphasis was on radically or
strongly enforcing the agreement as it sits----
Governor Haley. That is correct.
The Chairman [continuing]. And beginning in that place.
Senator Paul.
Excuse me. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Governor Haley, thank you so much for agreeing to take this
on.
My good friend Senator Kaine, I agree with sometimes, and
sometimes I do not. His description of the wonderfulness of
this Iran agreement, in my judgment, is 180 from what the facts
are in real life. One of the primary objections that a lot of
us had to the Iran agreement was something that you alluded to,
and that is the fact that although a lot of us both publicly
and privately urged the administration to take Iran by the
throat, and if you are going to make them change their
behavior, make them change their behavior.
You cannot take the bad kid in the classroom and say, look,
you have been throwing spitballs. You have to stop that. And
the kid says, well, okay, I will do it. And they say, and not
only that, you are also throwing erasers around and what have
you. And they say, well, the kid says, well, I am not going to
do that, but I will stop throwing the spitballs. You cannot do
that. These people needed to change their behavior. And they
have not changed their behavior.
And your characterization of us giving billions of dollars
to them that they are going to be able to use to go out and
finance terrorism is absolutely accurate. And my friends on the
other side had their eyes absolutely closed on that as we went
forward.
And they were financing--they were the world's largest
sponsor of terrorism when they were broke. What do you think is
going to happen after we have given them billions of dollars?
This is going to be awful.
So with all due respect to my friends on the other side,
and particularly Senator Kaine, who I admire, they are just
dead wrong on that issue.
Having said that, as far as the Iran deal is concerned, we
have sanctions in place that deal with other things than just
the nuclear agreement. And I know a lot of people are just
ignoring that, including Iran itself. It is complaining, oh,
they are not agreeing, or they are not doing what they are
supposed to do on the sanctions.
But they forget they are still sponsoring terrorism. The
fact that they launched a missile in absolute contravention of
a U.N. resolution that prohibited that within days after it was
signed shows you how they feel about all this.
So in any event, do not back down from where you are on
that. Keep their feet to the fire.
Governor Haley. I have no intention. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Glad to hear your comments about the reputation and
confidence of the U.N. in America. You know, people on the East
Coast do not have an understanding that there is that lack of
confidence. There is a lot of disagreement as far as the U.N.
is concerned.
There are places in America where units of government have
passed resolutions to declare their area a U.N.-free zone. That
is how strongly they feel about the lack of confidence in the
U.N.
I want to focus for a minute on something that I think is
incredibly important. Senator Rubio talked about it with you,
and I want to underscore that. And that is this business of
thinking that somehow the second branch of government can bind
America.
Probably the poster child for that is the Paris Agreement.
You know, my good friends on the other side and the media and
everybody keeps saying, well, it is in violation of the Paris
Agreement. There is no America--no American bound by one word
in the Paris Agreement simply because the President signed it.
And when you talk to--particularly when you talk to the
foreign media, they just, their eyes just go round and round.
They say, well, the President signed it. They do not understand
that we have three branches of government, and the head of the
second branch of government is just that. The first branch of
government has the power of the purse strings, and the job of
the second branch of government is to execute the laws that we
pass and to oversee the spending that we authorize.
To somehow think that the second branch can create law and
bind Americans to a law that has not been approved by Congress
is outrageous.
The provision in the Constitution that says that all
treaties, before they can become effective, have got to be
approved by this body is incredibly important. And I hope and I
know that you will take that with you when you go to the U.N.,
and underscore that whenever the second branch starts talking
about going off on their own. We are much stronger--we are much
stronger--if we have all of our branches of government in
support of those kinds of things.
So I cannot stress that enough. In the last administration,
we have had really nothing but disdain for this provision in
the Constitution which says that we have the power to either
ratify or not ratify an agreement with a foreign power.
Let me just close here, and I do not mean this to the sound
the way it does. You did make the statement that says, well,
sanctions by us alone do not work. I want to--our experience on
this committee and on the Intelligence Committee I sit on, I
can tell you that sanctions by us alone do work.
Now, I will agree with you, they do not work nearly as well
as when we have everybody on board, but because of our control
over the financial and banking sectors on this Earth, we can
really have some substantial effect by ourselves.
When you get right up against it, if we put sanctions on
other countries, other banking institutions are going to have
to make a choice. Are they going to deal with American
institutions, or are they going to deal with Iranian
institutions, or whatever country we are talking about? And
that always resolves in our favor. It has to resolve in our
favor.
So I just ask you to modify that and say that, indeed, they
will work better if everybody is on board.
Governor Haley. And if I can clarify?
Senator Risch. Sure.
Governor Haley. Sanctions obviously do work. I just think
they work better if we have allies with us to help do that.
Senator Risch. Absolutely no question about it.
Governor Haley. And the second thing is that sanctions have
to be enforced.
Senator Risch. Absolutely. They have to be enforced
aggressively.
That was one of our objections also to the Iran deal. They
kept talking about these snapback provisions. Well, I want to
see all these heroes try to put that genie back in the bottle
and snap back. That is just flat not going to happen. We are
going to have to rely on our own sanctions, if we get to that
point. And I, for one, am ready to do that.
Thanks for agreeing to do this. I think you are going to be
a great Ambassador to the United Nations. We really appreciate
it.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, our negotiating strength at the U.N. depends on
having our allies standing with this. This weekend, President-
elect Trump gave an interview to European journalists in which
he undermined that unity by yet again disparaging NATO as
obsolete and threatening to start a trade war with the European
Union.
Last week, General James Mattis, President-elect Trump's
nominee for Secretary of Defense, testified that President
Putin ``is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance,'' and
noted that if we did not have NATO today, we would need to
create it.
Do you agree with President-elect Trump that NATO is
obsolete? Or do you agree with General Mattis that it is vital?
Governor Haley. I think NATO is an important alliance for
us to have, and now we need more allies than ever, and we need
more alliances than we have ever had. And I think it is one
that we need to strengthen.
Senator Markey. So what would you say to our allies about
the need for us to stay together in our resistance to
especially the Russian attempts to destroy that alliance?
Governor Haley. Well, I think that is a great question,
because you will see me, if confirmed, all over the U.N.,
making sure that they understand the importance of alliances
and allies, and working together where we can for the greater
good.
Senator Markey. There are some that wish to have the United
States placating Russia, making concessions to Russia that go
right at the core of what the key alliance that NATO represents
has been providing as security for the world for generations.
And from my perspective, but I think from the United States'
perspective generally, NATO is not only not obsolete, it is
essential. It is the key to making sure that Russia understands
that there is no room on a partisan basis that exists in our
country in terms of our commitment to resisting Russian
incursion.
So from my perspective, I am glad to hear your answer, and
I thank you for it.
On the question of global health, in Haiti, I talked to you
about this in my office yesterday, the United Nations'
peacekeeping force from Nepal actually introduced cholera into
a country that had never had cholera before, in the year 2010
after the earthquake in Haiti. Eight hundred thousand people
have contracted cholera; 9,000 have died from it. It was
created by a Nepal peacekeeping U.N. mission that actually
brought that disease to the country by their introduction of it
into the water system with their own human waste.
Thus far, there has been no real U.N. financial commitment
to cleaning up the sanitation system in that country so that
they do not have to worry that every time a hurricane comes
through, like it did in October 2016, that it just once again
raises up this cholera issue.
Can you talk a little bit about what you feel the United
Nations' responsibility is to countries like Haiti where the
peacekeeping mission has, in fact, wound up creating more harm
than any that was ever reduced by the introduction of that
peacekeeping mission?
Governor Haley. Yes, sir. Senator, thank you for that
question.
I will tell you what happened in Haiti is just nothing
short of devastating, and it is the reason why I think every
peacekeeping mission needs to be looked at thoroughly to make
sure that things are moving in the right direction. But it is
also why I think it is so important that the contributing
countries take responsibility and take actions against those
violators that are doing anything to harm the people that they
are supposed to be protecting.
And so I think that that was a terrible problem, and so we
have to acknowledge the fact that there were peacekeepers
involved in that, that there were peacekeepers that contributed
to that. And it is really that action that I think we can use
to show that these contributing countries have to stand up and
take responsibility and be accountable for those causes that
they happen to do during peace missions.
Senator Markey. And you would argue for increased financial
commitment from the countries around the world so that that
funding can go into Haiti in order to help with their
sanitation system?
Governor Haley. Those violating countries need to be held
accountable.
Senator Markey. I agree.
Governor Haley. And they need to have that responsibility
of resolving that problem.
Senator Markey. The problem is that Nepal does not have the
financial capacity to remediate the problem, but they actually
created the problem in the name of all the countries in the
world that are part of the United Nations. So it would be
necessary to ensure that all the other countries that use the
Nepalese military as their agent to then be held accountable as
well financially.
Governor Haley. Right. And there are two things. I do not
know if you were in the room when I said it. I think that, one,
it is very important that we get other countries to contribute
to our peacekeeping missions because they have to have skin in
the game because when these things happen, they will help the
United States be more accountable, hold these peacekeepers more
accountable, hold these contributing countries more
accountable, and we should decide should we use their
peacekeepers again, because I think that is another
conversation that needs to be had.
We are going to have to make this right with Haiti, without
question. And the U.N. is going to have to take responsibility.
And I hope that we can have peacekeeping reform in the process
while we do that.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Eighty-five percent of the
Security Council's peacekeeping personnel actually serve in
Africa.
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Markey. And the U.N. is deeply involved in ending
conflict there. But much of the conflict is caused by poverty.
It is caused by disease.
President Bush initiated a program, PEPFAR, to deal with
the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. Mr. Tillerson testified last
week about his strong support for that program and pointed out
that it should be continued and enhanced.
Can you talk a little bit about how you view the PEPFAR
program in terms of going forward in the future and the funding
levels that would be needed to make it the success it has been
thus far?
Governor Haley. I think PEPFAR, you can look at the results
and see the success. You can look at the numbers and the lives
that have been affected by that. And I think it is one of the
successful programs that happen at the United Nations, and I
certainly would continue to support it going forward.
Senator Markey. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. Governor Haley, congratulations on your
nomination.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Paul. James Madison wrote that the executive branch
is the branch of government most prone to war. Therefore, the
Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the
legislature.
In the days of our Founding Fathers, it was very important
who had that power, you know, distributed among the U.S.
Government. I do not think they ever conceived of an
international body compelling the U.S. to go to war.
I still think it is an incredibly important debate, and we
have lost a little bit of this. We let Presidents go to war
willy-nilly without much oversight at all. We have still not
voted on the current war in the Middle East.
So my question to you is, will you vote for any U.N.
resolution that commits U.S. soldiers to war or to a war or to
a battle zone that has not been authorized by Congress?
Governor Haley. Well, and thank you, Senator, for that
question, because I think it is an important one.
First of all, I think that as we go forward with all the
threats that we have in the world, understand that you are
talking to a military wife and a military sister, where both of
them have been in combat. And I think that we have to really be
careful, if we are going to decide to go to war.
But I also think that, if we decide to go to war, it is
important that we have the President-elect, the National
Security Council, Congress, everyone moving in the same
direction in order to do that. It will show our strength in the
world when we do that. It will also give confidence to those
military families that everyone is in agreement that we are
doing the right thing.
And so I think it is in the best interests of us regardless
of partisanship or anything else to make sure that we all stand
in agreement if we decide to show military influence.
Senator Paul. You know, I agree with the sentiment. I am
not sure if we got to the specifics of would you vote for a
resolution to send our soldiers, a U.N. resolution, to a war
that had not been authorized by the U.S.?
Governor Haley. And I think that probably the best answer I
can give you is that, as a member of the National Security
Council, I would encourage them to make sure that they have had
these conversations with Congress and that they have Congress'
buy-in before we interfere.
Senator Paul. I would go one step farther in the sense that
many say, well, we should have the advice of Congress, and we
ought to occasionally go down there and pat them on the back
and talk to them. No, no. The rules are pretty specific. We do
not go to war really unless Congress votes on war.
And the reason I bring this up is, we may well be in a
situation--we are in a war right now, primarily with ISIS in
Syria and Iraq. That war has not been authorized. We have had
no vote here on whether or not we should be involved in that
war.
Some try to stretch a resolution that said we could go
after those who attacked us on 9/11. ISIS did not attack us on
9/11. They are not related in any way to anybody who attacked
us on 9/11.
Governor Haley. Right.
Senator Paul. So we have had no vote. And one generation
should not bind another generation to war, but that could well
come before you.
Right now, we are at war. You could say, well, we are
already at war. We can send people there in the U.N. banner.
Well, you should not. I mean, we should say to you, you should
not vote for that. You should come back to us and say I will
vote for it gladly after Congress does their job and
authorizes.
But no U.S. soldiers should ever fight under any
international banner without a vote here by Congress. And I
cannot state that strong enough because that is a check. That
is a check and a balance to try to prevent unnecessary war.
There is a bill floating around to try to withhold U.N.
dues until the vote on the Israeli settlements is reversed.
Without asking you specifically on that, what do you think of
the concept of withholding U.N. dues based on U.N. behavior?
Governor Haley. Senator, I do not believe in the slash-and-
burn approach. As a Governor, you could never do that. That is
not effective. I know many legislators will put bills out of
frustration, and I absolutely understand the frustration over
Resolution 2334. But I think it is important that we are
strategic in the way that we hold dues.
So, yes, I do see a place where you can hold dues. I do
think it needs to be strategic in nature. I would want to use
Congress as my heavy and leverage in terms of doing that so
that I could get members of the council to do the things that
we need it to do.
But, yes, I do think that there are times where you can
withhold dues. I do not think you should slash and cut across-
the-board, because I do not think that will accomplish the
goal.
Senator Paul. And finally, the general concept of U.S.
sovereignty is important to many of us. You have heard from
some of the other members about whether a U.N. resolution
instructs us legally. And, I would say only if approved by
Congress, that really there is no supersedence of U.N.
resolutions over U.S. law, and I think that is important
because we can go to war through the U.N.
But we can do a lot of things through the U.N. that really
need to be approved by Congress, not as a consultation, not as
a ``here is what we are doing, guys.'' No, it is coming to us
and asking permission, because we are directly responsible to
the people as well. And it is a check and balance.
And I hope, as you become the U.N. Ambassador, and I will
support you, but as you become the U.N. Ambassador, I hope you
will consider that and that some of these questions are not
simple questions, but they are incredibly profound questions.
And whether or not when we go to war and when we do not go to
war--as you know, you have family members who will fight in
these wars. You know, war is the last resort. We do not want to
make it easy. The Founding Fathers did not want to make it easy
to go to war. They wanted to make it difficult.
And then we go through consensus. But we do not go through
consensus if the U.N. takes us to war.
And I have a great deal of sympathy. There is a young man
who is currently suing the U.S. military saying it is an
unlawful order for him to take an order from the United Nations
because it is a war that has not been authorized here. And I
have some sympathy for that.
So I hope you will continue to ponder that and how
important it is that we maintain the checks and balances of how
we go to war.
Governor Haley. And I strongly believe of the importance
of, should I be confirmed, the U.N. always working with
Congress and Congress always having that sort of element to be
able to make those decisions as we go forward. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for those sentiments.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Governor, for appearing today.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. It is a pleasure to hear you talk about
these challenging issues in the world and what is ahead of us.
I wanted to start out with a topic that we conversed about
some of my office, and that is the challenge of North Korea,
its nuclear weapon development program and its missile program,
ballistic missile program.
And specifically, what do you think that we should do more
in regard to heading off the continued development of the
missiles and the weapons?
Governor Haley. I actually think we need to have a lot of
conversations with a lot of other countries. And that comes
from the fact that North Korea is trying to exercise their
muscle right now, and they are trying to show their strength.
And I think that while we have seen China start to pull
away, we need to talk to China and let them know of the threat.
We need to talk to other countries within the area and let them
know how strong a threat this is. And we need to try to create
a united front in approaching North Korea, because North Korea
will feel it if China puts the pressure on them.
And I think that is very, very important because it is
getting to a very dangerous situation.
Senator Merkley. So, Governor, last year in January, there
was a fourth nuclear weapon test by North Korea, and then in
February, a major ballistic missile test. And within less than
a month of that, the United States was able to get China to
agree to increase sanctions on North Korea that included
mandatory inspection of all cargo going to and from North
Korea, and the requirement to terminate all banking
relationships. And it lays out a whole--and that came out
exactly the type of pressure you are talking about.
But that Resolution 2270, do you think that was a step
forward in terms of that U.S., China, and the world saying to
North Korea you have to stop?
Governor Haley. Absolutely. If followed. And that is the
thing, that they are not following that, and so actions need to
happen from there.
Senator Merkley. So and then there was another nuclear test
that followed that in September, the fifth nuclear test. And
the U.S. again went to work to really try to get the
international community and China to push on North Korea. And
what they did was put a hard binding cap on North Korea's coal
exports. This was considered to be the single most vulnerable
point of pressure, because it is their largest source of
external revenue.
And China did sign up, and America signed up. And we have
this mandatory inspection in place. It is that, too, a step
forward in terms of pressuring North Korea?
Governor Haley. Absolutely.
Senator Merkley. But as you pointed out, we have done this,
and then North Korea goes ahead anyway. And so in terms of the
conversation, China said it is on board. It has agreed to cut
all the banking relationships, inspect every piece of cargo,
cut their ability to generate revenue.
Should we specifically draw any sort of redline over the
missile tests or the nuclear weapon tests? And if so, what
would that be?
Governor Haley. Well, obviously, that is a conversation I
need to have with the National Security Council as well as with
the President-elect. But I do think this warrants very strong
conversations with China to say that this is a slap in the face
to China. This is a slap in the face to every country that told
North Korea they were not to proceed. And the fact that they
are doing it anyway should be offensive to all countries
involved in sanctions. So I think that we do need to see where
do we go forward.
Senator Merkley. I will be very interested in hearing more
of your thoughts after you are at the U.N., because we have
been using the U.N. really aggressively on this particular
topic.
And I went back after our conversation. I was surprised at
the amount that had been done that I was not aware of when we
talked in my office.
Turning to China, China has dramatically increased its
engagement in the U.N. In 2003, they did not really have any
U.N. peacekeeping troops, and then they increased it to 2,000,
more recently 3,000. Now they have made a pledge to contribute
8,000 troops. It is not clear to me if that is 8,000 on top of
the 3,000 or 8,000 total.
But they are now the third overall contributor to the U.N.
They are the second overall contributor to fund peacekeepers.
And they are the first overall contributor to peacekeepers
among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council. So
they have vastly--they have really moved in there.
And one of the concerns, and it is related to several
questions that were asked about whether the U.S. essentially
holds its monetary support of the U.N. hostage. One of the
concerns has been that China would love for us to do that
because then they go from being almost at the top of the heap
to being at the top of the heap in terms of their influence on
the organization.
Do you share the concern about China's kind of growing
expansion of its power inside the U.N.?
Governor Haley. I think that you have to look at--and this
is a lot of what we discussed yesterday. You have to look at
the fact that China is very different from Russia. Russia is
trying to show their military strength. China is trying to show
their economic strength.
So their strategy is to go and help other countries, to
build infrastructure in other countries to buy favor with them
and to try to take over that way. So whereas Russia looks at
military force, China looks at economic force. And we need to
realize that.
And it is a lesson to the United States that we need to
strategically understand that the funding needs to be used as a
force, the same way China does. And I absolutely agree that we
have to keep an eye on China and the funding and the way they
are engaging in these other countries, because they are trying
to add to their allies list, and we need to be conscious of
that.
Senator Merkley. Well, this is part of an enduring
discussion about tactics in the United States, to the degree we
have an outside game and pressure the U.N. by saying you did
wrong and we are going to hold you hostage on different
programs, or we have an inside game of diplomacy,
communication, relationship-building, the type of inside game,
actually, that led to those two major resolutions in regard to
North Korea.
You will obviously be captain of the inside game, and I
look forward to learning more from your viewpoint as that
unfolds.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. In my last few seconds, turning to the
global warming, the National Intelligence Council has said that
climate change is a wide-ranging national security challenge
for the U.S. over the next 20 years.
Do you share the view that global warming is a security
threat to the United States?
Governor Haley. I think it is one of the threats, yes. I do
not think it is the most important, but I do think it is on the
table.
Senator Merkley. One of the widely discussed issues is how
it affected the refugees that moved into the Syrian cities,
sparking the Syrian civil war. Are you familiar with that chain
of events? And do you consider that an example of how climate
change can trigger a chain of events that cause a lot of
security concerns and impacts in the world?
Governor Haley. I think there are many countries that look
at climate change and what their effects are on all types of
elements in the world. So that is why I think it will always be
something on the table that would look at and always something
that we consider.
Again, as we had the conversations yesterday, I think we
have to make sure that we continue to look at it and keep it as
a strong element, but not to the burdens of industry and the
economy as we go forward.
Senator Merkley. My time has expired. Thank you.
Governor Haley. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you.
It would be my observation that while the U.N. Security
Council may have been active on the North Korean issue, the
members themselves, China is not living to the letter of the
sanctions that have taken place. Had they been doing so, we
might be in a slightly different place.
But I agree that there may be some unilateral actions at
some point that need to take place.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations. Great to see you again.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much. Absolutely.
Senator Barrasso. The last questioner just used the phrase,
``We are using the U.N. aggressively.'' And I think this last
administration has actually been using the U.N. aggressively to
bypass Congress to support Iran, to attack our closest ally
Israel, to attack American energy.
So the question to you is, as our Nation's top
representative at the United Nations, I think you have to be
committed to standing up for American ideals, American values,
our standards.
So can you talk a little bit about that, about your
commitment to challenging the actions of the United Nations
that run counter to our values, our interests, our ideals?
Governor Haley. You know, and I think that that is a very
good question, because the United Nations I think has
overstepped. And when you look at Resolution 2334, there is no
better example of how they have overstepped.
And I think that there is a role for the United Nations.
And I think that is in negotiating deals, in telling what our
story is, in talking about America's values and ideals and
freedoms and what makes us the best country in the world. And
we need to continue to use the U.N. forum to show what we are
for, what we are against, and what we will not tolerate.
But having said that, I think that the U.N. is not a place
to insert into what other countries do and is not a place to
actually take action without Congress having a strong support
of it or without the President-elect and the National Security
Council.
Senator Barrasso. We are the largest financial contributor
to the United Nations. When you take a look at our Nation, our
contribution is more to the U.N. budget than all of the other
member permanent members of the U.N. Security Council combined.
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. We have an incredible debt in this
country that I continue to hear about. They say, why are we
spending money at the United Nations with this kind of debt?
So can you talk a little bit about your commitment to
safeguarding U.S. taxpayer dollars at the U.N. and the kind of
transparency that we really need with regard to those funds?
Governor Haley. Well, thank you, Senator. In South
Carolina, that was something that was very important to me,
because I think transparency breeds accountability, and that
needs to happen.
We do pay 22 percent of the general fund. We are close to
29 percent on the peacekeeping fund, which is actually not what
the law requires. We are supposed to be at 25 percent. And I
think that when you look at that, every organization and
government can always be improved and can always be efficient.
And the way you get to that is through transparency. And we
need to start showing how the money in peacekeeping is being
spent. We need to start showing the programs that are happening
in the United Nations and how that is being handled.
I think that there was good progress made in that they had
inspector general oversight come in. But I think that is not
independent. And as long as it is not independent, we are not
getting the true facts there.
So that is something that I will also try to do, is try to
make that oversight council more independent so that no
countries can weigh in on that, so that we can actually get to
the heart of how we can fix the U.N. and make it more
effective.
Senator Barrasso. Can I just stay on the issue of the U.N.
peacekeepers for a second, because there have been horrendous
reports of sexual exploitation and abuses being committed by
the peacekeepers? It is unacceptable. It is outrageous that the
United Nations peacekeepers are inflicting terrible atrocities
on the people that they are supposed to be protecting.
As the largest contributor of money, all the things, can
you talk a little bit about working to ensure that the United
Nations holds these peacekeepers accountable in ways from the
sort of things that we have been seeing with sexual
exploitation and abuse?
Governor Haley. Yes, Senator. And I spoke about this
earlier. I think it is devastating when you have a child or you
have a mother who sees peacekeepers and are afraid. And that is
something that can never happen.
And I think that we absolutely have to strengthen the
whistleblower protections because it is not working. People are
too scared to speak up when they see something wrong.
I think that we have to really make sure that we are
holding our contributing countries accountable, because when
their troops violate, we cannot just let them give them a pass.
They have to actually be dealt with accordingly.
And then in some cases, we have to look at whether that
country should be providing peacekeepers at all, because a lot
of times, they are doing it just to make money and it is not
about whether they are protecting people.
And when someone goes in from the U.N. and when they
present themselves, people should feel safe, and people should
feel protected. They should not be scared, and they should not
be leery of what is happening. And we cannot say that right
now, and so--especially in the peacekeeping missions in Africa.
So I do think it is very, very important that we start to
really hold these countries accountable and let them know. And
that is why I think them putting money, more money, toward
peacekeeping will have skin in the game. And when they have
skin in the game, they will care more about how their money is
spent.
And so I think that is true for the general fund as well as
the peacekeeping fund.
Senator Barrasso. And I want to get back to Resolution
2334, and I think that is just part of an ongoing strategy to
undermine our friends in Israel.
In 2011, UNESCO voted to admit Palestine as a member state
in the organization.
Governor Haley. Right.
Senator Barrasso. And it triggered a law that we have in
the United States cutting off contributions to UNESCO.
Could you talk a little bit about the United States in
terms of opposing Palestinian efforts to obtain full membership
at any U.N. agency or organization?
Governor Haley. Absolutely, because we do not recognize the
Palestinian Authority as a state. And I think that we will not,
whether it is funding UNESCO--and the fact that we stopped
that, I think that was a good move to do that. Or whether it is
something where they are trying to insert themselves to be a
member, which they tried to do. And I think that now we have to
make sure that we continue to hold that ground on that front.
And I think that there are more and more attempts to try to
do that. So far, they have failed, but we have to make sure
that we do that, because I do think that they are still getting
in through resolutions and issues that are happening. And that
is all the more reason why we have to stand strong.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I appreciate your attention. I
thank you very much, Governor.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Just to understand the state of play, I had not planned to
have a second round, but there was an email exchange with one
of our staff members indicating that was a possibility, and I
think the minority has understood that to be, that there will
be.
Because I do want to conduct always our business with an
air of trust, we will have, for some few members who wish to
have a second round, a 5-minute round. I do not know of
anything that is controversial that has occurred. I would just
ask members to respect the fact that it was not something that
I intended. But if you really have something that you want to
ask, in order to maintain trust, we will have a second round
for those few members who may have questions.
I would ask our nominee, who has been here now for 3 hours,
would you like to take a 10-minute break?
Governor Haley. No, sir. I am ready to continue.
The Chairman. Okay.
Senator Coons will finish his first round of questioning.
And if other members do, in fact, have questions, I would
remind folks that we are going to have QFRs, and those will be
due as of the close of business tomorrow.
But with that, we will continue on and plow through this.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Corker.
Welcome, Governor Haley. I enjoyed our conversation
yesterday, and I was encouraged to hear in your opening
statement that you think U.S. leadership is essential in the
world and that you look forward to being a strong voice for
both American principles and American interests at the U.N. I
recognize that, as you said, international diplomacy is a new
area for you. We talked about the transition from county
executive to senator, from governor to potentially U.N.
ambassador.
Let us talk about the U.N. Security Council and some of the
challenges we face there and some of the interests that other
countries bring into play there. We talked yesterday about the
Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and
why Russia and China worked with us on imposing and enforcing
multilateral sanctions, negotiating to a finished deal, and
then to enforcing it. Another member asked you earlier about
why the U.N. Security Council has not been able to make
progress in challenging or confronting Assad's war crimes
against his own people.
Do you have a clear understanding of what might be driving
these two issues at this point?
Governor Haley. Well, first of all, with the Iran deal, the
fact that Russia and China were supportive is the red flag that
I need to know that there is a problem with the deal, and I
think that we have to be very conscious of that.
I also think that as we deal with Syria, we have got to
start seeing something that happens. You cannot turn on the TV
and see what is happening to children and women and all of
those that are just trying to live being dealt with that way.
And so I think we are seeing terrible things that happen. And
when, again, you see Russia protecting Syria and Russia
protecting these issues that are happening, it is dangerous and
it is something that we need to be very conscious of, because
right now it is not about protecting human life. I think it is
very much about making sure they are protecting their own
interests, and that is not what America is. We value human
life.
Senator Coons. And these were questions I told you
yesterday I would follow up on again today. Let me make sure I
understand your answer.
Is it clear to you that the reason the Security Council has
not acted to confront human rights violations in Syria is
because Russia blocks that action?
Governor Haley. Yes, it is clear.
Senator Coons. Why does it raise a red flag for you that
Russia and China supported the JCPOA, the Iran deal, if the
United Kingdom and Germany and the EU and other vital American
allies, France, did so as well? Are you questioning the value
of our international partnerships with them? And let me ask the
follow-on question. If we walk away from it without giving it a
chance to be fully implemented, will we be safer?
Governor Haley. Well, first of all, I think that it is in
our best interest to be distrustful of all countries as we move
forward, as they are distrustful of us. That is just us
protecting American interests. So when you look at Russia, you
should always know that there is an angle that they are trying
to do; the same with China. They are all playing strategy, and
that is part of what they continue to do.
With the Iran deal what I said, as I said to you yesterday,
I think it is very important that we look at every aspect of
the Iran deal and see if it is being followed. And if it is not
being followed, and if we do find violations, then I think we
should act, and I think we should act strongly.
Senator Coons. And I think you will find strong bipartisan
partners here in insisting in its vigorous enforcement. I do
encourage you to read the details of the deal, because it does
have longer-term and more binding consequences than a previous
answer you gave may suggest.
Let me also, if I could, before we turn to U.N. reform, ask
you about Russia and your view of Russia. A number of the
recent statements by the President-elect have unsettled a
number of our allies, and a number of us, and he has in some
ways suggested that if we reach a much closer relationship with
Russia, it could break the log jam at the Security Council, it
could make progress in the fight against terrorism. Many of our
allies ask what is on the table.
So in your view, what should be on the table if there were
some closer arrangement with Russia? Would you ever accept
recognizing their illegal annexation of Crimea?
Governor Haley. No. I think that we need to make it very
clear with Russia on where we stand on Crimea and Ukraine and
Syria and be strong on that. Having said that, it is very much
like we talk about human rights violations. We may not agree
with a country on human rights violations, but we need to work
with them on other things.
I think what the President-elect is trying to do is see are
there any opportunities to work with Russia, because we can use
Russia's help in trying to go against ISIS, and we can use
Russia's help on trying to help with other threats throughout
the world.
Senator Coons. We have vital allies in NATO such as the
Germans, the French, the Brits, who have gone alongside us and
fought in Afghanistan, who have invoked Article 5 of the NATO
charter and stood alongside us in the fight against terrorism.
I have real trouble with his idea that in any way we should
trust Vladimir Putin and his Russia at an equal level as Angela
Merkel and Germany, and all of our NATO allies, his ongoing,
steady diminution of the value of NATO when NATO has been the
strongest, most important, most enduring alliance we have built
and been a part of.
Ambassador Power gave a very pointed farewell speech
yesterday where she laid out the case that Russia is the single
greatest threat to the world order today, to the world order
that we have built, the so-called liberal rules-based world
order that the U.N. is one of the highest examples of. Did you
read or follow that speech?
Governor Haley. I did not.
Senator Coons. I urge you to do so.
Governor Haley. I will. I have been working towards this
committee assignment, so I have not had the time to do that,
but I will make a point to do that.
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, I will ask that it be admitted
to the record, entered into the record, because I think it is a
very clear-eyed assessment of just how persistent a threat
Russia has been to our core values, which I would argue are our
core interests--free press, democracy, human rights, and our
vital NATO alliance.
Governor Haley. And, Senator, just to be clear, we agree on
that. We agree on Russia, and I know that your concerns over
the comments of the President-elect are probably best suited to
ask him as opposed to me.
Senator Coons. But he is not in front of me and you are, so
forgive me.
Governor Haley. And you are not getting any answers from me
on that. So I am just telling you, in the importance of time.
