[Senate Hearing 116-158]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-158
NOMINATION OF HON. KELLY CRAFT,
OF KENTUCKY, TO BE UNITED STATES
AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-942 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky................ 1
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 3
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 4
Craft, Hon. Kelly, of Kentucky, United States Ambassador to
Canada, Nominated to be United States Representative to the
United Nations................................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Additional Matertial Submitted for the Record
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
Hon. Kelly Craft by Members of the Committee
Questions from Senator Robert Menendez....................... 47
Questions from Senator Benjamin L. Cardin.................... 97
Questions from Senator Jeanne Shaheen........................ 107
Questions from Senator Christopher A. Coons.................. 109
Questions from Senator Tom Udall............................. 109
Questions from Senator Tim Kaine............................. 115
Questions from Senator Edward J. Markey...................... 118
Questions from Senator Jeff Merkley.......................... 122
Questions from Senator Cory A. Booker........................ 123
Correspondence Received in Support of Ambassador Craft's
Nomination
Letter supporting Amb. Craft's nomination, from J.D. Irving,
Co-Chief Executive Officer, J.D. Irving, Limited, Saint
John, New Brunswick, Canada................................ 126
Letter supporting Amb. Craft's nomination, from Gordon D.
Griffin, Global Vice Chair, Denton's, U.S. LLP, Atlanta, GA 127
Letter to Amb. Craft, regarding the U.S. withdrawal from the
Paris Agreement, sent by Senators Edward J. Markey, Jeff
Merkley, and Sheldon Whitehouse................................ 129
(iii)
NOMINATION OF HON. KELLY CRAFT, OF
KENTUCKY, TO BE UNITED STATES
AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E.
Risch, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson,
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Paul,
Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Markey, and Merkley.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Today, the committee will hold a nomination hearing on a
very important position. Our nominee today is the Honorable
Kelly Craft, currently the Ambassador for Canada, and nominated
to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
First, we have two distinguished guests, distinguished and
celebrity guests I might add, today. And they are going to
introduce our nominee. So we are going to allow them to proceed
with their introductions. Usually Senator Menendez and I do our
opening statements first, but we are going to postpone because
I know that our guest introducers have important business to
do.
We are privileged to be joined by Ambassador Craft's home
State Senators today, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senator
Rand Paul will be here soon to also introduce the nominee.
Senator McConnell, welcome to the United States Foreign
Relations Committee, long known for its kindness to its
witnesses and for civility. Your steady and thoughtful
leadership inspire us all as you sail this ship through the
heavy seas we encounter daily here, and we welcome hearing your
considered judgment regarding the matter before us today. So,
Senator McConnell, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MITCH MCCONNELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Menendez, members of the committee. I am really pleased to be
here this morning to introduce a distinguished stateswoman and
leader and, of course, a proud Kentuckian. The Blue Grass is
proud of its daughter of our commonwealth. I am confident our
entire nation will be proud of the fine service she will render
as our Ambassador to the United Nations.
Of course, most of you are already familiar with Kelly
Knight Craft because almost 2 years ago, I came here to
introduce her nomination to be Ambassador to Canada. I noted
her impressive record of public service. I talked about her
unanimous Senate confirmation back in 2007 to serve as an
Alternate Representative for our delegation to the U.N. General
Assembly. I described how her performance in that role,
including her work on the new partnership for Africa's
development showed that Ms. Craft is a talented consensus
builder, and I predicted that, if confirmed, she would
skillfully manage America's relationship with our neighbor to
the north.
A week later, her nomination was reported favorably out of
this committee on a voice vote, and 1 week after that, she was
confirmed by the full Senate, again by a voice vote.
So let us talk about the past 2 years and the impressive
record of this first-ever woman to serve as our Ambassador to
Canada.
Historically that post is not one that is typically viewed
as one of the tougher assignments in the diplomatic corps. But
as it would turn out, Ambassador Craft's tenure brought a host
of tough issues and thorny questions to the fore, everything
from rethinking NAFTA to navigating real differences between
Canada's leadership and our administration. The relationship
was tested, and by all accounts, our Ambassador rose to the
occasion and did an outstanding job.
On economics, she helped achieve the successful trade
negotiations that culminated in the USMCA, helped secure a new
chapter for the Regulatory Cooperation Council between the two
countries, and defended access for U.S. businesses.
On the diplomatic front, her time as Ambassador has seen
greater cooperation and coordination on numerous critical
fronts. Canada joined the front lines of the new U.S.-led
international sanctions on Russia over its actions against
Ukraine. Canada has played an important role with the Lima
Group, the international coalition committed to a peaceful and
democratic transition for Venezuela. And just recently,
Ambassador Craft spoke out forcefully when China unlawfully
detained Canadian citizens.
This is a record of significant achievement. It reflects
hard work, careful study, and great skill. And she has won
respect both at home and abroad. The current Premier of Ontario
has reflected, quote, every premier I know thinks the world of
her. She really proved herself over some tough times. That is
the Premier of Ontario.
And watching Ambassador Craft's tenure, a former Canadian
to the U.S. has concluded she has done the job very well.
As it happens, I am actually meeting with Prime Minister
Trudeau tomorrow to discuss the USMCA. I know that our
conversations will only be building on a huge amount of
successful work by Ambassador Craft to forge the path.
So, Mr. Chairman, following the successful tenure from
Ambassador Nikki Haley, it is vital that our next U.N.
Ambassador possess the knowledge, talent, and experience to
continue skillfully advancing our nation's interests and
values.
So that is why I am proud to say Ambassador Craft is a
phenomenal selection by the President. I am proud to support
her nomination, and I am really proud to be here this morning
to introduce her to all of you.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator McConnell. We sincerely
appreciate that. And we know how busy you are, so we will
certainly excuse you.
We are still waiting for Senator Paul, and when he gets
here, we will hear from Senator Paul. But until he does, I will
make an opening statement. Then will turn it over to Senator
Menendez to make his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Today, we will consider the nomination of the Honorable
Kelly Craft to be the Representative of the United States to
the United Nations and to be the Representative of the United
States to the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General
Assembly.
We welcome all of you and thank you, Ms. Craft, for your
willingness to serve.
As Senator McConnell has already given an introduction, I
will speak for just a few minutes about the importance of this
position.
Of the approximate 200 countries the United States is by
far the largest donor to the United Nations, providing 22
percent of the U.N. regular budget and 25 percent of the U.N.
peacekeeping budget. Compare that to the second largest
contributor, China, which pays only 12 percent of the regular
budget and 15 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Clearly, the
U.S. taxpayer has been extremely generous to the United Nations
since its founding in 1945.
Due to the United States' significant support and
leadership, we have been some, but not universally successful
in pursuing policies which support the interests and values
which are shared by many, though not all of the countries
around the world.
For example, in the Security Council under President
Trump's leadership, the U.S. has been successful at passing the
toughest sanctions ever against North Korea and an arms embargo
in South Sudan, actions that are in the interest of all human
beings and our allies, not just the United States.
However, the Security Council, largely due to Russian and
Chinese misbehavior, has failed to make significant progress on
some of the most pressing international crises. The United
Nations exists to ensure international peace and security, but
two of its members are the instigators of insecurity around the
globe.
For example, Russia has repeatedly used its veto at the
Security Council to shield its brutal ally, the Assad regime,
from investigations into war crimes committed in this 8-year
long atrocity.
And China blocks consensus on issues related to Burmese
complicity in the violence against the Rohingya population.
Because of this impasse at the U.N. Security Council, the
humanitarian crises have only increased and become more
prolonged.
The U.N. plays a vital role in responding to humanitarian
crises. This is where we see and urge burden sharing. While the
U.S. remains the largest donor to humanitarian crises across
the globe, the U.N. system pushes other countries to contribute
and uses our money as a force multiplier in places such as
Yemen and Venezuela.
It is important that the U.S. continue to pressure the
United Nations to spend its money efficiently and effectively.
The current U.N. Secretary-General has been focused on U.N.
reform, and I applaud this effort. It is long overdue and much
needed. There needs to be a robust push to eliminate waste,
fraud, and abuse in the U.N. system. And, Ms. Craft, we will be
looking forward to you pursuing that, which is important to
many of us on this committee.
In particular, we should continue to press for peacekeeping
reform. While the U.N. has recognized and created a new
Department of Peace Operations, we remain concerned about the
increase in resources requested in light of the downsizing of
some key missions such as Darfur, DRC, and Haiti. While the
United States benefits from being a member of the U.N., the
United Nations benefits more, much, much more from the United
States being a member.
Ms. Craft, I look forward to hearing from you how you can
support U.S. leadership at the U.N. to ensure that it promotes
the interests and values, especially values, of the United
States and of our allies.
I have received some materials in advance of this hearing.
I am going to include them in the record.
[The information referred to above is located at the end of
this hearing transcript, beginning on page 126.]
The Chairman. I want to point to just one in particular. I
have a letter of support from Gordon B. Giffin, who was the
United States Ambassador to Canada under President Clinton. Mr.
Giffin states, ``I have no doubt that the experience gained
over 2 years as Ambassador to Canada has prepared Kelly Craft
well for the next assignment. ''
With that, I will turn this over to the ranking member,
Senator Menendez, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Craft, welcome to your second confirmation for a
deeply consequential position.
The United States was instrumental in creating the United
Nations in the post-war era, built on founding American values
of democracy and human rights. Multilateral institutions like
the United Nations and NATO have underpinned the peace,
prosperity, and stability that the American people have enjoyed
for decades. These fundamental values and international
institutions, however, are under assault today from actors who
seek to exploit them for their own agendas, as well as those
who threaten to abandon and undermine them completely.
If confirmed, you will represent the United States at an
exceedingly complex time, with China's growing influence at the
U.N., Russian adventurism and obstruction on the Security
Council, and President Trump's relentless attacks on
multilateralism, undermining and withdrawing from numerous
international agreements and agencies, defunding critical U.N.
agencies like the U.N. Population Fund, and cutting
contributions to our peacekeeping obligations.
The American people need someone with tenacity, experience,
and a deep understanding of the complexities of global affairs
and international institutions, who is committed to
multilateralism and reforming and strengthening the United
Nations, not irreparably damaging it.
So, Madam Ambassador, let me be frank. I have deep
reservations about your lack of qualifications for such a
complex and challenging role. Historically, U.S. ambassadors to
the U.N. have brought significant executive experience or
experience working directly in foreign policy.
Before your short stint as Ambassador to Canada, I
understand you were active in Kentucky and national party
politics, and in 2007, you were an alternate observer delegate
to the General Assembly.
Furthermore, during your 1 and a half years as Ambassador,
you spent an excessive amount of time absent from Ottawa,
leaving your duties to deputies. Madam Ambassador, the most
fundamental role of an ambassador is to actively, presently,
and wholeheartedly represent and advocate for American
interests, American values, and American foreign policy. I find
this staggering amount of time away from post very troubling
and an abdication of leadership. If confirmed, you would be
serving alongside some of the most experienced, seasoned, and
sometimes ruthless diplomats from all over the world.
We are confronting myriad challenges in the world today,
including multiplying conflicts, climate change, nuclear
proliferation, that cut across borders which the United States
cannot meet alone. While the U.N. and its subsidiary bodies are
far from perfect institutions, they have the power to
facilitate remarkable achievements and leverage partnerships.
If you are confirmed, I hope you will address the following
priorities:
First, we must actively seek to balance China's influence.
This administration's pullback from the U.N. risks enabling
China to fill the vacuum by ceding diplomatic ground. China is
eager to undermine U.N. human rights mechanisms and impose
China's authoritarian world view.
Second, the U.N. must be fair and appropriately condemn
human rights abuses and atrocities and stop politically
motivated resolutions. One of the persistent weaknesses of the
United Nations system has been the biased and ugly approach
towards Israel. You must use your voice to end and combat these
efforts.
Third, the United States must pay our arrears. The U.N. is
in a financial crisis, in part due to U.S. shortfalls. For
peacekeeping alone, we are $776 million in arrears. These
arrears have accrued in just the last 3 years, from the U.S.
paying only 25 percent of peacekeeping costs instead of what we
actually owed, 28 percent. Last week, the State Department
issued its own report detailing that the U.S. refusal to pay
its arrears has, quote--this is the State Department speaking--
diminished our ability to pursue U.S. priorities, reduced U.S.
ability to promote oversight and accountability at the U.N.,
reduced standing to promote the candidacy of qualified U.S.
citizens to assume senior management roles at the U.N., and
impaired the ability of peacekeeping missions to operate. Close
quote.
Fourth, the United States must stop seeking to restrict
access to sexual and reproductive health and human rights that
improve the lives of women, girls, and communities around the
world. Most recently, the U.S. egregiously threatened to veto a
U.N. Security Council resolution for survivors of gender-based
violence over reference to survivors' access to sexual and
reproductive health care. That is appalling.
And finally, the U.S. must work to shore up the U.N.'s
humanitarian response system, which is under extraordinary
stress. We must do so not merely because it is the right thing
to do, but because it is profoundly in our national interest to
do so. The United States shares the burden with less risk when
we address devastating humanitarian crises through the United
Nations.
Our national security is strengthened when we are at the
table at the U.N., and the U.N. is more effective with American
leadership and values on display.
So, Ambassador, I look forward to your testimony today on
these pressing issues.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Now we will turn to Ambassador Craft. Welcome. Thank you
for being willing to undertake this important engagement on
behalf of the people of the United States. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY CRAFT, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED
NATIONS, WITH THE RANK AND STATUS OF AMBASSADOR
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member
Menendez, and all members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today.
It is a singular honor to sit before you as President
Trump's nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations.
A special word of thanks, of course, to my Kentucky
Senators, Leader McConnell and Senator Paul, for their kind
words, as well as their encouragement, wisdom, and support
throughout my tenure in Ottawa.
I would like to express my gratitude to President Trump,
Vice President Pence, Secretary Pompeo, Ambassador Lighthizer,
and Mission Canada for the trust they have shown me as we have
worked together to strengthen our bonds with Canada and the
Canadian people.
I appear before you today excited at the prospect of
representing the United States at the U.N., but also saddened
at the thought of leaving my many superb colleagues and
counterparts across the northern border.
Mr. Chairman, I am blessed with the most loving and
supportive family imaginable. My husband Joe, our family, Ron,
Elliott, JW, Mollie, Ryan, Lauren, Kyle, Mia, Stu, Jane, and
Wyatt. My siblings Marc and their spouses; Elisabeth, my
sister; Micah and her husband Bruce. And five of the shining
stars--five out of 11 in our life--we have Jake, Kingsley,
Holland, Lachlan, Windsor, and our friend Fifi.