Senator Coons. About U.N. reform, if we were to simply, as
some have suggested, in order to punish the U.N. for the
Security Council taking a vote which I think we have
unanimously opposed, if we were to simply cut funding to the
U.N., would that strengthen or weaken our hand in defending
Israel at the U.N.?
Governor Haley. Well, as I have said, you can never win
with slash and burn techniques. That does not work. What is
important is that we do strategic types of cutting if we are
going to cut anything at all. So I do not agree with that. I do
not think that is the way that we can come out strong and show
our strength in terms of what we believe in and what we are
against. I think it is better to do that with negotiations than
I think with just slash and burn.
Senator Coons. I will close and then come back for another
round, briefly, if I could.
Let me commend to you that the new Secretary General,
Antonio Guterres, I think will be a strong partner for you in
engaging in thoughtful and systemic reform, and our vital ally,
the United Kingdom, does have a multilateral aid effectiveness
review, a process that they go through to look at the return on
investment, as you have put it, or the effectiveness of their
contributions, and they have assessed many of the U.S.
voluntary funded programs as having a high impact. I would
recommend that to you for your reading.
I look forward to asking you some more questions in a few
minutes.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The statements by Samantha Power will be,
without objection, entered into the record.
[The information referred to is located in the Additional
Material Submitted for the Record section of this transcript,
beginning on page 137.]
The Chairman. It would be my observation that sometimes
even our closest friends have different interests. If you
remember, there were 58 senators I think that opposed the Iran
deal. Unfortunately, by virtue of it being done the way that it
was that many people have alluded to--it was done by an
executive agreement with the U.N. Security Council. But our
friends in Germany and Great Britain and France had mercantile
interests that caused them to support an agreement that allowed
them to do business with Iran, in addition to other issues.
Again, I would say that 58 senators here disagreed with them on
the efficacy of this agreement. So we sometimes disagree even
with our closest friends.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy on
the second round.
Governor Haley, thank you for your strength to continue
through.
Governor Haley. Oh, there is a lot more strength than that.
Senator Cardin. You are going to need it at the United
Nations, so the best to you.
I want to take my time to go over a few issues that were
covered in the first round. You have mentioned frequently that
we want other countries to have skin in the game as it relates
to peacekeepers and the importance of the peacekeeping
missions. I just really want to point out that in 2016 alone,
79 U.N. peacekeepers lost their life in service to humanity. So
countries have skin in the game. We have used mostly resources,
money, and there is the ability-to-pay issue among different
states. I do not disagree, and I included in my opening
comments my concern about the sexual exploitation and abuse
that cannot be tolerated, and we do need more countries
participating. But I just wanted to point out that countries
have given their people, and some have lost their lives in
support of our peacekeeping----
Governor Haley. And I have great respect for that. My
ordering was about monetary.
Senator Cardin. Well, some countries cannot afford the
monetary aid, and that is why they use their people. They
subsidize that way.
Secondly, I want to just respond to what you did in South
Carolina in regards to Syrian refugees. I do not question the
way that you responded based upon the information given to you
by the FBI. I just really want to set the record straight here
about the vetting process used for Syrian refugees. It is the
most strict vetting process of any coming into America. I think
we have had somewhere around 13,000 settled through the Syrian
refugee program; this is far less than our pro rata share by
any reasonable allocation, and there have been no problems that
I am aware of for any Syrian refugees that have come to this
country. Most, of course, are women and children.
In fact, if you look at the refugee program, which you were
complimentary of----
Governor Haley. Yes.
Senator Cardin [continuing]. Between 1975 and 2015, over 3
million refugees have come to America, and it is my
understanding there have been three specific episodes of
terrorist involvement that have led to convictions. That is
three too many, do not get me wrong. It should be zero, and we
have to continue the strict vetting. But it is not the risk
pool that maybe is popularly perceived by refugees coming to
America, and I just really wanted to correct the record in that
regard.
I want to underscore one or two points, one dealing with
war crimes. You have acknowledged that what has happened in
Syria has elevated to war crimes. Not only has it been what we
saw in Aleppo, which was absolutely outrageous, with the use of
chemical weapons, which has also been confirmed, which in and
of itself would be war crimes. I just want to make sure that
you are focused on not only calling them war crimes but using
the United Nations forum to say we cannot condone this. You
cannot wipe this off. You cannot say, well, we will deal with
the other issues of the Syrian civil war, but we will not hold
those who are responsible accountable. That cannot be the U.S.
position, and I just urge you to make sure that when we say
never again, we mean never again.
When we are talking about never again, what is happening in
South Sudan? Ethnic cleansing is taking place as we are here.
Civilians are losing their lives because of this ethnic
conflict. The leadership has been unable or unwilling to deal
with this. In the United Nations there are a couple of
proposals that are pending, one is an arms embargo that I would
urge you to support. There is strong support in Congress for an
arms embargo. The other is to get a peace process actually
working while protecting human life. We have got to be more
aggressive because it is the next ethnic cleansing when we say
never again.
And the last thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman, in my 50
seconds that are remaining is that it was refreshing to hear
your comments about speaking truth to power. I think it came
out in the context of the President-elect and the U.N. National
Security Council, which I am convinced that you are going to
speak up for what you believe is right. But it is also dealing
with Russia and China and the Security Council resolutions.
When you are confronted with the situation where they say,
well, you want our help here, then get off this kick of human
rights; I am convinced that you are not going to get off this
kick of human rights, that you will continue to speak out for
American values, and that we can do more than one thing at a
time and we are not going to be bullied to give up the values
that have made this country's leadership so critically
important around the globe.
Once again, thank you for your patience, and thank you for
being willing to serve.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, I just want to follow up on Senator Cardin's
remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a State
Department process of how refugees enter into the United
States.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in the Additional
Material Submitted for the Record section of this transcript,
beginning on page 145.]
Senator Menendez. And I would just simply say that even
Director Comey, in testimony before the Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee, when he referenced the Syrian
refugees, said ``I think we have developed an effective way to
touch all of our databases and resources to figure out what we
know about these individuals.'' And also in other testimony by
Director Rodriquez of the USUHS, 20 percent of all Syrian
refugee applications are not granted entry into the United
States. So I hope you will look at that. One thing is what you
were given at the time, but I hope you will look at that
because, particularly at the U.N., the question of refugees,
whether they be Syrian or not, is particularly of global
concern.
I would like to talk to you a little bit. You have answered
the sanctions question a couple of times here, and I am left
concerned because in your answers you said sanctions by the
United States do not work if they are alone; they have to be
multilateral. Of course we would like to see multilateral
sanctions, but I would call to your attention that the
sanctions regime that we built on Iran that ultimately led them
to come to the negotiating table--I did not care for the
ultimate result and voted against it--but that led them to the
negotiating table was built largely by members of this
committee working with the Congress, and then getting the
administration on board, and started off alone, and then worked
to build an international coalition.
So I would like to just hear from you that sometimes we
have to go it alone before we get others to go with us. You
talked about leadership various times. Leadership is not always
being able to get a coalition from the start. Leadership
sometimes takes action and then getting others to join you in a
coalition.
Governor Haley. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for the
opportunity to clarify that. I clarified earlier. Sanctions
work when they are enforced. And of course, you know, if the
U.S. were to put sanctions against certain countries, that does
work. It just works better when we have coalitions. I think for
us to do sanctions against--I give that example--against North
Korea, that is all well and good. If I can get China to help
and really strengthen those sanctions, then we make magic.
So it is always going to be that we lead and we lead
strongly. It is my job to make sure that we just are not the
only ones doing sanctions, that we have others with us.
Senator Menendez. Okay. I appreciate hearing that
clarification, and I look forward to you making a lot of magic
at the end of the day. But sometimes we have to lead in order
to achieve that, and sanctions do not always start off with a
multilateral unity at the beginning.
And because sanctions is a tool of peaceful diplomacy--and
I do not think it should be used each and every time, I do not
think it is the only tool of peaceful diplomacy, but it is a
major one--if you have neutered yourself of it, then you have
left yourself very little in the pursuit of peaceful diplomacy.
I want to go to Iran. U.N. Resolution 2231 specifically
calls upon Iran ``not to undertake any activity related to
ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear
weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile
technology.'' Since it was adopted at the Security Council,
Iran has launched at least 10 ballistic missiles.
Earlier this month a report from the United Nations
indicated Iran is likely in violation of these resolutions
because of armed shipments to Hezbollah and possibly to rebels
in Somalia and Yemen. The U.N. Security Council's arms embargo
and ballistic missile sanctions require not just compliance of
Iran but also member states to enforce them.
If Iran violates both the ballistic missile sanctions, as
has been universally recognized, and violates the arms embargo,
do you plan to use your position at the United Nations to try
to create a coalition to hold Iran accountable?
Governor Haley. Absolutely. And any time that we put
sanctions forward, we should follow through on those when there
are violations.
Senator Menendez. Now, in doing so, do you also plan to
leverage against those--I wanted to underline the emphasis
that, yes, Iran is responsible, but so are other member
countries not to allow Iran to have the wherewithal to do that
in terms of suppliers and other things. We also seek to pursue
them as well.
Governor Haley. I think that we have to call out anyone
that is helping Iran do anything. I think that the other side
of that is we are seeing more and more where Iran is not
allowing us access to see if violations are occurring, and that
is also going to be something we will have to be careful of.
Senator Menendez. I have another line of questioning but I
will wait, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
The Chairman. There will not be a third round. If it is a
brief question, because of your distinguished service here,
then we will let you do that so we can close this out. Would
you like Senator Coons to go first so you can collect your
thoughts?
Senator Menendez. Yes. In order to make it brief, Mr.
Chairman, if I can collect my thoughts.
The Chairman. Before I go to Senator Coons, I would make
this observation. I am all for the pursuit of Russia
potentially being involved in war crimes in Syria, all for it.
There is nobody on this committee that would be more for that.
I will say that it has been interesting with our witnesses
coming in for a new administration, that has been a line of
push, but there has not been much towards the sitting
administration and the sitting U.N. ambassador relative to
calling those out.
So it would be more fulsome to me if we were talking about
that over the last month also.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I would take personal
exception to that. I will give you the volume of letters and
phone calls and public questioning that I have done to not only
the Obama administration but the Bush administration. As I said
previously, we generally have disagreements with all
administrations as to how helpful Congress can be, but I can
assure you that I am an equal opportunity human rights
advocate.
The Chairman. I think you probably are. I just would,
again, stick to my observation.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, a number of us have real concerns about fragile
states and about the arc from troubled states, states with
internal conflict, to really fragile states, to failed states
and what the consequences are. Typically, a fragile state is
one that really has a legitimacy problem. The central
government really does not control the whole country. It has
some insurgencies. It has real disconnections between its
average citizen and very weak state capacity, but it is not yet
a completely failed state.
Tell me, why should the average American care about fragile
states, and how do they affect our national security? Just name
a couple of states you consider fragile, if you would. Then I
want to talk about U.N. platforms to address and deal with
fragile states.
Governor Haley. Well, Americans should always be concerned
about fragile states, and it is because usually when states are
fragile they start to erupt in things that can cause threats
down the road. I think if you look at South Sudan, that is a
perfect example, that while we have tried to bring peace to
that area, you now have a government that is not wanting that.
We are starting to see other issues that are starting to happen
in that area.
So it is important for us to work towards peace everywhere,
and I think it is important for us to get in front of the
situation. We can see it before it gets fragile. We can see
conflict before it happens. It is important that I think the
U.N. not acknowledge it once it is too late, that we start to
acknowledge it as we see it happening because I think we can
get more effectiveness done that way than otherwise.
Senator Coons. The archetypal fragile state in this area
has been Afghanistan, which was a refuge for the terrorist
organization, Al Qaeda, that attacked us largely because it
really was not a coherent or effective state.
I would argue that the U.N. offers some of the strongest
tools we have to address fragile states without deploying
American troops, whether it is UNICEF, which does great work in
terms of dealing with human suffering, or whether it is UNHCR,
which deals with refugees, or it is U.N. peacekeeping.
Talk to me about how you would imagine advocating for the
U.N. being a more effective platform for addressing fragile
states in the interest of our security and values.
Governor Haley. I think it is important that we look for
results. It should not just be that we have a conversation
about how a state is becoming more fragile. It is actually
looking at results. Any time we are dealing with any situation
that could start to pose a threat, we need to decide what we
want to do as a plan and where we want to go and what we will
consider success. I think there need to be measurables along
the way to make sure that we are complying with that. I think
those conversations need to be more detailed in nature, as
opposed to more high-reaching, saying that it is fragile or it
may cause problems or it may be an issue. I think we need to
get more involved.
Senator Coons. Let me ask you a closing question, if I
might, that Mr. Tillerson and I went back and forth on, and
several others did as well. Some view our values--and I will
just give three examples, things that we fight for in the world
that, frankly, the Chinese and the Russians do not: press
freedom and transparency; human rights and democracy. I see
those as essential to our interests, not distinct from our
interests. In one exchange Mr. Tillerson suggested that at
times, at times, our national security interests have to take a
front seat and we maybe have to, with some of our allies and
partners, have our advocacy for our values take a back seat. I
would argue there are other settings where it is our failure to
consistently advocate for democracy and human rights and good
governance that leads to failed states, in some cases.
What is your view about the value of continuously
advocating for democracy and human rights and a free press? Is
it in conflict with our interests, or does it complement our
interests?
Governor Haley. I think we always talk about the values of
America. I think we always talk about why we are the greatest
country in the world. I think that we always express why we
want to share those values with the rest of the world.
When it comes to other issues, I understand that we can
have more pressing issues that we want to negotiate. I do not
think we have to compromise our values to do that. I think
these are conversations that can take place at the same time. I
think it is very important that countries around the world know
what we value, but they also know where we stand. I think we
can have negotiations, conversations on issues that are at hand
without ever compromising us talking about our values. I think
both can be done at the same time.
Senator Coons. I think we will have a productive
conversation about how we keep those in the right balance going
forward and how we invest appropriately in advancing democracy
and governance and human rights and a free press at the same
time that we advance our commercial or security or other
interests as well.
Thank you, Governor.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Menendez for a succinct question.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, it is because the questions
are too important, I am not going to synthesize them. I will
submit them for the record. They involve our participation with
the U.N. Commission on Refugees in Central America. They
involve where we are headed and what role the Governor thinks
we can pursue in Venezuela, which is a crisis right here in our
own hemisphere. And also I would like to hear from the Governor
something that you are very passionate about that we worked
together on, which is a greater role at the United Nations on
human trafficking. And because I cannot synthesize those and do
them honor and worth, I will submit them for the record and
look forward to what I hope will be a very explicit response to
them.
I just want to take one more moment to say I appreciate the
Chairman's comments earlier, but speaking only for myself,
there has been no one who has more consistently challenged this
administration as part of his own party on various issues,
including the question of actions in Syria and war crimes. So,
it is not new to some of us.
The Chairman. And I think that is, especially coming from
you, I will say, a very accurate statement, and I appreciate
the way we have been able to work on the Syrian issue. I know
that we all have been very disappointed with the actions that
have not been taken, and certainly working together on the Iran
resolution, trying to oppose it. So I thank you for that.
This is an observation. There is a new zeal relative to it
for lots of reasons, but I think that all of us certainly need
to be pushing back against Russia and the violations of
international norms that they have put forth. Certainly what
has happened in Aleppo is something that somebody needs to pay
a price for. It upsets all of our sensibilities, and I
appreciate everyone here on the committee expressing that.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I may be a little sensitive
on this, but as one of those individuals who has been on a list
for a long time not able to go to Russia because of my
leadership on the Magnitsky law, this is not just recent. Our
concern about Russia has been building for a long time, and
many of us have been very open about the danger Russia poses to
the world order. So I do not think this is something that is
new.
The Chairman. With that, do you have any other statements
relative to our nominee?
Senator Cardin. No. But just again, it has been a pleasure
hearing your responses and, as I said the first time we met,
thank you for being willing to serve your country.
Governor Haley. And thank you for the opportunity. I
appreciate it.
The Chairman. So, for the state of play, we are going to
leave the record open until the close of business tomorrow. I
have just talked to the ranking member, and we plan on having
the markup on Mr. Tillerson on Monday, Monday afternoon,
assuming his questions come in this week and are answered
thoroughly.
In the event you are able, and it would be quite a feat I
think, I hope that people will keep the questions to questions
that really need to be answered. But to the extent you are able
to answer the questions by the end of the week also, we would
attempt to have your markup at the same time we have Mr.
Tillerson.
Just an observation again. I think that people have very
much respected your instincts here today, and I think the
nuance of some of the foreign policy, having been the governor
of South Carolina and all of a sudden coming to New York to the
U.N. Security Council, there is going to be a lot of nuance
that you are going to pick up over time, and certainly
knowledge relative to foreign relations issues that you just
have not been dealing with.
But I think I can tell you as Chairman, I feel very good
about you going there with the instincts that drive the desire
for reform that you have expressed here. I think you have
impressed everybody in the individual meetings that you have
had. I am certain that you are going to be confirmed
overwhelmingly, and I thank you for your desire to serve our
country at this time in this important capacity.
Senator Cardin. What is the date for the questions for the
record? When is it open until?
The Chairman. Close of business tomorrow.
Governor Haley. And I would respectfully ask that I do not
need 1,023 of them. I am hoping that we do not have quite that
many.
Senator Cardin. We will try to keep it under 1,000.
The Chairman. You remember how the General Assembly or
legislature was in South Carolina?
Governor Haley. I do remember.
The Chairman. They generally did not listen to you, and I
doubt that will be heeded.
Governor Haley. I do not expect you to listen now, but I
thought at least I could try.
The Chairman. But I do hope that people ask questions that
truly need to be answered, and I appreciate your sentiment
there.
Governor Haley. And I look forward to answering them.
The Chairman. The meeting is adjourned.
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for
the Record by Members of the Committee
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Robert Menendez
U.S.-U.N. Ambassador
Question. Antonio Guterres of Portugal was appointed by the General
Assembly to succeed Ban Ki-Moon as the U.N. Secretary-General on
January 1, 2017. Guterres stated that his priorities will include
working for peace, supporting sustainable development, and reforming
internal management. He is seen as having priorities much better
aligned to that of the U.S. than many of his predecessors.
What tact will you take to cultivate a direct, personal
relationship and to forge a partnership with him to advance
U.S. policy interests?
Broadly, what will you tell the Secretary-General when you meet him
as to what the U.S. thinks his priorities should be?
Answer. I believe the new Secretary-General's long experience as
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees will be a unique asset as we work
together not just on refugee issues, but also on peacekeeping and other
security and reform issues. I look forward to working with him as we
will both be newcomers and will have fresh eyes on the many challenges
ahead for the U.N. If confirmed, I expect to pursue an open and
continuous dialogue with him. The issues of U.N. reform, including
peacekeeping, management and transparency reforms, will be some of the
early topics I will address with him as priorities.
Question. President-elect Trump has made a number of perplexing and
even disturbing statements regarding foreign policy issues and the role
of the U.S. in the world. Importantly, as our ambassador to the United
Nations, you be the chief spokesperson in New York as to our values and
priorities. An anxious world wants to know what an ``America First''
approach means in international affairs.
How will you address these legitimate concerns?
Will you work within the administration, as a member of the
National Security Council, to advance traditional
understandings of foreign policy and U.S. values? What
particular values will you highlight/champion?
Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, I will always stand for
American values and ideals at the United Nations. I believe the
President's ``America First'' approach in practice means that he will
identify America's fundamental national interests and vigorously defend
them using all of the diplomatic, economic and military tools at his
disposal. If confirmed, I look forward to vigorously promoting our
nation's objectives through diplomacy at the U.N.
United Nations
Question. The U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHCR) has not lived up to
it mandate and some have called for the U.S. to withdraw. But the
council has had a number of important successes over the years
(highlighting abuses in the DPRK and Iran, among others), and others
therefore argue that the U.S. must remain committed and engaged in the
council to help it be more effective and to drive the agenda.
In your opinion, are U.S. policy goals better achieved by remaining
in the UNHRC by limiting our involvement?
How would you advance a positive human rights agenda reflective of
our values at the U.N.?
Answer. As I mentioned during my hearing, I think that the Human
Rights Council is a flawed body, particularly in its bias against
Israel and the ability of human rights violators to be elected and
shield each other from criticism. I do not know if or how the Trump
administration plans to engage with the Human Rights Council, but will
work to implement the policies of the administration in this area.
Question. While there is a commonly-held perception that the U.N.
is generally anti-American and not a partner with us on many of the
seminal issues of the day, a recent poll indicated that 61 percent of
Americans have a positive opinion of the organization. Certain
programmatic areas such as peacekeeping, enjoy even more support.
Nevertheless, the U.N. has not lived up to its mandate and often
engages in actions and rhetoric that is either hostile to the U.S. or
to our allies.
What is the role of the United States U.N. Ambassador in explaining
U.S. foreign policy to a global audience?
To what extent do you plan to educate, inform, and reach out to
broad sectors of the American public? How will you accomplish
this?
How do you plan to refresh and sustain public support for the
institution during your tenure?
Answer. As I said in my testimony, I believe part of my role as
U.N. Ambassador is to be accountable, first and foremost, to the people
of the United States. I believe that, if confirmed, an important part
of my job will be to explain to the American people what is happening
at the U.N. and to give an honest assessment of the successes and
challenges I find there. I am committed to making domestic public
outreach a priority, as well as speaking to the international audience
that cares about the work of the U.N. My firm message will be that U.S.
leadership is essential in the world, and certainly at the U.N. In
every case, I will call it as I see it.
The United Nations Security Council
Question. The U.S. has a history of opposing one-sided U.N.
Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions where Israel is concerned. These
initiatives, where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, are
not helpful and actually are counterproductive to producing positive
outcomes. This past September, I and some Senate colleagues sent a
letter to President Obama expressing our concerns about such votes.
Will you continue the longstanding U.S. policy to veto any one-
sided UNSC resolutions that may arise during your tenure?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps will you take to encourage other member states
to engage in productive efforts and to resist joining such anti-Israel
resolutions?
Answer. Israel is a vital ally of the United States, and we must
meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic ally in
the region. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the President
that the U.S. will any U.N. Security Council resolution that unfairly
condemns Israel, undermines progress toward a mutually agreed peace
agreement, or is in conflict with U.S. interests.
Question. A number of our Western Hemisphere neighbors and other
counties who often otherwise share similar worldviews, continue to vote
for these one-sided resolutions (e.g., resolutions on the Committee on
the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the
Division for Palestinian Rights, and the Special Committee to
Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the
Palestinian People)
Will you urge your colleagues at the U.N. to withdrawal their
support of these annually recurring resolutions by the U.N.
General Assembly? What arguments will you make to get them to
change their positions?
How will you counter such future initiatives that do little than
stoke unproductive efforts to inappropriately use international
funding and the mantle of the United Nations to pursue a
unilateral approach in the region?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and other
Cabinet officials to use U.S. diplomatic and economic pressure to
encourage such outcomes and assess if U.S. funding for these
initiatives can be eliminated or conditioned.
Question. I am an original cosponsor of S. Res. 6 which expresses
grave objection to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. If
further calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be
repealed or fundamentally altered so that it is no longer one-sided and
rejects efforts by outside bodies, including the United Nations
Security Council, to impose solutions from the outside that set back
the cause of peace.
What are your views about this resolution?
Answer. Israel is a vital ally of the United States, and we must
meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic ally in
the region. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the President
that the U.S. announce it no longer supports that resolution and would
veto any U.N. Security Council efforts to implement it or enforce it,
and block any future U.N. sanctions based on it.
Question. Some have argued for the need for reform of the Security
Council (UNSC) to including broadening permanent membership to include
additional countries such as India. Others have called for changes as
to the use of the veto power.
What, if any, reforms of the UNSC would you support?
Would expanding membership on the UNSC help or harm the legitimacy
and effectiveness of the body? How about increasing the
permanent membership?
Does the P5 structure impede getting more support (e.g., financial,
peacekeeping) from other developed and advanced nations? What
arguments would you make to those countries who only
occasionally have a seat on the council to get them to share in
shouldering the burdens of global engagement?
Answer. As I understand it, there is not a broad consensus among
U.N. member states on Security Council reform. If confirmed, my advice
would be based on the particulars of such a proposal. I would not
support any reform proposal that weakens U.S. influence in the Security
Council or undermines U.S. interests in that body. Although this can be
immensely frustrating--for example, Chinese and Russian opposition to
taking stronger action with respect to North Korea--I would not support
any change to the veto power because such a change would undermine the
ability of our nation's representatives to protect U.S. interests in
that body.
U.N. Reform
Question. While the U.N. has taken steps to improve its efficiency,
operational effectiveness, and accountability, the continuing need for
reform is obvious to most observers, even to strong supporters of the
institution. The incoming Secretary-General has committed to an agenda
of reform. The U.S. push for reform is one of the main drivers behind
the progress to date. Sustained engagement by successive
administrations have improved the environment and the U.N.'s
receptivity to change.
In your opinion, what are the top three reforms that the U.N. could
undertake in the coming two years that will have the greatest
impact?
How will you explain to the Secretary-General and the member states
that continued reform is a precondition for full U.S. support
of the U.N.?
What tactics would you use if reform efforts falter or lack
urgency?
Are you satisfied with the pace of reform? Why or why not?
Answer. As I mentioned during my hearing, I agree that the U.N. is
in serious need of reform. I also believe that Congress can be a vital
partner in pressing the U.N. to adopt specified reforms through
application of financial leverage. If confirmed, I will consult with
Congress on reform priorities and how to best achieve them.12)
Question. There has been considerable talk of late about the U.S.
withholding financial support of the U.N. in response to various votes
and resolutions. Critics have countered that a distinction should be
made between the institution of the U.N. and the actions and votes of
its individual members. In some ways, votes contrary to U.S. policy
positions and national interests can be seen as a partial result of
U.S. ineffectiveness in working with fellow member states at the U.N.
in addition to institutional bias.
In general, do you think the threat of financial withholding is an
effective tool in advancing a U.S. policy of U.N. reform?
Does threatening to limit our engagement and financial support
enhance U.S. leverage?
Would you agree with the statement that our significant financial
contributions garners increased influence at the U.N. and that
reductions in such support will actually create opportunities
for our adversaries?
Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I do not
support slash and burn cuts to U.S. funding, but targeted and selective
withholding tied to specific reforms has proven in the past to be an
effective means for pressing the organization to implement reforms.
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
Question. Former Chairman of the joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen
stated that ``[United Nations] peacekeepers help promote stability and
help reduce the risks that major U.S. military interventions may be
required to restore stability in a country or region.'' Also, studies
indicate that U.N. peacekeepers are significantly less expensive than
the U.S. equivalent. Reform efforts to date have reduced the cost of
U.N. peacekeepers by about 18%.
Do you view U.N. peacekeeping operations as complimentary to U.S.
military efforts elsewhere?
Is peacekeeping participation a genuine expression of a burden-
sharing?
How could U.N. peacekeeping operations be made more effective, more
accountable?
Answer. As I stated during my hearing, I believe that U.N.
peacekeeping operations have been useful and effective in some
circumstances. U.S. support should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Question. U.N. peacekeepers often enjoy a degree of credibility
that forces from sovereign nations do not. U.N. peacekeepers operate in
a number of challenging areas where there would be minimal public or
Congressional support for U.S. forces to do so. The conflict in Korea
provides a historical example of how U.N. peacekeeping operations can
directly benefit U.S. policies, there are more contemporary examples as
well.
Would you be prepared to engage in active U.S. leadership with
regards to U.N. peacekeeping operations to ensure improved
accountability, operational effectiveness, and further
efficiencies?
What particular initiatives would you engage in this area within
the first six months?
Answer. If confirmed, yes. As I mentioned in my hearing, I am
particularly troubled by sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers
and will focus on bolstering current policies and efforts to address
this serious problem.
Question. Recently a Department of State authorization was passed
by Congress for the first time in more than a decade. In the
authorization, there was specific language that called for the
Secretary of State to submit a (1) a United States strategy for
combating sexual exploitation and abuse in United Nations peacekeeping
operations; and (2) an implementation plan for achieving the objectives
set forth in the strategy.
What will be your role and the role of the Mission you lead over
the next six months to ensure that the submitted report is
comprehensive, actionable, and in keeping with the intent of
the legislation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department of State to
ensure that this report complies fully with the law.
Question. There are 16 U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide--the
U.S. is the largest financial contributor in the world to these
operations. However, there are longstanding differences between the
U.N. and the U.S. regarding our financial contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping operations (28.47 percent vs. 27.14 percent) The new
authorization calls on the United States U.N. Ambassador to have
peacekeeping credits for discontinued operations returned to the U.S.
(and thus not available to be used towards the resolution of the
assessment gap) The continuation of this disagreement undermines our
standing at the U.N. and contribute to financial irregularities.
What steps can be done to regularize our peacekeeping funding
assessment and to eliminate the so-called gap?
What strategies will you use to ensure the U.S. receives any
unspent credits from discontinued peacekeeping operations?
Do you think it is appropriate that the P5 are assessed more for
peacekeeping operations as opposed to the general assessment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to establish a maximum
peacekeeping assessment of 25 percent to comply with U.S. law enacted
in 1994. I will also seek to spread the scale of assessments more
equitably among the member states so that even small contributors have
a financial interest in making sure that there is efficient use of
their contributions.
functional
Climate and Environment
Question. The Paris climate agreement sets a baseline goal of
limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial temperatures,
with an ultimate goal of limiting it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It was an
agreement adopted with near global consensus. Many foreign countries do
not see the U.S. as a leader on climate change and are concerned about
the incoming Trump administration's commitment to climate change
mitigation.
Do you believe the United States should meet its commitments under
the Paris agreement?
Answer. See answer below.
Question. How would you assert American leadership in this area at
the U.N. and demonstrate resolve in confront the issue of climate
change with determination and clearheaded global effort?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the State Department and other
departments of the government will conduct a review of the Nationally
Determined Contribution submitted by the Obama administration as part
of our review of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention
on Climate Change to determine whether the NDC and/or the international
agreements advance U.S. national interests. Both the UNFCCC and Paris
Agreement were negotiated by different presidential administrations and
it is the obligation of the incoming administration to make its own
determination regarding the ongoing viability of those agreements to
determine whether they advance U.S. national interests.
Question. Marine mammals play a vital role in marine ecosystems and
are critical to the health of our oceans. Unfortunately, human
activities, have devastated many populations of marine mammals. On an
international level, the United States is a signatory of the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and a member of
the International Whaling Commission, which regulates whaling practices
and the conservation of whales. The International Whaling Commission
has implemented a moratorium on commercial whaling since 1986 with
exceptions for certain subsistence whaling by indigenous populations.
What steps will you take at USUN to help sustain support for the
international moratorium on whaling?
Where do you see maintaining marine ecosystems in the ranking of
environmental priorities at the U.N.?
Answer. This is an area on which I look forward to be briefed as
soon as feasible, should I be confirmed.
Development
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
Question. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is an example
of broad, U.N.-led policies to guide international efforts to address
global economic, social and environmental development issues. The SDGs
logically build on the accomplishments of the Millennium Development
Goals. The U.S. was deeply engaged in this effort and pushed hard for a
number of specific goals.
Do you believe that the SDGs are in accordance with our foreign
assistance goals? Are they a useful framework for addressing
complex, global problems and development challenges?
How do you plan to leverage your position to help advance SDGs of
particular goals at the U.N.?
Which are most important to the advancement of U.S. foreign policy?
Are there particular goals/targets that you will individually
champion?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the Sustainable
Development Goals. My experience as a governor has convinced me that
market oriented policies, reduced regulatory barriers to business and
entrepreneurship, and a strong, fair and transparent rule of law are
essential to higher economic growth and development. To the extent that
the Sustainable Development Goals promote and encourage sound policy in
developing countries, I believe they can be a useful tool in promoting
global development. If confirmed, I commit to learning more about this
issue.
Question. One of the SDGs has a specific target of taking
``immediate and effective measures'' to eradicate forced labor and
human trafficking and to ``secure the prohibition and elimination of
the worst forms of child labour.'' The recent report on the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 lists the total number
of goods produced by child or forced labor at 139, involving 75
countries.
How can the U.S. and the U.N. be more effective in shining a
spotlight on countries that have not made a genuine commitment
to abolishing child or forced labor?