When the President asked me to consider moving to New York
to serve as our nation's Permanent Representative to the United
Nations, I turned to the people behind me to ask for their
guidance and to God for his. If confirmed, I would assume this
position knowing that just like the Toronto Raptors and the
Kentucky Wildcats, I will have a very deep bench.
I would also assume this position with clear-eyed humility.
I have much to learn about the United Nations, a fact I first
encountered in 2007 when I served as the Alternate Delegate to
the U.N. General Assembly and saw firsthand the complexity of
multilateral diplomacy at this unique institution.
I learned then that making progress at the U.N. requires
constant attention to relationships, a knack for knowing the
bottom line, and a belief in incremental but determined steps
forward.
Ultimately, I would have not accepted the President's
nomination for this position if I was not certain I was ready
for the task at hand. Like the President I have had the honor
to serve, I believe the United Nations is a vital institution
that is at its best when free nations jointly contribute to its
missions around the world.
I was born and raised on a working farm where all living
things were valued and treated with kindness. We were that
family with a few one-eyed cats and three-legged dogs. We
treasured and we protected the land and all those who worked it
and walked it. My parents instilled in me a respect for people
of all means, occupations, origins, and circumstances. If
confirmed, those are the values that will animate my work at
the U.N., as they have throughout my personal and my
professional life.
And, if confirmed, I will carry with me the respect as I
engage all of my 192 counterparts. I will also carry with me
several key priorities I have already had the opportunity to
discuss with many of you on the committee.
Most notably, the United States must continue the drum beat
of reform at the U.N. Of course, the issue of reform has been
something of a mantra for members of both parties on this
committee and for good reason.
The U.N. system has grown quickly. Its activities have
expanded, and its ambitions at times have gotten ahead of
accountability. Waste and overlap remain problems. Conduct
issues, including sexual exploitation, continue to surface.
Hiring practices are often too opaque, and backroom deals
for appointments and contracts continue. None of that is
acceptable, and my voice on these matters will be heard
whenever and wherever these issues arise. The United Nations
needs greater transparency, and U.S. taxpayers deserve it.
Reform makes the United Nations stronger, not weaker.
The second priority I will take to New York is a focus on
expanding the pool of resources available to the U.N.'s
humanitarian network and pushing its agencies to maximize the
impact of those resources on the ground where needs are the
greatest. There are numerous, massive, and protracted crises
from Sudan to Yemen to Syria, and there are new crises that we
did not foresee a few years ago, such as the 4 million
Venezuelans that have fled their country in search of safety
and sustenance.
The United States has long been the world leader in
supporting humanitarian aid, spending more than $8 billion a
year through USAID and international organizations such as
UNICEF and the World Food Program. But I also believe other
responsible nations can and must do more to contribute their
fair share, and I will make this point very firm and
frequently. Again, the U.N. is stronger, not weaker, when more
of its members are invested in the success of its most
important work.
Finally, I am a believer in the power of public-private
partnerships to unlock opportunity and spur development. If
confirmed, I will take to New York a broad network of
relationships I believe can fuel new partnerships and expand
those with proven track records. Among my areas of strong
interest for displaced populations are strengthening prenatal
care services for women, improving the quality of early
childhood education, and increasing the attention to challenges
to elder care. The numbers are colossal. The needs are urgent,
and we have a moral and practical obligation to work with other
countries to address these crises.
While bolstering humanitarian efforts will be a top
priority for me, there is another issue of a global nature that
I would like to briefly address. I understand that some members
of this committee have raised questions about where I stand on
climate change, and though I have spoken to many of you
individually about this issue, I would like to repeat my
thoughts here publicly.
Climate change needs to be addressed as it poses real risks
to our planet. Human behavior has contributed to the changing
climate. Let there be no doubt. I will take this matter
seriously, and if confirmed, I will be an advocate for all
countries to do their part in addressing climate change.
This does not mean, in my view, that the United States
should imperil American jobs or our economy as a whole by
assuming an outsized burden on behalf of the rest of the world.
However, it does mean that we should promote the creativity and
innovation that have made the United States a leader in
tackling the challenges of our environment and while
safeguarding our nation's economic wellbeing.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I believe that the
United States must maintain its central leadership role at the
United Nations, as it should, and I say this for several
reasons.
First, when the U.N. performs, it advances key American
objectives, including the promotion of peace and security.
Second, without U.S. leadership, our partners and allies
would be vulnerable to bad actors at the U.N. This is
particularly true in the case of Israel, which is the subject
of unrelenting bias and hostility in U.N. venues. The United
States will never accept such bias, and if confirmed, I commit
to seizing every opportunity to shine a light on this conduct,
call it what it is, and demand that these outrageous practices
finally come to an end.
Finally, I believe the United States must remain vigilant
in constraining efforts by our strategic competitors to gain
influence at our expense. I speak in particular about Russia
and China, two nations with cynical approaches to the United
Nations.
If confirmed, I will miss no opportunity to draw attention
to malign influence at the U.N.; to distinguish American
leadership from the corrosive, underhanded conduct of those
nations; and to reinforce the values, our values, that were
central to the U.N.'s founding.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has been met with many
recent successes at the U.N. from historic sanctions against
North Korea to a renewed boldness in speaking out against rogue
actors. There are successes that I am eager to build upon, and
I look forward to working with this committee and benefiting
from its collective wisdom and experience.
If given the honor to sit behind the nameplate that reads
``United States,'' you have my word that I will do everything
in my power to advance policy that benefits the American
people, that contributes to a safer, more prosperous world, and
that is grounded in an unwavering commitment to universal human
rights and human freedom.
Thank you to all of you for welcoming me here today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Craft follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kelly Craft
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, and all members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
It is a singular honor to sit before you as President Trump's
nominee to serve asU.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
A special word of thanks, of course, to my Kentucky Senators,
Leader McConnell and Senator Paul, for their kind words as well as
their encouragement, wisdom, and support throughout my tenure in
Ottawa.
I would also like to express gratitude to President Trump, Vice
President Pence, Secretary Pompeo, Ambassador Lighthizer and Mission
Canada for the trust they have shown me as we have worked together to
strengthen our bonds with Canada and the Canadian people.
I appear before you today excited at the prospect of representing
the United States at the U.N., but also saddened at the thought of
leaving my many superb colleagues and counterparts across our northern
border.
Mr. Chairman, I am blessed with the most loving and supportive
family imaginable. My husband Joe, our family Ron, Elliott, JW, Mollie,
Ryan, Lauren, Kyle, Mia, Stu, Jane and Wyatt.My siblings Marc and
Elisabeth, Micah and Bruce. And the 5 of 11 stars in our lives Jake,
Kingsley, Holland, Lachlan, and Windsor.
When the President asked me to consider moving to New York to serve
as our nation's Permanent Representative to the U.N., I turned to the
people you see behind me to ask for their guidance, and to God for His.
If confirmed, I would assume this position knowing that, like the
Toronto Raptors and Kentucky Wildcats, I will have a very deep bench.
I would also assume this position with clear-eyed humility. I have
much to learn about the United Nations, a fact I first encountered in
2007 when I served as an Alternate Delegate to the U.N. General
Assembly and saw firsthand the complexity of multilateral diplomacy at
this unique institution.
I learned then that making progress at the U.N. requires constant
attention to relationships, a knack for knowing the bottom line, and a
belief in incremental, but determined, steps forward.
Ultimately, I would not have accepted the President's nomination
for this position if I was not certain I was ready for the task at
hand. Like the President I have had the honor to serve, I believe that
the United Nations is a vital institution that is at its best when free
nations jointly contribute to its missions around the world.
I was born and raised on a working farm where all living things
were valued and treated with kindness. We were that family with more
than a few one-eyed cats and three-legged dogs. We treasured and
protected the land, and all those who worked it and walked it. My
parents instilled in me a respect for people of all means, occupations,
origins, and circumstances. If confirmed, those are the values that
will animate my work at the U.N., as they have throughout my personal
and professional life.
And, if confirmed, I will carry that respect with me as I engage
with all 192 of my counterparts. I will also carry with me several key
priorities that I've already had the opportunity to discuss with many
of you on the committee.
Most notably, the United States must continue the drum beat of
reform at the U.N. Of course, the issue of reform has been something of
a mantra for members of both parties on this committee, and for good
reason.
The U.N. system has grown quickly, its activities have expanded,
and its ambitions have at times gotten ahead of accountability. Waste
and overlap remain problems. Conduct issues, including sexual
exploitation, continue to surface.
Hiring practices are too often opaque, and backroom deals for
appointments and contracts continue. None of that is acceptable, and my
voice on these matters will be heard whenever and wherever these issues
arise. The United Nations needs greater transparency, and U.S.
taxpayers deserve it. Reform makes the U.N. stronger, not weaker.
The second priority I would take to New York is a focus on
expanding the pool of resources available to the U.N.'s humanitarian
network, and pushing its agencies to maximize the impact of those
resources on the ground, where needs are the greatest. There are
numerous, massive, and protracted crises, from Sudan to Yemen to Syria.
And there are new crises that we did not foresee a few years ago, such
as the four million Venezuelans who have fled their country in search
of safety and sustenance.
The United States has long been the world leader in supporting
humanitarian aid, spending more than eight billion dollars a year
through USAID and international organizations such as UNICEF and the
World Food Program. But I also believe other responsible nations can
and must do more to contribute their fair share, and I will make that
point firmly and frequently. Again, the U.N. is stronger, not weaker,
when more of its members are invested in the success of its most
important work.
Finally, I am a believer in the power of public-private
partnerships to unlock opportunity and spur development. If confirmed,
I will take to New York a broad network of relationships that I believe
can fuel new partnerships and expand those with proven track records.
Among my areas of strong interest for displaced populations are
strengthening pre-natal care services for women, improving the quality
of early childhood education, and increasing attention to elder care
challenges. The numbers are colossal, the needs urgent, and we have a
moral and practical obligation to work with other countries to address
these crises.
While bolstering humanitarian efforts will be a top priority for
me, there is one other issue of a global nature that I would like to
briefly address. I understand that some members of this committee have
raised questions about where I stand on climate change, and though I
have spoken to many of you individually about this issue, I want to
repeat my thoughts here publicly.
Climate change needs to be addressed, as it poses real risks to our
planet. Human behavior has contributed to the changing climate. Let
there be no doubt: I take this matter seriously, and if confirmed, I
will be an advocate for all countries to do their part in addressing
climate change.
This does not mean, in my view, that the United States should
imperil American jobs-or our economy as a whole-by assuming an outsized
burden on behalf of the rest of the world. However, it does mean that
we should promote the creativity and innovation that have made the
United States a leader in tackling the challenges of our environment-
all while safeguarding our nation's economic wellbeing.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I believe that the United
States must maintain its central leadership role at the United Nations.
I say that for several reasons. First, when the U.N. performs as it
should, it advances key American objectives, including the promotion of
peace and security.
Second, without U.S. leadership, our partners and allies would be
vulnerable to bad actors at the U.N. This is particularly true in the
case of Israel, which is the subject of unrelenting bias and hostility
in U.N. venues. The United States will never accept such bias, and if
confirmed I commit to seizing every opportunity to shine a light on
this conduct, call it what it is, and demand that these outrageous
practices finally come to an end.
Finally, I believe the United States must remain vigilant in
constraining efforts by our strategic competitors to gain influence at
our expense. I speak in particular about Russia and China--two nations
with cynical approaches to the United Nations.
If confirmed, I will miss no opportunity to draw attention malign
influence at the U.N.; to distinguish American leadership from the
corrosive, underhanded conduct of those nations; and to reinforce the
values-our values-that were central to the U.N.'s founding.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has been met with many recent
successes at the U.N., from historic sanctions against North Korea to a
renewed boldness in speaking out against rogue actors. These are
successes I am eager to build upon, and I look forward to working with
this committee and benefiting from its collective wisdom and
experience.
If given the honor to sit behind the nameplate that reads ``United
States,'' you have my word that I will do everything in my power to
advance policy that benefits the American people; that contributes to a
safer, more prosperous world; and that is grounded in an unwavering
commitment to universal human rights and human freedom.
Thank you for welcoming me here today, and I look forward to your
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador. Certainly good words,
well received. We hope that as you take this position, that you
will particularly follow through on the reform and cost-cutting
that is needed there. Many, many people have talked about it
but little gets done, and I have confidence that you are up to
the job. So when you go there, I hope you will take that
message from this committee.
With that, we are going to go to a round of 5-minute
questions based upon the arrival and going back and forth
between the minority and the majority party.
With that, will turn it over to Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony, Ambassador.
As I said to you in private and I have raised here in
public, I have a concern about excessive absences from post.
You gave me your commitment in private, but for the record
here, do you commit to providing complete records of all of the
time you spent away from post, including the cables approving
your leave and your official calendars?
Ambassador Craft. Yes, Senator, I do commit to providing
you with all the information necessary.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
And I appreciate the information you have provided, but
there are a number of discrepancies. From October 23rd of 2017
to June 19th of 2019, we have that you were away more than 300
days away from the post. It is an extraordinary number of
absences. The red describes each day that you were away from
post.
From March 21st to May 13th, in that short period of time,
you were out 45 of 54 days from the post.
Now, there are trips listed as official travel, but some of
those trips that you listed as official travel you treated
while being home in Kentucky.
And there is additional travel that you appear to have
taken that is not reflected in the information you provided.
For example, there are several instances where you posted
social media messages from places other than Canada, although
there is no record of you traveling.
Did you ever travel away from post without requesting
approval?
Ambassador Craft. No, sir. We requested approval in advance
of my travel and were in full compliance with my travel.
Senator Menendez. So you always requested and always
received approval for your travel.
Ambassador Craft. Yes, sir.
Senator Menendez. Okay. So there may be explanations for
all of these, but the bottom line is without the full records,
we can evaluate it. So I would urge you, as well as the State
Department, to provide these records so that we can move
forward with your nomination.
Let me ask you this. Lay out briefly for me the most
pressing issues the United Nations faces, as well as areas
where you believe the United States should leverage the United
Nations in pursuit of our foreign policy priorities.
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator, for that question,
and thank you for this conversation that we were able to have
yesterday afternoon.