Is ``conscious capitalism'' a U.S. value? What does the term mean
to you in the context of the SDGs.
Are we doing enough to share with the international community how
the SDGs align with our values?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to working tirelessly with
the President, senior policymakers, and other federal agencies to
assist in the fight against human trafficking through my voice, vote
and influence in the United Nations.
Women and Girls
Question. U.N. agencies such as UNICEF, U.N. Women and UNFPA, and
associated programs such as Girl Up, work to help realize the
Sustainable Development Goals by promote gender equality and equal
rights for men and women around the world.
How can you and our mission to the U.N. help these efforts and to
build sustaining global support for these issues?
In what way, if any, do women and girls' policy issues stand apart
from wider human rights and development goals? Are women and
girls issues best treated within a broader policy framework or
do they need particular focus, support to be successfully
implemented?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about the
Sustainable Development Goals in this area and what appropriate role
the U.S. should play.
Question. The U.N. carries out vital work supporting women and
girls access to education and employment and by advising governments on
how to combat violence against women and girls. But needed programming
demands far exceed the U.N.'s ability to deliver, due to funding gaps
and inconsistent political will amongst U.N. member states.
Given the enormous, proven returns on investment this work
generates, and its importance to U.S. foreign policy, how do
you plan to further the U.N.'s efforts in this regard?
Answer. I agree that violence against women and children is a
serious problem and, if confirmed, I will use my voice, vote, and
influence to bring attention to this matter.
Question. There is a growing body of evidence showing that the
empowerment of women and girls, through investments in their health,
education, livelihoods, and the prevention of violence, not only
benefits them as individuals, but leads to healthier, more prosperous,
and more stable societies.
Under your leadership, how will you continue to prioritize the
empowerment of women and girls in US development and
humanitarian assistance and diplomatic engagement?
Answer. The issue of empowering women is personally important to me
and, if confirmed, I will support efforts to advance women's
participation in peace, security, and the political process.
Question. Violence against Women and girls continues to plague our
world. It is reported that one billion children a year are victims of
violence, and the global economic impact of physical, psychological,
and sexual violence against children is as high as $7 trillion--or 8
percent of the world's GDP.
Will you use your position to encourage your colleagues, publicly
and privately, to garner support for continuing efforts aimed
at ending violence against children?
What specific steps might you take to accomplish this?
Answer. I enthusiastically support programs to empower women and
girls and to help them gain access to education and employment. Such
efforts are proven to increase economic growth and stability. Violence
against women and girls is abhorrent and I will look for opportunities
to advance efforts to prevent this violence and to mitigate the impact
of it where it has occurred around the world.
Trafficking In Persons
Question. I co-sponsored with Senator Rubio, The Trafficking in
Persons Report Integrity Act (TIPRIA) legislation designed to
comprehensively reform the State Department's annual Trafficking in
Persons (TIP) Report. Our TIP process came under widespread
international scrutiny after the 2015 report rankings were flagged as
having been blatantly and intentionally watered-down due to political
pressures: certain countries received favorable adjudications despite
failure to meet minimum legal standards prescribed by Congress. This
harms our witness to the international community and collective efforts
to address TIP.
What steps will you take to restore the credibility of the TIP
report amongst member states?
Answer. I will ensure that data is better integrated into the
Trafficking in Persons report by consulting with academics and
specialists in the field to create a more objective system for tier
ranking evaluation.
Question. Will you be a determined advocate in working with Tier 3
countries to make the necessary reforms or risk restrictions on certain
U.S. assistance if they fail to combat human trafficking?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed I will do so to the best of my ability.
Question. The crime of human trafficking is a $150 billion
worldwide enterprise that enslaves tens of millions of people in
commercial sex and forced labor. According to estimates by the
International Labor Organization, nearly 21 million people around the
world are victims of human trafficking. Despite international and U.S.
efforts to curtail human trafficking, reports indicate TIP stubbornly
remains pervasive global blight.
What, in your view, could international organizations, especially
those associated with the U.N., to improve efforts to combat
trafficking?
Answer. International organizations should require employees
working in the field to receive training on how to recognize signs of
human trafficking. International organizations should do a better job
of integrating anti-trafficking efforts into broader global
initiatives.
Question. How could the U.S. and especially you at the U.N., work
to provide additional leadership on this issue and to help make
progress?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to working with the State
Department in the fight against human trafficking. I believe the United
States should continue to lead international efforts to combat
trafficking in persons and believe the Trafficking in Persons report is
a valuable diplomatic tool.
Question. UNICEF estimates approximately 21 million people around
the world are victims of human trafficking each year, and the
International Labor Organization estimates that 5.5 million of those
are children. Research has found that because one of the primary
drivers of trafficking is poverty and the inability of parents to care
for their children, making them susceptible to traffickers. Family
planning plays a critical role in the ability of parents and families
to care for their children. Education about and access to contraception
allows women to choose the timing and number of children they have,
thereby enhancing their ability to provide for those children, and may
ultimately be a step toward reducing one of the causes of trafficking.
As the largest multilateral provider of voluntary family planning
services, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is working to
address this root cause and eliminate a key driver of trafficking.
Family planning and reproductive health also play an important role
in the package of services needed for victims of trafficking. Girls and
women who have been trafficked are often victims of sexual exploitation
and violence and need targeted health services. The United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA) is on the front lines in places ranging from
Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, to Syria and Iraq, providing vital services
to trafficking victims including psychosocial support; voluntary family
planning services, including emergency contraception; prevention and
treatment of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS; treat
of injuries such as fistula arising from sexual violence; and other
critical health services. The U.S. is the third largest contributor to
UNFPA, and without U.S. funding UNFPA's ability to do its critical work
combatting human trafficking would be severely diminished.
Given your dedication to fighting against human trafficking, will
you commit to continuing U.S. funds to UNFPA to ensure this
scourge of human abuse does not continue and that victims of
trafficking receive the care they need to recover and thrive?
Answer. I anticipate that the Trump administration will be taking a
look at our relationship with and funding for all U.N. and affiliated
agencies to make sure our contributions are appropriate.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
Question. Countries and economies that deny adequate and effective
protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and/or who deny fair
and equitable market access to U.S. persons (entities) who rely on such
protection are a serious problem that plagues U.S. businesses and
creative citizens. The 2016 Special 301 Report identified many
countries, some of whom are allies and recipients of U.S. foreign
assistance that have serious gaps in IPR.
What strategies will you use to continue to highlight this problem
at the United Nations?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on this issue, but should I
be confirmed, I commit to learning what additional measures might be
taken and giving them my full support. Intellectual property theft
worldwide is one of the most pressing trade issues facing our country.
I will work with the White House National Trade Council and the U.S.
Trade Representative, and other agencies, to ensure we have a
coordinated and effective response against IP theft.
Question. Will you work with the U.S. Trade Representative to
encourage those cited in the 2017 report to make positive changes, such
as the necessary legislation, enforcement, and policies, to be removed
from the 2018 list?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The United Nations can take a more active role relating
to intellectual property protections that drive America's innovation
and creativity-led economy that supports more than 45 million jobs
across the country.
If confirmed, what will you do to ensure the U.N. makes an improved
effort to protect intellectual property and to safe guard the
creative and innovative work of American citizens and
businesses?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the United Nations and
IPR. If confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
International Child Abduction
Question. Beginning this year, the 2007 Hague Convention on the
International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family
Maintenance entered into force for the United States. We now have
treaty relationship with 32 countries under this multilateral
convention. However, many countries, including some of our closest
allies, have failed to ratify the treaty or to address this tragic
problem in a forthright manner. There are dozens of children from New
Jersey that have been taken overseas without authorization.
What specific steps can you undertake at the U.N. and with the
international diplomatic community to encourage additional
progress in this arena?
Will you actively enforce U.S. public policy in this area as part
of your foreign affairs agenda?
Will you pledge to undertake determined diplomatic efforts to
discourage international child abduction and to seek the return
of children illegally removed from this country?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the Hague Convention on
the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family
Maintenance. If confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
Security
Question. Harnessing the legitimacy and outreach of the U.N. to
support shared U.S. security and counterterrorism objectives has been
shown to be an important component to effective strategy since the
attacks of 9/11. The U.N. and it agencies have been partners in
preventing and countering violent extremists (CVE). Studies indicate
that failing and failed states are breeding grounds for such groups and
the utility of promoting stability, human development, good governance,
and poverty alleviation as important tools in the collective CVE
effort.
How can we work better with the U.N. and its member states to
combat violent extremism and terrorist activity?
Answer. Should I be confirmed I would work with the rest of the
cabinet to determine what additional measures would be appropriate and
give my full support to working for their implementation.
Question. Would you agree with the notion that in some perhaps
many, cases a dollar spent on U.N. peace, security, and CVE efforts
could actually be more productive in advancing our interests than
spending it on U.S.-only led programs?
Answer. I believe there is a place for both. Should I be confirmed
I pledge to work with the rest of the cabinet to determine the
effective and efficient balance that best support U.S. goals and
objectives and work tirelessly to ensure the U.N. does its part.
Human Rights
Question. Throughout the world, political dissidents, activists,
journalists, and human rights advocates have been victims of
repression, and have been imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising
their right to freedom of expression.
What would you do to reiterate the U.S. government's commitment to
protect and advocate for those on the frontlines, including
civil society organizations, who are exercising basic freedoms?
Are there ways the U.N. could strengthen the protections governing
freedom of expression?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use the microphone of the U.N.
ambassador to state publicly and often that the United States supports
and is committed to free speech and expression all over the world, and
that we will call out those who are victimized because they are
peacefully advocating their beliefs.
Question. Similarly, securing the southern U.S. border must be done
in conjunction with addressing root causes driving people to flee
Central America. The problems in the region are numerous, ranging from
poverty to the pernicious activities of violent criminal/terrorist
organizations, and defy unilateral or simple solutions.
How can the U.N. a partner with the U.S. and Central American
governments to address the underlying causes resulting in these
migrant flows?
How does the Refugee Convention and its Protocol, which the U.S.
codified in the Refugee Act of 1980, contribute to this effort?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will work with Congress and the
President to ensure that our foreign policy priorities align with our
domestic needs and fulfil our legal obligations. I have not yet been
briefed on all aspects of the U.S. refugee policies, but should I be
confirmed, I commit to learning more about this matter.
Question. The recently passed Department of State authorization
stated that the U.S. should ensure that ``the United Nations Human
Rights Council takes steps to remove permanent items on the United
Nations Human Rights Council's agenda or program of work that target or
single out a specific country or a specific territory or territories.''
What is your strategy to mitigate the noxious impact of item number
7 on the UNHRC agenda?
Answer. I oppose Agenda Item 7 and, if confirmed, I would strive to
eliminate it. I do not know if or how the Trump administration plans to
engage with the Human Rights Council, but, if confirmed, I would advise
the President that elimination of Agenda Item 7 should be a primary
goal of our participation or a condition for U.S. participation.
Humanitarian Assistance
Question. The U.N. is often the ``first responder'' in global
crises. The number, scope, and duration of the humanitarian needs of
today dwarf those of even twenty years ago. The persistence of failing
and failed states is very concerning. Climate change, conflict,
enduring poverty, and other challenges bedevil mitigation efforts. In
2017, the global appeal for the U.N. office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) was $22.2 billion, its highest ever. The
U.S. is the single largest donor of international humanitarian
assistance, providing approximately one third of the total contributed.
Are other member state contributions to UNOCHA adequate?
Answer. I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer that question
at this time. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about
this issue.
Question. Despite valid ``burden sharing' considerations, is there
an opportunity for the U.S. to demonstrate further leadership in this
area? How so?
Answer. I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer that question
at this time. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about
this issue.
Question. What would you do to build consensus for increased
international awareness of and financial support to the UNOCHA?
Answer. I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer that question
at this time. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about
this issue, determining what measures would be most effective and
working tirelessly to build consensus for equitable burden sharing.
Question. How can the U.S. hold the 173 signatories to Secretary-
General Ban Ki-Moon's World Humanitarian Summit accountable to make aid
more efficient and effective?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, the best I can contribute to this
effort is press the case that the U.S. government takes this issue
seriously.
Question. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported
that at the end of 2015, there were more than 130 million people
worldwide requiring humanitarian assistance. The problem is worsening:
the global population of forcibly displaced persons has increased 75
percent in the last two decades. Many national governments are
unwilling (or unable) to fulfill their obligations under international
law to assist migrants and internally displaced persons.
How can the U.S. help realize the aspirations behind the New York
Declaration for Refugees and Migrants passed this past
September?
What can the United States U.N. Ambassador do to ensure that member
states honor commitments made to protect refugees and migrants?
Do you believe signing the global compact on refugees and the
global compact for safe, orderly, and regular migration are in
the U.S. national interest?
Answer. The U.S. is by far the largest contributor to the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees and provides billions more in direct and
indirect assistance, bilaterally or through multilateral organizations
like UNOCHA, to assist refugees and address humanitarian crises. U.S.
contributions to these efforts are immensely important and, if
confirmed, I will support U.S. leadership in this area and focus on
making sure U.S. contributions are used to maximum effect. I will also
highlight the security implications of fragile and unstable nations and
the critical problems to which these situations contribute, including
refugees, in the U.N. Security Council.
geographic
Western Hemisphere
Central America
Question. In recent years, Democrats and Republicans have forged a
bipartisan consensus--including appropriating $750 million last year--
to respond to Central America's refugee and migration challenges. This
assistance recognizes that countries like El Salvador, Honduras, and
Guatemala have consistently ranked in the top five countries in world
for high murder rates--murder rates generally seen only in war zones.
Consequently, there is growing recognition that many Central American
migrants should be viewed as refugees and thus eligible for
international protections.
As tens of thousands of vulnerable people arrive at our
southwestern border, how will you ensure that our legal and
moral international obligations are fulfilled in protecting
their well-being and rights?
Will you maintain the United States partnership with the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that Central American
migrants fleeing violence receive sufficient protections and
that they can be screened for relocation in third-countries?
Answer. I anticipate that the Trump administration will be taking a
look at our relationship with and funding for all U.N. and affiliated
agencies to make sure our contributions are appropriate.
Mexico
Question. In its 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) identified Mexican transnational
criminal organizations (TCO) as the ``greatest criminal drug threat''
to the United States. TCOs also pose a serious threat to Mexico's
Central American neighbors as well. Some of these ultra-violent groups
employ terrorist-like tactics and have begun to operate in non-
traditional areas.
How can the U.N. better contribute to the fight against such
groups? Is the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime an effective
leader on this problem? What could the office do in the coming
year to better coordinate international efforts to frustrate
Mexican TCOs?
Answer. The U.S.'s strategy should be based in continuing efforts
to weaken these TCOs by building capacity and strengthening the rule of
law in Mexico. Despite the successful bilateral security cooperation
between the U.S. and Mexico, insecurity exists in many parts of the
country. As a result of high levels of trade, demographics, energy and
geography, their security and stability is in our national interest.
Question. The State Department plays a central role in coordinating
U.S. counter narcotics assistance. Additionally, Mexican criminal
organizations continue to illegally traffic South American cocaine and
a growing volume of Mexican-produced heroin and Mexican- and Chinese-
produced fentanyl into the U.S.--which is fueling opioid addiction and
an alarming number of overdoses across the U.S.
As we cannot resolve this challenge alone, if confirmed, what
strategies will you employ to work with the Government of
Mexico and U.N. member states to combat these criminal
organizations and the illegal drug trade?
Answer. Drug trafficking has destabilized Latin America and the
expansion of fentanyl trafficking and precursor chemicals used in its
production have become lucrative sources of revenue for Chinese
criminals. The expansion of Mexican origin heroin has devastated
communities throughout the U.S., with an immeasurable human toll.
Unfortunately these drugs have a higher profit rate and are cost
effective to smuggle into the U.S. than marijuana and cocaine. We must
work to identify and shut down the illicit trafficking infrastructure
from physical to financial and continue working to weaken the influence
of drug trafficking organizations.
Venezuela
Question. The situation in Venezuela has deteriorated since the
introduction of S. Res. 537, something for which I was an original co-
sponsor. Accordingly, I'm working with colleagues to reintroduce this
resolution in the new Congress. I am profoundly concerned about the
ongoing political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis in
Venezuela.
What will you do in New York to call for respect of constitutional
and democratic processes by President Maduro and this regime?
Will you work to build consensus and support among fellow
Ambassadors, especially from OAS states, to hold the Maduro
regime accountable?
Answer. The series of crises in Venezuela have become particularly
acute in recent months. The Venezuelan government's criminality and
corruption has wreaked havoc on its country and we must work to stop
them from co-opting legitimate institutions like the U.N. Human Rights
Council. We must also work to ensure regional stakeholders like leaders
and the OAS hold the regime accountable.
Question. I'd like to gauge your thoughts on the potential role of
the U.N. in addressing Venezuela's crisis. As the world watched, the
Venezuelan economy has collapsed; shortages of food and medicine are
prompting a humanitarian crisis; and the country's authoritarian
president has jailed political opponents and preceded over the demise
of country blessed with natural and other resource.
If confirmed, will you commit to meeting with Venezuelan human
rights activists and the families of political prisoners,
including Lilian Tintori, the wife of jailed opposition leader
Leopoldo Lopez?
Answer. Currently Venezuela has more political prisoners than Cuba,
a country governed by the Western Hemisphere's longest running military
dictatorship. As the U.N. Ambassador, if confirmed I would be proud to
meet with the relatives of political prisoners and advocate for their
release. It appears the failure of UNASUR to negotiate a responsible
outcome to the crisis was due to the lack of political support for
publicly condemning Maduro. In order to avoid the U.N. falling into the
same trap, I will work with other countries to raise awareness and
build consensus on what the U.N.'s proper role in addressing Venezuela
should be.
Given that diplomacy by the Vatican and the Union of South American
Nations (UNASUR) have not produced results, is it time for the
United Nations to take an increased role in resolving
Venezuela's political, economic, and humanitarian crisis?
Answer. Seeking a resolution to Venezuela's multitude of crises
requires the support of regional and international stakeholders. Last
year, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States
applied the InterAmerican Democratic charter against the government of
Venezuela. I believe future diplomatic efforts should be based on its
principles of good governance and respect for human rights. For too
long, the Venezuelan government has used organizations like the United
Nations to legitimize their erosion of Venezuela's democracy. I will
use every opportunity to exposing the destabilizing impact of this
behavior.
Haiti
Question. This past autumn, I and some of my concerned Senate
colleagues, sent letters to United States U.N. Ambassador Powers and to
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon regarding the cholera epidemic that has
swept through the country since the 2010 earthquake. There is general
consensus that the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti
introduced the disease in the country. This epidemic has infected more
than 779,000 people and caused at least 9,000 deaths so far. I was
pleased that Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon finally took some ownership
of this dire problem and laid out a new policy to address, albeit
belatedly, this preventable situation. I'm troubled by the time it took
for the U.N. to accept responsibility and to take meaningful steps to
stop and reverse the disease. I'm equally disappointed by this
country's lassitude with regards to holding the U.N. accountable and
seeming passivity as to forceful actions to stop the epidemic.
If confirmed, will you pledge to ensure that the U.N. fully follows
through on its ``New Approach'' to the cholera epidemic and
that it make its implementation a top priority?
Will you work with the new Secretary-General and your colleagues in
New York to ensure that other member states commit to providing
the necessary mandate and funds to support alleviating the
suffering caused by the epidemic?
Answer. If confirmed, I would try to mobilize international support
for Haiti.
Question. Years after the earthquake that devastated Haiti,
meaningful rebuilding and redevelopment continues, but it is far from
complete and Hurricane Matthew only complicated an already desperate
situation for Haitian nationals. The U.S. Congress played an
instrumental role in the recovery effort by approving $3.6 billion in
assistance for the Haitian government and its people, but more work is
needed.
If confirmed, what measures will you take to build international
consensus for sustained support to Haiti? And that such support
be provided from a broad range of donors in accordance with our
collective responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would try to mobilize international support
for Haiti but I would need to better understand the legal and financial
implications of U.N. compensation and restitution before endorsing such
a policy.
Cuba
Question. Despite the Obama administration's controversial and
misguided decision to normalize relations with Cuba and its' hope that
this could lead to improved governance and human rights, Cuban
officials continue to arrest dissidents and violate the rights of
citizens, and increased tourism revenues benefit only government
officials and a small minority of the population.
How do you plan to approach the United States' relationship with
Cuba within the context of your role at the United Nations?
What strategies will you employ to apply further multilateral
pressure to lessen authoritarian rule in Cuba?
Will you continue to support programs that promote democratic
voices and initiatives in Cuba through the aegis of the U.N.
and its subsidiary bodies and related organizations?
Can you list some of those entities and how they might further
contribute to advancing this agenda?
What steps will you take to increase international pressure on the
Castro regime to return American political fugitives like New
Jersey cop-killer Joanne Chesimard?
What steps will you take to encourage the government of Cuba to
release political prisoners, artists, journalists, and other
Cubans being detained for politically-motivated reasons?
Answer. As U.N. ambassador, I plan to make it clear that the U.S.
will return to having common cause with Cuba's anti-Castro dissidents.
President Obama's policy has led to skyrocketing levels of political
repression, human rights abuses and an empowered government in Cuba. We
must continue actively supporting the dissidents on the island, through
programs aimed at carrying out democratic initiatives throughout the
island. Our government will condition our relationship with the Cuban
government on improvements on human rights as well as the return of
wanted U.S. fugitives. The past administration did not understand that
it is in America's interest to have a prosperous and free Cuba 90 miles
from our coast and never tried to build coalitions of the like-minded
in the matter.
Colombia
Question. The long running conflict in Colombia appears to be
finally coming to an end with the signing of an agreement between the
government and the FARC rebels. The U.N. has a small political mission
there to assist in securing the peace.
Can the U.N. contribute further to realizing peace and stability in
Colombia?
What can you and USUN Mission do to ensure that the international
community remains committed to helping Colombia in this
difficult but long overdue process of normalization and
reconciliation?
Answer. If properly implemented, this peace deal could potentially
bring an end to the over fifty year-long conflict. From demobilizing
combatants to removing mines, the U.N. and other international
stakeholders stand to play an important role. To the extent possible,
we must make sure that FARC combatants are held accountable for their
crimes, and the gains from Plan Colombia are not forsaken in the
process of implementing the peace deal.
Near Eastern and South and Central Asia Affairs
Iran
Question. Iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of
terrorism in the world and a nuclear-armed Iran poses a grave threat to
the United States and our allies.
What concrete steps will you take to build and sustain efforts to
stop malign Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq?
Likewise, what can the international community do, and especially
the U.N., to support the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people
to stop the influence of Iran and violent extremist groups
within the country?
Answer. If confirmed I will work with my Cabinet colleagues to do
my part at the U.N. to implement the administration's strategy to deter
and stop Iran's malign influence in the region.
Question. Iranian and Russian cooperation in the Syrian conflict is
one facet of a web networks Iran is cultivating to advance its agenda
in the Middle East.
Do you believe that joint Russian-Iranian operations in Syria are
in the interest of the United States? If no, please describe
what steps specifically you plan to take to weaken the network
of Russian-Iranian military actions in Syria and across the
region.
Answer. I do not believe Russian-Iranian operations in Syria are in
the interest of the U.S. If confirmed I will work with my Cabinet
colleagues to do my part at the U.N. to implement the administration's
strategy in Syria
Question. Iran is engaged in a concerted effort to undermine
traditional U.S. allies in the region and to hold themselves out as a
model for principled resistance to what they perceive as U.S./Western
hegemony in the Middle East. Their use of proxies, such as Hezbollah,
their fomenting conflict in Yemen and Syria, and their provocation in
the Straits of Hormuz indicts that despite JCPOA, their involvement in
international affairs is almost entirely malign.
How do you plan to cultivate international support to aggressively
stop Iranian proxy networks like Hezbollah from attacking
Americans and other nationals?
How will you work with other countries to ensure they comply with
primary and secondary sanctions we have in place to stop Iran's
proxy terrorist networks from destabilizing the region?
Will you work to build support for additional sanctions against
Iranian individuals and actors who are known to fund terrorism
as required?
Answer. If confirmed I will work with my Cabinet colleagues to do
my part at the U.N. to implement the administration's strategy to deter
and stop Iran's malign influence in the region.
Syria
Question. There are more refugees and internally displaced persons
(IDP) in the world now than any other time since World War II. Many,
but not all, of these refugees and IDPs stem from years of conflict in
Iraq and Syria. 20 percent to 25 percent of the population of Lebanon
is made up of such individuals.
Are you satisfied with the leadership of U.S., from policy and
financial angles, within the international community to address
the crisis? If not, what do you plan to do to ameliorate the
situation?
Should you be confirmed, what concrete steps will you take to
address the dire humanitarian crisis in Syria and to help
prevent the further destabilization of neighboring countries?
What do you think the role of both the U.N. Security Council and
the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees should play?
Answer. I look forward to being briefed fully on these issues in
the event I am confirmed. I understand that dealing with the refugee
situation in the region is a priority for the U.S. goal of bringing
peace and stability to the region. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
assessing U.S. leadership with the context of my duties as U.N.
ambassador and tirelessly working to make every effort to ensure U.S.
leadership is as effective s as possible.
Afghanistan
Question. I co-sponsored with Senator Corker The Afghanistan
Accountability Act, which lays out a framework for the United States to
take meaningful steps, working with our Afghan interlocutors to tackle
the roots of corruption including: developing clear accountability
benchmarks; supporting the Afghan legal system to better oversee
property rights and asset management; and, in certain cases, imposing
specific penalties on persons who are knowingly involved in direct acts
of mismanaging or misappropriating U.S. assistance.
What steps can be taken internationally to encourage Afghanistan to
combat rampant corruption, extensive patronage networks, and
mismanagement of assistance dollars that is contributing to
instability and poor governance?
How can the U.N. and our international partners contributed towards
institutionalizing reform and progress?
Answer. I believe the efforts to reduce corruption and improve
governance in Afghanistan are vital to advancing U.S. interests in
bringing peace and stability to the region and the goal eliminating
Radical Islamic Terrorism. I do not have sufficient knowledge to
determine what specific additional measures to take. Should I be
confirmed I look forward to gaining a greater understanding of this
issue and in particular working with the Congress to determine how U.S.
leadership can best contribute to this effort.
Question. This is longest running armed conflict in U.S. history.
Success seems elusive despite an unprecedented commitment by the U.S.
and our allies.
What specific policy steps would you take to further isolate the
Taliban and its supporters?
What could the U.N. do further to undergird our efforts to achieve
improved security and good governance in the country?
Some Americans feel the U.N. is not doing enough in Afghanistan. Do
you agree? What will you tell the Secretary-General when you
meet him in this regards?
Answer. I believe U.S. leadership in helping Afghanistan achieve
peace and stability is vital. That starts with ensuring the military
defeat of the Taliban and mitigating their capacity to affect the lives
of the people. I do not know what additional measures might be prudent
for the U.N. to take. Should I be confirmed, I commit to fully
assessing U.N. support and working tirelessly to make it both
appropriate and effective.
Asia Pacific
China
Question. It is a longstanding US policy to not recognize Chinese
claims of sovereignty over the South or East China Sea and or any
islands therein. Yet we see the country taking aggressive steps to
expand its influence and control, even to the point of militarizing the
islands and outrageously seizing a U.S. Navy vessel in international
waters.
Would you work to build international support for a targeted
sanctions regime against firms and individuals that facilitate
certain investments in the South China Sea or East China Sea,
including land reclamation, island-making, construction, supply
facilities or civil infrastructure projects in any land that is
currently disputed territory between any other nations?
Answer. I am open to considering any new approach to this problem.
Question. Likewise, would you work to build international support
to prohibit official recognition of the South China Sea or East China
Sea as part of China, and to limit certain kinds of assistance to
countries that recognize Chinese sovereignty over either Sea?
Answer. Of course, we have complex relationships with many
countries around the world. However, I am open to considering new
approaches that raise the profile of this particular issue in our
interactions with them.
Question. How will you counter China's role in the U.N. Security
Council to achieve these goals?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will forcefully represent the
views of the U.S. government at every opportunity.
North Korea
Question. One major concern at a global level is North Korea's
sharing and transferring of nuclear technology. North Korea has
successfully subverted sanctions and export and import controls, often
through flagging cargo ships with non-North Korean flags.
What steps has the international community taken since March to
more rigorously monitor and control North Korean shipping
vessels?
What steps can be taken to ensure that all countries are complying
with stricter controls the U.N. Security Council passed last
March? Where are the weakest links in the system?
Answer. I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer these
questions. I do believe that the fullest and most comprehensive
implementation of sanctions is vital to the U.S. goal of eliminating
the threat of a nuclear North Korea. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
learning more about this issue and working tirelessly in the effort to
tighten and expand the sanctions regime.
Question. I recognize that some analysts are skeptical about the
effect of sanctions on a corrupt country like North Korea. However, as
the leading sponsor of legislation that was overwhelmingly passed to
impose and tighten sanctions on North Korea, I believe they can have a
meaningful impact if rigorously enforced.
How are we in monitoring member compliance of agreements to enforce
multilateral sanctions? What are not doing enough of in this
area?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on this issue, but should I
be confirmed I commit to learning more about this issue.
Question. How do multilateral sanctions fit into the fabric of
prevention and deterring North Korea's nuclear ambitions?
Answer. I believe in concert with U.S. unilateral measures they are
vital.
Question. Do you believe China is in fact in compliance with UNSC
resolutions? What measures can we take to more tightly enforce our
unilateral sanctions?
Answer. No. I believe assessing China's effort and pressing them to
be in full compliance is vital.
Question. Will you work at the UNSC to impose additional sanctions
on DPRK if needed?
Answer. Yes.
Taiwan
Question. President-elect Trump suggested that the United States
would no longer be bound by the One China policy--a policy that is in
our national security interests. Moreover, Taiwan's successful
democratic experiment is a significant accomplishment for American
foreign policy; the country remains a strategic partner of the U.S.
Are you committed to maintaining the One China policy?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will work with the President and the
National Security Council on all aspects of our policy toward China.
Question. Where does Taiwan stand in President-elect Trump's
calculus? Is he committed to an alliance and partnership we maintained
with Taiwan since 1949 or is it a negotiating ``bargaining chip?
Answer. I believe the six assurances and the Taiwan Relations Act
are the bedrock of U.S. commitments to Taiwan. I believe the president
does as well.
Question. What impact would this have on our relationship with
China at the Security Council or other U.N. bodies?
Answer. Regardless of the impact, the Taiwan Relations Act is law
and six assurances a long-honored policy precedent that should continue
to be followed.
Question. I was extremely disappointed by the decision of the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) not to issue an
invitation to Taiwan to attend the 2016 ICAO Assembly that was held in
Montreal, Canada. ICAO's unfortunate lack of resolve in the apparent
face of Chinese coercion is deeply regrettable and reflects poorly on
an agency created by the United Nations to support a safe, efficient,
secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible
international civil aviation sector. A similar situation continues with
regards to sensible Taiwanese participation in INTERPOL. The vagaries
of cross-strait relations should not be allowed to prevent the prudent
participation of Taiwan in international bodies, assemblies, and
agencies, even if only as an observer.
What will you do to actively resist imprudent Chinese efforts to
isolate Taiwan even when common sense, international security
and safety imperatives argues for Taiwanese engagement?
What can you do to put pressure on ICAO to reconsider this decision
for future gatherings and to demonstrate leadership, fairness,
and courage by allowing the needful participation of Taiwan?
Answer. Should I be confirmed I pledge to resist efforts to isolate
Taiwan and assist it in achieving meaningful participation in
international organizations.
Question. I'm the co-chair of the Taiwan Caucus. In that capacity,
I've years of experience following the cross-strait relations between
the People's Republic of China and Taiwan; this past April marked the
37th anniversary of the enactment of Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), a
pivotal event in our shared history and emblematic of our strong
bilateral relations. Unfortunately, China is increasingly taking an
aggressive approach with its neighbors, including Taiwan. Given these
geopolitical developments, it would make sense to ensure that Taiwan
can adequately defend itself and possess the means to resist new and
increased military threats, from where ever source.
Would you be supportive of being an advocate within the Trump
administration to return to a process of regular and normalized
arms sales for Taiwan as opposed to the ``package'' approach
that the past couple of administrations have taken?