I see pressing issues as any issue that involves innocent
people throughout the U.N. system throughout the world that are
being abused, that are having human rights abuses. I think it
is very important that who would have ever thought that today
we have so many crises in Venezuela, in Yemen, in Syria, and it
is so important that we look after our human rights issues
because then that, in turn, is going to be humanitarian issues.
So in my opinion, I look at every issue when it involves an
innocent civilian as a crisis.
Senator Menendez. Well, I appreciate your response in terms
of humanitarian issues, and I would share those with you. But I
would expect someone who is the nominee to be the U.N.
Ambassador in response to that question to talk about, for
example, the challenges of North Korea aggression and nuclear
proliferation, the challenges in Libya, a destabilized Libya,
the challenges of China's growing influence and ongoing threats
from Iran, the challenges of Venezuela. Those are minimally
some of the hotspots in the world right now. So when I ask
about the most pressing issues--and I certainly embrace the
humanitarian issues, but these are the types of issues you will
be called upon as the United States Ambassador at the U.N. to
be dealing with.
Let me ask you this. What U.N. functions would you describe
as being of the greatest value to the United States?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, thank you.
I believe that the Security Council is going to be
providing the greatest assistance to the U.S. in calling out
bad actors and in highlighting anyone that demonstrates anti-
Israel bias or anti-Semitism and also reiterate that the
Security Council is going to be an area that China and Russia
can actually call themselves out by allowing the world to see
how they do not assist us in human rights abuses and especially
in calling out corrosive behavior, as we have in Iran. It is a
moment that we can use to highlight bad actors, whether it be
Iran, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Russia, China, the way they
treat the Uighurs. I mean, we have so many crises that the
Security Council--it is very important that we be able to use
them in establishing sanctions and also in making certain that
we tackle human rights abuses every day.
Senator Menendez. One follow-up question. You mentioned the
Security Council. It certainly is an essential element of the
U.N. There is a whole host of other functions the U.N. has that
I would commend to your attention.
But Russia. The President seeks to develop a greater
personal relationship with Mr. Putin and Russia. How will seek
to avail yourself of that as it relates to Russia at the
Security Council?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
You know, I am not going there to be Russia's friend. They
are not our friend. They undermine us at every opportunity that
they have, and you better believe I will keep a clear eye on
them and understanding where we can work together, whether it
is North Korea or other areas that we need to call them out on.
I mean, we have to be very protective of Ukraine. We have to
understand that they are propping up the Assad regime. And also
their human rights abuses. Our country has applied more
sanctions in this administration than have ever been applied on
Russia, and I will continue to hold them accountable. We will
continue to apply maximum pressure, and if confirmed, I will
promise you that we would be shining a light on Russia.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Paul, we have been anxiously awaiting your arrival.
You see we did not wait for you.
Senator Paul. Being the ever courteous Senator from
Kentucky, I will just wait till my turn, and I will just make
my remarks with my questions. I am sorry I am late. I was
voting in another committee.
The Chairman. We understand that. Thank you.
Senator Isakson, you are up.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much, Chairman Risch. I
appreciate the opportunity.
And welcome, Kelly. We are glad to have you. I say Kelly. I
should not say that. I should be very formal, but I know this
lady very well and she is a great nominee. She is a great
individual and I cherish my relationship with her very much.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, to you and the ranking member,
she has been very good in her job as Ambassador to Canada. But
she has also been very good, always looking out for the best
interest of the United States of America and the best things
that the United States of America stands for.
If you listened to her testimony a few minutes ago--and I
was listening from a phone booth because I have got a little
emergency going on back home. That is why I am running back and
forth. She is very much aware of the anti- Semitism problem we
have in Europe and around the world. She was forceful in the
remarks she made about that, and she knows how to use her voice
and her position as an advocate for the right thing to do. And
she is someone who, when asked what to do, will always do the
right thing. And I think that is the kind of person you are
looking for in this job.
I was one of the two people that nominated Samantha Power
when Barack Obama appointed her U.N. Ambassador, and I did it
in this room right here. I did it because Samantha Power had
and I think exhibited in her term there the same type of
qualities this lady has. And if you got that kind of a
continuation of representation in the United Nations, which is
a unique organization to start with, then you need to take
advantage of that experience and that ability.
I did not hear. I am probably doing something wrong in the
testimony, and I apologize for this. There is a chart over
there with a lot of red squares on it. Would you tell me what
that is behind Mr. Cardin?
Senator Menendez. Those are absences from post.
Senator Isakson. What kind of absences?
Senator Menendez. That is what we are trying to determine.
Senator Isakson. Okay. Well, I do not know where she was,
but wherever it was it was in the best interest of the United
States of America. I can tell you that.
And I think you were doing trade negotiations a lot during
that period of time. Is that not right?
Ambassador Craft. Yes, sir, Senator. When President Trump
first asked me to be the Ambassador to Canada, he made it very
clear, as we discussed in your office yesterday, that this was
a real job, that we were going to be renegotiating the most
important trade partnership in the world with our number one
trading partner, Canada. Little did I know that I would be
living out of a suitcase most of the time during the trade
negotiations, whether it was in Montreal and then moved to
Washington. I was part of Ambassador Lighthizer's negotiation
team and went back and forth weekly from D.C. to Ottawa and
sometimes would be returning to Ottawa on a Wednesday, and then
on Wednesday evening be called back to D.C.
You know, I took the oath of office understanding that this
job was 24/7, and I intended to make certain that I was going
to be representing the American people at the table for the
NAFTA negotiations. It was very important to Robert Lighthizer,
as he is our USTR trade negotiator, that he have a team that
was looking after the best interest of not only our country,
but of the relationship that we have with our number one trade
partner.
Senator Isakson. And everything I can understand about
that, you did an outstanding job doing that, and everybody
appreciates what you did.
Do you think a U.N. Ambassador is any busier than a United
States Senator? It is not a trick question.
Ambassador Craft. I think I am only going to be as
successful as the relationships I have with all of you busy
gentlemen and women. I am looking forward to learning more
about your priorities so that I can just be just as busy.
Senator Isakson. Well, I just want all the members to think
about this on the question of absences. If you looked at my
record the last 3 weeks, I have been in Baghdad. I have been in
Doha. I have been in Abu Dhabi. I have been in Marietta,
Georgia. I went to the funeral of Dick Lugar. I forgot the last
place I went. But I have been traveling. France. That is
correct with Mr. Cardin. A small little celebration of a great
war we won. And we won it again this time, the 75th year in a
row, by the way. We always celebrate that victory.
But my point is we go a lot of places too. I mean, my job
is here, and it is my duty station. But my duty to my duty
station and to my country is to be wherever the job's
requirements take me. And just because your job requirements
took you somewhere that was not in your office, it does not
mean you were not doing your job. In fact, it may mean you were
doing more of your job than anybody else was. You show me
somebody who is always sitting in their office, and I will show
you somebody who is not doing much.
So I just wanted to bring that up. We did not practice
that. We did not practice anything, as a matter of fact. I just
wanted to bring that up.
Ambassador Craft. And may I add that while I was not in my
chair in my office, I have a staff of Foreign Service officers
that are second to none. And I felt very confident with my not
being in my office because I had people there running the
mission, as we discussed, every day. And I must brag on the
Foreign Service officers because without them, the mission,
even before I arrived, would have not been run so smoothly.
Senator Isakson. Just two things. I took too much of my own
time, and I apologize, Mr. Chairman. But I would like unanimous
consent that the letter from Gordon Giffin, the United States
Ambassador to Canada, be submitted for the record. I think the
chairman read from that letter.
The Chairman. It will be submitted.
Senator Isakson. And I just want to thank you very much,
and I am sorry I went off track a little bit. But I think it is
very important, when we have got somebody representing us in
the United Nations, they be an engaged person who believes in
the things we believe as Americans and work hard to get that
done. I think Samantha Power did that. I know you will do it,
and I am proud to support you.
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Craft, thank you for your willingness to serve
our country. I also want to thank your family for being willing
to share you in public service. We very much appreciate that.
I want to make sure that we have a person as our Ambassador
at the United Nations that is an advocate for the U.N. We have
problems with the United Nations. Make no mistake about it. But
it serves a critically important function for U.S. national
security. And our Ambassador, our representative to the U.N.,
needs to be an advocate to make the United Nations as effective
as we possibly can with U.S. influence.
So I want to talk about one issue first, and that is the
Human Rights Council. I strongly had disagreed with actions in
the Human Rights Council. In fact, Senator Portman and I have
filed legislation dealing with action in the Human Rights
Council. But the question is whether we participate or do not
participate as a member of the Human Rights Council, and there
is a concern that if we are not at the table, countries such as
China or Russia get a much larger audience than if we were
there participating.
So I want to get your view as to whether you think it is
right for us to walk away from debates in which we cannot win
or we are better off staying there making our points and doing
the best that we can.
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for our
meeting the other day, especially talking about the goals of
the U.N.
Whether or not we are in the room with the Human Rights
Council or a member is really not as important as the ability
as the U.S. U.N. Ambassador to use the Security Council as a
platform to call out these countries on human rights abuses. If
confirmed, I will use the Security Council as a platform and
also understanding that it is not acceptable for the Human
Rights Council to constantly undermine Israel, to constantly
show anti-Israel bias and anti-Semitism.
Senator Cardin. I agree with you on that. I am not sure the
Security Council has the effective way to counter what the
Human Rights Council does. The actions, of course, there are
subject to consensus with the P5. So if we do not have the
permanent council members all in agreement, we cannot get
action on the Security Council. So I am not sure that is a
substitute. I think using the Security Council is critically
important.
But I would just urge your understanding of recognizing we
are going to be dealing with nations that do not agree with us
in forums sometimes that we cannot control the outcome. Should
we participate or walk away?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, there are members of the Human
Rights Council that are the very members that are committing
these horrible human rights abuses.
Senator Cardin. No disagreement from me on that.
Ambassador Craft. I mean, I find it just appalling that we
have members of a council that are supposed to be holding
accountable.
Senator Cardin. Let me move on to a second subject.
You gave, I thought, views that I strongly agree with in
regards to climate change. And then you said you do not want to
assume an outsized burden on behalf of the rest of the world.
So I want to drill down on that for one moment because the
United States is party to the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change. That is the climate change that is subject
right now to discussion by the White House. In that convention,
it is basically a convention to come together as a global
community to deal with climate issues. There are no specific
commitments in the convention itself.
Then 2015 in Paris, there was an agreement reached between
now 95 signatories that basically provides for voluntary
compliance. There is no enforcement of that.
So where do you--are you concerned by the actions of the
United Nations that the United States is assuming an
overburdened share, or is this just a concern that you have in
the work that you will be doing at the United Nations to make
sure that it is a fair burden shared globally?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
Obviously, we both agree that burden sharing is very
important in the U.N. The U.S. will always be a leader----
Senator Cardin. I understand. I have a limited amount of
time. I do not want to be rude. I would just like to get your
view as to the framework, whether we should be working with the
global community on climate issues.
Ambassador Craft. We feel that being a member of the Paris
climate agreement does not--we do not need to be a member in
order to show leadership. You know, while we committed very
robustly in our commitment to the Paris climate agreement from
a financial standpoint, we expected other countries to step up,
and while they did commit, they really were not serious. And I
feel very strongly, if confirmed, that climate change must be
addressed, that we need to balance the American economy with
the environment, and we need to really stress to other people
the innovation in technology to be used as tools to mitigate
climate change. And if confirmed, I will be an advocate in
addressing climate change.
Senator Cardin. We lead by what we do here in America, but
we also lead by engaging other countries because we cannot deal
with the issues of climate change without actions globally,
particularly by the major emitters.
Do you support engaging the global community to deal with
climate change? And if Paris was not right, what is right?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
Absolutely, I do agree. We need to include and engage
everyone in this conversation. But if you think about while we
are committing on a robust manner and other people are not
serious--we have under-developed countries that are being taken
advantage of by China with their technology and innovation that
is not for sustainability. It is for ownership. And while the
U.S. is committing and other people are out there committing to
own under-developed nations, we need to be using our technology
and our innovations to show sustainability in under-developed
countries. And that is what we do really well.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Good morning, Ambassador Craft. Thank you for being here.
I wanted to close the loop on the travel question. The
State Department has rules for travel. Correct?
Ambassador Craft. Yes, Senator, they do.
Senator Rubio. And every trip that you have taken, all the
little red--I do not know if it is the red or the white. Every
single one of your trips were approved before you took them by
the State Department.
Ambassador Craft. Yes. They were pre-approved before
travel.
Senator Rubio. And every one of your trips that you took
and all of your travel complies with every single guideline the
State Department has in place for travel.
Ambassador Craft. Yes, Senator.
Senator Rubio. Of all the trips that you took, how many did
you cover from your personal funds?
Ambassador Craft. We assumed all responsibility for
expenses and travel-related expenses for all of our trips,
whether it be diplomatic or personal.
Senator Rubio. So you personally paid for even official
business trips?
Ambassador Craft. Yes, we did. All travel expenses.
Senator Rubio. So it is fair to say you saved the taxpayers
money.
Ambassador Craft. Yes, we did.
Senator Rubio. I think I know the answer to this question,
but can you be at two places at once?
Ambassador Craft. I certainly tried, but that is why we
have cell phones.
Senator Rubio. Here is why I ask. The reason why I ask you
is in your time in post in Canada, is the top issue between
the--what would you say was the top issue between the U.S. and
Canada? My guess would be it would be the trade agreement
negotiations.
Ambassador Craft. Senator Rubio, renegotiating NAFTA to
where we have USMCA today--I mean, I am still the current
Ambassador to Canada and will be working this evening with
Prime Minister Trudeau who is coming into Washington and will
be with him tomorrow. It is very important. We had moments of
doubt, and that is why it was imperative that Ambassador
McNaughton and myself be present, whether it be in Canada for
the meetings or in Washington. And I was not going to let this
country down nor Ambassador Lighthizer and the President.
Senator Rubio. A significant number of these trips up on
that board involve negotiations on USMCA that occurred within
the United States.
Ambassador Craft. Yes. The majority of the negotiations
occurred in Washington at USTR.
Senator Rubio. Did the White House ever deploy you to
events around the country to promote USMCA?
Ambassador Craft. The State Department would often suggest,
whether it be a northern governors and northern premier meeting
or different meetings with governors, in order to really stress
the importance of our trade with each state because each
state--obviously, Canada--I think 33 of them is the number one
trading partner.
Senator Rubio. So the point being, the State Department
asked you and suggested that you attend certain events even
within the United States to promote a top priority of the
administration, which is the USMCA negotiations and agreement.
Ambassador Craft. That is correct. Actually I received a
lot of invitations, and my office would have to make difficult
decisions because I could not be two or three places at once.
And they would have to make the decision. And being in
Washington was my number one priority, and if that did not
interfere with a trip that would be promoting NAFTA or USMCA,
then I would most certainly travel.
Senator Rubio. So the bottom line being it was not possible
for you to both be in those negotiations for the USMCA and also
at some ceremonial event at a third country embassy at the same
time. You had to make a choice, and you prioritized in those
cases the top priority of this administration with regards to
our relationship with Canada.
Ambassador Craft. Yes, Senator. And just talking about
attending some of the other events, you know, I think it is
really important to whether I was present or, obviously, if I
was not, I could not attend. But it is really important to
include your team at your mission. I have 400 members, 400
incredible members, at Mission Ottawa. And it is important for
them to have that exposure and to be able to attend. So on many
occasions, they would actually ask if they could attend
national days or other holiday events throughout Ottawa at the
different missions.
Senator Rubio. And I do not mean to diminish the importance
of these events where people socialize and the diplomatic corps
gets together. And I cannot speak for the Canadian Government,
but I have a sneaking suspicion that if forced to choose
between having you here helping focus and help land a trade
negotiation with them or having you attend this week's cocktail
party at some embassy, which is not an unimportant event and
our diplomats need to do that, they would probably have
preferred that we prioritize the trade deal is my guess.
Ambassador Craft. Absolutely. This was not a time to
socialize. This was really a time to work.
Senator Rubio. I want to ask you about one more priority
quickly. What have you done in your capacity as Ambassador to
Canada to advance the President's policy towards Venezuela?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. I know this is very
important to you. Who would have ever thought that we have 4
million refugees in Venezuela? It is of real importance with
Canada also with the Lima Group, and they were gracious
enough--I was able to attend the Lima Group plus 1 meeting in
Ottawa. Their ambassador-designee, Vera Blanco, to Canada did
not obviously have an embassy because the Maduro government--
their appointees are still at the embassy in Ottawa. So we
arranged for our meetings to be at my residence so that we
could best understand the Latin America countries and the
hardships that are being placed on them in taking in refugees,
such as Colombia taking in 1 million refugees. And you know,
they have humanitarian issues within their own country. And I
thought it was very important to allow a place that the
ambassador-designee could be heard, and he was very helpful in
answering questions and taking back to the interim President
Juan Guaido the concerns of the other countries.
It is just so important. There is no other option than for
Maduro to leave. And it is just really important for us as
Americans to be demonstrating the fact that we do care and that
we are engaged.
The Chairman. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member,
thank you.
Madam Ambassador, we do have three hearings going on at the
same time on three different committees on which I serve. So I
apologize for being out of breath. I literally ran upstairs
from an appropriations hearing where we are marking up and
advancing I think an important bipartisan amendment now. So my
apologies.
Thank you for being here. Congratulations on your
nomination and for the work you have done representing us in
Ottawa. We had the opportunity to talk about some of the
concerns other Senators have raised today.
Our role in the United Nations, both in its founding and
leading it and in giving it direction as it is a multilateral
entity that helps the world come together to confront the most
pressing global challenges, is of significant interest and
concern to me. The Trump administration has demonstrated
repeatedly across a number of lines of engagement a strong
preference for unilateral actions and bilateral relationships
over multilateralism.
If confirmed, you would be stepping into the most visible
and most important role I think our government has in a
multilateral institution, literally designed, built, and
largely funded by the United States, and at a time when China
is asserting its role in multilateral institutions, at least in
what they say and, to a larger extent, in what they do. As we
discussed, the first time I ever met a Chinese flag rank
officer was in a U.N. peacekeeping mission in South Sudan.
So given that China is seeking to fill the vacancy that I
would argue our withdrawal from a number of institutions and
organizations are creating, in your view do decreases in U.S.
contributions to the U.N. and our withdrawal from U.N. bodies,
such as Senator Cardin just asked you about, weaken our ability
to push back against China's expanding influence and in
particular to effectively question and challenge China's human
rights violations?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for the
opportunity for us to talk about our daughters and the
importance of doing the best you can no matter what internship
you may happen to take on.
You know, I understand the critics when they say that we
have kind of lost the way is why the values that the U.N. was
founded upon. I think it is very important to talk about the
fact that we were founded with equality, peace, and security,
making certain that we take care of social, economic, all
issues on the globe and human rights.
That is an issue where we need to be very careful in
shining a light on China, the way they treat the Uighurs. Just
because they have become the second largest donor, which
obviously is a reflection of their economy, at the U.N., we
need to be even more cautious and more diligent in the
relationship that, if confirmed, I will build with other member
states and making certain that they understand that, yes, China
is participating in sharing in this burden, as we will always
be the leader in contributing to the U.N. and will always take
the leadership role. However, with China, as you well know,
they have a motive and that is better leverage and taking
advantage of some of these under- developed countries through
the U.N. system.
Senator Coons. My hope, Madam Ambassador, is that your
voice will be loud and clear and consistent in contributing to
the U.N. not just our financial contributions but our voice in
advocating for human rights. On a bipartisan basis across a
number of administrations, the U.N. has been a place where we
have pushed back against criticisms and questioning and
challenges of actions of key allies and pushed forward on
concerns that are not raised anywhere else, nor addressed
anywhere else. And it is important to strike the right balance.
I am particularly concerned about what seems to be a
withdrawal from a longstanding bipartisan commitment to a two-
state solution. Can you tell me about your view of a two-state
solution and the central role that the U.N. can and should
continue to play in advocating for that as a path forward in
the Middle East?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, I am going to be--if confirmed,
I will support the President's vision for peace and security in
the region. This is why it is so important every time any
member state or anyone, for that matter, shows any anti-Israel
bias or anti-Semitism, that not only do we call them out, but
we have to explain that this is slowing the process for peace
and security in the region.
Senator Coons. I am going to interrupt because of my short
time.
Do you know whether the President's vision for peace and
security in the Middle East includes supporting a two- state
solution? I do not.
Ambassador Craft. Senator, I have not been part of the
Middle East peace process, but if confirmed, I will tell you
there will be no stronger friend than Kelly Craft and the
United States for Israel and no stronger person to promote
Israel and normalizing themselves in the system.
Senator Coons. I have two more questions I will ask
briefly. You may want to respond in writing afterwards or in
some other way. I want to respect the time concerns we have
here.
First, being an Ambassador is a full-time, hands-on job, as
I am sure has been discussed while I have been at the other
hearing. Your representation that a lot of your travel out of
Ottawa has been to advance the USMCA, if adequately documented
and supported, I am willing to take at face value. But I am
concerned about issues that have been raised about your
engagement and attendance in Ottawa. New York is even harder.
There are even more nations. There is even more work. There is
even more direct--and I would hope that you could persuade me
that you will be fully and directly engaged and provide the
background that would support that.
Last, of all that has broken out now in Uganda, I am
concerned that while there are many other pressing issues--and
I know I am detaining some of my colleagues and their chance to
question. I would welcome hearing from you how you view--this
is another opportunity for the administration to lead in a
multilateral response, in a global response rather than a
unilateral response. Peace in the Middle East, Ebola, human
rights, and our role overall in the U.N.--I need to hear from
you that you are committed to and understand the value of how
we built and how we will sustain this institution.
Thank you, Madam Ambassador. I am well out of time, but I
appreciate the chance to continue this discussion.
The Chairman. Did you want those for the record, Senator
Coons?
Senator Coons. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. If it is all right with you, Ambassador.
Ambassador Craft. Yes. Thank you, Senator Coons.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Craft, welcome. Congratulations on this
nomination. Thank you for your distinguished service to our
nation serving today as Ambassador to Canada. And I am
confident in this new post that you will do an exemplary job.
And indeed, I have a word of encouragement in that it is
interesting the principal criticism, as manifested on this
colorful chart that the committee has put up--the principal
criticism, it seems, leveled against you is that you have
traveled and worked too hard in your current post, which I find
a not terribly persuasive criticism and pretty strong
indication that the end result of this is going to be your
confirmation.
But let us dive into this criticism a little bit more
because I do not think it withstands even the barest of
scrutiny.
As I understand it, some of the travel represented up there
on that chart included travel to Montreal. Is that correct?
Ambassador Craft. Yes, sir.
Senator Cruz. And Montreal is in Canada.
Ambassador Craft. Yes.
Senator Cruz. Other than the travel to there, it included
travel to Calgary. Is that correct?
Ambassador Craft. Yes, it did.
Senator Cruz. And Calgary is in Canada.
Ambassador Craft. Absolutely.
Senator Cruz. I am assuming--I do not know this. I am
assuming some of that included travel to Toronto. Is that
right?
Ambassador Craft. Yes.
Senator Cruz. So the last I checked, you were not the
Ambassador to Ottawa. You were the Ambassador to Canada. Is
that right?
Ambassador Craft. The Ambassador representing the United
States in Canada.
Senator Cruz. Indeed.
So the beginning argument that if you are traveling around
the nation that you were appointed ambassador to and if you
were meeting with business leaders, government leaders,
community leaders in those various towns, that is somehow a
dereliction of duty, you know, I would say you would be a poor
ambassador indeed if you went to your office in Ottawa, locked
the door, and stayed sitting in your office. That is, indeed,
the exact opposite of what one wants an ambassador to do.
As I understand it, a significant portion of that
travel also includes travel to Washington, D.C. to
participate in strategy and negotiations for the USMCA. Is that
right?
Ambassador Craft. Yes, it is.
Senator Cruz. Is there any policy issue right now between
the United States and Canada that is more pressing, that is
more urgent, that is a higher priority than ensuring the strong
and continued economic friendship, relationship, and trade
between the United States and Canada?
Ambassador Craft. There is no other issue. It is so
important that the Prime Minister is coming in today to further
discuss USMCA and how he can help implement and ratify USMCA
through his parliament and at the same time through our
Congress.
Senator Cruz. And I guess if you were not a very good
ambassador, they might well have just left you in Ottawa. They
might well have said, you know, what? We are doing important
stuff between the U.S. and Canada, but you know, our ambassador
is not up to snuff, so you just stay up there in the office and
we will do the meat of the negotiations. Of course, that is not
what they did.
Ambassador Craft. You know, I take this very serious. It is
a 24/7 job. And every State in the U.S. relies upon our trade
partnership with Canada. And if I needed to be in a State to
speak to a governor or a legislator or a mayor, everyone is
affected by this USMCA, and it was vitally important.
Senator Cruz. Well, and I will say you and I have known
each other a long time. We are friends. I will say anyone that
knows you knows that you are tenacious, you are hardworking,
you do not know how to do a task halfway, that that is simply
not in you to do a task halfway, but rather, if given a task,
you are going to dive in with both feet and with all the energy
and passion you have. That is how you have done the job as
Ambassador to Canada, and I have every confidence that is how
you will do the job as Ambassador to the U.N. as well.
Let us take a moment and talk about just how important the
job of Ambassador to Canada is. Canada is one of our most
important global allies. They are a member of Five Eyes, which
means they are one of our most important intelligence partners.
U.S. defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than
any other country. We have more than 800 agreements on
cooperation across national security. They are one of nine
countries that have participated in the U.S.-led F-35 program.
And you have been the point person for the past year and a half
for U.S. policy with Canada.
Can you describe briefly how you approach that job and what
you did to strengthen the friendship and relationship between
the United States and Canada?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
As you well know, it is vitally important to have this
relationship before you go into negotiating. And Ambassador
McNaughton was extremely important in including this friendship
in this initial respect because if you do not have respect,
then when you are sitting at the table and you disagree, then
you will not come back and it will not be productive.
You know, we had several issues as far as Five Eyes
meetings, especially when it came to China and the use of 5G
technology. I am continuing to stress Canada to pay their 2
percent for NATO. So maybe in can say that publicly one more
time. And also just the fact that USMCA was so important to all
of the Canadians. Everywhere I would go, whether it is Toronto,
Calgary, Montreal, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, they would ask
me about NAFTA and USMCA--at the time it was NAFTA--and how
important it was to them, to their families, to their economy,
their community that we, the United States, and Canada has a
very healthy trade agreement. So I was available 24/7, as I
will be, if confirmed, as the Ambassador to the United Nations.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Ambassador.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Cruz.
I appreciate your unpaid advertisement for them spending
their 2 percent. We have all tried that. The best person I have
seen is the President of the United States. He has done a good
job of getting their attention, everybody's attention on that
issue.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Craft, thank you for being here today and for
agreeing to consider taking on this difficult position.
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you yesterday
and our conversation and your passionate support for the U.N.
system. I think that is absolutely critical to anyone who
serves as Ambassador to the U.N.
I also appreciated the opportunity to talk with you about
the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, because I believe
it plays a vitally important role in providing health services
to vulnerable women, to men, and to children in areas of
conflict, poverty, or instability. In Venezuela, for example,
UNFPA provides hospitals with desperately needed supplies and
training to the few doctors that remain on how to deliver
babies.
And as we discussed, this work is at risk because of a
determination that UNFPA partners with programs in China that
promote coercive population policies. I very much appreciated
your commitment to look into these reports. I have asked
multiple representatives from USAID to the State Department
about these reports, and I have seen nowhere any evidence that
any partnership exists between UNFPA and supporting programs in
China that require abortions for women. So I very much
appreciated your commitment to look into those reports.
I would urge you also to meet with the executive director
of UNFPA. The United States sits on their executive board. They
approve UNFPA's country programs. So I hope that, if confirmed,
you will agree to meet with the executive director. Is that a
yes?
Ambassador Craft. Absolutely. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
And I also appreciated your agreeing to look into the
disturbing reports last summer that the U.S. sought to block a
resolution recognizing the importance of breastfeeding at the
May 2018 World Health Assembly. Unfortunately, as we discussed,
this is not the only concerning instance of attacks by the U.S.
mission to the U.N. on women's health.
I would urge you to ensure that if you are confirmed, the
U.S. mission to the U.N. that you will lead reasserts its role
as the leading proponent of women, of their rights, and of
their health around the world. Is that something that you
believe is important for the Ambassador from the United States
to do?
Ambassador Craft. Absolutely. And as we discussed, you
know, both of us being mothers of daughters, and as you can
see, beautiful granddaughters, it is so important that the U.S.
takes the lead in the organizations that promote the health and
wellbeing, maternal and child health, and voluntary family
planning. And I can give you my word that I will do everything
in my power to continue that support through organizations such
as USAID, the World Food Program, World Health Program, UNICEF.