Answer. If confirmed, yes.
Europe
Cyprus
Question. We have a historic opportunity to achieve a peaceful
resolution of the long festering and untenable situation in Cyprus.
Positive Turkish engagement and support of this process is vital, as is
that of International Organizations and the U.S.
How do you view the current, ongoing Cyprus settlement talks held
under U.N. auspices?
Do you support a reunified Cyprus with a single sovereignty, single
international personality and single citizenship; and with its
independence and territorial integrity safeguarded as described
in the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions?
Will you maintain U.S. high-level engagement on this issue and push
pack on any proposed U.N. solution that is not supported by the
concerned parties?
Answer. I am hopeful that this issue can be resolved. If confirmed,
I will do what I can to encourage a mutually acceptable agreement.
Armenia
Question. 2015 marked the centenary of the Armenian Genocide. Pope
Francis has publicly affirmed the Armenian Genocide. However, Turkey
has consistently denied that a genocide took place or that it has any
meaningful culpability for this gross crime against humanity.
Do you support a U.S. declaration calling the Armenian Genocide as
such and working with other member states to do so as well?
Do you think our failure to do so hereto speaks ill of our values
and encourages the continuation of such crimes?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on this issue but I understand
how emotive the subject is. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning
more about this issue. But, as a general matter, as I stated throughout
my hearing, I will never shy away from calling out other countries for
actions taken in conflict with U.S. values and in violation of human
rights and international norms.
Ukraine
Question. On March 12, 2014, I authored and introduced legislation
(S. 2124, the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and
Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014), to provide loan guarantees
to support Ukraine, and to impose sanctions on Russian and Ukrainian
officials responsible for violent human rights abuses against anti-
government protesters, as well as against those responsible for
undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial
integrity of Ukraine. The legislation, which was signed into law on
April 3, 2014, also imposes asset freezes and visa revocations on
Russian officials and their associates who are complicit in or
responsible for significant corruption in Ukraine. Likewise, the
Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 called for the administration to
impose sanctions on other defense industry targets as well as on
special Russian crude oil projects. It also was signed by the
President.
How can USUN be used an effective tool to build international
consensus that will hold Russian and Ukrainian official
accountable for gross human rights abuses and for violating the
territorial integrity of Ukraine?
What points will you make to counter Russian propaganda and
disinformation campaign with regards to Crimea?
Answer. The U.S. should use its leadership position at the U.N. to
maintain public pressure and awareness of Russia's actions in Crimea
and eastern Ukraine. This includes working with like-minded partners in
both the U.N. Security Council and the General Assembly. This is
particularly important to show international support for Ukraine's
territorial integrity and the gross human rights abuses taking place in
occupied Crimea.
Russia
Question. The use of the veto power by Russia and other permanent
members of the United Nations Security council has contributed to the
UNSC's ineffectual responses to some serious humanitarian and security
challenges, Syria and South Sudan come to mind. Some have suggested
that a Trump administration could forge new understandings and
mechanisms to move forward at the UNSC to solve some of the global
problems facing us.
Do you see forging a new relationship with Russia at the UNSC as a
realistic prospect?
What fruitful areas might we be able to work with Putin's Russia at
the U.N.?
Answer. I do not see, at present, the conditions which would allow
the U.S. to forge a new relationship with Russia at the UNSC. However,
each opportunity for cooperation would have to be considered on a case
by case basis taking into consideration all the circumstances at the
time.
Question. Russia is running an influence campaign against the West
to delegitimize governing institutions and weaken democratic states
from within. Besides their interference in our own elections they have
do so elsewhere, such as in Germany, and seem committed to undermining
liberal, Western-style democracy across the globe.
Do you believe that Russia is actively engaged in disrupting
elections in other western democracies? What can be done at the
United Nations to confront this threat?
Answer. I do believe that Russia is actively engaging in trying to
disrupt the democratic process in the West. The U.S. should use its
leadership position at the U.N. to maintain public pressure and
awareness of Russia's actions. This includes working with like-minded
partners in both the U.N. Security Council and the General Assembly.
Question. Do we need to embark on a Marshall-like plan for global
democracy promotion?
Answer. No. The Marshall plan was appropriate for the situation in
post-World War II Europe. Should I be confirmed, I will advocate for
plans that most effectively and efficiently foster U.S. interests.
Question. Can you outline specific steps you would stake to
encourage the U.N. to further embrace good governance initiatives? Can
you point to specific programs or agencies who might be able to assist
in this effort?
Answer. I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer this question.
Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this and issue
and in particular in consulting with the Congress.
Question. What role could the U.N. play in terms of countering
illiberal forces that it presently is not?
Answer. Through strong, clear and consistent leadership against
illiberal forces that beset the globe.
Question. Because of Russia's vetoes at the Security Council, the
Syrian conflict has been prolonged and Assad consolidated power. Russia
has deepened its involvement in the region and crippled meaningful
action at the U.N.
What will you do in your capacity as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. to
work humanitarian concerns aren't ignored?
What will be your specific strategy at the U.N. Security Council to
hold Russia accountable for its aggressive activities in
Ukraine and Syria?
Answer. The U.S. should use its leadership position at the U.N. to
maintain public pressure and awareness of Russia's actions in Syria.
This includes working with like-minded partners in both the U.N.
Security Council and the General Assembly.
Africa
Ethiopia
Question. Ethiopia, an important security partner for the United
States, is suffering its worst unrest in years, in response to the
government's intensifying human rights abuses and restrictions on
freedoms. The government's harsh response to the unrest--which has
involved the killing of hundreds of protesters, mass arrests, the
imposition of a state of emergency that includes curfews and travel
restrictions for foreign diplomats--has created an unsustainable
situation.
In a world filled with serious problems, how can the U.N. and the
USUN Mission draw attention to the problems in Ethiopia and
effect positive changes?
Can Ethiopia be an effective partner on terrorism without
addressing this illiberal turn?
Answer. The human rights situation in Ethiopia is troubling. If
confirmed, I will work to strengthen our partnership with Ethiopia on
counterterror and other issues important to American interests. I will
also use the tools available to me as Ambassador to the U.N. to
encourage Ethiopia to grant its citizens the protections and rights
critical to the flourishing of a just, free, and safe society.
South Sudan
Question. The humanitarian suffering, endemic corruption, and
conflict South Sudan has the hallmarks of a failing state. The
Transitional Government of National Unity, as established by the
Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan, has been
unable to make progress. In November, 2016 I was part of a bipartisan
letter, from both houses of Congress, to outgoing United Nations
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon urging him to lead efforts to revitalize
the stalled political settlement in South Sudan and to work to bring
peace and stability to the nation.
What specific steps would you take to put South Sudan back on the
track towards peace?
Can you outline how you might use your office to help bring
attention, support, and leadership to ensure we avoid another
tragedy?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I recognize that this is an issue in
which the U.S. must show leadership in the international community.
Ethnic violence has continued over the last several years. I would
commit to continuing to highlight the situation and pressing the U.N.
to play a more effective role. I look forward to consulting Congress on
this issue.
Question. Relatedly, the conflict in South Sudan is becoming one
with an increasingly ethnic aspect, one that some believe could bring
about ``ethnic cleansing'' and even genocide. The U.N. peacekeeping
mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) is providing protection to hundreds of
thousands of civilians impacted by the fighting yet there have been
inexcusable lapses by UNMISS.
How can the U.S. and the U.N. help prevent a worsening of the
conflict and the specter of ethnic cleansing?
What steps can the administration take to encourage better
operational effectiveness by UNMISS? Are the problems
structural or financial?
What can be done to impede the flow of arms into the country?
Answer. The situation in South Sudan is one of the most pressing
humanitarian situations in the world. It is critical to help build some
political space for reconciliation between the government and rebel
factions. The United States should continue to engage in international
forums like the U.N. and bilaterally with key partners in the area to
address this issue, and decide upon a combined policy to address this
violence. This would include deploying robust diplomacy, possible
sanctions, and other measures.
Central African Republic (CAR)
Question. Recently Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres
(MSF) reported that it had to engage in food distribution in Central
African Republic (CAR ) to address the worsening humanitarian situation
there. They further pointed out that World Food Program efforts in the
country are inadequate to meet the need.
What can we do to assist the WFP in meeting this need? Will you
make it a priority to work with Ambassadors of other states to
increase emergency financial contributions?
Answer. One of our steps to support WSF would be to work with
Ambassadors of other states, which the United States could do.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Marco Rubio
On the Western Hemisphere
Question. In October 2015 at the United Nations General Assembly,
the United States abstained from condemning the U.S. embargo against
Cuba. President Kennedy proclaimed a U.S. embargo on Cuba as a result
of actions taken by the Cuban government against American companies,
including the confiscation and nationalization of property.
Do you think the United States should vote against Cuba's yearly
resolution condemning the embargo against Cuba, or abstain on
the yearly resolution, as President Obama's administration did
in October of 2016?
Answer. Yes, I think the United States should vote against Cuba's
yearly resolution condemning the embargo against Cuba.
Question. The Cuban government has been caught on several occasions
smuggling weapons internationally. As you are aware, Cuba was found in
breach of international sanctions for attempting to smuggle weapons to
North Korea. These actions, with false manifests, also threaten the
safety and integrity of the Panama Canal.
What would you do to prevent Cuba's international weapons smuggling
in the future?
Answer. I believe this effort is vital. Should I be confirmed I
would work tirelessly with the rest of the cabinet to see what
additional steps could be taken. I look forward to consulting with the
Congress on this issue.
Question. Venezuela is no longer a democracy. There are
approximately 100 political prisoners. Political opponents and ordinary
critics are routinely subject to arbitrary arrests and prosecution.
Electoral authorities, which respond to President Maduro, have failed
to carry out a recall referendum on his presidency and governor
elections that should have occurred in 2016. The Maduro administration
continues to exercise unchecked power, and has used the Supreme Court
to undermine the powers of the National Assembly, the only independent
branch of government left in the country. Meanwhile, the government has
contributed to the dramatic humanitarian crisis that leads to the
enormous suffering of many Venezuelans--among other things, by failing
to ensure that international aid, which is readily available, reaches
the Venezuelan people.
What concrete measures would you take to address the grave human
rights situation and humanitarian crisis that Venezuela is
facing under the Maduro regime?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I would tirelessly work to make
every effort within my duties as U.N. ambassador to highlight the human
rights abuses and humanitarian crisis in the country and condemn the
regime.
Question. The cholera bacteria was introduced by the United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) and has caused the death of
thousands of Haitians. The disease is now putting the lives of many at
risk, and the lack of clean water and sanitation infrastructure caused
by Hurricane Matthew is only exacerbating the spread of the disease.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had announced his plan to give
cholera victims in Haiti or their communities cash payments from a
proposed $400 million cholera response package.
Will you commit to work to ensure these victims receive proper
compensation from the United Nations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would try to mobilize international support
for Haiti but I would need to better understand the legal and financial
implications of U.N. compensation and restitution before endorsing such
a policy.
On the U.N. Human Rights Council
Question. Last year, the Obama administration rejoined the U.N.
Human Rights Council, the membership of which is mostly made up with
countries who hold some of the worst human rights records. The fact
that countries such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, and Egypt have a seat
on the U.N. Human Rights Council proves that it is a broken and
ineffective institution with very little credibility. Many of these
countries use the Council to cover up their own abysmal human rights
records.
Do you believe the United States should even be a member the
Council while countries with abysmal human rights records sit
on it?
If so, then what is best way for the United States to promote human
rights and basic freedoms on the Council when human rights
abusers like Cuba, China, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Saudi
Arabia also sit on the Council? And how do you plan to clean up
the U.N. Human Rights Council's membership and protect
fundamental human rights?
Answer. the ability of human rights violators to be elected and
shield each other from criticism. If confirmed, I will work with the
President and the cabinet to determine the appropriate level of
engagement with the HRC that best advances U.S. interests.
Question. In March 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a
resolution calling for the creation of a database of Israeli companies
operating in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Last
month, the U.N. General Assembly approved a budget that included
$138,000to support this effort. I view this blacklist as a dangerous
step that can lead to a boycott of our ally Israel.
How can the United States derail this blacklist effort?
What more can we do to make sure that we find ways to push back
against efforts to isolate the Jewish state and instead fully
include Israel as a state receiving equal treatment at the
United Nations?
Answer. I agree. Israel is a vital ally of the United States, and
we must meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic
ally in the region. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the
President that the U.S. announce it no longer supports UNSCR 2334 and
would veto any U.N. Security Council efforts to implement it or enforce
it, and block any future U.N. sanctions based on it. Although the U.S.
may not be able to stop the implementation of the BDS list in the
General Assembly, if confirmed, I commit to use my position to do what
is possible to impede it.
On the U.N. Peacekeeping
Question. Allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N.
peacekeepers and personnel continue to surface.
How will you push the United Nations to hold peacekeepers
accountable for abuses committed while on mission wearing the
U.N. blue helmet?
How will you push the governments of troop-contributing countries
to hold peacekeepers accountable for abuses committed while on
mission wearing the U.N. blue helmet?
Will you name and shame countries whose troops are involved in
sexual abuse allegations and publicly identify those countries
which have not taken steps to advance prosecution of soldiers
for alleged misconduct committed while part of U.N. missions
abroad?
What specific reforms do you recommend to prevent future failures?
Answer. See below.
Question. The new U.N. Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has
pledged to make eradicating sexual exploitation and abuse from
peacekeeping operations one of his priorities.
How will you support him in these efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and the United
Nations to strengthen the U.N.'s zero tolerance policy on sexual
exploitation and abuse. Effective steps must include naming and
shaming, repatriation of units, and holding troop contributing
countries to account and require transparent reporting on
investigations, prosecutions, and punishment for offenders. This must
include withholding payment and, as a last resort, barring countries
from participating if they fail to comply.
On Global Women's Issues
Question. Conflict and crisis have significant implications for
women and girls. In contemporary conflicts, as much as 90 percent of
casualties are among civilians, most of whom are women and children.
Women are the first to be affected by infrastructure breakdown, as they
struggle to keep families together and care for the wounded.
How do you believe the United States and the United Nations should
approach and prioritize the protection of women and girls in
conflict settings?
Answer. I agree that women and girls are most at risk in conflict
situations, and that we should prioritize their protection in our own
foreign policy programs and those at the U.N. I look forward to finding
additional opportunities and initiatives to advance existing efforts,
if confirmed. I also support efforts to advance women's participation
in peace and security, including preventing conflict and building peace
in countries threatened and affected by war, violence and insecurity.
Question. One of the U.N.'s core missions is to promote equal
rights for men and women around the world, including the right of all
women and girls to decide if, when and whom they marry.
What is your vision for how the United States and the United
Nations can continue to promote the rights of girls worldwide,
including the U.N. goal that commits to ending child marriage
by 2030?
Answer. I strongly support the goal to end the human rights abuse
of child marriage and will look for opportunities to advance this goal
in the U.N. should I be confirmed.
On Israel and the Security Situation in the Middle East
Question. U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the
JCPOA, calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to
ballistic missiles and restricts Iranian arms transfers. Iran has
violated these restrictions with virtual impunity. Iran continues to
test ballistic missiles, ship arms to Assad, Hezbollah and the Houthis,
and import arms from Russia.
Will you insist upon robust enforcement of the ballistic missile
and arms transfer restrictions on Iran?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps can we take to overcome the reticence by other
nations to enforce the U.N. Security Council's own edicts?
Answer. The incoming administration intends to conduct a deliberate
review of the JCPOA in order to determine its approach. At a minimum,
it will be critical to ensure that all provisions of the deal are very
strictly enforced to hold Iran accountable and deter any cheating.
Question. In 2011, UNESCO voted to admit Palestine as a member
state in the organization. That action triggered U.S. laws and a cut-
off in our financial contributions to UNESCO. The cutoff of U.S.
funding had a dramatic effect. Since the UNESCO action, no similar
agency has acted to grant membership to the Palestinians.
Do you agree that the United States should oppose Palestinian
efforts to obtain full membership at any U.N. agency?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will you continue to enforce U.S. laws requiring that the
United States not fund international organizations that grant Palestine
full member privileges?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The United Nations maintains several peculiar bodies and
departments that focus on the Palestinians. These including the
Division on Palestinian Rights (DPR), the Committee on the Exercise of
the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), and United
Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL). The
plethora of Palestinian-specific agencies in the U.N. does nothing to
promote peace while reinforcing the U.N.'s systematic anti-Israel bias.
Will you work to challenge the existence and funding of these
departments?
Answer. I anticipate that the Trump administration will be
examining our relationship with and funding for all U.N. and affiliated
agencies to make sure our contributions are appropriate.
Question. Rather than working to solve the problem of Palestinian
refugees, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) seeks to
perpetuate refugee status for Palestinians. The U.N. treats Palestinian
refugees in a manner different than all others--it grants refugee
status to all descendants of refugees, even if they are citizens of our
own nation. By this treatment, UNRWA has swelled the population of
Palestinian refugees seven-fold in the last 60 years' to over 5 million
people. Congress has sought to bring reality back to this issue, and to
focus our efforts only on those individuals who can truly be considered
refugees.
How would you approach this issue? How can we get UNRWA to try to
solve the problem of Palestinian refugees rather than to
perpetuate the problem?
Answer. I anticipate that the Trump administration will be
examining our relationship with and funding for all U.N. and affiliated
agencies to make sure our contributions are appropriate.
Question. Since its inception, the United Interim Force in Lebanon
(UNIFIL) has done nothing to prevent Hezbollah from rearming in
Lebanon. Ten years after the Second War in Lebanon, Hezbollah has ten
times the number of rockets and missiles it had at that time. UNIFIL
does not even patrol certain urban areas out of a fear of Hezbollah. I
am afraid that another war could breakout between Israel and Lebanon
with devastating consequences.
What more can and should we be doing to ensure compliance with U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war in
Lebanon and required Hezbollah to disarm?
Will you work to highlight Hezbollah's violations of Resolution
1701 and its illegal placement of arms among Lebanon's civilian
population?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of UNSCR 1701,
but should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
On Human Rights, Democracy and Religious Freedom
Question. Throughout the world, political dissidents, activists,
journalists, and human rights defenders have been victims of repression
and imprisoned--or worse, tortured and killed--solely for peacefully
exercising their right to freedom of expression.
What would you do to reiterate the U.S. government's commitment to
protect and advocate for those on the frontlines, including
civil society organizations, who are exercising basic freedoms?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use the microphone of the U.N.
ambassador to state publicly and often that the United States supports
and is committed to free speech and expression all over the world, and
that we will call out those who are victimized because they are
peacefully advocating their beliefs.
Question. What will you do to initiate a U.N. inquiry on war crimes
in Syria, including those committed by Russian and Iranian forces as
well as Syrian forces?
Answer. I have not been briefed on how such an inquiry could
proceed, but, if confirmed, I commit to exploring this matter.
Question. Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records,
with Freedom House giving them a score of ``Not Free'' on their annual
Freedom of the World Report.
How will you address these abuses at the United Nations and
encourage Saudi Arabia to improve its human rights record?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, through clear, strong and consistent
leadership on this issue.
Question. Iraq and Syria's Christian community has been
deliberately targeted, along with Yezidis and other religious
minorities, by ISIS for genocide, as Obama administration stated in its
official designation last year. Since 2011, Syrian Christians have been
disproportionately underrepresented in refugee resettlement referrals
to United States by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees as shown in
State Department-published data.
In light of these realities, how will you work to ensure that those
religious and ethnic minorities who are victims of genocide are
not neglected or marginalized in the U.N. context?
Answer. By playing a leadership role, ensuring that the U.S.
portion on this issue is clear, strong and consistent.
On North Korea
Question. Currently, the human rights situation in North Korea is
only discussed once a year at the U.N. Security Council, typically in
December.
Will pledge to place North Korea's human rights record on the U.N.
Security Council General's agenda every quarter--similar to
debates on the country's proliferation of nuclear weapons
technology?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The United Nations Commission of Inquiry Report on human
rights in North Korea found that China was in violation of its
obligations under international human rights and refugee law.
Specifically, China's forced repatriation of North Korean refugees--
many of whom face torture, starvation, imprisonment, sexual violence
and even execution--could be considered aiding in crimes against
humanity.
Will you make it a priority to press China to change its policies
as it relates to North Korean refugees?
Will you use the United Nations to elevate this issue and press for
international action?
Answer. Yes.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Value of the U.N. to the U.S.
As tempting as it may be to turn the U.N. into a scapegoat for the
world's problems, the U.N. system performs duties that are of immense
value to the United States. U.N. peacekeepers help maintain stability
(albeit imperfectly) in countries where the U.S. cannot or will not
deploy and the U.N. does so at a fraction of the cost of U.S.
unilateral deployment. The U.N.'s humanitarian agencies (UNAIDS, UNHCR,
WFP, UNICEF, etc.) have an unmatched capacity to help millions of
people survive disasters, both natural and manmade, while sharing the
cost for this immense burden across the international community. The
U.N. serves as a forum for international cooperation in areas of great
value to the U.S. ranging from setting standards for civilian air
travel to combatting infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and the Zika
and Ebola viruses. Even staunch critics of the U.N., such as the George
W. Bush administration, used these and other U.N. capabilities
vigorously.
What U.N. functions would you describe as being of the greatest
value to the United States?
Would you agree that U.N. peacekeeping serves as a useful tool in
furtherance of U.S. interests around the world, and at a
fraction of the cost of a direct U.S. military deployment?
Do you see any viable replacement to the life-saving work done by
the U.N.'s humanitarian agencies, which feed, shelter, and
protect millions of people around the world who have nowhere
else to turn? And isn't U.S. support for these U.N. activities
leveraged several times over by sharing the burden of the cost
for these operations with other U.N. members?
If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., would you see it as
one of your responsibilities to serve as a spokesperson to the
American people regarding the value of the U.N. system to the
U.S., in addition to calling out its shortcomings?
Answer. As I mentioned at my hearing, although it has flaws and
failings, I believe that the U.N. does valuable work. Among the most
important responsibilities the U.N. has are U.N. peacekeeping
operations and the humanitarian work done by U.N. specialized agencies,
funds, and programs. If confirmed, I will not shy from acknowledging
the good work done by the U.N. and its affiliated organizations.
Question. The New York City Mayor's Office, in its 2016 report,
estimated that ``the U.N. Community contributed an estimated $3.69
billion in total output to the New York City economy'' and that
``approximately 25,040 full- and part-time jobs in New York City are
attributable to the presence of the U.N. Community.'' The United
Nations Foundation found that U.S. businesses generated more than $1
billion in contracts with the United Nations in 2014 and 2015.
Would you acknowledge that the U.S. reaps an impressive financial
benefit for staying engaged with the U.N.?
Answer. U.S. contributions to the U.N. system should be based on
the performance of the U.N. and how its activities advance U.S. foreign
and security interests, not on whether those funds benefit New York.
U.N. Reform
Question. Conservatives have long espoused the need for the U.N. to
reform, but calls for reform are often nebulous including demands for
``better oversight'' or ``eliminating waste and fraud.'' Alternatively,
reform proposals center around issues that more appropriately stem from
Member State policies as opposed to those of the U.N. Secretary-General
or staff (i.e. Human Rights Council focus on Israel; Human Rights
Council membership; Palestinian membership in UNESCO). A mechanism
favored by conservatives to try to force the U.N. to accept reforms is
to advocate for withholding of U.S. assessed membership dues. However,
withholding of U.S. assessed dues has long been opposed by successive
administrations, Democrat and Republican alike. In fact, U.S.
Ambassador to the U.N. during the George W. Bush administration, John
Bolton, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee (then
named the International Relations Committee) on 9/29/15 that the Bush
administration's position was to ``oppose mandatory withholding of U.S.
dues.'' Bolton repeated this position the following month before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, though eventually, after leaving
government, Bolton personally advocated for withholding.
If confirmed, would you advise the President that withholding of
U.S. assessed dues to the United Nations is a useful way to try
to leverage reforms at the U.N., despite successive
administrations, including the George W. Bush administration,
having opposed legislation that would mandate the non-payment
of dues as obligated by U.S. treaty commitments?
Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I do not
support slash and burn cuts to U.S. funding, but I do think that
targeted and selective withholding can be effective. As I also stated,
I think Congress can be a critical partner in advancing U.N. reform. If
confirmed, I will work with Congress on these matters.
Question. The U.S. has sometimes found itself in significant
arrears to the U.N.
Do you think failing to pay our bills in full and on time
undermines our ability to work constructively with other
members and with the U.N. management to pursue U.S. interests?
Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I do not
support slash and burn cuts to U.S. funding, but targeted and selective
withholding tied to specific reforms has proven in the past to be an
effective means for pressing the organization to implement reforms.
Question. One of your predecessors for this role as U.S.
Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, once famously observed that blaming the
U.N. for many of the failings laid at its doorstep is ``like blaming
Madison Square Garden for the Knicks'' performing poorly. This may be
simplistic, but it is true that it is often very difficult to separate
out the U.N. shortcomings that result from management by the Secretary-
General and his staff, from the policies espoused or established by its
Member States with which the U.S. disagrees.
As Ambassador, how would you work to reform the U.N. itself,
without blaming it for the policy positions of its Member
States?
Answer. The member states are often responsible for problems
besetting the U.N. and for impeding reforms. If confirmed, I will work
with the Secretary-General to encourage him to implement reforms within
his responsibility and with other member states to implement reforms
requiring their support.
Question. On the one hand, the Human Rights Council has been
criticized for allowing states that violate human rights to become
members of the Council and also for disproportionately focusing on
Israel. On the other hand, the Human Rights Council has brought much-
needed attention to human rights issues, including in North Korea.
What is your perspective on the Human Rights Council and, if
confirmed, how would you engage with it?
Answer. As I mentioned during my hearing, I think that the Human
Rights Council is a flawed body, particularly in its bias against
Israel and the ability of human rights violators to be elected and
shield each other from criticism. If confirmed, I will work with the
President and his foreign policy team to determine the appropriate
level of engagement with the HRC that best advances U.S. interests.
Question. One key set of U.N. instruments are the U.N. Human Rights
Council Special Procedures or the ``Special Rapporteurs'' to defend
specific rights. These Special Rapporteurs are assigned to work on key
human rights issues, such as freedom of expression, freedom of
religion, and freedom of association--many of which could be lifted
right from our own American bill of rights.
As U.N. Ambassador, what would you do to strengthen the mandate and
influence of these Human Rights Special Rapporteurs?
Answer. My understanding is that the performance of the Special
Rapporteurs varies, but I have not been fully briefed on what the U.S.
has done and continues to do to address this issue. If confirmed, I
commit to gaining a greater understanding of this matter.
U.N. Security Council
Question. The Security Council has become increasingly gridlocked,
with disagreements between the U.S. and western Europeans on one side,
and Russia and China frequently aligned in opposition. This has
crippled the Council's ability to address the nightmarish situation in
Syria, and has led to inaction in numerous other hot spots. Some have
advocated for Security Council reform, either in terms of expanding
membership to make the Council more representative of the world of
today, or diluting the veto power of the permanent five members in
situations where there are humanitarian crises.
If confirmed, would you advocate within the Trump administration
for looking at ways to reform the Security Council, either to
make its membership more reflective of the world we live in
today, or to restructure the ability of members to unilaterally
veto humanitarian initiatives?
Answer. As I understand it, there is not a broad consensus among
U.N. member states on Security Council reform. If confirmed, my advice
would be based on the particulars of such a proposal. I would not
support any reform proposal that weakens U.S. influence in the Security
Council or undermines U.S. interests in that body. Although this can be
immensely frustrating--for example, Chinese and Russian opposition to
taking stronger action with respect to North Korea--I would not support
any change to the veto power because such a change would undermine the
ability of our nation's representatives to protect U.S. interests in
that body.
Question. Resolutions in the Security Council can be vetoed by any
of the five permanent member states; thus the requirements to impose
economic sanctions can be diluted and rendered ineffective. The
earliest actions taken on North Korea and China's resistance to robust
restrictions, for example, or Russia's resistance to considering a
resolution in an attempt to deter the emerging civil crisis in Syria,
offer critical examples.
What alternative strategies would you consider in such
circumstances?
Answer. If confirmed, I would consult with the President and the
Secretary of State on possibilities to moderate such opposition or, if
U.N. Security Council action was not possible, what alternative actions
could be taken.
Extremism
Question. On June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine
African Americans, including the senior pastor, State Senator Clementa
Pinckney, at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston,
South Carolina. You immediately and passionately denounced the massacre
as ``an absolute hate crime'' and you successfully advocated for
removing the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state Capitol.
You know personally how bigotry, hate, and other extremism can cause
violence.
If confirmed, how would you, as Ambassador to the U.N., combat
bigotry and the rise of violent extremism?
Answer. As I stated during my hearing, I strongly believe that the
U.S. should unabashedly promote American values. If confirmed, I will
work to advance human rights for everyone.
Americans at the U.N.
Question. Traditionally, Americans have held the leadership
positions in U.N. agencies such as UNICEF and the World Food Program.
In addition, the U.S. has held at least one Under-Secretary-General
position in the U.N. Secretariat's headquarters in New York. The U.S.
has also had a senior American in an Assistant Secretary-General
position in the Department of Field Support since the Department's
inception in 2007. Having Americans in senior U.N. positions helps keep
open vital channels of communication between Washington and the U.N.,
serves as a two-way street to help the U.N. hear from Americans, as
well as have Americans speak credibly to the U.S. about the U.N. There
have been proposals for the U.S. to zero out all voluntary
contributions to U.N. agencies, endangering the ability of the U.S. to
maintain the leadership post at UNICEF. And there is uncertainty as to
whether the U.S. will try to maintain its hold on the important
position of Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs at U.N.
headquarters.
A member of the Trump administration's Transition Team at the State
Department, Chris Burnham, has previously served as a United Nations
staff member in the role of Under-Secretary-General for Management. An
American, Jeff Feltman, currently serves as the head of the Department
of Political Affairs, and Americans also run UNICEF and the World Food
Program.
Do you think it is important for Americans to continue to hold
senior jobs at the United Nations? If so, will you advise the
Trump administration to try to retain the post of Under-
Secretary-General for Political Affairs for an American, or
would you suggest an American return to running the U.N.'s
Department of Management?
Answer. I believe it is critically important to retain high level
positions for Americans in the U.N. system, including UNICEF and the
World Food Program. One of the issues I will pursue as soon as
confirmed is determining, in consultation with the White House,
candidates for these positions as well as for the Under Secretary
General position. Both Under Secretary General positions have important
implications for the U.S. which I look forward to discussing with the
White House and conveying to the Secretary General.
Question. The House of Representatives has proposed in recent State
Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bills to cut all
voluntary U.S. contributions to the U.N., citing them as duplicative of
assessed payments. These voluntary contributions are not duplicative,
as all U.S. funding for UNICEF, for example, is made on a voluntary
basis.
If confirmed as U.N. Ambassador, would you advocate within the
Trump administration for stopping all voluntary contributions
to the U.N., including UNICEF, potentially endangering the
ability of the U.S. to advocate for an American to lead that
organization?
Answer. No. As I stated in my testimony I would support selective
withholding of contributions with the purpose of making institutions in
the U.N. more effective and efficient working in concert with U.S.
interests.
U.N. Secretary-General
Question. Former High Commission for Refugees, and former Prime
Minister of Portugal, Antonio Guterres, was recently elected by Member
States as the 9th Secretary-General. Guterres received generally high
marks for his leadership at UNHCR, and won surprisingly easy consensus
for the Secretary-General post. President-elect Trump and Guterres have
reportedly spoken by phone. With both a new U.S. administration, and
new leadership at the U.N., it is an important opportunity for the U.S.
to help empower the new SG in his early days in the job, and in any
reform efforts he may undertake.
If confirmed, how do you anticipate working with Secretary-General
Guterres?
Answer. I very much look forward to working with the new Secretary-
General, and if confirmed, hope to present my credentials to him as
soon as possible. His long experience as U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees will be a great asset to all of U.S. working on not only
refugee issues, but on peacekeeping and other security challenges. His
interest in addressing sexual exploitation in peacekeeping will be a
critically important issue that we can and will work on as soon as I
arrive in New York.