We have so many wonderful organizations that are built upon
success that are allowing women and children to be healthy
because, as you know and we have discussed, women and children
are what keep our communities thriving, and without them, we
will actually lose the economy in those communities. So thank
you for sharing yesterday, and I am looking forward, if
confirmed, to working very closely with you on women's issues.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much for that
commitment. As we know, it has been the policy of the United
States to empower women around the world, and that is good not
just because it is the right thing to do, but it improves
stability around the world, that women give back more to their
families, more to their communities, and more to their
countries and contribute to the stability of communities.
In that regard, this committee and this Congress passed--
and the bill was signed into law in 2017--the Women, Peace, and
Security Act, which is a commitment to ensure that women are
part of the negotiating process in conflict areas when peace is
being negotiated. The administration just last week put forward
a strategy to implement the Women, Peace, and Security Act. I
think it is very important, and if confirmed, can you commit to
furthering this effort at the U.N., including through bodies
such as U.N. Women that promote the implementation of the
principles of Women, Peace, and Security?
Ambassador Craft. Yes, Senator Shaheen. And I commit that I
will be an advocate for women's issues and making certain that
we really highlight women and children and young girls so that
they too can be strong women and be leaders in their
communities and their countries and have the opportunity, as I
have, to be, if confirmed, the U.S. U.N. Ambassador.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. Congratulations on your nomination.
So I was a bit late, but I was trying to introduce my own
bill to prevent government shutdowns in another committee. I
just could not leave I was so excited about trying to get
people to pay attention to this.
Kentuckians are really excited about your nomination. As
you know, I supported you to be Ambassador to Canada and will
support you to be the Ambassador to the U.N.
But I did want to explore a couple of questions about
issues that I think are important with regard to the Middle
East.
Do you agree with President Trump that the Iraq war was a
giant geopolitical mistake?
Ambassador Craft. Senator Paul, we had this discussion in
your office, and you know that I understand that President
Trump has made the statement that he believes that the Iraq war
was a mistake. And if confirmed, I will be following the
President's policies.
Senator Paul. So do you agree with the President?
Ambassador Craft. I am not going to second guess the
administration, the Bush administration, but I do acknowledge
that President Trump has made the statement that he disagrees
with our----
Senator Paul. The reason it is an important question is it
is not about history, it is not about something that happened
that has no influence over what happens now. It instructs, I
think, dozens and dozens of different conflicts around the
world.
So, for example, do you think that the regime change in
Libya has been to the world's advantage or to our advantage?
Ambassador Craft. I think the regime change in Libya has
been very important especially because we do have Haftar. We do
have different situations going on at the moment. And it is
really important that we have a strong presence there.
Senator Paul. Do you think the world is better off with the
regime change and with the current situation in Libya?
Ambassador Craft. Well, we have not really had a regime
change as of yet----
Senator Paul. No. I mean, we had a regime change with
Qaddafi. We were part of France and the United States toppling
Qaddafi. And some, myself included, would argue that we are
worse off. I mean, the place is very chaotic. It has been rife
with terrorist camps. We now have competing factions. We are
now giving arms to Qatar as of last week that Qatar is now
giving to one side of the war and we support the other side of
the war. We used to support the U.N. sanctioned government. Now
we support some of their generals. And to me it sounds like an
unmitigated disaster there.
And the reason I mention this is this is what happened
Iraq. We toppled a strongman who was not going to get any human
rights awards, but he also had stability, and we replaced it
with chaos. We now have an Iraq that is more closely aligned
with Iran. Iran is stronger because the geopolitical balance is
tipped in the favor of Iran with Iraq gone, with Hussein gone.
And so, I think the Iraq war still instructs us on whether
Libya was a good idea, and we were a big part of Libya as well.
Now, that was not this President. That was the previous
President.
But I think there is still a question and there will be
questions that will come before you at the U.N., whether or not
regime change in the Middle East is our business and whether or
not it has been to our advantage. So I guess the question
really is going back to Libya. Do you think regime change has
been to our advantage?
Ambassador Craft. You know, I believe what is really
important is that we show strength, we show deterrence. I mean,
we have a situation in Iran with the most corrosive behavior.
We have seen no change in their behavior. You are speaking
about Iraq. You know, they are trying to take Iraq and make it
into a client state. We have a special political mission there.
Senator Paul. But if the President were here, he would
respond and he would say, yes, and Iraq is open to that because
an Iraq Shia majority now rules the place because we toppled
Hussein. So I mean, we have created the opportunity where Iraq
is aligning themselves with Iran. It is not sort of Iran taking
over Iraq. It is Iraq having great sympathy for Iran.
And so we just have to think these through because all
throughout the Middle East, it has been run by iron-fisted men
and no diplomats, no democrats, no people who believe in
constitutional Republicans, no Jeffersonians. But they have
stability. When we have toppled them, we have gotten
instability.
In Syria, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people
fled, and 100,000 people died because of this noble notion that
we would get rid of this dictator Assad. Well, it has not
worked. That is my whole point.
And the only point I would like to leave you with is that
the President feels like the Iraq war was a mistake. He has
probably said it 200 times or more. And it instructs what we
think about the other wars. And I hope you will take that to
heart because really whether or not we get involved in the next
Middle Eastern country.
And the only other thing I would say about the Iran
situation is realize that for as much of the problems we have
with Iran, the stated problems, I think I have got as many or
more with Saudi Arabia. They chopped up a dissident with a bone
saw. We continue to fuel an arms race that is Saudi Arabia
pitting against Iran. Who spreads more jihadism and hatred of
Christians and Jews and Hindus around the world? Saudis by far,
$100 billion for that worldwide.
So all I ask is it is a complicated world. I do not have
all the answers, but realize in the Middle East that there have
been a lot of unintended consequences to our involvement.
Thanks.
The Chairman. Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Ambassador, by the way, thank you for the visit in my
office.
I sent you a letter on May 3rd, along with Senators Merkley
and Whitehouse, asking about your family's nearly $1 billion
coal investments and how they might conflict with any climate
change discussions that you would have a potential role in at
the United Nations. I did the response. It was at 9:59 a.m.
this morning. And I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if I can include
the questions and the answers in the record.
The Chairman. It will be included.
[The information referred to is located at the end of this
hearing transcript, beginning on page 129.]
Senator Markey. I thank you.
But your responses actually do not go to the question which
is at the heart of the issue, which is whether or not there is
a conflict. And from my perspective, I think it is important
for the American people to know that those who are performing
their duties can do so in a way that does not have that kind of
a conflict.
So I guess my first question to you is, do you believe that
your family's coal assets would cause a reasonable person to
question your impartiality in matters related to the Paris
agreement that is the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change or any other climate issue which is being
considered at the United Nations?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for
this exact conversation in your office and for the opportunity
to have that discussion with you one on one.
As you know, as I have stated, my husband and I have worked
very closely with the Office of Government Ethics. And as we
did in 2017, we take this agreement very seriously, and we were
in full compliance. We have also again worked very closely with
the Office of Government Ethics developing the 2019 ethics
agreement and our commitment to abide by each part of this
ethics agreement, which we will do. And I give you my word that
wherever there is any doubt in my mind as I often did with my
2000 agreement, I will be calling upon the legal counsel
provided by the State Department----
Senator Markey. I am asking you, though, not your legal
counsel, will you recuse yourself from any fossil fuel-related
discussions in terms of their impact on climate change in your
tenure at the United Nations?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, as we discussed, where there is
the issue of coal and/or fossil fuels, I will recuse myself in
meetings through the U.N. I understand that, if confirmed----
Senator Markey. You will recuse yourself.
Ambassador Craft. Yes, sir. I understand, if confirmed,
that this is a top priority. Climate change is a top priority
at the United Nations. And with our ethics agreement, we have
made a commitment and I will make a commitment to you that I
will recuse myself. I have a team at USUN that is second----
Senator Markey. You will recuse yourself from any matter
that relates to fossil fuels and climate change at the United
Nations.
Ambassador Craft. When there is coal in the conversation.
We are still waiting for clarity on fossil fuels for that
conversation within our ethics agreement. We have asked for
clarity on this. But I will give you my commitment that where
coal is part of the conversation within climate change at the
U.N., I will recuse myself and feel very confident the team at
the USUN, the experts that have been working on the climate
change issues, specifically fossil fuels and coal, that I feel
very confident that they will be able to take my place.
Senator Markey. Does your family have oil and gas interests
as well?
Ambassador Craft. I am not aware. I do not know what our
interests are.
Senator Markey. Okay. Well, if that was the case, would you
recuse from those areas as well?
Ambassador Craft. If our ethics agreement called for me to
recuse myself, absolutely. I will be in full compliance--I give
you my word--with our ethics agreement.
Senator Markey. As you know, the United Nations at the end
of 2018 concluded that climate change is now an existential
threat to the planet, and our own scientists, 13 federal
agencies, concluded in November of 2018 that with business as
usual, the planet will warm by 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end
of this century and our oceans could rise by 11 feet. So this
is clearly a very important issue, and at the heart of it, the
scientists believe, is the role that fossil fuels and human
activity are playing in it.
Do you think that the United States can effectively steer
the debate on climate change if we are the only country that
has withdrawn from the Paris agreement? What role could you
play as a businesswoman if you withdrew from the board in terms
of influencing the decisions of that board? Does that put you
in a very awkward position?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, no. We withdrew from the Paris
agreement because we feel like we do not have to be part of an
agreement to be leaders. I mean, we are already seeing a
difference. Between 2005 and 2017, we have had 14 percent
reduction in emissions. We have the best and the brightest and
innovations and technology, as you and I have discussed. And I
understand this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
I also understand that fossil fuels has played a part in
climate change, and if confirmed----
Senator Markey. Do you agree with the U.S. scientists that
say that it is largely because of fossil fuels and human
activity? That is just in November of 2018, and it is every
federal agency.
Ambassador Craft. I acknowledge that there is a vast amount
of science regarding climate change and the tools and the role
that humans have played in climate change.
The Chairman. Senator Romney?
Senator Romney. Thank you, Ambassador Craft, for being here
and for considering this very important responsibility.
I begin, Mr. Chairman, by acknowledging a very personal
bias here, which is Kelly and I are long-term friends, also
with her husband. Senator Cruz indicated that she is tenacious
and hardworking. I would add relentless and has great power
over people, as evidenced by the fact that her husband has been
sitting there without moving for a long, long time. I have
never seen Joe Craft sit in one place so long and so
uncomfortably I might add, as he is having to do today.
[Laughter.]
Senator Romney. I appreciate the service also----
Ambassador Craft. I may have to ask for a ride home after
this. So if anyone can offer me a ride after climate change.
Senator Romney. I would also note that your public service
is greatly valued and appreciated. And I would also note that
your service in the private sector is very much appreciated. I
think sometimes we in government assume that we are the ones
that are helping the public and doing what is right for the
country, but I would note that every dollar we have to spend is
only valuable if it represents a good or a service produced in
the private sector. And I very deeply appreciate the work that
you have carried out in the private sector to provide
employment to people and to provide the positive benefits to
our country.
I would also note that with regard to your family's
involvement and investment in coal, coal happens to represent
70 percent of the power in my home State of Utah. I am very
anxious to find ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,
but I would note that coal will be for many decades a major
source of power in our country and other countries around the
world and appreciate those facilities that provide coal in a
clean and effective way, providing good jobs to our citizens
and power that very much provides for our economy and the
economies around the world.
Turning to a couple of questions relating to your
appointment, and that is with regard to your priorities at the
United Nations. There are many, many things that are going on
in the world right now, and I do not know whether you have
given thought to the things that you would consider among your
highest priorities. It is perhaps a long list. But would you
care to list for us or describe, as you would like, the things
that you think are the highest priorities you would have as an
Ambassador from the United States to the U.N.?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for
your time in catching up on our families in your office. It was
actually very refreshing. Thank you.
You know, I have given this a lot of thought because I
understand that my time there will not be a lengthy amount of
time and that my top three issues were going to be reform,
humanitarian needs, and public-private partnership.
You know, we have a Secretary-General in Gutteres who also
places reform as a top priority, and I cannot imagine a better
partnership and a better teammate to be able to tackle reform.
I have spoken to several of my predecessors and also have been
reading about the ones that I am going to be walking in their
footsteps, and I see each of them that I have spoken to and
read about had reform as their top priority. And I think it is
very important. We have made small incremental steps, but there
is a lot to be done. We owe it to our taxpayers to spend their
money wisely and to be stewards of their money and also to make
certain that their money is not spent in the U.N. system but
out in the field helping the people that are in humanitarian
need. I think we need to be very cautious and very careful
about duplication in areas within the secretariat.
In order to receive better transparency and accountability,
I think it is vitally important that we really emphasize
putting Americans, having Americans hired into the system
because they are under-represented, and also promoting our
allies in the system that share our values because with that,
we are going to have greater transparency. As you can see with
UNICEF and the World Food Program, we have incredible
transparency and accountability and success.
Within humanitarian issues, as you well know, this is
something that is very dear to my heart, and I think it is very
important that we stress burden sharing. Who would have ever
known that we have this sort of time in history where we have
so many needs throughout the world, whether it be in Venezuela,
Yemen, Syria? I mean, there are so many pressing matters. I
think it is important that--I would rather call it success
sharing because there is nothing better than to know when you
have helped another person. This is just going to be helping
hundreds of thousands of people.
And then with public-private partnerships, my husband and I
have been very fortunate to have had this experience with the
Craft Academy and seen the successes of being able to partner
with our State of Kentucky and developing an academy for
juniors and seniors in high school in a college program. And I
think that I can leverage my relationships and bring them, if
confirmed, to the U.N. And the opportunities for under-
developed countries for Americans to go in and add
sustainability and to create community, especially for women
and children and displaced people, it is just vast. And it is
actually very exciting because we are a nation that is always
the first to arrive and the last to leave, and I am looking
forward to bringing more people in that area of success.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Ambassador.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony.
We had a chance to talk. You expressed a lot of concern
about the Rohingya and the genocide. But our State Department
has not made a genocide determination. They have decided not to
act. And would you push, as U.N. Ambassador, for the State
Department to make a genocide determination?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. I know we both share
the concern of the treatment of the Rohingyas. It is
unexcusable. It is ethnic cleansing. And I trust in the fact
that we do now have someone that has been assigned to
investigate and to really keep close all of their findings in
hopes of bringing the military commanders and in hopes of
having some sort of a judicial system there. I think it is very
important, as we discussed, that we make certain that
Bangladesh--that they are also in need as they have taken in
all of these refugees.
Senator Merkley. There is a lot we could examine in this.
But I am just asking will you push for the State Department to
complete a genocide determination. We are now approaching 2
years since the genocide occurred.
Ambassador Craft. Senator, this is not a decision for me to
make. This is a decision that is made within the State
Department. And I am looking forward to more conversation with
you as we do share in the plight of the Rohingyas. And I can
assure you that I will be a strong voice on behalf of the
Rohingyas.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Across the world, the U.N. Population Fund has been a
critical factor in women's health. We have decided not to fund
it as a nation, but it is hugely effective. Our concerns have
been about China and about reproductive rights issues that have
now been checked out many, many times and found China has
completely changed their policies.
Would you support the U.S. enhancing women's health around
the women's health around the world by advocating for the U.N.
Population Fund?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, thank you. As you know and I
know, we strongly believe--and it is nice to hear that maybe
there is a different view on this now--that the Chinese state
institutions were providing--actually being very coercive in
abortions. And that is why we withdrew our $35 million and we
placed that within USAID. As you well know, the United States--
we are leaders in organizations throughout the U.N. in
promoting the health and wellbeing of mothers and children,
prenatal, postnatal, and voluntary family planning.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I will go on to the next
question.
Ambassador Craft. If it is correct that there has been
proof that the Chinese have not been engaged in UNFPA, I will
most certainly look forward to the discussion, if confirmed, at
the U.N.
Senator Merkley. So the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change found that carbon pollution is responsible for a whole
host of impacts. We see them all over Oregon, less snow pack,
more forest fires, more acidic ocean affecting our shellfish,
our warmer winters, great for pine beetles, terrible for pine
trees. President Trump said of their report, I do not believe
it. Do you believe it?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, I have not seen that report, but
I can tell you that we have issues around the world in under-
developed nations where we have flooding and drought in
different areas that have been attributed to climate change.
Senator Merkley. So that was a ?believe it? answer?
Ambassador Craft. I have not read that report, and if you
do not mind the opportunity, I will be able to read it and
answer you in writing.
Senator Merkley. Do you believe the core understanding that
carbon pollution contributes to climate change?
Ambassador Craft. I believe that climate change needs to be
addressed, and I believe that fossil fuels do play a role in
attributing to climate change.
Senator Merkley. Alliance Resource Partners, which your
family owns, lobbied the EPA to implement policies that benefit
polluting industries at the cost of clean water and air and
U.S. leadership on climate. If confirmed, will you go to New
York representing the interests of our country, and will you
advocate for us to continue to support the commitments we made
under the Paris climate agreement?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, if confirmed, I will be in full
compliance of our ethics agreement.
As you well know, we can be a leader. We are leaders
without being a member of the Paris climate agreement. And
within that agreement, we are already establishing success
without being part of the Paris climate agreement with our
innovation and our technology. We have had a 14 percent
reduction in emissions since 2005 to 2017, while at the same
time our economy has been robust.
Senator Merkley. Since we are essentially on track, as you
describe, why does it benefit us in terms of international
leadership to exit the agreement? Since it had great
flexibility and we are on track, what does it benefit America
to step out of the role of partnering with other countries to
hold them accountable?
Ambassador Craft. You know, Senator, we are going to hold
people accountable whether we are in an agreement or not. And I
think what is proof is the steps we have taken forward to
balance our economy and our environment. And I think when other
countries see that you can do this and that our economy has
grown while, at the same time, taking care of our environment,
that is how we show leadership.
Senator Merkley. My time is up. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Portman?
Senator Portman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Ambassador Craft, for being here today and
your willingness to step forward and serve both in Canada where
you worked with us a lot on USMCA and now through your
nomination to the next job, which would be U.S. Ambassador to
the United Nations. It is a huge job.
I was here earlier to hear some of the back and forth, and
I have a couple follow-up questions, if that is okay.
One is with regard to USMCA. Can you tell us what you think
of that agreement? You were very involved I know on the Canada
side in getting them to make some concessions specifically on
their dairy program and broadening the market access for some
of our products. What do you think about USMCA?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity
to talk about USMCA. I am still the Ambassador to Canada and
very much engaged, as we will be tomorrow for our bilateral
meeting discussing USMCA.
First of all, the Canadians are as fierce negotiators as
the Americans. We learned that very quickly.
As we discussed, I am a granddaughter of tobacco farmers,
and I understand the importance of the emotional aspect when it
relates to the agriculture, chapter 3 of USMCA, and was able to
really speak with Ambassador Lighthizer and with the President
and relay the message that we need to be a little more
understanding of the emotional toil that it was taking at the
moment on the Canadians when they have to go back to the Quebec
area and speak with the dairy farmers. This is an election year
for Prime Minister Trudeau, and it was a very emotional topic
for them with their dairy farmers.
I think it is really important. It was very successful. And
most importantly is it lifted the doubt in the minds of
Americans and Canadians, and they were able to feel very secure
and confident with their purchases, if they had small
businesses or medium-sized businesses, to know that they are
going to be supported by USMCA.
Senator Portman. So you support the agreement in its final
form that was negotiated?
Ambassador Craft. Absolutely, yes, I do.
Senator Portman. And moving on to the issue of boycott,
divest, and sanctions, BDS legislation. As you know, Senator
Cardin and I have introduced a resolution that actually now has
over half of the Senate supporting it, 58 cosponsors. It simply
says that these efforts should not be supported because they
are an effort to delegitimize Israel and a form of
discrimination, in effect.
We have another bill that we introduced last year that also
got a lot of support, but we have not introduced it this year
until we can have this broader discussion, and that is with
regard to the international organizations like the U.N. Human
Rights Commission. And we have looked very closely at what the
Human Rights Council has done and what they have said with
regard to Israel. They have Israel on their permanent agenda,
as you know. You talked about that earlier. They have
apparently put together a blacklist of companies that do
business in Gaza and the West Bank and they levied sanctions
against U.S. companies that did business there. We have not
seen that yet. It has not come out yet. But we have a deep
concern about it.
So I would ask you a couple questions. One, do you agree it
is wrong for Israel to be on the permanent agenda? And how can
that impede the peace process? But, second, do you feel that
the BDS efforts against Israel are contrary to the efforts we
are trying to make in the region to have a negotiated peace
between Israel and the Palestinians?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
On releasing names, I am certain that Michelle Bachelet is
being very cautious and she has been working with us on
protecting the names of businesses in Israel and outside of
Israel just to protect. There is no place to be able to release
American businesses or any other businesses, for that matter,
that could be harmed by a list being released.
If confirmed, there will be no stronger ally than Kelly
Craft for Israel on behalf of the United States. There is no
room whatsoever for anti-Israel bias or anti-Semitism. And with
the strength of this committee, I am certain that we can defeat
any areas, whether it is the Human Rights Council in bringing
up anti-Israel bias every opportunity they have or anyplace in
the U.N. There is no place for that. And I think that we really
need to stress to Israel and promote them. They are the best
promoters themselves. They have Start-Up Nation. And they need
to be promoted to push themselves and normalize within the U.N.
system because they have a lot to offer.
Senator Portman. Well, we look forward to working with you,
should you be confirmed, which I believe you will be. I know
Senator Cardin and I would like to move forward with that
legislation soon and ensure that we do not have that blacklist
ever be published because, as you say, it would have a negative
impact on a lot of things, including the peace process in my
view between Israel and the Palestinians.
On human trafficking, I know you have been involved in this
issue and care a lot about it. There is an Office of Drug
Control and the Center for International Crime Prevention,
which has the responsibility for addressing trafficking. If
confirmed, would you pledge to make human trafficking and sex
trafficking a key part of your agenda and work to strengthen
the efforts of this U.N. body in that regard?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, absolutely. Anywhere within the
U.N. system where there are human rights abuses, human
trafficking, I mean, this affects everyone. I give you my word
that I will be a strong advocate combating human trafficking
and any human rights abuses.
Senator Portman. Thank you. Good luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I want to congratulate the Ambassador on her
nomination, thank her for her hospitality to many of us who
visited the Halifax Security Forum in November.
And I want to just pick up on your last comment, that you
will be a strong advocate for human rights in the U.N. system.
And I appreciated that aspect of our one-on-one discussion.
I just want to ask you about the news of today, just the
news of today. In January, Agnes Callamard was appointed the
U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary
Executions. And she announced she was going to be leading an
investigation into the assassination of Saudi citizen, Virginia
resident, ?Washington Post? journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.
The report came out today. It is damning, but unfortunately
not surprising because it mirrors the CIA's conclusions. I
quote, it is the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that Mr.
Khashoggi has been the victim of a deliberate, premeditated
execution and extrajudicial killing for which the state of
Saudi Arabia is responsible under international human rights
law.
Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce the U.N. report into
the record, if I may.
The Chairman. You may.
[The information referred to above can be accessed through
the URL below:]
https://www.docdroid.net/VgsDccH/a-hrc-41-crp1-1-
converted.pdf#page=2
Senator Kaine. The report finds six violations of
international law: the prohibition against arbitrary
deprivation of life, the prohibition against extraterritorial
use of force, the requirement that states use consular missions
for official purposes, the prohibition against torture, the
prohibition against enforced disappearance and in killing a
journalist, violation of a core tenet of the U.N., the
protection of freedom of expression.
The Special Rapporteur determined that there was credible
evidence warranting further investigation of high-level Saudi
officials, individual liability, including the Crown Prince,
and finally, the rapporteur called on the Human Rights Council,
the Security Council, and the U.N. Secretary-General to conduct
international follow-up criminal investigations to determine
individual liability. She has found liability by the state of
Saudi Arabia, but she suggests there needs to be individual
liability determinations as well.
Do you believe that there should be accountability for the
assassination of Jamal Khashoggi both because it is a criminal
offense and it is a violation of international law?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, you know, we have made it very
clear with Saudi Arabia that any human rights abuse is not
okay, and they must change this behavior.
Senator Kaine. I want to ask really specifically about
Khashoggi because this is now going to be in your wheelhouse if
you are confirmed. There is a request that the U.N., including
the Security Council, act. So let me just state it again as I
did. Do you believe that there should be accountability for the
assassination of Jamal Khashoggi?
Ambassador Craft. I believe that where this investigation
will take us we will follow, and yes, anyone who is
responsible. You know, we identified the 17 that were
responsible for this heinous crime.
Senator Kaine. The report dramatically challenges that
those 17 are responsible and actually says it is higher
officials who are responsible. I would encourage you to take a
look at it.
But I am encouraged by a portion of your statement that
there should be accountability.
Second, should the United States encourage accountability,
abstain from requests for accountability, or block requests for
accountability?
Ambassador Craft. We should definitely always request
accountability.
Senator Kaine. Okay. So we should be involved in a request
for accountability. And would you agree with me that the
accountability for this crime and violation of six principles
of international human rights law--should the accountability be
placed on whoever's shoulders is in fact responsible regardless
of the title that they may hold?
Ambassador Craft. I believe the accountability is going to
be a decision that I have full faith in the investigative
process. I have full faith in the Special Rapporteur.
Senator Kaine. No one should be immune from accountability
if they were involved in a crime of this magnitude. Would you
agree with me?
Ambassador Craft. We will follow where this investigation
takes us, and I can guarantee you that the State Department is
investigating, the authorities are investigating.
Senator Kaine. There is a question that I know the answer
to, but I want to ask you for the record. Can you foresee any
circumstance under which the U.S. would plan the execution and
dismemberment of a United States citizen at, for example, the
U.S. consulate in Montreal?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, we are not that sort of a
country.
Senator Kaine. So you would agree with me that that would
be so contrary to American values and so contrary to
international morality that there would never be a circumstance
under which the U.S. could plan or tolerate the execution of an
American citizen in the U.S. consulate in Montreal. You agree
with me on that.
Ambassador Craft. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Kaine. As a member of the Security Council--now
this has been put into the court of the Security Council, and
the U.S. will be the head of the Security Council come
December. You said human rights is going to be one of your
priorities. Can you give me a commitment that the United
States, with you representing it as head of the Security
Council, will do everything possible to make sure that the
investigations called for here and the accountability that
would follow upon such investigations are actively pursued by
this country?
Ambassador Craft. Absolutely we will, and I will give you
my word on this. And we know there is an investigation and we
will follow this investigation where it takes us.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Ambassador. Great to see you again. Thank you for
being here.
What I hear about a lot at home in Wyoming--and you may
have as well in Kentucky--the issues of American values,
American ideals, American standards, and American sovereignty
within the U.N. That is a big issue that continues to come up
at home. And I would just ask you a little bit about how you
would preserve and protect American sovereignty within the
United Nations and your commitment to challenge the actions of
the United Nations that run contrary to our values or beliefs,
the things that we hold and care about in common here in the
United States.
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. As you well know, the
U.N. was founded after World War II on U.S. values and those
values we hold very close, you know, peace and security, equal
rights, human rights, supporting social, economic, humanitarian
issues.
I agree that there are critics that say we are not strong
on those values. I agree with that. And if confirmed, that will
be an area that I will take with me and demand from all of the
192 member states, that we go back and we look at the four
founding principles in the U.N. Charter and that we really try
to use that as a guideline because doing the right thing as it
is listed in those four, there is no compromise. And it does
not matter how many years it has been since it has been
founded. Doing the right thing with peace and equality, human
rights, equal rights, you cannot go wrong.
Senator Barrasso. At home we say how do you vote. We say we
vote based on the Constitution, based on your conscience
clearly, your constituents, your country. And I have concerns
about the U.N. and I hear it all the time as well at home in
terms of our U.S. values and standards not necessarily being
met at the U.N. And then we have a significant financial
contribution. I think we are the number one country for
contributing to the U.N. This is U.S. taxpayer dollars. People
say, well, just stop paying your dues to the U.N. Pull out of
the funding. As we deal with a large national debt, I would ask
your commitment to safeguarding U.S. taxpayer dollars in this
new role that I am encouraging you and look forward to your
confirmation.
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. If confirmed, I will
be a great steward of our American taxpayer dollars.
I just want to share with you I am a firm believer in the
United Nations. This may be the only stage for some countries
to be able to cry out for help. And you know, we are a leader.
We are always the first to be there to help, and we will always
be the first. But we have to allow the U.N. as a platform, a
healthy platform, for all the other countries that are less
fortunate than we are to be able to reach out.