U.N. Treaties
Question. A number of U.N.-negotiated treaties have been
languishing in the U.S. Senate for years, despite some of them having
strong bipartisan support (the Law of the Sea Treaty, which has the
bipartisan support of officials ranging from every Secretary of State
from Henry Kissinger to today, a host of current and former military
leaders, and the U.S. private sector including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce), or others doing little more than codifying on an
international basis legislation that has long been the law of the land
in the United States (the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, which was voted down despite the presence of former
Majority Leader Robert Dole on the Senate floor during the vote).
Others include the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, where the U.S. is in the embarrassing company of being
one of two countries in the world (along with Somalia) that has yet to
ratify. Simply having the apparent stigma of being a U.N. treaty seems
to be enough to doom the chances for ratification, no matter how
worthwhile the substance.
If confirmed as Ambassador, will you advise your colleagues in the
Trump administration of the value of the U.S. ratifying any of
these important treaties?
Answer. The United States should only join treaties that advance
U.S. national interests. There are many treaties that the United States
has signed but have not received the advice and consent of the Senate.
If confirmed, such treaties will be reviewed to determine whether
ratification would advance U.S. national interests.
Children and Youth
Question. We know now that one billion children a year are victims
of violence, and the global economic impact of physical, psychological,
and sexual violence against children is as high as $7 trillion--or 8
percent of the world's GDP.
In your dealings and negotiations with U.N. colleagues, how will
you not only prioritize it in your day-to-day proceedings but
also elevate the issue of ending violence against children on
the international stage?
Answer. Violence against children is abhorrent anywhere. As a
mother, I am appalled with the prospect of such treatment of any child,
anywhere in the world. U.N. agencies like UNICEF as well as non-
governmental organizations have done good work in this area and I look
forward to learning more about how this issue can be further elevated.
Civil Society Space
Question. Over 50 countries have introduced or enacted laws
restricting the operations of NGOs and other civil society
organizations. The promotion of vibrant civil societies has been a key
element of U.S. foreign policy as a result of bipartisan support for
many years. In 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution
committing States to protect civil society space.
As Ambassador, how will you work with States to ensure the
implementation of this crucial U.N. Human Rights Council
resolution and otherwise help promote a safe and enabling
environment for civil society around the world?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony I believe promoting civil
society is a vital component of U.S. foreign policy. I have stated my
reservations with regard to the ability of the Human Rights Council to
advance the cause of civil society. Should I be confirmed, I will work
to make the instruments of the U.N. more efficient, effective and
accountable.
Question. If confirmed, what else will you do to ensure that the
U.S. continues to be a strong champion for civil society participation,
space, and engagement at the U.N.?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I believe my greatest contribution
will be working with other members of the cabinet to ensure our efforts
at the U.N. work in concert with the other instruments of U.S.
influence to advance U.S. efforts in promoting civil society.
Democracy, Rights, and Governance
Question. A Democratically controlled Senate unanimously confirmed
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad--a Republican nominee. Ambassador
Khalilzad, in a 2007 speech on human rights, said ``The progress of
freedom is a vital interest of the international community'' and ``we
aspire to a world in which all human beings, regardless of their race,
culture, or religion, see their fundamental rights respected and enjoy
the progress and prosperity that protection of those rights make
possible.'' Khalilzad's words represent U.S. values.
As Ambassador to the U.N., how will you promote human rights and
protect fundamentals of freedom--including support for
elections, democratic governance, civil society, rule of law,
free speech, and human rights protection, especially as people
around the world--who share our values--struggle against the
dangers presented by repressive and authoritarian regimes and
governments?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to working with other
members of the cabinet to ensure our efforts at the U.N. work in
concert with the other instruments of U.S. influence to advance human
freedoms including support for elections, democratic governance, civil
society, rule of law, free speech and human rights protection.
Gender
Question. There is a growing body of evidence showing that the
empowerment of women and girls, through investments in their health,
education, livelihoods, and the prevention of violence, not only
benefits them as individuals, but leads to healthier, more prosperous,
and more stable societies.
As Ambassador to the U.N., what concrete steps will you take to
prioritize the empowerment of women and girls in U.S.
development and humanitarian assistance and diplomatic
engagement?
Answer. All around the world, we have seen how even modest
investments in the abilities and potential of women and girls can yield
transformative results not just for women and girls themselves, but for
their families and communities. Investing in women produces a
multiplier effect--women reinvest a large portion of their income in
their families and communities, which also furthers economic growth and
stability. I believe women's empowerment and advancement is an
important part of our foreign policy and I look forward to promoting
this further at the United Nations.
Question. What role will the U.S. government play in ensuring
grassroots women and girls' participation in the implementation of the
Sustainable Development Goals by 2030?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about the
Sustainable Development Goals in this area and what appropriate role
the U.S. should play.
Question. The United Nations Population Fund provides services for
women and girls globally, such as prenatal care, safe delivery
services, and post-partum check-ups--saving the lives of babies and
mothers worldwide, including in the midst of grave crises. For example,
UNFPA's clinics in northern Nigeria provide medications, counseling and
treatment to women raped by Boko Haram; UNFPA support in Northern Iraq
reached victims of ISIL.
Would you ensure that the U.S. remains an important supporter of
these efforts, including as the second-largest donor to the
UNFPA's efforts?
Answer. As I stated at my confirmation hearing, I strongly support
efforts to provide maternal care services. I anticipate that the Trump
administration will be taking a look at our relationship with and
funding for all U.N. and affiliated agencies to make sure our
contributions are appropriate.
Question. The Women Peace and Security (WPS) agenda has been a
priority for the U.N. and the UNSC since passing UNSCR 1325 in 2000. On
the 15th anniversary of 1325, the High Level Review of Women, Peace and
Security was completed, as was the Global Study on Women, Peace and
Security. These prompted the unanimous approval of UNSCR 2242, which
formally adopts the recommendations of the Review.
How will you specifically support the WPS agenda on the UNSC and
within the U.S. Mission's broader engagement? What commitments
to the WPS are you prepared to make today?
Answer. Deadly conflicts can be more effectively avoided, and peace
can best be forged and sustained, when women's lives are protected,
their experiences are considered, and their voices are heard in all
aspects of peacemaking and peacebuilding in their countries. I support
these efforts and will look for opportunities to advance them at the
U.N.
Question. Improving maternal health was a U.N. Millennium
Development goal. Despite this, access to safe sexual and reproductive
care continues to be a major challenge for millions of women around the
world.
Would you make improving maternal health a continued global
priority?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony, I am opposed to abortion, but
I believe that maternal health is an important priority.
Women's Empowerment
Question. As you know, U.S. foreign policy places a high priority
on global women's empowerment, gender equity, and combating violence
against women. Gender inequality and gender-based violence are
impediments to development, economic advancements, democracy, and
security. For example, one of the State Department's core missions is
to promote gender equality and equal rights for men and women around
the world, including the right of all women and girls to decide if,
when and whom they marry. This understanding has transcended party
lines. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted, ``In
today's modern world, no country can achieve lasting success and
stability and security if half of its population is sitting on the
sidelines.'' More recently, Secretary of State Kerry noted: ``Our path
forward is clear. We must prevent and respond to gender-based
violence--We must open the doors for women to fully participate in
society--as farmers, entrepreneurs, engineers, executives, and leaders
of their countries. And we must invest in the next generation of women
by making sure girls can go to school in a safe environment.''
If confirmed as U.N. Ambassador, how will you ensure that
empowering women remains a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. Empowering women has always been a priority for me, both
through setting a personal example, and through policies. If confirmed,
I will work with the President and the National Security Council to
develop our foreign policy goals and will use my position as U.S.
Ambassador to forcefully and passionately implement them and the U.N.
Question. How do you intend to build on the progress that has been
made to ensure that our foreign policy reflects our national values
that men and women should enjoy equal rights? Among other things, as
U.N. Ambassador, how will you build on the work of former policymakers
to elevate and fully integrate gender analysis into U.S. foreign
policy? How will you support continued development and implementation
of the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence
Globally and the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace and
Security?
Answer. As mentioned above, I believe in supporting women's
empowerment around the world and will look for ways to promote and
further efforts in this regard in our own foreign policy and at the
United Nations.
Question. The U.S. has played an important role in expanding
effective programs around the world to address gender-based violence
and gender inequality, such as child marriage. According to recent
estimates, at least one of every three women globally will be beaten,
raped, or otherwise abused during her lifetime. In 2012, the State
Department launched a global effort to combat gender-based violence,
and this committee led a legislative effort to authorize this 5-year
strategy in the State Department Authorization bill that was signed
into law late last year. At the core of the strategy is a commitment to
increase program resources for combating gender-based violence, improve
coordination within the interagency, and increase the quantity and
quality of data needed to design and implement effective GBV programs.
As an issue that has enjoyed bipartisan support, please discuss
your vision for how the U.S. Mission to the U.N. can continue
to promote the right of all women and girls to live free from
gender-based violence and to decide if, when, and whom to marry
with free, full, and informed consent?
Answer. The issue of gender-based violence is important to me
personally, and I will support efforts at the U.N. toward preventing
violence against women and girls and mitigation of the impact of such
violence that is occurring around the world. This will include not only
prevention of violence but also protection of women, both physical and
legal, and prosecution of perpetrators.
Global Health and Nutrition
Question. As you know, the United States has been a leader in
global health and has played a catalytic role in increasing countries'
own responses to health needs including HIV/AIDS, malaria, and maternal
and child health. In fact, the U.S. has contributed to a 50 percent
reduction in the deaths of mothers and children globally in the last
two decades. We have made particular gains in areas with the world's
most vulnerable populations, such as in Afghanistan, where the rate of
women dying in child birth has dropped by more than half. I believe it
is in America's economic interest to continue to lead the way in
addressing global health issues including maintaining a strong focus on
addressing the health of mothers and children around the world.
Economists have found that an increase of just $5 per year in solutions
that address children's and mothers' health will produce up to nine
times the economic and social benefits over a generation, including
increased GDP of a country.
As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., what will be your vision for U.S.
leadership to help end preventable child and maternal deaths
within a generation?
How will you ensure that the United States continues to provide
robust support for the work of U.N. agencies such as UNICEF,
WFP, FAO, IFAD, WHO, and UNAIDS that all work to ensure global
health, food security and improved nutrition for vulnerable
populations?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony, I am opposed to abortion, but
I believe that maternal health is an important priority. I anticipate
that the Trump administration will be taking a look at our relationship
with and funding for all U.N. and affiliated agencies to make sure our
contributions are appropriate.
Humanitarian Response/Refugees
Question. How should the U.S. follow up on the commitments made at
the World Humanitarian Summit and U.N. Summit for Refugees and
Migrants?
Answer. The U.S. provides billions of dollars in direct and
indirect assistance, bilaterally or through multilateral organizations,
to assist refugees and displaced persons. U.S. contributions to these
efforts are immensely important and, if confirmed, I will support U.S.
leadership in this area and focus on making sure U.S. contributions are
used to maximum effect.
Question. The global system developed to handle refugees is broken,
leaving an estimated 21 million refugees in search of safety around the
world. In September 2016, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a
set of commitments to enhance the protection of refugees and migrants,
the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (NY Declaration).
The New York Declaration reaffirms the importance of the international
protection regime and represents a commitment by Member States to
strengthen and enhance mechanisms to protect people on the move. It
paves the way for the adoption of two new global compacts in 2018: the
global compact on refugees and the global compact for safe, orderly,
and regular migration.
What do you see as the role of the United States at the United
Nations to help address the refugee and migrant crisis? To
meaningfully achieve the two new global compacts by 2018, will
you commit to working for concrete commitments by Member States
to share greater responsibility for refugee hosting and
resettlement, offer more safe and legal routes for refugees and
asylum seekers to secure protection, and defend the human
rights of people on the move?
Answer. The U.S. is by far the largest contributor to the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees and provides billions more in direct and
indirect assistance, bilaterally or through multilateral organizations
like the World Food Program, to assist refugees and displaced persons.
U.S. contributions to these efforts are immensely important and, if
confirmed, I will support U.S. leadership in this area.
Question. While governor of South Carolina, you took the position
that Syrian refugees were not being ``properly vetted'' before
resettlement to the United States.
Why do you believe that current systems are inadequate to properly
vet Syrians, and what specific changes to these systems would
you propose?
Answer. Determining appropriate vetting processes is the
responsibility of other members of the cabinet. Should I be confirmed,
I commit supporting their efforts in accordance with my duties at the
U.N.
Question. The United States is currently a major supporter of the
only prenatal care facility and maternity ward in Zaatari Camp, the
world's largest Syrian refugee camp. Support to this maternity ward is
given through contributions to UNFPA, the United Nations Population
Fund, which is the world's leading provider of lifesaving care for
mothers and their babies in humanitarian settings. As of today, more
than 7,000 babies have been delivered without a single maternal or baby
death--an amazing statistic in any setting.
Cognizant UNFPA does not provide abortions and that U.S. funding to
UNFPA is subject to longstanding congressional restrictions, do
you know of any reason not to encourage the U.S. government's
support for UNFPA and its lifesaving work?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony, I am opposed to abortion, but
I believe that maternal health is an important priority. I anticipate
that the Trump administration will be taking a look at our relationship
with and funding for all U.N. and affiliated agencies to make sure our
contributions are appropriate.
Question. In recent years, Democrats and Republicans have forged a
bipartisan consensus--including appropriating $750 million last year--
to respond to Central America's refugee and migration challenges. This
includes the fact that countries like El Salvador, Honduras, and
Guatemala have consistently ranked in the top five countries with the
highest murder rates in the world--murder rates generally seen only in
war zones. Consequently, there is recognition that many Central
American migrants should be viewed as refugees and be eligible for
international protections.
As tens of thousands of vulnerable people arrive at our
southwestern border, if confirmed, will you maintain the United
States partnership with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
to ensure that Central American migrants fleeing violence
receive sufficient protections and that they can be screened
for relocation in third-countries?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will work with the President and
Congress to ensure that our foreign policy priorities align with our
domestic needs and fulfil our legal obligations. I have not yet been
briefed on all aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, but
should I be confirmed, I will faithfully administer my responsibilities
consistent with law and the policy preferences of the President.
International Humanitarian Law
Question. The conflict in Syria provides a stark example of how
attacks on health facilities are increasingly used as a weapon of war;
by August 2016, attacks on health facilities were happening every 17
hours in Aleppo.
What is the role of the United States in ensuring compliance of
U.N. Security Council resolution 2286 to document and conduct
investigations of attacks on health workers and facilities? And
what more can and should be done to ensure that health workers
and the civilians they serve are protected in humanitarian
emergencies?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of UNSCR 2286,
but should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue
and faithfully administering the policy preferences of the President.
Peacekeeping
Question. How will you press troop contributing countries and the
U.N. itself on transparency relating to sexual exploitation and abuse
(SEA) so as to ensure that information on investigations and
prosecutions is made public and also conveyed to the victims and
witnesses affected?
Answer. As I mentioned in my hearing, I am appalled that these
crimes are being committed by those who should be protecting vulnerable
people. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
learning more about this issue and implementing the most effective
policies to address this serious issue.
Question. Many experts assert that U.N. peacekeepers from Nepal
introduced cholera in Haiti in 2010, killing at least 10,000 and
causing illness to many others. In December 2016, U.N. Secretary-
General Ban stated that the United Nations ``simply did not do enough .
we are profoundly sorry for our role.'' Ban introduced a number of
measures to address the issue, which would cost about $400 million over
the next two years.
Please provide your assessment of current U.N. efforts to address
the issue and how a similar incident can be prevented in the
future.
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining greater
knowledge of this issue. As in all matters in addressing U.N.
operations I will press for greater transparency, accountability and
clarity of mission, insisting on greater efficiency and effectiveness.
LGBT
Question. If confirmed, how will you represent the government in
discussions regarding the rights of LGBT persons? For example, will you
continue U.S. participation in the LGBT core group?
Answer. As I stated during my hearing, I strongly believe that the
U.S. should unabashedly promote American values. If confirmed, I will
work to advance human rights for everyone.
Atrocity Prevention and Accountability
Question. What do you see as the U.S. role and responsibility to
prevent atrocities globally? What will you do at the United Nations to
advance this agenda? How can the Security Council prevent crises before
they become threats to international peace and security?
Answer. As I stated in my hearing, I am appalled that these crimes
are being committed. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in
order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit
to learning more about this issue and implementing the most effective
policies to address this serious issue.
Question. The outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. has been
outspoken about human rights violations in armed conflict, including
sexual violence.
How do you see your role on these issues, as Ambassador, if you are
confirmed? What specific steps would you take in advocating for
preventing and responding to human rights abuses, including
accountability for perpetrators and services for survivors?
Answer. As I stated in my hearing, I am appalled that these crimes
are being committed and that countries committing human rights abuses
sit on the Human Rights Council. I would need to be fully briefed on
this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be
confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue and implementing
the most effective policies to address this serious issue.
Climate
Question. Do you believe that climate change is merely a
``concept'' and a ``hoax'', created by the Chinese or someone else?
Answer. No, I do not believe climate change is a hoax. If confirmed
I commit to working with experts at the State Department and elsewhere
in the government on the issue and helping to determine what role the
U.S. Mission to the United Nations should play.
Question. Do you accept the scientific consensus that should
average global temperatures reach or exceed +2 degrees Celsius that
many regions of the world will very likely experience catastrophic
changes in the environment that may very likely impact the safety and
prosperity of many people? If not, do you place greater credence in the
opinions of less than 2 percent of climate scientists whose
interpretation of the data on climate change yield less grave concern
over the threat of climate change?
Answer. I believe that climate change is real, and should be
addressed, in concert with American economic and other interests. If
confirmed I commit to working with experts at the State Department and
elsewhere in the government on the issue and helping to determine what
role the U.S. Mission to the United Nations should play.
Question. Do you trust the analysis, concerns, and recommendations
of security experts at the State Department, Department of Defense,
Central Intelligence Agency, Navy War College, U.N. Security Council,
and the World Bank, who have expressed growing concerns over the threat
climate change poses to national and global security?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to taking a closer look at those
specific recommendations.
Question. What do you interpret Secretary of State nominee Rex
Tillerson's comments that the U.S. should maintain ``a seat at the
table'' with respect to U.S. involvement in international cooperation
on climate change to mean?
Answer. I agree with Mr. Tillerson that the United States should
have a seat at the table when it comes to the discussion on climate
change and other global environmental issues. We must participate and
engage in those discussions to advance the interests of the United
States.
Question. Do you support maintaining U.S. leadership on climate
diplomacy?
Answer. I support maintaining U.S. leadership on all matters
crucial to our national interests.
Question. What is your understanding of how important global action
to address climate change is to the global community and members of the
United Nations?
Answer. If confirmed I commit to helping to determine, along with
other members of the Government, the proper role that the United States
should play in international climate change negotiations and other
matters.
Country-Specific Questions
Russia
Question. Russia's Ambassador to the U.N., Vitaly Churkin, has held
his post for over a decade and has a deep knowledge on the U.N.
politics and systems. If confirmed, you will be serving in your first
significant position engaging foreign policy concerns.
Given Russia's consistent efforts to block American interests in
the Security Council, how will you strengthen your expertise in
order to effectively counter Ambassador Churkin and his
colleagues on the UNSC?
Answer. As I mentioned at my hearing, I am committed to working
hard and representing the ideals and values of the United States in all
of my work at the United Nations. If confirmed, I will be representing
the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council and other U.N. bodies and, just
as in my past experience in the South Carolina legislature and as
Governor of South Carolina, I will work to overcome differences
wherever they exist, including with Russia. I also understand that
there is a fine group of foreign service and career staff at the U.S.
Mission who are providing continuity and expertise on ongoing
negotiations and issues with countries like Russia, and I look forward
to working with them as well.
Israel
Question. Since 1967, successive U.S. administrations have promoted
a negotiated two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians with
both sides living side-by-side in peace and security.
Do you believe that supporting the two-state solution should still
be U.S. policy?
Answer. Yes. However, the specific outlines of what the two-state
solution looks like should be determined in negotiations between the
two parties rather than imposed on them by others.
Question. In December, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution
2334, which I believe is a biased resolution that unfairly targets
Israel and makes restarting direct negotiations for a two-state
solution more difficult.
If confirmed as U.N. Ambassador, what steps do you plan to take to
mitigate the negative implications of 2334?
Answer. Israel is a vital ally of the United States, and we must
meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic ally in
the region. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the President
that the U.S. announce it no longer supports that resolution and would
veto any U.N. Security Council efforts to implement it or enforce it,
and block any future U.N. sanctions based on it.
Question. In his outgoing remarks to the U.N. Security Council,
Secretary General Ban Kim Moon acknowledged the U.N.'s institutional
bias against Israel. He said ``Over the last decade I have argued that
we cannot have a bias against Israel at the U.N. Decades of political
maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions,
reports, and committees against Israel. In many cases, instead of
helping the Palestinian issue, this reality has foiled the ability of
the U.N. to fulfill its role effectively.''
In your view, how best can the U.S. work to rid the U.N. of its
institutional anti-Israel bias? What is an effective and
appropriate role for the U.N.?
Answer. Israel is a vital ally of the United States, and we must
meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic ally in
the region. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the President
that the U.S. veto any U.N. Security Council resolutions and oppose
other U.N. resolutions that unfairly single out Israel or would
undermine prospects for a negotiated peace. If confirmed, I would
recommend that the President oppose Palestinian membership in U.N.
organizations prior to a mutually acceptable peace agreement with
Israel and enforce laws prohibiting funding to international
organizations that do so.
Question. In March 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a
resolution calling for the creation of a database of Israeli companies
operating in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Last
month, the U.N. General Assembly approved a budget that included
$138,000 to support this effort. I view this blacklist as a dangerous
step that will energize BDS activities against Israel.
What efforts will you undertake if confirmed to challenge this
effort? What more can we do to make sure that--rather than
being isolated--we find ways to fully include Israel as a state
receiving equal treatment at the United Nations?
Answer. Israel is a vital ally of the United States, and we must
meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic ally in
the region. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the President
that the U.S. announce it no longer supports UNSCR 2334 and would veto
any U.N. Security Council efforts to implement it or enforce it, and
block any future U.N. sanctions based on it. Although the U.S. may not
be able to stop the implementation of the BDS list, if confirmed, I
commit to use my position to do what is possible to impede it.
Question. Members of the U.N. Human Rights Council includes human
rights violators such as China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Venezuela. These
undemocratic countries outrageously focus on Israel and America while
ignoring atrocities committed in states like Syria and Iran. The UNHRC
has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the
countries in the world combined. Additionally, it maintains a permanent
agenda item (item 7) that requires that Israel's behavior is raised at
every UNHRC meeting.
Will you commit to working to eliminate Agenda item 7? How will you
go about this?
Answer. I oppose Agenda Item 7 and, if confirmed, I would strive to
eliminate it. I will work with the President and the National Security
Council to determine the appropriate level of engagement with the HRC
that best advances U.S. interests, and, if confirmed, I would advise
the President that elimination of Agenda Item 7 should be a primary
goal of our participation or a condition for U.S. participation.
Lebanon
Question. What more can and should we be doing to ensure compliance
with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war in
Lebanon and required Hezbollah to disarm? Will you work to highlight
Hezbollah's violations of Resolution 1701?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of UNSCR 1701,
but should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
North Korea
Question. In recent years, with strong U.S. support, the U.N.
Security Council has adopted several resolutions sanctioning North
Korea for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Most recently, in
early December, the U.N. Security Council adopted a new sanctions
resolution aimed at curbing North Korea's ability to raise hard
currency. The U.S.-drafted resolution caps DPRK coal sales--the
country's biggest export--by approximately 60 percent and bans the
export of copper, nickel, silver, and zinc, as well as the sale of
several additional ``luxury'' items. Of note, under these new
unanimously adopted sanctions, China will slash its DPRK coal imports
by some $700 million compared with 2015 sales.
What is the impact of these types of measures?
Answer. The goal of sanctions is to force North Korea to comply
with U.N. resolutions. We will have to see what effect they have.
Question. What is a good example of how multilateral sanctions can
have more impact than unilateral ones?
Answer. I believe both types of sanctions can be appropriate, and
if I am confirmed, expect both to learn more about the efficacy of
each, their impact in combination, and advocate the policy of the
President and the United States government in relation to any sanctions
regime.
Question. How will the U.S. work through the Security Council to
ensure full implementation of these new sanctions? What additional
measures through the U.N. do you think will be necessary to enforce the
new round of U.N. sanctions?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with the
other members of the cabinet to assess the impact of current sanctions
and determine the next steps.
Question. How do you intend to approach sanctions enforcement and
implementation if you are confirmed as Ambassador?
Answer. I believe rigorous enforcement of sanctions is vital, and
if confirmed will advocate the policy of the United States
Question. Do you believe that China has acted to fully implement
and enforce UNSCR sanctions on North Korea? Has Russia? If not, what
specific sanctions and in what ways has China (Russia) failed to
implement and enforce?
Answer. I believe they can do more. Should I be confirmed, I commit
to learning more about their current compliance with U.N. sanctions and
what I appropriate step I should take to ensure the fullest possible
implementation.
Question. Are there specific tools that the U.N. needs for the
implementation and enforcement of sectoral and financial sanctions on
North Korea under the UNSCRs that are currently lacking?
Answer. Should I be confirmed I commit to work with the rest of the
cabinet to determine what additional tools might be needed, receive
guidance from the President and then advocate the policy of the United
States.
How do you view U.S. unilateral sanctions and UNSCR sanctions
working together to create an effective sanctions
regime?Answer. My goal would to be ensure they are
complementary, both supporting the U.S. goal of lessening the
threat of a nuclear North Korea.
What additional steps will you support at the U.N. to highlight
North Korea's human rights record?
Answer. Should I be confirmed I would take every opportunity to
highlight the human rights record of North Korea in every forum within
the institution where it was appropriate.
Question. In addition to the new round of sanctions by the Security
Council, are there additional steps that the United States should take
through our alliances with Korea and Japan or through unilateral U.S.
measures, including secondary sanctions as authorized by Congress, to
set up a possible diplomatic pathway to denuclearization?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I would consult with the rest of the
cabinet to what additional measures would be appropriate.
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Question. The DRC is in the midst of a major political crisis, with
presidential elections delayed until April 2018 and President Joseph
Kabila attempting to remain in power until then. The political
opposition has accused Mr. Kabila of trying to extend his presidency
(he is term-limited and was originally supposed to leave office on
December 20th) through extra-constitutional means, and there are
concerns that his efforts to cling onto power could spark violence. The
U.N. peacekeeping mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) has been preparing for
the possibility of violence, reinforcing its presence in the Congolese
capital, Kinshasa, and deploying mobile teams to several cities where
MONUSCO does not have a permanent presence to monitor human rights
violations. Nevertheless, the U.N. has warned that these measures are
unlikely to be sufficient to fully respond to a major outbreak of
political violence, as most of the force is concentrated in the
country's east, where it has been working to counter a variety of armed
groups that continue to pose a serious threat to stability. As a
result, the resources and capabilities available to the mission in
Kinshasa and other places are stretched thin.
What should the U.S. do to help bolster MONUSCO's capacity to
address this situation? How can the U.S. use its influence to
pressure the Congolese government to prevent a descent into
all-out violence?
Answer. The United States must lead with its values; many times,
that includes facilitating peace negotiations and settlements. If
confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of State to engage the
government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and other
interested parties to encourage a peaceful political solution, with a
guarantee of basic human rights and accountability for those who
transgress such rights. Targeted sanctions, possibly through the U.N.
Security Council, might be part of achieving that solution, but
sanctions are a tactic, not a strategy or a solution. Through robust
dialogue with relevant actors, the United States could help the DRC
achieve a stable political outcome, which would also translate into
increased stability regionally and an improvement in human rights.
Syria
Question. U.N. humanitarian agencies are playing a central role in
responding to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. These activities have
powerful knock-on effects that reach beyond the immediate beneficiaries
as well. For example, electronic food vouchers provided by WFP to
Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt have helped
inject more than $1 billion into local economies in recent years,
helping to create thousands of jobs in the food retail sector in these
countries. Unfortunately, despite the generosity of the American
people, ever-growing humanitarian needs in the region have consistently
outpaced available financial resources over the past several years.
This has negatively impacted U.N. aid operations, with agencies being
forced to scale back assistance to vulnerable populations, which in
turn has been one of the key drivers of the refugee exodus to Europe.
How will the U.S. work with its international partners to convince
other countries--including oil-rich countries in the Persian
Gulf--to contribute more to these relief efforts?
Answer. It is my understanding that there are a number of efforts
ongoing. Should I be confirmed, I would want to assess ongoing efforts
and consult with the rest of the cabinet and the President to determine
what additional measures would be most appropriate.
Question. The U.N. Security Council failed abysmally to stop the
horrific carnage and targeted killing of civilians in Aleppo.
In your new role, how will you push for the full and timely
implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2328, which
passed on December 19, 2016, and calls for a U.N. led
monitoring mechanism for areas that have been retaken by the
Syrian government? This is a measure that would save lives and
make sure that agreements made by parties to the conflict to
protect civilians are upheld.
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of UNSCR 2328,
but should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
Question. Humanitarian access to people in need in Syria remains
constrained by ongoing conflict, shifting front lines, administrative
and bureaucratic hurdles, violence along access routes and general
safety and security concerns in contravention of international
humanitarian law.
As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., how would you prioritize
negotiating for humanitarian access?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of State in his
efforts with key parties to the Syrian conflict to achieve a political
solution to the war and limit its humanitarian effect on Syrians. Part
of these efforts will be assistance to internally displaced persons,
through ongoing USAID programs and others, in coordination with our
partners.
Central African Republic (CAR)
Question. In April 2014, the Security Council voted to dispatch a
U.N. mission to CAR. The U.N. force is working to carry out a number of
essential activities, including protecting civilians from violence,
providing assistance to help the country carry out elections,
facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, monitoring,
investigating, and reporting on human rights violations, and helping
build the capacity of CAR's police force and court system. Due to the
collapse of virtually any semblance of law and order in the country,
peacekeepers are also mandated to arrest and detain people in order to
crack down on impunity. Over the last year, CAR has seen some promising
signs of progress, with peacekeepers playing an important role. As a
result of improvements in the overall security situation in the
country, CAR organized, with U.N. support, largely peaceful and
credible presidential and legislative elections in 2016 that led to a
peaceful transition of power.
Can you talk about the importance of the U.N.'s role in helping to
build on these gains moving forward? How should the U.S. work
with its international partners to help bolster the new
government in Bangui?
Answer. The U.N. peacekeeping operation has helped stabilize the
country, but has been plagued by sexual exploitation and abuse. If
confirmed, I pledge to focus on this operation to shore up weaknesses
and assist the government in reaching the point where the operation is
no longer required.
Colombia
Question. The U.S. has invested $10 billion in support for
Colombia--first through Plan Colombia and now Peace Colombia. This
support has spanned three U.S. presidencies and has broad bipartisan
backing in the U.S. Congress. Sixteen years ago, Colombia teetered on
the edge of being a failed state. Today, it has an historic peace
agreement and stands on the verge of joining the OECD. In January 2016,
the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2261 to
establish a political mission to monitor Colombia's ceasefire and the
disarmament of armed combatants.
If confirmed, will you work to ensure continued U.N. support for
the Colombian peace process so that the gains of the past 16
years are fully consolidated?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of UNSCR 2261,
but should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
Question. As a result of the 16-year, bipartisan commitment by the
U.S. to Plan Colombia, Colombia not only ratified a historic peace
accord but also has become a net ``exporter'' of security assistance.
Colombia's security forces have provided training to police forces in
Central America, have contributed to counternarcotics initiatives in
Afghanistan, and have maintained a presence in the Multinational Force
and Observers (MFO) on the Sinai Peninsula.
As Colombia's security forces assume a more traditional role in the
aftermath of the country's armed conflict, if confirmed, will
you support Colombian efforts to increase participation in U.N.
peacekeeping operations?
Answer. Yes.
Saudi Arabia/Yemen
Question. U.N. Security Council Resolution 2216 (2015) required
Houthi forces to withdraw from all major cities in Yemen, give up all
weapons seized from the Yemeni military, and refrain from provocations
or threats to neighboring states. Unfortunately, the Houthis have
neither withdrawn from Yemen's cities nor given up their weapons. They
have also repeatedly launched missiles into Saudi Arabia. The U.N.-led
peace process in Yemen has been on hold since late November when Houthi
leaders and former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh announced that
they would form a national government. U.N. special envoy Ismail Ould
Cheikh Ahmed called this development ``a concerning obstacle to the
peace process.''
What further steps can be taken to enforce Resolution 2216? Do you
believe that supporting the U.N. Special Envoy to Yemen's
roadmap remains the best chance of securing a negotiated
settlement to end this conflict? What specific steps can the
Government of Saudi Arabia take to move political talks
forward? If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., will you
call on the Saudi-led Coalition to refrain from steps that
escalate the conflict? What additional sources of leverage does
the United States have to press for unhindered humanitarian
access to address the suffering of Yemeni civilians?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of UNSCR 2216,
but should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
Libya
Question. Libya's Government of National Accord (GNA) was formed
after a political agreement negotiated under United Nations auspices
and in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2259 in
December, 2015. The U.S., along with most of the international
community, recognizes the GNA as the legitimate government of Libya.
Russia is now increasingly supporting General Khalifa Heftar, a
Qaddafi-era general who continues to defy the GNA's authority, hosting
him on a visit to Moscow in November and most recently, on its aircraft
carrier, the Kuznetsov.
Do you believe that Russian actions and support for Heftar outside
of the GNA are helpful? What are U.S. national security
objectives in Libya and do we need the participation of the
U.N. and its agencies to achieve those objectives?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of this matter,
but should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
China
Question. I remain concerned about the continuous repression of
basic human rights of Tibetans in China. Despite decades of oppression,
the Tibetans continue to resist the injustice without resorting to
violence. Since the mass demonstrations of 2008--where around 200
Tibetans were killed and thousands were imprisoned by the Chinese
authorities--more than 140 Tibetans have self-immolated to protest
against Chinese rule and for the return of the Dalai Lama in Tibet.
Over 600 Tibetans continue to be prisoners of conscience according to
the U.S. Congressional Executive Commission on China. With respect the
United Nations, specifically, the Chinese authorities continue to
regularly deny access to U.N. officials in charge of human rights to
the Tibetan Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas. The U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights has requested to visit China and Tibetan
areas of China since the beginning of his mandate--and other U.N.
Special Rapporteurs have done the same--but the Chinese government has
prevented them to travel there.
Will you make it a priority in your engagement with Chinese
officials at the U.N. to urge their government's compliance
with its international obligations on human rights, at the very
minimum, by allowing U.N. officials in charge of human rights
to travel to Tibetan areas?
Answer. American values are a critical component of American
interests. Standing up for human rights and democracy is not just a
moral imperative but is in the best traditions of our country. If
confirmed, I will support efforts to advocate for democracy and human
rights as an integral element of our diplomatic engagement with China
and other countries around the world.
South Sudan
Question. There is strong bipartisan commitment across multiple
administrations and Congress' to promote the well-being of the people
of South Sudan. The U.N. recently warned that ``a steady process of
ethnic cleansing is already underway in some parts'' of South Sudan,
and that the country is on the verge of an ``all-out ethnic civil war''
that could devolve into genocide. South Sudanese civilians face acute
malnutrition, and the African Union and the United Nations have
documented that war crimes and crimes against humanity that have
occurred during the course of the conflict. Last year despite the
administration's best efforts, we were unable to garner support for an
arms embargo and additional targeted sanctions on individuals including
Riek Machar, South Sudan Army Chief Paul Malong, and Information
Minister Michael Makuei.
Are you prepared to support assertive U.N. action to prevent
genocide or mass atrocities in South Sudan, if confirmed?
If confirmed, will you seek to garner U.N. support for an arms
embargo and targeted sanctions?
If confirmed, will you push the new Secretary General to convene a
high-level meeting to bring about a political settlement to the
crisis? What specifically will you do towards that end?
Answer. The situation in South Sudan is one of the most pressing
humanitarian situations in the world. It is critical to help build some
political space for reconciliation between the government and rebel
factions. The United States should continue to engage in international
forums like the U.N. and bilaterally with key partners in the area to
address this issue, and decide upon a combined policy to address this
violence. This would include deploying robust diplomacy, possible
sanctions, and other measures.
Question. In two separate incidents in South Sudan last year,
United Nations peacekeepers failed to adequately carry out their
mandate to protect civilians; once during an outbreak of violence in
Malakal in February, and again when hostilities broke out in July. In
both instances, the Secretary General ordered a review.
Will you commit to ensuring the United Nations takes steps to
improve its ability to protect civilians in South Sudan, if
confirmed?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Just last week, the Government of South Sudan rejected
the Rapid Protection Force authorized by the United Nations last year.
What will you do, if confirmed, to ensure the 4000 strong RPF
troops are deployed?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of this matter,
including what has been done and can be done, but should I be
confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Todd Young
Question. Do you agree that we need maximum possible transparency
and details from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its
reporting on Iran's nuclear program?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to pushing the IAEA to
provide the international community the maximum possible transparency
and details regarding Iran's nuclear program?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that all side agreements and
understandings related to the implementation of the JCPOA should be
made public?
Answer. Yes, with appropriate redactions for classified matters.
Question. Based on your preparation for this hearing, and your
review of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2272, what is your
understanding with regard to whether or not units that do not hold U.N.
peacekeepers accountable for sexual exploitation are in fact being
replaced?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on this matter. If confirmed,
I commit to looking into this issue and sharing that information with
Congress.
Question. In light of the rapidly expanding ballistic missile
programs of Iran and North Korea, what is your assessment of their
collaboration currently, and what more do you believe the United
Nations should do to oppose ballistic missile collaboration between
North Korea and Iran?
Answer. I will rely on the assessment of the DNI on the extent of
the collaboration between Iran and North Korea. There is currently a
strongly-worded UNSCR on North Korea, and I will push for the
enforcement of its terms.
Question. How would you characterize Russia's military activities
and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine?
Answer. Russia's actions in Eastern Ukraine and its invasion and
illegal occupation of Crimea establishes a very dangerous precedent
only last seen in Europe during World War II. This could lead to a
complete breakdown in the post-war settlement which has largely ensured
peace and stability throughout much of Europe since 1945. This would
have a profound negative impact on U.S. national interests
Question. Ukraine has filed a lawsuit at the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) demanding that Russia immediately halt its support for
separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine.
What is your view of Ukraine's filing and the ICJ more generally?
Answer. I am not familiar with the Ukraine's case against the
Russian Federation at the ICJ, but I look forward to learning more
about it if confirmed. The United States does not submit to compulsory
jurisdiction at the ICJ.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do at the U.N. to push for
better intellectual property rights protections?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the United Nations and
IPR. If confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
U.N. and Climate Change
Question. Do you agree with the scientific consensus that global
climate change is occurring and that coordinated action is urgently
required to address the risks?
Answer. See answer below.
Question. Do you agree with the objective of the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change, under which the Paris Climate Agreement
was negotiated, to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level
that would prevent dangerous interference in the climate system?
Answer. See answer below.
Question. Will you advise President-elect Trump not to withdraw the
U.S. from the Paris Agreement?
Answer. See answer below.
Question. Are you concerned that efforts to weaken or withdraw from
this agreement could isolate the United States and diminish U.S.
leadership or diplomatic leverage on issues of national interests?
Answer. I commit to working with experts at the State Department
and elsewhere in the government on the issue and helping to determine
what role the U.S. Mission to the United Nations should play.
If confirmed, I expect that the State Department and other
departments of the government will conduct a review of the Paris
Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whether
the temperature goals set forth in those agreements are the correct
goals, whether the agreements themselves are adequate to meeting those
goals, and whether the agreements advance U.S. national interests will
be part of that review.
The United States should join international agreements only if
membership would advance U.S. national interests. While having good
diplomatic relations is in the U.S. national interest, it is only one
factor that should be weighed. The decision to remain outside of the
Kyoto Protocol, for example, did not to my knowledge diminish the
United States' ability to conduct its foreign policy as it wished, nor
did it impact U.S. national security or trade in any manner. I expect
that these and many other factors will be weighed in any decision
regarding U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement.
Special Immigrant Visas
Question. As you may be aware, I am a longtime supporter of the
Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program because I believe it would be a
moral and strategic failing not to ensure that those Afghans who
supported the U.S. mission and face threats to their lives as a result
have the opportunity to seek refuge in the United States. Recognizing
your family's personal experience with the Afghan Special Immigrant
Visa program, will you promise to advocate for the program with the
President-elect and the next Secretary of State?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Special Immigrant Visa Program aligns with the national interest.
Refugees
Question. The U.S. refugee admissions process takes an average of
two years and requires a rigorous vetting process. Before a refugee
comes to the attention of the United States, the U.N. Refugee Agency
conducts its own thorough refugee status determination, which excludes
anyone suspected of serious criminality. The U.S. vetting process
involves extensive investigation by the Department of Homeland
Security, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center and other
agencies. Applicant refugees also undergo multiple, overlapping
interviews and INTERPOL checks.
Currently, the United States resettles more refugees than any
country worldwide, and for decades, welcoming refugees from all over
the world has been a bipartisan priority for U.S. administrations and
Congress.
How do you plan to maintain U.S. leadership on refugee protection
worldwide?
Answer. The U.S. is by far the largest contributor to the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees and provides billions more in direct and
indirect assistance, bilaterally or through multilateral organizations
like the World Food Program, to assist refugees and displaced persons.
U.S. contributions to these efforts are immensely important and, if
confirmed, I will support U.S. leadership in this area and focus on
making sure U.S. contributions are used to maximum effect. I will also
highlight the security implications of fragile and unstable nations and
the critical problems to which these situations contribute, including
refugees, in the U.N. Security Council.
Question. The humanitarian needs in the Middle East continue to
outpace available financial support, despite the incredible generosity
of the American people. How will the Trump administration work with its
international partners to convince other countries--including oil-rich
countries in the Persian Gulf--to contribute more to these relief
efforts? Are you concerned that your efforts will be hampered by the
President-elect's rhetoric about Muslims and about immigrants?
Answer. I agree that the humanitarian needs of refugees are dire.
However, I have not been fully briefed on the ongoing efforts of the
U.S. in this area, so am not in a position to judge where current
efforts can be improved. If confirmed, I will work with our global
partners with regard to the global refugee crisis.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure employees you lead at
the U.S. Mission to the United Nations will not feel pressure or
encouragement, explicit or implicit, to benefit the President-elect's
financial position or that of his family?
Answer. Such pressure would be completely unacceptable. I will lead
my staff faithfully in accordance with my oath of office.
Question. If confirmed, how will you respond if you suspect that a
foreign government or entity is attempting to influence the President-
elect's decision-making through his financial holdings or other means
of leverage? Will you notify this committee?
Answer. I will notify the appropriate law enforcement agencies in
the event that I suspect foreign attempts to circumvent U.S. law.
Sustainable Development Goals
Question. Do you think the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
a useful tool in promoting global development? Are the Sustainable
Development Goals consistent with U.S. foreign policy priorities, as
you see them? If not, where do you see specific inconsistencies?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the Sustainable
Development Goals. But my experience as a governor has convinced me
that market oriented policies, reduced regulatory barriers to business
and entrepreneurship, and a strong, fair and transparent rule of law
are essential to higher economic growth and development. To the extent
that the Sustainable Development Goals promote and encourage sound
policy in developing countries, I believe they can be a useful tool in
promoting global development. If confirmed, I commit to learning more
about this issue.
LGBT issues
Question. For many years, the U.S. mission at the United Nations
has been an important member of the U.N. LGBT Core Group, a network of
countries and civil society organizations that aims to ensure a place
for sexual orientation and gender identity issues on the U.N. agenda.
The U.S. mission at the U.N. has also played an important role
protecting parts of the U.N. system challenged by governments hostile
to the rights of LGBT people, including the newly appointed Independent
Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
If confirmed, will you work to further the rights of LGBT
individuals around the world? Will you continue U.S.
participation in the LGBT core group? What other actions will
you take to further this important issue?
Answer. As I stated during my hearing, I strongly believe that the
U.S. should unabashedly promote American values. If confirmed, I will
work to advance human rights for everyone.
Women Peace and Security
Question. In 2000, the U.N. Security Council formally recognized
the role of women in peace and security, unanimously adopting
resolution 1325, which specifically addresses the situation of women in
armed conflict and calls for their participation at all levels of
decision-making on conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
How do you believe the U.S. should approach and prioritize the role
women in peace, security and conflict? How can we work with our
U.N. partners to ensure that women are prioritized in the
global peace and security agenda?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony, I believe all human rights
issues are important. Should I be confirmed, my approach would be to
best address these issues with clear, strong and consistent leadership
supporting programs that are efficient, effective and consistent with
goals that support U.S. interests.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Johnny Isakson
Question. One of the key complaints I hear from my constituents
about the United Nations is that we, the United States, spend a lot of
taxpayer dollars to support the UN, but we don't seem to get a lot of
return on that investment. Will you commit to work with me and the
committee to get greater transparency on the U.N.'s expenditures?
Answer. If I am confirmed, yes.
Question. There has been a lot of debate and discussion about the
appropriate role of the U.N. Security Council in a number of different
issues, particularly related to Israel and Iran.
What are your views on our relationship with Israel?
How will you work against the anti-Israel bias that we so often see
at the U.N.?
Answer. Israel is a vital ally of the United States, and we must
meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic ally in
the region. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the President
that the U.S. veto any U.N. Security Council resolutions and oppose
other U.N. resolutions that unfairly single out Israel or would
undermine prospects for a negotiated peace. If confirmed, I would
recommend that the President oppose Palestinian membership in U.N.
organizations prior to a mutually acceptable peace agreement with
Israel and enforce laws prohibiting funding to international
organizations that do so.
Question. Regarding Iran, will you insist that Iran be held
accountable for violations of UNSCR 2231, which endorses the JCPOA,
calling upon Iran not to undertake actions related to ballistic
missiles and arms transfers? How will you encourage other nations that
it is worthwhile to enforce the U.N.'s own resolutions?
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, if confirmed, I will do so.
Question. I have strong concerns about the U.N. Human Rights
Council and its agenda that often targets democratic nations while
ignoring the atrocities committed in in places like Syria and Iran.
Do you think it is appropriate for the U.S. to maintain a seat at
the table of the Human Rights Council?
Answer. As I mentioned during my hearing, I think that the Human
Rights Council is a flawed body, particularly in its bias against
Israel and the ability of human rights violators to be elected and
shield each other from criticism. If confirmed, I will work with the
President and senior policymakers to determine the appropriate level of
engagement with the HRC that best advances U.S. interests.
Question. If so, will you commit to working to adjusting the focus
of the Human Rights Council so that it actually focuses on the human
rights violations we continue to see across the world?
Answer. If it fits within the broader foreign policy design that
comes out of the interagency process, I will pursue reforms to address
this problem should I be confirmed.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Christopher Coons
Refugee Protection
Question. I attended the U.N. Summit on Refugees last September at
the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Under President Obama's
leadership, we secured commitments from 52 countries and international
organizations around the world to cumulatively increase their total
2016 financial contributions to U.N. appeals and international
humanitarian organizations by approximately $4.5 billion over 2015
levels; roughly double the number of refugees they resettled or
afforded other legal channels of admission in 2016; create improved
access to education for one million refugee children globally; and,
improve access to lawful work for one million refugees globally. How do
you intend to continue to advocate for U.S. leadership on the
protection of refugees?
Answer. The US is by far the largest contributor to the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees and provides billions more in direct and
indirect assistance, bilaterally or through multilateral organizations
like the World Food Program, to assist refugees and displaced persons.
U.S. contributions to these efforts are immensely important and, if
confirmed, I will support U.S. leadership in this area and focus on
making sure U.S. contributions are used to maximum effect. I will also
highlight the security implications of fragile and unstable nations and
the critical problems to which these situations contribute, including
refugees, in the U.N. Security Council.
North Korea Human Rights Abuses
Question. What are your views of the International Criminal Court?
Answer. I share many of the concerns about the International
Criminal Court expressed by Congress in the American Service-Members
Protection Act and by previous U.S. administrations that led them not
to seek ratification of the Rome Statute and limit U.S. interactions
with the International Criminal Court.
Question. Do you believe North Korea should be referred to the
International Criminal Court for its human rights abuses?
Will you make a concerted diplomatic effort to gain the votes
needed to overcome Russia and China's veto in the U.N. Security
Council?
Answer. I wholeheartedly believe that the North Korean government
has committed and continues to commit horrible crimes against its
people. If confirmed, I will be forthright in condemning that
government. Currently, there is no number of votes that can override a
veto by a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Although this
can be immensely frustrating on situations like North Korea where
Chinese and Russian opposition prevents stronger action, I would not
support any change to the veto power because such a change would
undermine the ability of our nation's representatives to protect U.S.
interests in that body.
U.N. Treaties
Question. A number of U.N. treaties have been languishing in the
U.S. Senate for some time. Among them is the Law of the Sea Treaty,
which has the bi-partisan support of officials ranging from every
Secretary of State from Henry Kissinger to today, a host of current and
former military leaders, and the U.S. private sector including the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. The Convention of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities was voted down despite the presence of former Majority
Leader Robert Dole being on the Senate floor during the vote. Only two
countries in the world have failed to ratify the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, the United States and Somalia. Many of these
treaties seem to be opposed in the Senate simply because of their
association with the United Nations. If confirmed as Ambassador, will
you advise your colleagues in the Trump administration of the value of
the U.S. ratifying any of these important treaties?
Answer. There are many treaties that have been signed by the United
States but have not yet received the advice and consent of the Senate--
a procedure in which this committee plays a central role. My
understanding is that any incoming administration conducts reviews of
such agreements to determine whether any of them should be prioritized,
and whether the new administration will support U.S. ratification. At
this time I don't hold a particular opinion as to the U.N. Convention
on the Law of the Sea or the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but
I look forward to reviewing those agreements along with other experts
at the State Department if I am confirmed.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Tom Udall
Question. New Mexico's national labs have played a key role in
nonproliferation and weapons monitoring since the dawn of the atomic
age. And they played a key role in the Iran agreement--which is why I
have strong confidence in the agreement. Do you trust the science
behind the Iran agreement and that each pathway to create a nuclear
weapon has been effectively stopped by the JCPOA?
Answer. I am not confident that the agreement cut off Iran's
potential to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Question. Will you be open to briefings from Department of Energy
and NNSA officials while you review the JCPOA?
Answer. Yes.
Question. All of the IAEA inspectors who are in the field today
receive training from our nuclear experts at the national labs on how
to identify violations to the Nonproliferation Treaty. Will you engage
with the national labs and the National Nuclear Security Administration
to address key issues regarding nonproliferation and take a science
based approach to countering would be proliferators in the future?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your thoughts about the wisdom of sending arms
to so called moderate rebels in Syria? (many of whom are affiliated
with terrorist groups) Will you continue to support--in my opinion--
this misguided program?
Answer. I have concerns, and if confirmed, look forward to learning
more about the facts, and participating in any policy development as
appropriate.
Question. Our foreign relations budget is approximately 1 percent
of the national budget--United Nations funding is far less than that.
Yet, leveraged with other countries, our funding in the U.N. supports
humanitarian efforts, peacekeeping, and the protection of national
treasures. Do you support continued funding of the U.N., and how will
you work to ensure that the U.N. better leverages that funding for the
greater good?
Answer. I anticipate that the Trump administration will be
examining our relationship with and funding for all U.N. and affiliated
agencies to make sure our contributions are appropriate.
Question. The U.N. Security Council has adopted multiple
resolutions to address the threat of North Korean proliferation--but
North Korea's development of its nuclear arsenal continues. The last
such resolution capped the export of North Korean coal. How will you
work to maintain these multilateral sanctions on North Korea--and will
you hold China accountable for its promise to slash imports of coal
from North Korea? How will you work with the security council to ensure
full implementation of its sanctions program?
Answer. Should I be confirmed this would be a top priority. I would
consult with the rest of the cabinet on appropriate actions. I look
forward to consulting with Congress on this issue, and advocating the
policy of the U.S. government
Question. On November 30th, the Colombian parliament ratified a
final peace agreement between the government and FARC rebels, ending
the longest-running conflict in the Western Hemisphere. Currently, a
U.N. political mission, made up of 450 unarmed military observers and
additional civilian personnel, is on the ground in Colombia with a
mandate to monitor and verify the cessation of hostilities and ensure
that the FARC gives up its weapons. Can you talk about the UN's role
here and what the U.S. is doing to support it?
Answer. The U.N. mission is supporting the peace process in
numerous ways including demobilizing and reintegrating FARC combatants.
It is also supporting various civil society initiatives. If confirmed,
I look forward to learning more about what the U.S. is currently doing
and options for the future.
Question. What is your stance on key multilateral treaties that the
United States is signatory to but has not ratified--.for example: Would
you support the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the
Sea and do you agree that ratifying it would give the United States a
stronger hand to address Chinese violations and illegal annexations of
islands in the South China Sea?
Answer. The United States should only join treaties that advance
U.S. national interests. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) has been debated on several occasions by the Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations, and I will, if confirmed, examine UNCLOS to
determine whether it is in the best interests of the United States to
be a party.
Question. Would you support ratification of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities-- in order to ensure that U.S.
standards for access by disabled individuals are adopted throughout the
world?
Answer. The United States is strongly committed to protecting the
rights of disabled Americans through the legal protections afforded by
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other applicable laws,
and to working cooperatively with like-minded partner countries
interested in strengthening their own disability rights laws. In fact,
the U.S. already funds and administers a number of programs that
provide assistance to strengthen disability rights in foreign
countries. My view on whether to support the ratification of the
Convention will be based on such factors as whether the Convention
benefits Americans who live in the United States and whether the
Convention improves disability rights in other countries, thus
benefiting Americans living abroad, the Convention's effects on U.S.
sovereignty, and the Convention's impact on existing protections in the
law and under the Constitution.
Question. During the Presidential campaign, President-elect Trump
made several very troubling statements and comments indicating that in
the context of counterterrorism he would support waterboarding and
other types of torture. Do you think those practices violate
international prohibitions on torture and war crimes, and if so, will
you urge the administration to avoid such violations?''
Answer. Should I be confirmed I would support the law.
Question. A bipartisan group of Senators, including Republicans and
Democrats on this committee, have cosponsored legislation to remove
restrictions on U.S. citizens' ability to travel to Cuba and to
authorize U.S. companies to facilitate greater internet access inside
Cuba. Do you believe that current restrictions on the rights of U.S.
citizens to travel to Cuba enhances the cause of freedom for the Cuban
people?
Answer. Considering that the Cuban military fully owns the tourism
industry under the holding company Gaviota and that Cuban citizens are
largely barred from these facilities, I would be hesitant to believe
that expanding travel for Americans would support freedom for the Cuban
people. Purposeful travel for the intention of expanding people to
people interaction should be allowed. The current statute as outlined
by the U.S.'s Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) should be governing principle.
Question. Do you support allowing U.S. companies to expand internet
access inside Cuba so that the Cuban people can have greater access to
information that isn't currently available on the island?
Answer. Expanding the ability of Cubans to communicate should be
supported but not if the Cuban government seeks to use this as an
additional tool to monitor or censor communications. Additionally,
these U.S. companies must not be allowed to use seized property or
assets that are part of the Department of Justice's Cuba Claims
Program.
Question. Do you agree that the U.S. should help support private
entrepreneurs in Cuba with training or other assistance, so they can
build businesses, market their products and services, and compete with
state-owned enterprises?
Answer. Unfortunately, Cuba does not have private entrepreneurs and
working independently is not a right but a privilege granted only to
supporters of the regime. Taking power after his brother stepped down,
Raul Castro moved the profitable sectors of the Cuban economy under
control of the military and divided them up into holding companies.
While the U.S. should seek to empower entrepreneurs on the island, we
should avoid doing so if it overwhelmingly benefits the regime.
Question. Will you continue the recent practice of abstaining to
the U.N. General Resolution pertaining to the statutory U.S. embargo on
Cuba?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you agree that after more than half a century the U.S.
embargo against Cuba has failed to achieve any of its principle
objectives?
Answer. We should be clear about a few things. The goal of the
embargo was never to cause regime change, but rather to raise the costs
of the Cuban government's bad behavior. Access to the U.S.'s market is
not a right but a privilege and it's a privilege the Cuban government
does not yet deserve. They do not meet the basic standards as outlined
in the OAS's InterAmerican Democratic Charter, a resolution every
single other country in Latin America meets.
Question. Do you support continued diplomatic relations with Cuba?
Answer. At this point, it is clear that President Obama's
unilateral normalization process has resulted in a net loss for the
U.S. Conditions were never put in place to the Cuban government, such
as requesting an improvement on human rights, the return of wanted U.S.
fugitives nor the compensation of stolen American property. Normalized
relations with other countries depend on a certain level of trust and
reciprocity, and that does not exist at the moment. Moving forward, we
should ask to see improvements in these areas.
Question. Do you support the New START agreement with Russia and
how will you work with Russia to ensure that the agreement is followed?
Answer. I support the implementation of New START, and I will
advocate the policy of the United States government if confirmed.
Question. The NNSA has made tremendous progress with the stockpile
stewardship program. In short, our science based efforts to confirm
that our stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable have worked--and have
negated the need for testing of nuclear weapons. During the debates to
consider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, this was a significant
barrier because the science had not yet matured. Now that the science
has matured, will you advocated to the Trump administration that they
support for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and
will you visit with our experts at NNSA to learn more about the
stockpile stewardship program?
Answer. There are many treaties that have been signed by the United
States but have not yet received the advice and consent of the Senate--
a procedure in which this committee plays a central role. My
understanding is that an incoming administration conducts reviews of
such agreements to determine whether any of them should be prioritized,
and whether the new administration will support U.S. ratification. At
this time I don't hold a particular opinion as to the Comprehensive
Test-Ban Treaty, but I look forward to reviewing that agreement along
with other experts at the State Department if I am confirmed.
Question. In response to signals that the Trump administration may
act less aggressively on climate change, leading Chinese officials have
stated that they will continue to act aggressively to reduce their
emissions and that they will take on more international leadership
around climate change--including establishing a national carbon market
and investing hundreds of billions in clean energy at home and abroad.
Are we putting the nation at a disadvantage internationally by ceding
U.S. leadership on climate change to China?
Answer. I believe it is debatable whether any U.S. actions
regarding climate change necessarily ``cedes'' leadership to China or
any other nation. Each nation, including the United States, must act in
its own national interest, protect its economy, and preserve employment
security for its citizens. Such interests must come first before any
perception of leadership on any particular issue.
Question. I asked during the hearing if you were inclined to tear
up the Paris Agreement. You responded that "We will keep what we see
beneficial and revisit the parts that impact our economy."
Specifically, which parts of the Agreement do you believe are
beneficial, and which will impact our economy?
Answer. The part of the Paris Agreement that will impact the U.S.
economy is the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). If
confirmed, I expect that the State Department and other departments of
the government will conduct a review of the NDC submitted by the Obama
administration as part of our review of the Paris Agreement and the
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to determine whether the
NDC and/or the international agreements advance U.S. national
interests. Both the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement were negotiated by
different presidential administrations and it is the obligation of the
incoming administration to make its own determination regarding the
ongoing viability of those agreements to determine whether they advance
U.S. national interests.
Question. It was reported that during your administration in 2013
the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources kept hidden a report
which ``outlined serious concerns about the damage South Carolina will
suffer from climate change--.'' Were you or anyone in your
administration involved in the Department's decision to keep this
report secret? Please outline any discussions you may have had with
regards to this report.
Answer. I am not aware of any attempt, nor do I recall any attempt,
to keep such a report hidden. I will look into this matter.
Question. Your administration in South Carolina called a minimum
wage quote ``More government mandates on small businesses.'' Do you
believe that advocating for a livable wage in foreign countries where
there is a record of mistreatment of workers and poor wages is an
unneeded mandate on businesses in those countries?
Answer. My experience as a governor has convinced me that market
oriented policies, reduced regulatory barriers to business and
entrepreneurship, and a strong, fair, and transparent rule of law are
essential for higher economic growth and development. If confirmed, I
will advocate for these principles in other countries as a means to
promote prosperity.
Question. Will you advocate for basic workers rights in countries
such as China and Bangladesh, where workers are known to be mistreated
or underpaid?
Answer. Yes
Question. Do you support global efforts to improve safety for
workers in the energy and agricultural sectors?
Answer. Yes
Question. Article 23 of the United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights states that ``Everyone has the right to form and to join trade
unions for the protection of his [or her] interests.'' The United
States is a signatory to the declaration and has been an advocate for
labor rights around the world. You were quoted as saying ``We
discourage any companies that have unions from wanting to come to South
Carolina because we don't want to taint the water'' and have been
referred to as a ``union buster.'' Do you support the Declaration of
Human Rights, and, more importantly, will you work to reinforce the
United States' protection of labor rights around the world?
Answer. I will support the human rights obligations of the U.S. for
those treaties that have been ratified. I also support the principles
set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). However,
the UDHR is not legally binding on the United States and does not
require domestic implementation, including in regard to its provisions
on labor rights.
Question. In order for the United States to honor its commitment
under Articles 23 and 24 of the Declaration of Human Rights, will you
work with unions and other organizations to protect the right to free
choice of employment; the right to just and favorable conditions of
work; the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of
working hours; and the right to worker safety and to equal pay for
equal work?
Answer. I will support the human rights obligations of the U.S. for
those treaties that have been ratified. I also support the principles
set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). However,
the UDHR is not legally binding on the United States and does not
require domestic implementation, including in regard to its provisions
on labor rights.
Question. Your administration supported and signed into law a harsh
``Arizona style'' immigration law. Using state police officers to
attempt to enforce immigration laws, and opening the door to unneeded
racial profiling and exacerbating diplomatic relations with our
neighbors in the western hemisphere. How will you work to mend
diplomatic relations with our southern neighbors given your support for
this harsh policy and the President elect's comments calling Mexicans
rapists, and murderers among other things?
Answer. I will work closely with my U.N. counterparts and our U.S.
ambassadors to ensure our relationship with all law-abiding nations are
mutually beneficial to the maximum extent consistent with our national
security. This includes our neighbors to the south.
Question. Expanding democratic ideals and governance is an
important policy of the United States government. A cornerstone of this
effort is the observation of elections by multiple organizations
including the United Nations. These efforts give the public, in new
democracies, the confidence that their elections are free and fair.
While you served as governor, however, you work to impede access to the
ballot box by supporting voter id legislation, impairing the ability of
low income and minority voters to cast their ballot. Will you work to
support increased access to the ballot box overseas or do you plan to
advocate for restrictions similar to those you supported in South
Carolina?
Answer. I will work toward ensuring the integrity of free and fair
elections, including supporting methods that lead to honest and
accurate results.
Question. Will you oppose efforts to strip U.S. funding to the
United Nations?
Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I do not
support slash and burn cuts to U.S. funding, but targeted and selective
withholding tied to specific reforms has proven in the past to be an
effective means for pressing the organization to implement reforms. I
anticipate that the Trump administration will examine our relationship
with and funding for all U.N. and affiliated agencies to make sure our
contributions are appropriate.
Question. Are settlements that break up the possibility of a future
contiguous Palestinian state harmful to achieving a two state solution
in your opinion?
Answer. I do not believe that settlements are the principal
obstacle to peace. Suicide bombers and rockets launched into Israel are
much larger obstacles to peace. The issue of settlements should be
resolved as part of a comprehensive peace agreement negotiated between
the two parties, rather than imposed upon them by others.
Question. Do you support Israel's legalization of previously
illegal (under Israel law) Israeli settler outposts in the west bank
and do you think this is harmful towards ultimately achieving a two
state solution?
Answer. I believe this is a matter of Israeli law.
Question. How will you work to urge other countries to press the
Palestinians to put an end to incitement and violence against Israelis?
Answer. By clear, strong and consistent leadership on behalf of
ending incitement and violence against Israelis, I believe I can work
with other countries if confirmed.
Question. What is your plan to address and oppose the boycott,
divestment, and Sanctions movement and will you make it a priority to
urge other countries and organizations not to join this movement?