You know, I was just reminded when I was in Senator
Gardner's office. There were two individuals. They actually
were refugees, Rohingya refugees. And he introduced me to them
as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada and then introduced me as the
nominee. And the young woman, who is part of a group from Cox's
Bazar in protecting women and their rights and making certain
that no one is being abused in this area--she just held onto me
and she just said thank you. Thank you because I know you are
going to help me. And I will give you my word that we will go
back to those four founding values because you cannot
compromise human rights and equality.
Senator Barrasso. You know, we share those concerns. I know
Ambassador Nikki Haley has commented on that. I think Senator
Portman just asked about the whole issue of sexual exploitation
and abuse, what you have just outlined there. But we have seen
it with U.N. peacekeepers in the past, people that are supposed
to be in there providing a peacekeeping role and then taking
unfair, undue advantage of people in the wrong way, immoral
against every one of our values. So how can the U.N. address
the abuse and the misconduct of the U.N. peacekeepers more
effectively? Do you have any suggestions on that?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. That is a
conversation that I have had with Ambassador Haley. And I
believe that where she was very strong on the peacekeeping
troops is I understand that the renewal is 6 months to a year.
You know, we need to be making certain weekly, monthly that
they are abiding by the guidelines. They too are stretched very
thin. I mean, who would have ever thought we have this up-tick
in Ebola in Congo?
We need to make certain that they have the tools to protect
the very people they need to be protecting. We need to also
make certain that if there is sexual exploitation, that they
are immediately sent back to their country and that we are in
constant communication with our mission in their home country,
and most importantly, that we make very clear to their
government that we expect them to investigate and if they are
found guilty, to prosecute within their own system and make
certain that they are never back out in the field protecting
innocent civilians.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you. And congratulations
again on your nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me add my congratulations.
You are going to be President Trump's Ambassador to the
United Nations, not mine, not anybody else's. So your job is to
represent the administration's points of view. Do you agree
with that?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
I am going to be representing the United States of America
and every single person that lives here and Americans that live
abroad. I take this so----
Senator Graham. So what policies are you going to advocate?
Ambassador Craft. I am going to be advocating the policies
of this administration.
Senator Graham. Okay. That is the point. Not everybody in
the country. The administration.
Now, here is the way I look at these things. I usually vote
for qualified nominees knowing that the policies they will be
advocating, if in a Democratic administration, I do not agree
with. I think by any reasonable measure, you are a very
qualified person. You have been Ambassador to Canada. If you
are qualified and not crazy, you usually get my vote. You do
not seem to be crazy at all, other than wanting to come here
maybe.
The bottom line is I appreciate your willingness to serve
the country. And you got to understand that the policies that
you will be asked to advocate sometimes all of us will
disagree. And that is not the test for me. It is are you
capable of representing our country with dignity and intellect.
Yes?
Ambassador Craft. Absolutely. I have sharp elbows and I
will be using them.
Senator Graham. Yes, I believe it. I think you will give
the President good, sound advice, maybe something he does not
want to hear, but it would be up to him to make the call.
On climate change, I believe in it, think it is real. Man
is substantially contributing to it. The Paris accords
basically gives China and India a pass. It is aspirational not
binding. I do not blame Trump for getting out because the
agreement was pretty one-sided.
Do you agree with me no matter what we do in the United
States, if China and India--if they do not up their game, it
does not matter?
Ambassador Craft. You know, I strongly believe in the fact
that the U.S. has become a leader without being----
Senator Graham. My question is, is China and India--do they
emit more carbon than we do?
Ambassador Craft. I understand at the moment, yes, they do.
And I also understand that while they did commit to the Paris
agreement, as you well know----
Senator Graham. Well, go read the agreement. They did not
commit to much.
So I believe climate change is real, but if do not have an
agreement, make it real for the people who actually cause more
of the problem than we do.
MBS. Let me just say this. I introduced him a couple of
years ago in Washington when they gave an award to John McCain
for his help to the Kingdom over the years. I have got many
friends in Saudi Arabia. I have been there a bunch, usually
with Senator McCain. And it breaks my heart that we are where
we are.
The Kingdom is a strategic ally, many friends in the
Kingdom who are wanting the country to be better. I personally
feel betrayed. I feel like that the actions that took place
with Mr. Khashoggi showed a lack of respect for their
relationship to the United States. Who in their right mind
would put us in this box?
We deal with bad people all the time. We dealt with Stalin
in World War II, but when the war was over, we did not embrace
communism. So there is no amount of oil coming out of Saudi
Arabia and there is no threat from Iran that is going to get me
to back off. So I just want every strategic partner to know
that there is a price to be paid to get into our orbit. He did
it. It would not have happened without him. He knew it was
going to happen. He wanted it to happen. He caused it to
happen. And this is just a tip of the iceberg of other things
that are going on in this Kingdom.
So to my friends in Saudi Arabia, you have lost me. You got
nobody to blame but yourself. If you want a normal relationship
with the United States, try to act normal. And what is going on
in Saudi Arabia is not normal. Some teenager is facing being
executed because he tweeted or something. It is just crazy
stuff, putting the Lebanese Prime Minister in house arrest. It
is just nuts. So if you want things to get better in Saudi
Arabia, you need to deal with it. And we are going to fight
hard to push back.
So after this report is issued, I want you to let the
committee know do you believe he did it. You do not have to
answer now.
Finally, the war. Do you believe we are at war--the United
States?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, what I believe is we are showing
strong deterrence.
Senator Graham. Are we at war? Who are we at war with? Who
are we trying to deter?
Ambassador Craft. We need to deter. We need to think about
Iran and their corrosive behavior.
Senator Graham. What is the big theme of this war. Radical
Islam versus the world.
Ambassador Craft. What we need to think about is this
corrosive behavior----
Senator Graham. Do you agree with that or not?
Ambassador Craft. Excuse me?
Senator Graham. Do you agree that we are at war with
radical Islam in many forums?
Ambassador Craft. In many forums, yes, and I do believe
that we----
Senator Graham. ISIS is a Sunni forum. Iran is a Shia
forum. So here is my point. The budget of this administration
reduced the State Department's budget. The budget of the State
Department was reduced by 20-something percent. How do you end
this war without investing in the lives of others? I have been
to Iraq and Afghanistan 54 times. If you think you can kill
your way out of this mess, you do not know what you are talking
about. So how do you take soft power off the table and win what
is an ideological struggle? Do you agree with me that the most
devastating thing we could do to radical Islam is to build a
small schoolhouse in a remote region educating a young girl and
giving her a say about her children and a hope for a better
life? That will do more damage than a bomb dropped on their
heads.
Ambassador Craft. You know, we care about--these are
humans. These are people.
Senator Graham. Well, why did we reduce our budget by 20-
something percent?
Ambassador Craft. You know, we are asking for people to
step up and share this burden.
Senator Graham. We step down? Is the world safe enough for
us to step down?
Ambassador Craft. No, sir. We are leaders within the United
Nations, and we are leaders around the world.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson?
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Craft, welcome. I also share my congratulations
and apologize for not being here sooner. We held a markup in my
Homeland Security Committee where we passed a pretty important
piece of legislation that would end government shutdowns, you
know, just put us on an automatic glide path with some real
deterrent for members to make sure there is discipline for
members to actually pass appropriation bills. So that is why I
am late.
I am assuming, based on our meeting yesterday--I enjoyed
our meeting. I appreciate you taking the time--that we put the
travel issue well behind us here.
So the points I wanted to make is I find it interesting
that you were an Alternate Delegate to the U.N. General
Assembly. I have had that honor three times to be a
representative representing the Senate. I hope to be one in the
future potentially under your ambassadorship.
So the point I would like to make is as many problems as we
have in the U.N.--and there are many--it is also a pretty
important forum for world leaders to get together and just
discuss their issues, understand each other's perspectives. I
have found that opportunity very valuable, being able to get to
the U.N. and put together some very high level meetings in a
very efficient time period. So as Ambassador, I would just ask
you to utilize that mission if I am another representative to
set up those meetings so we can, again, understand those
perspectives of world leaders.
Ambassador Craft. Yes, sir. I think that is why the U.N. is
so important, especially during General Assembly. You know, we
celebrate the freedom of expression, and I think that is why
everybody will be there. They will have the freedom to express.
We will have the freedom to meet with one another. And it is
really important to be able to have some of these face-to-face,
one-on-one, and understand better their needs and issues.
Senator Johnson. I want to talk a little bit about the
climate change issue from the standpoint of priorities. Again,
the U.N. is a far from perfect organization, but there are
things that it does and things that we need it to do and we
need to do them well.
From my standpoint, one of the missions of the U.N. is to
try and alleviate human suffering. I think when we talk about
climate change, we are talking about potentially alleviating
human suffering caused by weather and the effects of potential
climate change. By the way, the climate is always changing.
Are you familiar with the Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen
Consensus?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, he is a friend of ours.
Senator Johnson. Good.
So he completely believes in manmade climate change. I may
be a bit more skeptical in terms of man's total impact. But he
also understands that there are limited resources. And if your
goal is to alleviate human suffering, there are far better ways
of spending limited human resources. For example, PEPFAR,
digging wells, killing mosquitoes so you prevent malaria.
So I guess I would just ask you in your position as U.N.
Ambassador to take a look at the priorities, recognize we have
limited resources, and doing everything you can to help the
U.N. reform itself so it concentrates on those things that are
most effective both cost-efficiency-wise but also effective at
alleviating human suffering.
Ambassador Craft. Yes, sir. You have my word. And that is
why it is so important that not only as a steward of our
taxpayer, American taxpayer, I feel responsible for the
countries also that are contributing because we want them to
see success. And we want them to have skin in the game. And
when they feel successful and they feel like they are part of
success and they are part of making a difference in the
hundreds of thousands of lives that are desperate, then we are
going to have, I hope, more and more countries on board. And if
not for the U.N. and all of the organizations and the fact that
we are the leaders, where would all of these people be? And I
am a strong believer in knowing that we can use the U.N. for
American leadership as our platform to really stress to other
countries step up, we need you. This is about human dignity.
And I give you my word, if confirmed, that I will be a huge
advocate for transparency and for making certain that our
dollars are not spent in the U.N. system but spent in the field
helping the very people who are desperate for humanitarian aid.
Senator Johnson. Well, I appreciate that.
I primarily came here just to express my support for your
nomination. Thank you for your past services, Ambassador to
Canada, for helping negotiating what I think is an incredibly
important trade deal, USMCA. And just thank you for your
willingness to serve in this future capacity. So thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Young?
Senator Young. Hello, Ambassador. I am so grateful for your
past service as well and excited that you are prepared to take
on this new role.
I wanted to ask you. There has been a lot in the news about
recent events with Iran and the Gulf. Do you believe that
current legal authority exists for the United States to go to
war with Iran?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the
time to meet last week.
I believe that we need to show deterrence. I mean, if you
look at Iran and their corrosive behavior, their behavior has
not changed, which has been very apparent by the recent
actions. We have to really be concerned about their
participation in Yemen. They are continuing to supply military
intervention to the Houthi rebels. We have a crisis there with
hundreds of thousands of people starving. And with our
strategic partner in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and their
led coalition in Yemen, this has helped the World Food Program
with access to the hundreds of thousands of people. I mean, you
have got Iran propping up the Assad regime turning a blind
eye----
Senator Young. Iran is a very bad actor----
Ambassador Craft. Can you imagine? You have got----
Senator Young.--a leading state sponsor of terror. I am
sorry to interject here. My time is somewhat limited, though.
So, yes, we absolutely need to show deterrence vis-a- vis
Iran. We need to deal with the worst humanitarian crisis since
the late 1950s in China, which is in Yemen as you very
correctly pointed out. And we need to work with our partners
and allies to ensure that Iran does not continue its
adventurous and dangerous behavior, putting our service
members, our assets, and the global economy at risk.
But do you believe we have the legal authority to go to war
with Iran? Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, it
says that Congress declares war. There is an existing
authorization for the use of military force dated back to 2001.
My own belief is that before the United States were to go
to war with Iran, Congress would have to be briefed about the
justification for that, and Congress would need to vote on that
matter.
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator, for raising this
particular issue.
I understand that when we have an imminent threat, the
President makes this decision. If not that, then I also
understand--and I know the importance of consulting with
Congress when it comes to something as important as this
decision.
Senator Young. So absent an imminent threat, you agree that
a vote by Congress would be required to authorize use of
military force.
Ambassador Craft. Yes. I agree we need to be consulting
with Congress. This is a very important decision that affects
the lives of not just Americans but a lot of innocent people.
Senator Young. I want that consultation to be followed up,
just for the record, with a vote by Congress under Article 1 of
the Constitution. So we will look forward to working with the
State Department and the National Security Advisor and the
President and others on that important matter.
The United States, Ms. Ambassador, is under-represented
among the professional staff at the United Nations, something
you, no doubt, have been briefed on. How do you plan to address
this if you are confirmed?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
You know, I think we need to highlight the successes of the
areas where we are represented by Americans, whether it is
UNICEF, you know, with Henrietta Fore, UNICEF with Governor
Beasley. We just had someone appointed to the ICC to
investigate and to gather and keep the information in Burma
with the Rohingya refugees, which is so vitally important. And
I feel very confident in knowing that when we have an American
and we can show that there is greater transparency, which
provides accountability and obviously more effectiveness,
throughout the U.N. system--and this is an issue that I will
bring up with Secretary Gutteres. We are under-represented. And
I understand that with the percentage of our contribution
level, we are nowhere near having the Americans in the system.
And we need to be very cognitive of the fact that China is
placing their individuals being hired throughout the system,
and that is a real issue.
Senator Young. Clearly, you understand my concern.
Ambassador Craft. Oh, yes, I do.
Senator Young. And that thematically is very much linked to
my concern about the U.S. withdrawal from certain U.N.
organizations that is coinciding with Chinese expansion in the
multilateral fora.
I do not disagree with withdrawal from, say, the Human
Rights Council. There is only so long that you can remain a
member of that organization when you have gross violators of
human rights that call themselves members and try and effect
change from within. So I actually think it was the right
decision.
But I also have concerns--there is a little tension here--
that China is seeking to now shape the world's human rights and
other agendas with its particular viewpoint through that very
organization.
So how can the United States effectively challenge China's
view of human rights and perhaps challenge its rival economic
system at the United Nations?
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator. Obviously, that is
something we discussed in your office, and it is really
important.
You know, China is the second largest contributor now at
the U.N. We are still the leader and we will be. We have to
keep in mind that because of their economy is why they now have
stepped up contributing as the second largest contributor.