Answer. I oppose the movement. Should I be confirmed I would make
every effort to press others not to participate.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Tim Kaine
Anti-Semitism and Israel at the U.N.
Question. During a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly last
January, former Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated, ``a U.N. that
wants to be true to its founding aims and ideals has a duty to speak
out against anti-Semitism.'' The gathering was the first of its kind,
attended by prominent ministers, U.S. Members of Congress and
diplomats, brought together to discuss the U.N.'s role in beating back
the rising tide of global anti-Semitism.
Can you elaborate on the significance of this meeting?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the details of this event, but,
as I mentioned at my hearing, I am alarmed by the bias against Israel
that pervades many U.N. organizations and, if confirmed, am determined
to use the influence of the U.S. to reduce it.
Question. Does this signal a commitment to elevating the fight
against global anti-Semitism within the U.N.?
Answer. One meeting does not make a pattern or overcome decades of
anti-Semitism. If confirmed, I will use the influence of the U.S. to
address this problem.
Question. Do you think continued strong U.S. engagement is
important to the success of these initiatives?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use the influence of the U.S. to
combat anti-Semitism in the U.N.
Question. While you were clear in the confirmation hearing
regarding your firm opposition to UNSCR 2334, your position regarding
continued Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank was vague.
Do you believe that the Israeli government's policy of continued
settlement activity in the West Bank has an effect on efforts
to achieve a negotiated two-state solution?
Answer. I support the long-standing U.S. policy that a negotiated
two-state solution must be based on direct peace negotiations between
Israel and the Palestinians, including negotiations on the future
borders.
Question. In 2011, members of UNESCO decided to admit the
Palestinians as a member state. As a result, since FY2012, the U.S. has
withheld approximately $80 million a year in funding to UNESCO under
laws that prohibit funding to U.N. entities that admit the Palestinians
as a state.
Do you believe that the U.S. ability to stand up for Israel at
UNESCO and push back against biased resolutions is undermined
by the fact that the United States is currently prohibited from
paying dues to this organization?
Answer. As stated at my confirmation hearing, I do not support
renewed funding for UNESCO because it would encourage other U.N.
specialized agencies to similarly grant membership to the Palestinians,
undermining the prospects for a negotiated peace. Unlike the U.N.
Security Council, the U.S. cannot block anti-Israel actions in UNESCO
and the organization continues to take such actions despite the
continued presence of the U.S. since 2011.
Colombia
Question. The U.N. is playing an important role in the historic
peace treaty between government and FARC by helping to demobilize FARC
members and monitoring the peace process.
Will you pledge your support for the U.N.'s efforts in Colombia?
Will you encourage increased Colombian participation in U.N.
peacekeeping missions?
Answer. Yes.
Human Rights
Question. Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Power often used their
channels, discreetly at times, to press for the release of unjustly
detained American citizens. These efforts include Ms. Aya Hijazi, a
Virginian, who has been imprisoned by Egyptian authorities due to her
advocacy on behalf of the poor and children, and Mr. Otto Warmbier, an
American college student who has been held by North Korea for more than
a year on trumped-up charges.
Will you commit to using your role as U.N. Ambassador to prioritize
and press for the release of detained Americans overseas, like
Ms. Aya Hijazi and Mr. Otto Warmbier?
Answer. I have not been briefed on these specific cases, but I
commit to working with the Secretary of State to protect Americans
overseas and prevent their mistreatment.
International Commitments
Question. Given comments by President-elect Trump, many in the
international community are concerned that the United States cannot be
counted on to uphold the commitments we have made on critical issues
such as being a dependable ally for our NATO partners, combatting
climate change, and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In
your confirmation hearing, you spoke about the importance of the United
States building coalitions and maintaining strong alliances to advance
our core U.S. national security interests.10. you think your ability to
engage effectively with your counterparts at the United Nations will be
undermined if the United States is seen as backing away from our
commitments on key policy issues?
How will you be able to gain the trust of other key members in the
international community if other governments do not believe we
can be expected to uphold our commitments?
Answer. I do think that building strong coalitions is important and
I look forward to building support in the U.N. for U.S. priorities. A
new administration reviewing policies of a previous administration is
not a new phenomenon and I believe I will be able to effectively engage
with U.N. counterparts if I am confirmed.
ISIS
Question. ISIS has undermined security and stability in the Middle
East and poses a clear threat to international peace and security,
including a threat to the United States and our partners.
Do you believe the United Nations should play a more robust role in
the global effort to combat the threat posed by ISIS?
Answer. Yes, but the U.N. is only one of many tools that the U.S.
should use to use to combat the threats posed by ISIS.
Syria
Question. In 2014, the Security Council unanimously adopted
resolution 2139, demanding that all parties allow delivery of
humanitarian assistance, cease depriving civilians of food and medicine
indispensable to their survival, and enable the rapid, safe and
unhindered evacuation of all civilians who wished to leave. It demanded
that all parties respect the principle of medical neutrality and
facilitate free passage to all areas for medical personnel, equipment
and transport. It also called upon all parties, especially the Assad
regime, to allow unhindered humanitarian access for U.N. agencies and
its partners, including across conflict lines. However, as events over
the last two months have shown, eastern Aleppo's residents were unable
to flee aerial bombings and extrajudicial killings at the hands of the
Assad regime, with the clear support of Russia.
In you assessment, what prevented the implementation of resolution
2139?
How would you deal with the issue of civilian protection,
particularly IDPs and refugees?
How can the U.N. work with member countries to more strongly
enforce UNSCRs focused on humanitarian protection and aid
delivery?
How would you respond to the massive violation of international
humanitarian laws and principles by Syria, Russia and other
parties to this conflict?
After Russia's invitation to join the Astana peace talks, what will
you do in your first weeks in office to negotiate an end to
sieges of civilian populations and bombing of civilian
infrastructure?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of UNSCR 2139,
but should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue.
If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of State in his efforts with
key parties to the Syrian conflict to achieve a political solution to
the war and limit its humanitarian effect on Syrians.
Treaties
Question. The treaty ratification process has slowed down in the
Senate. For example, UNCLOS was passed in 1982 and 167 nations have
ratified it, including Russia and China. The U.S. is the only major
power to have not ratified it, despite a bipartisan consensus among our
military and diplomatic leadership that ratification would be in the
U.S. interest in matters as diverse as China's island-building in the
South China Sea or arctic drilling rights.
Does our refusal to join the overwhelming majority of nations at
the table in a treaty such as this hurt U.S. interests and our
leverage at the U.N.?
Answer. The United States should only join treaties that advance
U.S. national interests. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) has been debated on several occasions by the Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations, and I will, if confirmed, examine UNCLOS to
determine whether it is in the best interests of the United States to
be a party.
Question. Does our refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CBTB) hurt U.S. interests and our leverage at the U.N.? Would
CTBT's ratification help efforts being pursued in the United Nations
Security Council to reinforce the global norm against nuclear weapons
testing and improve the verification architecture to detect such
testing?
Answer. At this time I don't hold a particular opinion as to the
Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, but I look forward to reviewing that
agreement along with other experts at the State Department.
Question. Senate ratification of Montenegro's accession to NATO
would reassure our European partners and reaffirm our support for our
alliances. Would this message be helpful for your role at the U.N.?
Answer. I support Montenegro's accession to NATO.
Question. Does our refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CBTB) hurt U.S. interests and our leverage at the U.N.? Would
CTBT's ratification help efforts being pursued in the United Nations
Security Council to reinforce the global norm against nuclear weapons
testing and improve the verification architecture to detect such
testing?
Answer. At this time I don't hold a particular opinion as to the
Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, but I look forward to reviewing that
agreement along with other experts at the State Department.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Edward J. Markey
Proliferation
Question . Governor Haley, for more than seven decades, U.S.
leadership has been vital for slowing the spread of nuclear weapons.
President-elect Trump has threatened to upend this policy by saying it
would not be so bad if South Korea, Japan, or Saudi Arabia acquired
nuclear weapons.
Do you disagree with President-elect Trump? If not, why not?
Answer. I believe in the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.
Arms Control
Question . The United Nations is a vital forum for international
discussions of arms control issues. Arms control is a vital component
of U.S. national security, as it can reduce the risk of nuclear war by
accident or miscalculation, while simultaneously reducing the risk of
destructive and costly arms races.
Do you support proposals to negotiate verifiable arms control
treaties between the world's nuclear powers? If not, why not?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the
various arms control negotiations taking place in the U.N. and how U.S.
national security interests can be best served by them.
China
Question . As one of the five permanent members of the Security
Council, China has the power to veto any resolution. As such, China's
cooperation is vitally important on a range of issues, particularly
those affecting security in the East Asian region. President-elect
Trump has chosen to aggravate China by threatening to recognize
Taiwan's independence, which Beijing fiercely opposes, and by
threatening a trade war.
How do you intend to work with China's permanent representative to
the United Nations, when the President-elect is deliberating
picking fights with Beijing over issues that are of core
concern to China's leaders?
Answer. The U.S. relationship with China has elements of
cooperation and competition. The President, as President-elect,
reaffirmed that the U.S. will continue to follow the Taiwan Relations
Act. If confirmed, I am committed to working in a straightforward
manner with my Chinese counterpart on all matters, including the
critically important issue of North Korea.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Question . The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is home to
one of the U.N.'s largest and most complex peacekeeping missions--the
22,500-person strong U.N. Stabilization Mission in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). This peacekeeping force is charged
with protecting civilians, humanitarian personnel, and human rights
defenders under threat of physical violence, and to support the
government of the DRC in its stabilization and peace consolidation
efforts. Yet the government of the DRC has triggered a political crisis
because of President Kabila's refusal to step down and hold elections,
as the constitution requires. International pressure (including US
sanctions freezing the U.S.-held assets of top government officials) as
well as internal pressure from opposition groups and citizen-led
protests (in which more than 50 Congolese were killed) led to an
agreement between the government and the opposition brokered by the
country's Catholic bishops. The deal calls for establishment of an
interim governing arrangement and elections by the end of 2017. While
the deal offers a way out of the crisis, significant implementation
challenges lie ahead.
How will you use U.S. leadership in the U.N. to help ensure that
the DRC remains on course to elections in 2017 and an eventual
peaceful transfer of power to a new democratically elected
leader?
How can the United Nations help the DRC strengthen its institutions
and eventually end its dependence on the organization's largest
and most costly peacekeeping mission?
Answer. The United States must lead with its values; many times,
that includes facilitating peace negotiations and settlements. If
confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of State to engage the
government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and other
interested parties to encourage a peaceful political solution, with a
guarantee of basic human rights and accountability for those who
transgress such rights. Targeted sanctions, possibly through the U.N.
Security Council, might be part of achieving that solution, but
sanctions are a tactic, not a strategy or a solution. Through robust
dialogue with relevant actors, the United States could help the DRC
achieve a stable political outcome, which would also translate into
increased stability regionally and an improvement in human rights.
Nigeria
Question . Boko Haram continues its campaign of violence and terror
across much of northern Nigeria. In November, Save the Children found
that around 200 children die each day from malnutrition and disease in
areas ravaged by Boko Haram. The group has destroyed houses and schools
and forced two million people to flee their homes, according to the
U.N. Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs. U.N. officials estimate that
fourteen million people need humanitarian assistance and that the
specter of widespread famine remains, with 75,000 children in immediate
danger.
How can the United Nations help Nigeria reverse the humanitarian
disaster that is already occurring in areas affected by Boko
Haram?
How can the United States and our allies help countries like
Nigeria better combat terrorist groups like Boko Haram while
minimizing the harm done to civilians?
Answer. The challenge of radical Islamic terrorism in Africa is a
serious and growing problem. Through its diplomatic engagement,
assistance programs, and public diplomacy efforts, the State Department
clearly has a leading role in helping shape long-term U.S. efforts to
counter and defeat the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism--in Africa
and around the world. The United States should also continue to engage
in international forums like the U.N. to address this issue and decide
upon a combined policy to address this violence. This would include
deploying robust diplomacy, possible sanctions, peacekeeping efforts,
and other measures. If confirmed, I will work with and support the
efforts of the President, the Secretary of State and other cabinet
officials to address this issue.
South Sudan
Question . The political and humanitarian crisis in South Sudan
continues to worsen, and there are now warnings of mass atrocities or
genocide. USAID estimates that ``food security will deteriorate in
northern South Sudan from February-May 2017 due to poor harvest yields,
disruption of livelihood activities, and high staple food prices.'' In
addition to the food insecurity, there is a cholera outbreak in
southern South Sudan. The United States has delivered more humanitarian
aid than all other donors combined, and now there are new warnings of
mass atrocities or genocide. The government of South Sudan has
continued to restrict the activities of the U.N. Mission in the
Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS). In December, the Security Council
failed to adopt a U.S.-sponsored resolution that would have imposed an
arms embargo on South Sudan and placed sanctions on officials
responsible for human rights violations there.
What specific measures will you pursue in the Security Council and
through the U.N.'s humanitarian agencies to address both the
conflict and the humanitarian situation in South Sudan?
Answer. The situation in South Sudan is one of the most pressing
humanitarian situations in the world. It is critical to help build some
political space for reconciliation between the government and rebel
factions. The United States should continue to engage in international
forums like the U.N. and bilaterally with key partners in the area to
address this issue, and decide upon a combined policy to address this
violence. This would include deploying robust diplomacy, possible
sanctions, and other measures.
Women's Rights and Education
Question . Your opening statement said that you are ``painfully
aware that the chance for 13-year-old girls to read and learn and grow
is something that does not exist in far too many places around the
world today.'' Unfortunately, this is the case. According to the U.N.'s
most recent data from 2013, male literacy in sub-Saharan Africa was 72
percent, but female literacy was only 57 percent, a gap of 15
percentage points. In India, that gender gap in literacy was 18
percentage points, while in Pakistan, the gap was 27 points. These
stark gender disparities in education and literacy represent a tragic
and unjust waste of human potential. They are also a major hindrance to
economic development and health. According to a 2014 report from
UNESCO, if all women in low-income countries had a secondary education,
child mortality rates would fall by 49 percent, resulting in 2.8
million lives saved every year.
If confirmed, how will you work to improve the rates of female
education around the world, and to improve women's rights more
generally?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to promote the advancement of
women and girls around the world and will look for opportunities to do
so both in our own foreign policy and at the U.N.
U.N. Peacekeeping
Question . U.N. peacekeeping operations can provide a vital
contribution to international peace and security by helping to prevent
conflicts, stabilize fragile states, protect civilians from human
rights violations and other atrocities, and support the delivery of
needed humanitarian relief. Some peacekeeping missions have not,
however, always lived up to these goals. During your testimony you
repeatedly stressed the need for reform of U.N. operations and pledged
to closely examine all 16 U.N. peacekeeping missions in order to
evaluate their effectiveness.
Please describe the kinds of specific criteria that you will use in
evaluating peacekeeping missions and discuss how you plan to
consult on the results of that evaluation with Congress.
Please also describe how you will work to ensure that peacekeeping
missions work to build the capacity of the states where they
operate, thereby reducing the need for prolonged dependence on
U.N. peacekeepers.
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult with the President, the
Secretaries of State and Defense, and experts in the U.S. government
and the United Nations to develop these criteria and assessments so
that current and future peacekeeping missions are more effective.
Climate Change and International Security
Question . In his first speech to the U.N. Security Council on
January 10, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that global
conflicts are ``exacerbated by climate change.'' The Pentagon has taken
a similar view, noting in 2015, ``Global climate change will have wide-
ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the
foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems that
threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.'' Climate change
can cause water and food shortages, refugee flows and other
developments that can drive conflict and instability, as has been seen
in as North Korea, Chad, Bolivia, and Yemen, which are experiencing
widespread food insecurity and undernourishment. U.N. agencies are
often on the front line of responding to such crises.
What do you see as the role for U.S. leadership at the U.N. to
address climate changes as a threat to global peace and
stability?
Answer. If confirmed I commit to working with experts at the State
Department and elsewhere in the government on the issue and helping to
determine what role the U.S. Mission to the United Nations should play.
Human Trafficking
Question . As many as 17,500 persons are trafficked into the United
States every year, and more than 100,000 are trafficked within our
borders. In addition, legalized indentured servitude exists in several
countries around the world, notably in Qatar and Bahrain (where the
United States maintains a naval base). Both human trafficking and
indentured servitude are clearly antithetical to American values and
human rights.
How would you uphold human rights and continue to advance efforts
to address trafficking in persons and protection of workers in
the global supply chain?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to working tirelessly with
the President-elect, representatives of the National Security Council,
and other federal agencies to assist in the fight against human
trafficking through my voice, vote and influence in the United Nations.
Children's Rights
Question . While 196 states are parties to the U.N. Convention on
the Rights of the Child, the United States is not, despite having
helped to draft portions of it and signing it in 1995. The convention
includes protections such as a ban on the use of child soldiers, the
rights of children to stay in contact with their families across
international borders, special rights as refugees, and the rights of
parents to have a say in determining what is best for their child and
protecting their child's rights.
Do you support this convention, and what are your plans to support
efforts to defend the rights of children around the world, if
you are confirmed as U.N. Ambassador?
Answer. There are many treaties that have been signed by the United
States but have not yet received the advice and consent of the Senate--
a procedure in which this committee plays a central role. My
understanding is that an incoming administration conducts reviews of
such agreements to determine whether any of them should be prioritized,
and whether the new administration will support U.S. ratification. At
this time I don't hold a particular opinion as to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, but I look forward to reviewing the agreements
along with other experts at the State Department if I am confirmed. My
understanding is that the Convention has never been transmitted to the
Senate for its advice and consent.
Humanitarian Intervention
Question . One of the most divisive debates in the U.N. Security
Council in recent years has been over when the international community
should act to prevent a government from using violence and committing
gross human rights violations against its own people. Russia and its
allies have blocked United Nations Security Council resolutions on
Syria, and impeded international action in places like Sudan and South
Sudan. In the absence of effective external action, we have seen
widespread human rights violations and mass atrocity crimes in these
places.
What do you see as the proper role for multilateral action to halt
a government from committing mass atrocities against its own
people?
How will you exert U.S. leadership at the U.N. to help prevent
genocide and other crimes when committed by a state against
people within its borders?
Answer. As I stated at my hearing, I believe that such serious
decisions should have broad support among the American people and the
Congress. If I am confirmed, I will work with the President and the
National Security Council to develop the appropriate response to these
issues and will use my position as U.S. Ambassador to forcefully and
passionately implement them and the U.N.
Global Health
Question . Antimicrobial resistance is a global problem with far-
reaching implications for global health. Currently, antimicrobial
resistance is present in every country and resistant strains are
present in almost every disease of note in the world. Approximately 10
percent of the 2 billion cases of tuberculosis worldwide are
extensively drug resistant, meaning they are resistant to at least four
of the core treatment drugs. There are significant incidences of
resistance in malaria, HIV, and influenza all around the world.
Problems surrounding antimicrobial resistance include misuse or over
prescription of antimicrobials, lack of effective prescription laws,
and lack of research and development into new antimicrobial therapies.
How would you work within the United Nations system in order to
mitigate or solve the problem of antimicrobial resistance?
Answer. I agree that is a serious concern. However, I have not been
fully briefed on the ongoing efforts of the U.S. in this area, so am
not in a position to judge where current efforts can be improved. If
confirmed, I will work with our global partners with regard to this
issue.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Governor Nikki Haley by Senator Jeff Merkley
Question. The threat of global climate change is an important
priority for the United Nations with climate change now affecting every
country. Every country in the world has signed on to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and Paris agreement and most are
already taking action. Mr. Tillerson last week said that ``we need a
seat at the table.'' The majority of Americans believe that the U.S.
should stay in the Paris Agreement and honor its commitment to lead on
climate. Do you think it is important for the United States not just to
have a seat at the table but to have an active leadership role in
addressing climate globally? Do you believe it is important to honor
our commitments under the Paris Agreement and that reversing course
would negatively affect U.S. credibility and influence in other
diplomatic pursuits? What role do you think the United States should
play in addressing this crisis?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the State Department and other
departments of the government will conduct a review of the Nationally
Determined Contribution submitted by the Obama administration as part
of our review of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention
on Climate Change to determine whether the NDC and/or the international
agreements advance U.S. national interests. Both the UNFCCC and Paris
Agreement were negotiated by different presidential administrations and
it is the obligation of the incoming administration to make its own
determination regarding the ongoing viability of those agreements to
determine whether they advance U.S. national interests.
Question. An important element of the Paris Climate Agreement is
that countries made commitments to help the most vulnerable countries
in the world adapt to the worst impacts of climate change - such as
food scarcity, drought, and sea level rise - and help leapfrog to
cleaner energy technologies. This has been a longstanding bipartisan
policy of this country, and a universal desire across the world. Do
think it is advisable to walk away from this policy? Part of the Paris
Agreement is that much of the funding for this work would be provided
by the Green Climate Fund. The Green Climate Fund has received
bipartisan support in Congress, and the Republican Congress even gave
the State Department explicit authority to contribute to the Green
Climate Fund, yet President-elect Trump has said he would stop funding
all United Nations climate funds. A large number of countries have
contributed to the Green Climate Fund, intend to fulfill their pledges
to the Green Climate Fund, and expect the United States to not walk
away from its own pledge. What, in your view, is the advantage of the
United States fulfilling its pledge to the Green Climate Fund? What are
the advantages of withdrawing the United States support for the Green
Climate Fund? Are you concerned about the diplomatic challenges that
would be created if the United States did not fulfill its pledge to the
Green Climate Fund? How would you suggest the United States lead in
combatting climate change and help developing countries avoid the worst
outcomes?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to participate in a review of the
U.S. role in international climate change matters, including the
funding of mitigation and adaptation measures through the Green Climate
Fund and other financial mechanisms.
Question. Secretary General Guterres just last week told the U.N.
Security Council that many of today's conflicts are ``exacerbated by
climate change,'' and that the U.N. spends ``far more time and
resources responding to crises rather than preventing them.'' The State
Department's latest Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
concluded that ``we are already seeing the negative consequences of
climate change, which is a national and global security threat.''
Recent National Intelligence Council (NIC) reports say that climate
change ``will have direct and indirect social, economic, political, and
security effects.'' Another NIC report says climate change is likely to
pose "wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States
and other countries over the next 20 years." Do you agree that acting
now on climate to avoid some of its impacts will improve security and
reduce global conflicts? How will you support the U.N. and Secretary
General Guterres's attempts to be more proactive in avoiding climate
driven conflicts?
Answer. If confirmed I commit to working with experts at the State
Department and elsewhere in the government on the issue and helping to
determine what role the U.S. Mission to the United Nations should play.
Question. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on
the ground around the world. 2016 was the hottest year on record (and
15 of the 16 warmest years have been since 2000). Some countries have
already relocated citizens due to climate change, creating the world's
first climate refugees. Extreme drought in the Middle East and even
small amounts of sea level rise in parts of Asia are likely to displace
tens of millions of people, and Western nations have been asked to
accept some of the displaced people. Do you agree that the rise in
refugees presents a unique national security threat that requires
international solutions? What do you view as the role of the U.N. and
the United States in aiding with climate refugees around the world?
Answer. If confirmed I commit to engaging experts at the State
Department and the U.N. on the issues of climate change and refugee
resettlement. The U.N. plays a significant role in the management of
refugees on a global basis. If confirmed, the role that climate change
plays in refugee flows is an issue I look forward to assessing, and
assisting refugees is a U.S. policy in which I look forward to
engaging.
Question. You have spoken passionately about American values and
the need to uphold those values at the U.N. Can you explain what you
mean by ``American Values'' and how you see those values playing out in
the international arena at the U.N.?
Answer. The American values that I spoke of at the hearing are
those embodied in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
including but not limited to the freedom of speech and the press, the
right to worship, and other fundamental civil and political rights.
Such rights are sometimes placed at risk within the U.N. system in
General Assembly resolutions, resolutions of the Human Rights Council,
and in other parts of the system. If confirmed I commit to adhering to
and speaking out for American values at all times.
Question. Do you believe it is consistent with those values for an
American company to skirt US sanctions by creating and using a European
subsidiary to do business with State Sponsors of Terrorism--Iran,
Syria, and Sudan?
Answer. I believe U.S. companies should follow U.S. law. Observance
of the rule of law is crucial protection for individual liberty.
Question. President Obama was derided for his desire to ``reset''
relations with Russia when he came into office. In truth, much progress
was made by our nations while Dmitry Medvedev was President. However,
President Putin has waged a relentless battle against international
norms since retaking power in 2012. How do you plan to use your post to
counter Russia's delegitimizing of the democratic process throughout
the West by helping fund illiberal parties like France's National
Front, hacking our allies like Germany to interfere with their
elections, and hacking our election to help discredit Hillary Clinton?
Answer. The lessons to learn from the failed Russian ``reset'' is
that as long as Vladimir Putin is in charge Russia will never be a
credible partner for the United States. If confirmed I will use my
position to raise awareness of and increase international pressure on
Russia's malign influence increasingly prevalent in Western
democracies.
Question. Do you agree that rewarding Russia for their actions by
rolling back sanctions would not only embolden them, but other nations
to defy international norms?
Answer. I agree with the President's policies that at present
sanctions against Russia should remain in place.
Question. Would you support and work with our allies to place
further sanctions on Russia?
Answer. I believe that sanctions can be effective as a part of an
overall strategy to advance U.S. interests and achieve foreign policy
goals. Should I be confirmed, any recommendations for sanctions would
be based on observing that principle.
Question. What do you believe are the appropriate levels of US
funding for the U.N., for the assessed regular budget, voluntary
contributions, and assessed peacekeeping budget?
Answer. Under the current system, fewer than 20 U.N. member states
pay roughly 80 percent of the U.N. regular and peacekeeping budgets.
The U.S. by far pays the most. In my opinion, this impedes efforts to
adopt reforms to use U.N. funds more effectively. If confirmed, I will
work to spread the scale of assessments more equitably among the member
states so that even small contributors have a financial interest in
making sure they oversee efficient use of their contributions, too. I
will consult within the administration and in Congress as to how to
achieve this goal and determining what appropriate funding levels
should be.
Question. Do you agree with the concerns of many experts that if
the US were to withhold funding that China would then fill that void?
Do you have concerns about China's increasingly aggressive influence in
the U.N. and how the US withholding funding would contribute to that?
Answer. I am concerned about China's increasingly aggressive
influence. However, I do not believe that Chinese motivations are
determined by U.S. contributions to the U.N. They will continue to
pursue their interests as they see them regardless of U.S. funding. If
confirmed, I will work to defend and advance U.S. interests in the U.N.
Question. In many places around the world, including Africa, the
Middle East and the Former Soviet Union, among others, lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and queer people are criminalized, arrested,
tortured and even killed simply because of their sexual orientation or
gender identity. The U.N. has held hearings, passed resolutions and
even created a position to help protect the lives of people based on
their sexual orientation and gender identity. The Obama administration
has made protecting LGBTQ rights around the world a cornerstone of its
international policy. This has included working through the U.N. and at
the U.N. to support LGBTQ individuals. Will you continue the Obama
administration's legacy on LGBTQ rights?
Answer. As I stated during my hearing, I strongly believe that the
U.S. should unabashedly promote American values. If confirmed, I will
work to advance human rights for everyone.
Question. Do you agree that the Olympics should only be awarded to
any country that protects its LGBTQ citizens?
Answer. Although the International Olympic Committee was granted
permanent observer status by the U.N. General Assembly, it is not a
U.N. organization and this question is outside of the responsibilities
I would have if confirmed.
__________
----------
Explanation of Vote at the Adoption of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 2334 on the Situation in the Middle East
Ambassador Samantha Power,
U.S. Permanent Representative
to the United Nations,
U.S. Mission to the United Nations,
New York, NY.
December 23, 2016
Thank you, Mr. President, let me begin with a quote:
The United States will not support the use of any additional
land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional
period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze
by Israel, more than any other action, could create the
confidence needed for wider participation in these talks.
Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the
security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the
Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.
This was said in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan. He was speaking
about a new proposal that he was launching to end the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. While ultimately, of course, President Reagan's
proposal was not realized, his words are still illuminating in at least
two respects.
First, because they underscore the United States' deep and long-
standing commitment to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace
between the Israelis and Palestinians. That has been the policy of
every administration, Republican and Democrat, since before President
Reagan and all the way through to the present day.
Second, because President Reagan's words highlight the United
States' long-standing position that Israeli settlement activity in
territories occupied in 1967 undermines Israel's security, harms the
viability of a negotiated two-state outcome, and erodes prospects for
peace and stability in the region. Today, the Security Council
reaffirmed its established consensus that settlements have no legal
validity. The United States has been sending the message that the
settlements must stop--privately and publicly--for nearly five decades,
through the administrations of Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard
Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill
Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama. Indeed, since 1967, the
only president who had not had at least one Israeli-Palestinian-related
Security Council resolution pass during his tenure is Barack Obama. So
our vote today is fully in line with the bipartisan history of how
American Presidents have approached both the issue--and the role of
this body.
Given the consistency of this position across U.S. administrations,
one would think that it would be a routine vote for the U.S. to allow
the passage of a resolution with the elements in this one, reaffirming
the long-standing U.S. position on settlements, condemning violence and
incitement, and calling for the parties to start taking constructive
steps to reverse current trends on the ground. These are familiar,
well-articulated components of U.S. policy.
But in reality this vote for us was not straightforward, because of
where it is taking place--at the United Nations. For the simple truth
is that for as long as Israel has been a member of this institution,
Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United
Nations. And not only in decades past--such as in the infamous
resolution that the General Assembly adopted in 1975, with the support
of the majority of Member States, officially determining that,
``Zionism is a form of racism''--but also in 2016, this year. One need
only look at the 18 resolutions against Israel adopted during the U.N.
General Assembly in September; or the five Israel-specific resolutions
adopted this year in the Human Rights Council--more than those focused
on any other specific country, such as Syria, North Korea, Iran, or
South Sudan--to see that in 2016 Israel continues to be treated
differently from other member states.
Like U.S. administrations before it, the Obama administration has
worked tirelessly to fight for Israel's right simply to be treated just
like any other country--from advocating for Israel to finally be
granted membership to a U.N. regional body, something no other U.N.
Member State had been denied; to fighting to ensure that Israeli NGOs
are not denied U.N. accreditation, simply because they are Israeli, to
getting Yom Kippur finally recognized as a U.N. holiday; to pressing
this Council to break its indefensible silence in response to terrorist
attacks on Israelis. As the United States has said repeatedly, such
unequal treatment not only hurts Israel, it undermines the legitimacy
of the United Nations itself.
The practice of treating Israel differently at the U.N. matters for
votes like this one. For even if one believes that the resolution
proposed today is justified--or, even more, necessitated--by events on
the ground, one cannot completely separate the vote from the venue.
And Member States that say they are for the two-state solution must
ask themselves some difficult questions. For those states that are
quick to promote resolutions condemning Israel, but refuse to recognize
when innocent Israelis are the victims of terrorism--what steps will
you take to stop treating Israel differently? For those states that
passionately denounce the closures of crossings in Gaza as exacerbating
the humanitarian situation, but saying nothing of the resources
diverted from helping Gaza's residents to dig tunnels into Israeli
territory so that terrorists can attack Israelis in their homes--what
will you do to end the double-standard that undermines the legitimacy
of this institution?
Member States should also ask themselves about the double standards
when it comes to this Council taking action. Just this morning we came
together, as a Council, and we were unable to muster the will to act to
stop the flow of weapons going to killers in South Sudan, who are
perpetrating mass atrocities that the U.N. has said could lead to
genocide. We couldn't come together just to stem the flow of arms.
Earlier this month, this Council could not muster the will to adopt the
simplest of resolutions calling for a seven-day pause in the savage
bombardment of innocent civilians, hospitals, and schools in Aleppo.
Yet when a resolution on Israel comes before this Council, members
suddenly summon the will to act.
It is because this forum too often continues to be biased against
Israel; because there are important issues that are not sufficiently
addressed in this resolution; and because the United States does not
agree with every word in this text, that the United States did not vote
in favor of the resolution. But it is because this resolution reflects
the facts on the ground--and is consistent with U.S. policy across
Republican and Democratic administration throughout the history of the
State of Israel--that the United States did not veto it.
The United States has consistently said we would block any
resolution that we thought would undermine Israel's security or seek to
impose a resolution to the conflict. We would not have let this
resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by
the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence, which
we've repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the Palestinian
leadership, and which, of course, must be stopped.
Unlike some on the U.N. Security Council, we do not believe that
outside parties can impose a solution that has not been negotiated by
the two parties. Nor can we unilaterally recognize a future Palestinian
state. But it is precisely our commitment to Israel's security that
makes the United States believe that we cannot stand in the way of this
resolution as we seek to preserve a chance of attaining our long-
standing objective: two states living side-by-side in peace and
security. Let me briefly explain why.
The settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now
putting at risk the very viability of that two-state solution. The
number of settlers in the roughly 150 authorized Israeli settlements
east of the 1967 lines has increased dramatically. Since the 1993
signing of the Oslo Accords--which launched efforts that made a
comprehensive and lasting peace possible--the number of settlers has
increased by 355,000. The total settler population in the West Bank and
East Jerusalem now exceeds 590,000. Nearly 90,000 settlers are living
east of the separation barrier that was created by Israel itself. And
just since July 2016--when the Middle East Quartet issued a report
highlighting international concern about a systematic process of land
seizures, settlement expansions, and legalizations--Israel has advanced
plans for more than 2,600 new settlement units. Yet rather than
dismantling these and other settler outposts, which are illegal even
under Israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing in the
Israeli Knesset that would legalize most of the outposts--a factor that
propelled the decision by this resolution's sponsors to bring it before
the Council.
The Israeli Prime Minister recently described his government as
``more committed to settlements than any in Israel's history,'' and one
of his leading coalition partners recently declared that ``the era of
the two-state solution is over.'' At the same time, the Prime Minister
has said that he is still committed to pursuing a two-state solution.
But these statements are irreconcilable. One cannot simultaneously
champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state
solution that would end the conflict. One has to make a choice between
settlements and separation.
In 2011, the United States vetoed a resolution that focused
exclusively on settlements, as if settlements were they only factor
harming the prospects of a two-state solution. The circumstances have
changed dramatically. Since 2011, settlement growth has only
accelerated. Since 2011, multiple efforts to pursue peace through
negotiations have failed. And since 2011, President Obama and Secretary
Kerry have repeatedly warned--publically and privately--that the
absence of progress toward peace and continued settlement expansion was
going to put the two-state solution at risk, and threaten Israel's
stated objective to remain both a Jewish State and a democracy.
Moreover, unlike in 2011, this resolution condemns violence, terrorism
and incitement, which also poses an extremely grave risk to the two-
state solution. This resolution reflects trends that will permanently
destroy the hope of a two-state solution if they continue on their
current course.
The United States has not taken the step of voting in support of
this resolution because the resolution is too narrowly focused on
settlements, when we all know--or we all should know--that many other
factors contribute significantly to the tensions that perpetuate this
conflict. Let us be clear: even if every single settlement were to be
dismantled tomorrow, peace still would not be attainable without both
sides acknowledging uncomfortable truths and making difficult choices.
That is an indisputable fact. Yet it is one that is too often
overlooked by members of the United Nations and by members of this
Council.
For Palestinian leaders, that means recognizing the obvious: that
in addition to taking innocent lives--the incitement to violence, the
glorification of terrorists, and the growth of violent extremism erodes
prospects for peace, as this resolution makes crystal clear. The most
recent wave of Palestinian violence has seen terrorists commit hundreds
of attacks--including driving cars into crowds of innocent civilians
and stabbing mothers in front of their children. Yet rather than
condemn these attacks, Hamas, other radical factions, and even certain
members of Fatah have held up the terrorists as heroes, and used social
media to incite others to follow in their murderous footsteps. And
while President Abbas and his party's leaders have made clear their
opposition to violence, terrorism, and extremism, they have too often
failed to condemn specific attacks or condemn the praised heaped upon
the perpetrators.
Our vote today does not in any way diminish the United States'
steadfast and unparalleled commitment to the security of Israel, the
only democracy in the Middle East. We would not have let this
resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by
Palestinians. We have to recognize that Israel faces very serious
threats in a very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned
about making sure there is not a new terrorist haven next door.
President Obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented
commitment to Israel's security because that is what we believe in.
Our commitment to that security has never wavered, and it never
will. Even with a financial crisis and budget deficits, we've
repeatedly increased funding to support Israel's military. And in
September, the Obama administration signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to provide $38 billion in security assistance to Israel
over the next 10 years--the largest single pledge of military
assistance in U.S. history to any country. And as the Israeli Prime
Minister himself has noted, our military and intelligence cooperation
is unprecedented. We believe, though, that continued settlement
building seriously undermines Israel's security.
Some may cast the U.S. vote as a sign that we have finally given up
on a two-state solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. None
of us can give up on a two-state solution. We continue to believe that
that solution is the only viable path to provide peace and security for
the state of Israel, and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian
people. And we continue to believe that the parties can still pursue
this path, if both sides are honest about the choices, and have the
courage to take steps that will be politically difficult. While we can
encourage them, it is ultimately up to the parties to choose this path,
as it always has been. We sincerely hope that they will begin making
these choices before it is too late.
I thank you.
__________
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Powers,
Speaking Before the Atlantic Council, January 17, 2017
Russia: The Threat, the International Order, and the Way Forward
Thank you so much. Thank you. I have had the privilege of serving
in the Obama administration for eight years: first in the White House
and for the last three and a half years as the U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations. I have never had a more meaningful job. And now I have
just three days left.
This is my last major speech as a member of this administration.
And much as I would have liked to use it to urge young people to go
into public service or to make the pragmatic case for strengthening the
United Nations, I feel that the circumstances require me to focus on a
much more immediate subject, a major threat facing our great nation:
Russia.
Before getting to the core threat posed by Russia, I want to stress
from the bottom of my heart that some of the most rewarding and
impactful work I have done at the United Nations has come in the times
when my Russian counterpart and I have been able to cooperate. Back in
2013, together we negotiated a resolution to get the most dangerous
chemical weapons out of Syria. Russia, as you all recall, was a key
pillar in imposing sanctions on Iran for its illicit nuclear program--
sanctions that were essential in bringing Iran to the table, so that we
could forge an agreement that cut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear
bomb. And Russia worked really constructively with the rest of the
Security Council to select the best candidate for a new U.N. Secretary-
General, a leader with tremendous experience and vision.
While people tend to look to the Cold War as the paradigm for
understanding the nature of U.S.--Russia relations, the reality is that
for pivotal parts of our shared history, U.S. and Russian interests
have frequently aligned. We fought together in both of the 20th
century's world wars. Indeed, had it not been for the colossal
sacrifices made by the Soviet Union in World War II, in which they lost
more than 20 million people--many times more than any other nation,
friend or foe--the war would have dragged on for much longer, millions
more Americans and people of other allied countries would have lost
their lives, and fascism might well have prevailed in large parts of
the world, not to mention that the post-World War II order may never
have been built. Russia's immense contribution in that war is part of
their proud history of standing up to imperialist powers, from the
Mongols in the 16th century to Napoleon in the 19th century. In
addition, many of the challenges that Russia faces today, from violent
extremism and China's territorial expansionist aims, to national
industries and jobs that have been rendered obsolete by globalization,
are ones we also face here in the United States. So--let me say from
the outset--it is very much in our interest to try to solve problems
with Russia. Dialogue between us is absolutely imperative.
Having said that, anyone who has seen my debates in the U.N.
Security Council with Russia knows that I and my government have long
had serious concerns about the Russian government's aggressive and
destabilizing actions. The argument I want to make today goes beyond
any particular action Russia has taken to its broader strategy and what
that means for the security of the United States and the American
people.
Today, I will set out how the Russian government under President
Putin is taking steps that are weakening the rules-based order that we
have benefitted from for seven decades. Our values, our security, our
prosperity, and our very way of life are tied to this order. And we--
and by ``we,'' I mean the United States and our closest partners--must
come together to prevent Russia from succeeding in weakening that
order. This means better understanding and educating our public about
how Russia is challenging this order. This means reaffirming our
commitment to the rules and institutions that have long undergirded
this order, as well as developing new tools to counter the tactics that
Russia is using to undermine it. And this means addressing the
vulnerabilities within our democracy that Russia's attacks have exposed
and have exacerbated. To do this, we cannot let Russia divide us. If we
confront this threat together, we will adapt and strengthen the order
on which our interests depend.
Now, terms like ``international order'' can seem quite abstract. So
let me be very concrete about what is threatened by Russia's actions.
The order enshrined in the U.N. Charter and other key international
agreements in the aftermath of the Second World War was built on the
understanding that all of our nations would be more secure if we bound
ourselves to a set of rules. These included the rules that the borders
between sovereign states should be respected; that, even in times of
war, some weapons and some tactics should never be used; that while
forms of government might vary from one nation to another, certain
human rights were inalienable and necessary to check state power; and
that the nations that break these rules should be held accountable.
Now, as we all know, a lot has changed in the seven decades since
that order was created. When the United Nations was founded, there were
just 51 Member States, a fraction of today's 193; some great
contemporary powers were not yet independent nations; and many
countries that did exist did not have a say, much less an equal voice,
in developing its rules. In addition, some of the threats that we face
today, such as violent terrorist groups and cyber-attacks, would have
been unimaginable to the architects of that system. So there are many
reasons why the rules--based order conceived in 1945 is not perfectly
tailored to the challenges that we as an international community face
in 2017. And it is reasonable to think that we need to update those
rules with more voices at the table, some of which we will not agree
with. Yet, evolve as the system may, the vast majority of countries
today recognize that we all benefit from having rules of the road that
constrain certain kinds of behavior to enhance our shared security,
rules that must not be rewritten by force.
Now, I also acknowledge that there are times when actions the
United States takes in the interest of defending our security and that
of our allies can be seen by other nations as offensive moves that
threaten their security, and we need to be alert to this, which is why
dialogue is so very important. And some may argue--not unreasonably--
that our government has not always lived up to the rules that we
invoke. As President Obama made clear when he entered office, while the
United States strives to lead by example, there are still times when we
have fallen short. Yet, under President Obama's leadership, we have
shown our commitment to investing in and abiding by the rules-based
international order. The same cannot be said for the Russian government
today.
For years, we have seen Russia take one aggressive and
destabilizing action after another. We saw it in March 2014, not long
after mass peaceful protests in Ukraine brought to power a government
that favored closer ties with Europe, when Russia dispatched its
soldiers to the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea. The ``little green
men,'' as they came to be called, for Russia denied any ties to any of
them, rammed through a referendum at the barrel of a gun, which Mr.
Putin then used to justify his sham attempted annexation of Crimea.
We saw it months later in eastern Ukraine, where Russia armed,
trained, and fought alongside separatists. Again Russia denied any role
in the conflict it manufactured, again flouting the international
obligation to respect the territorial integrity of its neighbor.
We saw it also in Russia's support for Bashar al-Assad's brutal war
in Syria--support it maintained even as the Assad regime blocked food
and medicine from reaching civilians in opposition-held areas,
civilians who were so desperate that they had resorted to eating
leaves, even as photographs emerged of countless prisoners who had been
tortured to death in Assad's prisons, their bodies tagged with serial
numbers, even as the Assad regime repeatedly used chemical weapons to
kill its own people.
We saw it in 2015, when Russia went further by joining the assault
on the Syrian people, deploying its own troops and planes in a campaign
that hit hospitals, schools, and the brave Syrian first responders who
were trying to dig innocent civilians out of the rubble. And with each
transgression, not only were more innocent civilians killed, maimed,
starved, and uprooted, but the rules that make all of our nations more
secure--including Russia--those rules were eroded.
We saw it in Russia's effort to undercut the credibility of
international institutions like the United Nations. For example, in an
emergency U.N. Security Council meeting last month, then--Secretary-
General Ban Ki-Moon told the Member States that the Assad regime forces
and Iranian militia were reportedly disappearing men as those forces
took parts of eastern Aleppo. In response, the representative of
Russia, which was providing air cover for the offensive, not only
claimed that Russian investigations had uncovered ``not a single report
of ill treatment or violation of international humanitarian law against
civilians of eastern Aleppo,'' but also accused the Secretary-General
of basing his information on fake news. Minutes later, Syria's
representative to the U.N. echoed Russia's line, holding up as proof
what he claimed was a photograph of a Syrian government soldier helping
an elderly woman. The only problem was that the photo was taken six
months earlier, in June 2016, in Fallujah, Iraq.
In this same period, we also saw Russia's systematic efforts to sow
doubt and division in democracies and to drive a wedge between the
United States and our closest allies. Russia has done this by
supporting illiberal parties, like France's National Front, which has a
xenophobic, anti-Muslim platform. When the National Front was having
trouble raising funds for its 2014 campaign, a Russian bank with ties
to the Kremlin stepped in to loan the party more than $11 million.
While that may not seem like a very large amount compared to the
budgets of U.S. national campaigns, it was roughly a third of what the
party was aiming to raise, and the National Front made significant
gains in that election. With national elections coming up in France
this year, the National Front has said that it is looking again to
Russian financing for help. Little surprise that the party's leader has
repeatedly attempted to legitimize Russia's attempted land--grab of
Crimea.
Russia has also used hacking to sow distrust in the democratic
processes of some of our closest allies and undermine the policies of
their governments. Consider the case of Germany. According to German
intelligence agencies, groups linked to the Russian government carried
out a massive May 2015 attack targeting the German parliament, energy
companies, telecoms, and even universities. And just last month,
Germany's domestic intelligence agency reported an alarming spike in
what it called ``aggressive and increased cyber spying and cyber
operations that could potentially endanger German government officials,
members of Parliament, and employees of democratic parties.'' The
agency attributed this to Russian hackers. The head of Germany's
foreign intelligence service said the perpetrators' aim is
``delegitimizing the democratic process.''
In other instances, Russia's interference in democratically elected
governments has been far more direct. Late last year, officials in
Montenegro said that they uncovered a plot to violently disrupt the
country's elections, topple the government, install a new
administration loyal to Moscow, and perhaps even assassinate the prime
minister. Montenegro's prime minister had been pushing for the country
to join NATO, a move that Russia openly opposed. The plotters
reportedly told investigators that they had been funded and equipped by
Russian officials, who had also helped plan the attack.
It is in this context that one must view the Russian government's
latest efforts to interfere in America's democracy. As our intelligence
community found and as you are now familiar, we know that the Russian
government sought to interfere in our presidential election with the
goals of undermining public faith in the U.S. democratic process,
denigrating one candidate, and helping the other candidate. Our
intelligence agencies assess that the campaign was ordered by President
Putin and implemented by a combination of Russian government agencies,
state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and government-paid
trolls. We know that, in addition to hacking the Democratic National
Committee and senior Democratic Party officials, Russia also hacked
U.S. think tanks and lobbying groups. And we know that Russia hacked
elements of multiple state and local electoral boards, although our
intelligence community's assessment is that Russia did not compromise
vote tallies. But think for just a moment about what that means: Russia
not only tried to influence our election but to access the very systems
by which we vote.
At first glance, these interventions by Russia in different parts
of the world can appear unrelated. That is because the common thread
running through each of them cannot be found in anything that Russia is
for. The common thread can be found only in what Russia is against--not
in the rules that it follows but in the rules that it breaks. Russia's
actions are not standing up a new world order. They are tearing down
the one that exists. And this is what we are fighting against. Having
defeated the forces of fascism and communism, we now confront the
forces of authoritarianism and nihilism.
There are multiple theories as to why the Russian government would
undermine a system that it played a crucial role in helping build and
that has fostered unparalleled advances in human liberty and
development. Perhaps, as some speculate, it is to distract the Russian
people from the rampant corruption that has consumed so much of the
wealth produced by the nation's oil and gas, preventing it from
benefiting average citizens. Perhaps it is because our rules-based
order rests on principles, such as accountability and the rule of law,
that are at odds with Russia's style of governing. Perhaps it is to
regain a sense of its past glory or to get back at the countries that
it blames for the breakup of the Soviet Union, which President Putin
has called the ``greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th
century.''
It is not my aim here to theorize about which, if any, of these
motives lie behind the Russian government's actions, which not only
threaten our democracy but the entire order upon which our security and
our prosperity depends. It is instead to ask: what are we going to do
to address this threat?
First, we must continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to
determine the full extent of Russia's interference in our recent
elections, identify the vulnerabilities of our democratic system, and
come up with targeted recommendations for preventing future attacks.
The congressional hearings initiated last week, the bipartisan inquiry
announced on January 13th by the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, the Joint Analysis Report on Russian Malicious Cyber
Activity and Harassment, and the Joint Intelligence Report prepared at
the request of President Obama are all important steps toward achieving
these crucial objectives.
The purpose of such efforts is not to challenge the outcome of any
races in our recent election. The purpose is to identify the gaps in
our defenses that Russia exploited, as well as other gaps that may not
have been seized upon in this attack but that Russia or others could
take advantage of in the future. And the purpose is to determine the
steps needed to close such gaps and strengthen the resilience of our
system because it would be deeply naive and deeply negligent to think
that those who have discovered vulnerabilities in our system would not
try to exploit them again and again--and not just Russia but all of the
governments and non-state actors who see undermining our democracy as a
way of advancing their interests. Indeed, it already has happened
repeatedly. As we know, there were also hacks in our presidential
elections in 2008 and in 2012.
That these efforts be bipartisan is absolutely essential. Allowing
politics to get in the way of determining the full extent of Russia's
meddling and how best to protect our democracy would undermine our core
national security interests. It is healthy for our parties in our
political system to debate issues such as how to expand our middle
class or what role our nation should play in the wider world. What is
not healthy is for a party or its leaders to cast doubt on a unanimous,
well-documented assessment of our intelligence community that a foreign
government is seeking to harm our country.
Second, we have to do a better job of informing our citizens about
the seriousness of the threat the Russian government poses. Here too,
our unity is crucial. When we send conflicting messages about a threat
Russia poses, it sends a mixed message to the American people. A recent
poll found that 37 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of
President Putin, up from just 10 percent in July 2014. That is an
alarmingly high proportion for a leader that has had journalists, human
rights activists, and opposition politicians murdered, for one who has
ridiculed our constitutional safeguards, and tried to tip the scales in
our elections. I know that some have said that this focus on Russia
that we are bringing is simply the party that lost the recent
presidential election being ``sore losers,'' but it should worry every
American that a foreign government interfered in our democratic
process. It's not about the leader we choose--it's about who gets to
choose--who gets to choose our leader. That privilege should belong
only to Americans.
We must also forcefully reject the false equivalency between the
work that the U.S. government and the Russian government are doing in
other countries. There is a world of difference between supporting free
and fair elections, and investing in independent institutions that
advance human rights, accountability, and transparency, as we do; and,
on the other hand, trying to sow distrust in democratic processes,
misinform citizens, and swing elections toward illiberal parties, as
Russia is doing.
Third, we must reassure our allies that we have their backs, and we
must ensure that Russia pays a price for breaking the rules.
That means maintaining our robust support for NATO and making clear
our nation's steadfast commitment to treat an attack on any NATO member
as an attack on us all. We expect all of our NATO allies to do their
part in keeping the Alliance strong, which includes meeting the pledge
made in 2014 to spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense--a
commitment that we in the Obama administration have pushed relentlessly
for them to fulfill. We also need to increase cooperation and
intelligence sharing to deter, detect, and defend against the next
generation of hacks and cyber threats, particularly as France, Germany,
and the Netherlands look forward to national elections this year.
That also means maintaining the sanctions placed on Russia,
including those imposed by President Obama in response to Russia's
meddling in our election. Now, some have argued that the most effective
way to get Russia to start playing by the rules that undergird the
international order is actually by easing sanctions. If only we reduce
the pressure, they claim, Russia will stop lashing out against the
international order. But they have it backwards: easing punitive
measures on the Russian government when they haven't changed their
behavior will only embolden Russia, sending the message that the best
way to gain international acceptance of its destabilizing actions is
simply to wait us out. And that will not only encourage more dangerous
actions by Russia, but also by other rule-breakers like Iran and North
Korea, which are constantly testing how far they can move the line
without triggering a response.
Similarly flawed is the argument that the United States should put
recent transgressions aside and announce another reset with Russia.
Yes, the Obama administration tried this approach in our first term.
But 2017 is not 2009. In 2009, Dimitri Medvedev was president of
Russia, and we were able to find common ground on issues such as
counterterrorism, arms control, and the war in Afghanistan. More
important, in 2009, Russia was not occupying Crimea, fueling an ongoing
conflict in eastern Ukraine, and bombing hospitals and first responders
in Syria. Nor, most importantly, had Russia interfered directly in the
U.S. election.
Yet it would be a mistake to think that all we need to do to defend
ourselves and our allies against the threat Russia poses is to rely on
the same tools we have been using; that if we just close the gaps in
our defenses, inform our public, maintain or even ratchet up sanctions,
shore up NATO, we do all that, it would be a mistake to believe that we
will be able to protect the rules-based order. We have to do more,
because Russia has an edge in one respect. It turns out is easier to
break institutions down than to build them up. It is easier to sow
skepticism than to earn 8 people's trust. Making up fake news--ask the
reporters here today--is a lot easier than reporting the facts required
for real news. Put simply, in international affairs in 2017, it is
often easier to be bad than good.
Let me give just one example. On September 16th, 2016, as you might
remember, a humanitarian convoy of the Arab Red Crescent was bombed in
the Syrian city of Urem al-Kubra, killing at least 10 civilians, and
destroying 18 trucks filled with food and medicine intended for
desperate Syrian civilians. Because the strikes were carried out in a
region where only the Assad regime and its Russian allies were flying,
the attack was widely reported as likely being carried out by the
regime or Russian forces. Yet rather than accept any responsibility,
rather than even try to get to the bottom of what had happened, the
Russian government did what it always does in the face of atrocities
with which it is associated: deny and lie.
Russia's Ministry of Defense initially said no airstrikes had been
carried out in the area by Russian or Syrian planes, and that its
expert analysis of video footage of the strike showed that the aid
convoy had been destroyed by a fire. Then President Putin's press
secretary said that terrorists had been firing rockets nearby,
suggesting they were the ones who had struck the convoy. Then Russia
claimed that a U.S. drone had been detected above the convoy just
minutes before it was struck, contradicting its initial assessment that
the convoy had not been hit from the air. Two days. Three stories. All
false.
Yet Russia's willingness to lie turned reporting on the attack into
an ``on the one hand, on the other hand'' story, even in respected
outlets like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN. And Russian
government-controlled networks like RT played a critical role in this
effort, rapidly disseminating those lies while questioning the accounts
of witnesses. As RT's own editor once said, ``Not having our own
foreign broadcasting is the same as not having a Ministry of Defense.
When there is no war, it looks like we don't need it. However, when
there is a war, it is critical.'' In other words, lying is a strategic
asset. It didn't matter whether Russia's accounts were accurate or even
consistent; all that matters was that Russia injected enough
counterclaims into the news cycle to call into question who was
responsible. By the time the U.N. issued a report on the incident more
than three months later, concluding that the convoy had been struck by
an airstrike that could only have been carried out by the Assad regime
or Russia, the finding and Russia's cover-up received almost no
attention. Deny and lie.
At times, it can start to feel that the only way to outmaneuver an
adversary unbounded by the truth is to beat them at their own game. But
that would be deeply misguided. If we try to meet the Russian
government in its upside-down land--where right is left and black is
white--we will have helped them achieve their goal, which is creating a
world where all truth is relative, and where trust in the integrity of
our democratic system is lost.
We don't need to gin up our own propaganda networks, bankroll our
own army of trolls, and inundate social media platforms with even more
fake news targeting our adversaries. We have to fight misinformation
with information. Fiction with facts. But documenting and spreading
facts, just like manufacturing fake news, takes resources. A report by
the UK parliament found that the Russian government spent between $600
million and $1 billion a year on propaganda arms like RT. So we need to
be spending at least as much--and arguably much more--on training and
equipping independent reporters, protecting journalists who are under
attack, and finding ways to get around the censors and firewalls that
repressive governments use to block their citizens from getting access
to critical voices.
This brings me to the fourth and final way to address the threat
Russia poses to the rules-based international order: we must continue
to seek ways to engage directly with the Russian people and, coming
back to where I started, with the Russian government.
It can be easy to forget that virtually all the tactics the Russian
government is using to undermine democracy abroad are ones that they
fine-tuned at home, on the Russian people, to devastating effect. After
all, when Russian soldiers are killed fighting in a conflict in eastern
Ukraine that their government denies it has any role in, it is Russian
mothers, widows, and orphans who are denied the benefits and
recognition they deserve as the family members of slain soldiers. The
mafias that the Russian government uses to sow corruption abroad profit
most off the backs of the Russian people. And it is Russian journalists
and human rights defenders who have been harassed, beaten, and even
killed for uncovering their government's abuses.
So we must be careful to distinguish between the Russian government
and the Russian people. We cannot let America's relationship with a
nation of more than 140 million people--people who have made remarkable
contributions to the world, who have a proud, rich history and culture,
and whom we fervently wish to see prosper--be defined solely by the
nefarious actions of a tiny subset in their government. And yet we have
less contact with ordinary Russians today than at any time in decades.
This is no accident; in the past few years, the Russian government has
closed 28 U.S. government-funded ``American Corners,'' which offered
free libraries, language training, and events about American culture to
Russian citizens, and has shuttered the American Center in Moscow,
which hosted more than 50,000 Russian visitors per year. It has also
expelled U.S. government-supported and independent non-profits, such as
the National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Society Foundation,
which had spent decades fostering civil society and the rule of law in
Russia. As the Kremlin closes off these outlets for reaching the
Russian people, we must find others to take their place.
We also cannot give up engaging with the Russian government. We
should do this in part because collaborating on issues of shared
interest will allow us to show, not just tell, what we know to be
true--that our nations have a lot more to gain by working to build up a
system of shared rules and principles than tear it down; and, in part,
because by working together, we may be able to rebuild the respect and
the trust needed to tackle unprecedented global threats that we face
today--many of which cannot be solved without one another's help.
Let me conclude. In 1796, our nation's first President, George
Washington, used his farewell address to issue a stark warning to the
American people about the danger of foreign governments trying to
interfere in our democracy. He told his audience: ``Against the
insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me,
fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly
awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one
of the most baneful foes of republican government.''
More than 220 years later, Washington's warning feels strikingly
relevant. For if anything, the vulnerabilities that Washington saw, in
his words, ``to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of
seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public
councils''--those are his words--those have only multiplied with modern
technology. And unlike in 1796, it is no longer enough for us simply to
protect our own democracy against foreign interference; we also have to
protect the integrity of the entire rules-based international order, on
whose foundations our security and our prosperity rest.
Yet while so much has changed since Washington issued his warning,
the essence of the threat has not. It goes to the creation of America
itself--a nation born out of a simple, yet revolutionary idea: that it
was the American people, ordinary citizens--and not a government,
domestic or foreign--who should enjoy the rights to shape our nation's
path. That is a right that we have had to fight to defend throughout
our history. And while in recent decades we may have felt confident
that no power would dare try to take that right away from us, we have
again been reminded that they will try.
Just as the threat is fundamentally unchanged since Washington's
time, so is our most effective way to confront it. And that is by
renewing the faith of the American people in our democracy. Our
democracy's vitality has long depended on sustaining the belief among
our citizens that a government by and for the people is the best way to
keep ourselves and our loved ones safe, to preserve the freedoms we
value most, and to expand our opportunities. It is not that we have a
perfect system, but a perfectible system--one that the American people
always have the power to improve, to renew, to make our own. That faith
is the engine that has powered our republic since its creation, and it
is the reason other nations still look to America as a model.
And it is precisely that faith that the Russian government's
interference is intended to shake. The Kremlin's aim is to convince our
people that the system is rigged; that all facts are relative; that
ordinary people who try to improve their communities and their country
are wasting their time. In the place of faith, they offer cynicism. In
the place of engagement, indifference.
But the truth is that the Russian government's efforts to cast
doubt on the integrity of our democracy would not have been so
effective if some of those doubts had not already been felt by many
Americans, by citizens who are asking whether our system still offers a
way to fix the everyday problems they face, and whether our society
still gives them reason to hope that they can improve their lives for
the better. In this way--and we need to reckon with this--the attack
has cast a light on a growing sense of divisiveness, distrust, and
disillusionment. But we know here in America not only what we are
against, we know what we are for. So just as we are clear-eyed about
the threat that Russia poses from the outside, and unified in
confronting it, we must also dedicate ourselves to restoring citizens'
faith in our democracy on the inside, which always has been the source
of America's strength, and always will be our best defense against any
foreign power that tries to do us harm.
I thank you.
__________
The Screening Process for Refugee
Entry Into the United States\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/
infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states. [Editor's
note: In its original form the ``infographic'' version of this
information was not compatible with the GPO's hearing format; the
information was converted into a text document.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Refugee Applicants Identify Themselves to the
U.N. Refugee Agency, UNHCR. UNHCR, Then:
Collects identifying documents
Performs initial assessment
Collects biodata: name, address, birthday, place of
birth, etc.
Collects biometrics: iris scans (for Syrians, and
other refugee populations in the Middle East)
Interviews applicants to confirm refugee status and
the need for resettlement
Initial information checked again
Only applicants who are strong candidates for
resettlement move forward (less than 1% of global
refugee population).
Applicants are Received by a Federally-Funded Resettlement Support
Center (RSC):
Collects identifying documents
Creates an applicant file
Compiles information to conduct biographic security
checks
Refugees are subject to the highest level of security
checks of any category of traveler to the United
States.
Biographic Security Checks Start with Enhanced Interagency Security
Checks:
U.S. security agencies screen the candidate,
including:
National Counterterrorism Center/Intelligence
Community
FBI
Department of Homeland Security
State Department
The screening looks for indicators, like:
Information that the individual is a security risk
Connections to known bad actors
Outstanding warrants/immigration or criminal
violations
DHS conducts an enhanced review of Syrian cases,
which may be referred to USCIS Fraud Detection and
National Security Directorate for review. Research that
is used by the interviewing officer informs lines of
question related to the applicant's eligibility and
credibility.
This process is repeated any time new information is
provided, such as a previously used name or different
phone number. Otherwise the process continues.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/USCIS Interview:
Interviews are conducted by USCIS Officers
specially trained for interviews
Fingerprints are collected and submitted (biometric
check)
Re-interviews can be conducted if fingerprint results
or new information raises questions. If new biographic
information is identified by USCIS at an interview,
additional security checks on the information are
conducted. USCIS may place a case on hold to do
additional research or investigation. Otherwise, the
process continues.
Biometric Security Checks:
Applicant's fingerprints are taken by U.S.
government employees
Fingerprints are screened against the FBI's biometric
database.
Fingerprints are screened against the DHS biometric
database, containing watch-list information and
previous immigration encounters in the U.S. and
overseas.
Fingerprints are screened against the U.S. Department
of Defense biometric database, which includes
fingerprint records captured in Iraq and other
locations.
If not already halted, this is the end point for cases
with security concerns. Otherwise, the process
continues.
Medical Check:
The need for medical screening is determined.
This is the end point for cases denied due to medical
reasons. Refugees may be provided medical treatment for
communicable diseases such as tuberculosis.
Cultural Orientation and Assignment to Domestic Resettlement Locations:
Applicants complete cultural orientation classes.
An assessment is made by a U.S.-based non-
governmental organization to determine the best
resettlement location for the candidate(s).
Considerations include:
Family; candidates with family in a certain area may
be placed in that area.
Health; a candidate with asthma may be matched to
certain regions.
A location is chosen.
Recurrent vetting: Throughout this process, pending
applications continue to be checked against terrorist
databases, to ensure new, relevant terrorism
information has not come to light. If a match is found,
that case is paused for further review. Applicants who
continue to have no flags continue the process. If
there is doubt about whether an applicant poses a
security risk, they will not be admitted.
Travel:
International Organization for Migration books
travel
Prior to entry in the United States, applicants are
subject to:
Screening from the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's National Targeting Center-Passenger
The Transportation Security Administration's Secure
Flight Program
This is the end point for some applicants. Applicants
who have no flags continue the process.
U.S. Arrival:
All refugees are required to apply for a green card
within a year of their arrival to the United States,
which triggers:
Another set of security procedures with the U.S.
government.
Refugees are woven into the rich fabric of American
society!
[all]