They also have ulterior motives and they are looking for
leverage. They are looking for leverage within the U.N. system,
within the other 192 member states, especially the under-
developed countries. You know, they are taking their Belt and
Road Initiative--and I understand we cannot match that dollar
per dollar. And thank you, everyone here, for the BUILD Act. I
think it is really important that we focus on areas that we can
negate China in under-developed countries with our BUILD Act,
with public-private partnerships, with leading people with
sustainability, not with predatory lending.
So I understand your concern and share your concern, and if
confirmed, I will most certainly develop the relationships
within the U.N. body to make certain that the smaller countries
understand we are here for you, we are here to help you with
longevity to build communities. China is not.
Senator Young. Well, I am chairman of the Multilateral
Institutions Subcommittee here on Foreign Relations. So I will
have oversight over all of these matters really, and I look
forward to supporting you in your efforts and working together
so that we can create a broader and deeper coalition and then
apply our collective leverage against China's predatory
economic practices, against gross human rights violators so we
do not normalize the sort of human rights violations that
others might attempt to normalize in this international forum.
So thank you once again for your past service and your
interest in serving, and I look forward to our work together.
Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Ambassador, let me just say for the record I
supported your nomination. I do not support everybody who comes
before this committee. I supported expediting your nomination
for a business committee meeting. And I supported your
nomination on the floor of the United States Senate. So even
though you are a political appointee, it meant nothing to me.
So I hold no ill will.
But my job as the ranking member is to vet every candidate
that comes before us. So in that spirit, let me just take my
line of questioning a little further.
You know, there is an old adage that as a lawyer if you
have the facts on your side, you argue the facts. You have a
war on your side, you argue the law. And if you have neither
the facts nor the law, you bang on the table and create a
diversion.
Now, Senator Cruz is a very good lawyer. The problem with
his line of questioning is that the State Department told us
that the 300 days that I have questioned you about was reported
as 300 days outside of Canada. It did not include travel inside
of Canada. So that line of questioning to suggest that a good
part of this is you were traveling in Canada--and you should be
traveling in Canada--I have no dispute you should be traveling
in Canada. But the 300 days was travel outside of Canada not
because I say it, but because the State Department says it.
So I look at that, and I see that the new USMCA
negotiations were completed at the end of September 2018. Yet,
as you can see from the chart, your absences from post seem to
only increase in frequency after the time of the negotiations
being completed. How do you explain that?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, while we may have reached the
deadline of September 30th of 2018 for USMCA, there were many
more conversations we were having to iron out issues that we
agreed upon at that last hour on September 30th that we would
continue to speak about.
I can tell you now that I did not enjoy living out of a
suitcase. We had finally made our residence in Ottawa a home
just in time that I had to pack up bags and go back and forth.
That was no fun. But I took my oath of office very seriously
and understanding that I am available 24/7 wherever----
Senator Menendez. Well, let me----
Ambassador Craft. I beg your pardon?
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you then in pursuit of that. I
am sure you did not enjoy living out of a suitcase.
But there were five rounds of negotiations that occurred
after you became Ambassador in October 2017. Yet, it appears
from the summary provided by the State Department that you only
attended one of those five rounds. Are those records correct?
Ambassador Craft. No, sir. The rounds that occurred in
Washington were continuous. I did attend the round in Montreal
because as I----
Senator Menendez. Did you attend all five rounds of
negotiations----
Ambassador Craft. No, sir. No, sir. No, sir, I did not. I
attended the round in Montreal.
Senator Menendez. This is why we need the information so
hopefully--I am not sure we will--we can get past this issue
because this is a global stage you are going to be on. Canada
is a really important assignment. This is a global stage. There
are huge global issues. There is no more important position I
can think of other than the Secretary of State than the U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations. And as someone who has
practiced foreign policy for 27 years in Congress, this is real
important to me. I know what it means. So that is why I am
pursuing this.
You know, the first thing is you need to be there in order
to meet the challenges. So I have to understand that better. I
hope we can get to that point that I do.
I have some final questions on substance.
Let me ask you. You said in response to Senator Graham--he
was asking about Iraq. You said you are going to follow the
President's policy. I understand that. President Trump has made
a whole host of disparaging comments about U.N. member states.
In tweets, he has referred to the Canadian Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau as very dishonest and weak. He has called Europe
a total mess. He said that Germany is a captive of Russia. Do
you agree with those statements?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, the President has his own way of
communicating. I can assure you that my relationships that I
will build, if confirmed at the U.N.----
Senator Menendez. I understand. Believe me, I am painfully
aware of the President's form of communicating. The question
is, do you believe in those statements? Yes or no.
Ambassador Craft. This is a gotcha question, and I am not
going to go there. What I believe----
Senator Menendez. It is not a gotcha question. You are
going to be at the United Nations. You are going to be on the
Security Council and at the General Assembly with a whole host
of the countries. You are going to have to work through these
things. So about a simple thing, you can say I do not
personally believe that. It is a challenge. Right?
Ambassador Craft. I can assure you that I will be speaking
to everyone with utmost respect in representing the United
States.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you. If you are confirmed, can
you pledge that you will not use your post as Ambassador to the
United Nations to provide diplomatic protection for Saudi
Arabia, but use your voice and your vote to raise concerns
about the conduct of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, to press
for accountability on the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, to
end the fact that the Saudis use child soldiers?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, I can give you my word that I do
not care who it is, what country it is, if there is a human
rights abuse, I will most certainly shine the light, call them
out, however you want to put it. You can guarantee that I will
be the first there to say this has to stop because----
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. But specifically as to
my question as to the Saudis, will you use your voice and your
vote in these instances to stand up for what you are telling me
more globally? You will use your voice and your voice to stand
up to express the concerns. There is a huge humanitarian
catastrophe going on in Yemen. There is clearly the murder of a
journalist that needs to be addressed. There is clearly the use
of child soldiers, which I know in your heart, as a mother, you
cannot even believe is something that should be used. So will
you use your voice and your vote in that regard?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, I will use my voice when Saudi
Arabia commits human rights abuses. You better believe I will
be using my voice.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Now, lastly--I am going to submit a whole bunch of
questions for the record and I look forward to substantive
responses from you and maybe a follow-up visit.
Ambassador Craft. Sure.
Senator Menendez. You mentioned very well, by the way, the
question of humanitarian issues. You shared the same story you
shared previously with me about the Rohingya and the first time
you met anybody from the Rohingyas--with Senator Gardner.
We have the greatest displacement since World War II of
people in the world, over 70 million people displaced because
they flee violence, oppression, persecution. What do you
believe is the role that we should be playing as it relates to
dealing with that challenge?
Ambassador Craft. Dealing with the Rohingya challenge
specifically?
Senator Menendez. Rohingya but beyond, the 70 million
people who are displaced in the world who are, in essence,
refugees. What is the role that you would advocate as the U.S.
Ambassador at the U.N.? What should we be doing and leading on?
Ambassador Craft. Senator, I understand the emotions
because I feel the same way about this issue, as we discussed
in your office. I cannot fathom, from looking at these
children, what it must be like for a mother to feel so
desperate to have to leave their country or, worse, put an
innocent child in the hands of a human smuggler, thinking they
are going to go to the promised land. And that is why it is so
important in the U.S. that we be very vigilant and with our
humanitarian aid, that we demand for transparency, because as
you know, our dollars have to be spent very wisely. These are
people. We have to remember they are people. They are not just
refugees or migrants of immigrants. They are people. And I can
pledge to you that I will use everything in my power to make
certain that the U.S. is always the first on the ground and the
last to leave.
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. I would just say to
you it would be helpful, if you are confirmed, your advocacy
within this administration. One of the things we should be
doing is admitting some more--we are at the lowest level in our
nation's history of accepting refugees. You cannot lead in the
world at the U.N. and advocate for other countries to do what
we fail to do ourselves. And so this is a challenge that you
will find at many different moments. How you work your way
through that challenge is going to be incredibly important as
to how successful you can be on behalf of the United States of
America.
And I will look forward to some of the answers to the
questions I am posing in writing. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Craft. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Ambassador Craft, thank you very much. You have been very
patient with all of us and we appreciate your testimony.
The record will remain open until the close of business on
Thursday.
And with that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
Hon. Kerry Craft by Senator Robert Menendez
U.N. Peacekeeping Arrears
As you know, the U.N. is in a financial crisis, largely owing to
shortfalls of U.S. contributions. For peacekeeping alone, we are $776
million in arrears. As I outlined at your nomination hearing, for the
past three years, the U.S. has paid only 25 percent of peacekeeping
costs instead of what we actually owed--28 percent. Just a few days
ago, the State Department provided a report detailing the negative
impact of arrears. All of this was corroborated by the Secretary-
General when he was here a few weeks ago.
In December, all Member States agreed at the U.N. to new
peacekeeping rates. For the U.S., the new peacekeeping rate dropped to
27.8 percent The U.S. voted in support of these rates and the U.S.
mission to the U.N. even put out a fact-sheet touting how we benefit
from them. Now its Congress' turn to act and lift the cap. Over the
past 25 years, Congress has lifted it many times--we must do so again
this year.
Question. Will you pledge to work with Congress on this issue so we
can pay at the rate that the U.S. agreed to just a few months ago?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to working with Congress on
the issue of funding for U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Question. Do you agree that this should be a priority for the U.S.?
Answer. Yes, I agree that this is a very high priority for the
United States and the American people.
China at the U.N.
As I've said before, I agree with the President about the scope and
scale of the challenge China presents to us and to the international
community. We cannot just be confrontational with China we need to
actually be competitive.
In the past several years, the U.S. has withdrawn from UNESCO, the
U.N. Human Rights Council, the Arms Trade Treaty, to name a few. It has
also underfunded our PKO obligations, and we continue to be behind in
our arrears. And yet we express surprise that China appears to be
taking advantage of the void we are creating at the U.N. and in
international institutions and organizations more broadly.
Question. Do you agree that this is a challenge for the U.S.?
Answer. There are aspects of China's behavior at the U.N. that are
a challenge for the United States, as well as other countries that seek
to uphold all aspects of the U.N. Charter and other foundational
documents. The United States and China are both permanent members of
the U.N. Security Council, and we seek to work with China where our
interests overlap. However, in areas such as protection of human
rights, we have deep differences. I believe it is incumbent upon us, as
well as other member states, to uphold the U.N. Charter and subsequent
commitments that we have all made. In places where China has attempted
to change the rules we must be firm.
Question. What will you do to regain the lost ground?
Answer. I do not believe that we have lost ground at the U.N. The
United States remains an indispensable partner of the international
community, including at the U.N. and its associated bodies. We are by
far the largest donor in both assessed and voluntary contributions and
a permanent member of the Security Council. The narrative that China is
somehow supplanting the United States at the U.N. or within the
multilateral world is incorrect. We remain engaged to promote progress
across a wide range of global issues.
However, we cannot take our position or allies for granted. If
confirmed, I will continue to build coalitions of like-minded member
states to protect U.N. rules and standards. As the global leader, we
must also be prepared to stand alone and on principle. I will not
hesitate to defend our positions and values.
Question. How will you assure that our values and principles--and
not Beijing's--continue to animate the United Nations?
Answer. Our values and principles have brought unprecedented global
peace and prosperity since the founding of the U.N. Individual liberty
and representative government remain the best way to ensure that peace,
security, and prosperity continue. If confirmed, I will not hesitate to
emphasize that message, and to use our leadership and position within
the U.N. system to promote our values and principles. Although Beijing
has sought to change the narrative, the evidence is overwhelming that
the values we espouse are the best solution in the long term. The
United States has much to be proud of with respect to our continued
global leadership. I will not hesitate to tell that story, and continue
our leadership.
Question. What concrete steps do you believe we can take to
confront China's influence?
Answer. We must not allow our allies and partners to succumb to
China's narrative that we are in retreat from our position of global
preeminence. The evidence does not support this, so we must be
forthright in correcting it. The United States remains the single
largest donor to the U.N., both in assessed and voluntary
contributions. We are the indispensable partner. Across the
multilateral system, our support is critical to fulfilling global
mandates. Where China has sought to erode norms at the U.N. or its
associated organizations or coopt them, we have pushed back, often
times with coalitions of like-minded member states. If confirmed, I
will be extremely vocal in our support of the U.N. Charter, human
rights, and global peace, security, and prosperity.
Question. In which U.N. bodies do you think we have a comparative
advantage over China?
Answer. I sincerely believe we have a comparative advantage over
China in most U.N. bodies. We have built strong coalitions based on
shared values. These values are at the heart of the U.N. Charter and
other foundational documents. We also remain a major donor for many of
the bodies to which we are party, through both assessed and voluntary
contributions. For instance, the United States is the top donor to the
U.N.'s humanitarian relief operations, helping the most vulnerable and
needy worldwide. Our engagement remains crucial for many of these
organizations to fulfill their mandates. As such, we retain a
comparative advantage within the U.N. bodies.
Question. The security situation in Libya continues to deteriorate,
and General Heftar's push into Tripoli risks undermining regional
stability. Do you agree?
Answer. Yes. The fighting in Tripoli is endangering civilians,
damaging civilian infrastructure, degrading U.S.-Libya cooperation
against terrorism, and fueling a worsening humanitarian situation.
Lasting peace and stability will only come through a political
solution.
Question. Then do you believe the United States made the right
decision in joining Russia to veto a resolution calling for a ceasefire
and return to a political process?
Answer. The United States did not veto a U.N. Security Council
Resolution on Libya. The United States continues to call for a
ceasefire and return to the political process. As the U.N. Special
Representative of the Secretary-General continues his efforts at
mediating a ceasefire, I would plan, if confirmed, to consult with
Council members to evaluate how and when the Council could best support
a political resolution to the conflict.
Question. How do you plan to engage with Special Representative
Ghassan Salame? What more can the United States do in pressing for a
negotiated settlement?
Answer. U.S. diplomats in Washington, Tunis, and New York engage on
a regular basis with SRSG Salame and the United States supports his
ongoing efforts to help avoid further escalation and chart a path
forward that provides security and prosperity for all Libyans. If
confirmed, I will continue to ensure U.S. diplomatic efforts are
closely coordinated with the U.N., and will encourage other Member
States to support U.N. mediation.
Question. Russia has used its veto power at the U.N. to block
action on many of the most pressing conflicts facing the world today,
including Ukraine and Syria, where it is a party to the conflict. What
will be your strategy for dealing with Russia's consistent
obstructionism at the U.N.? Do you see any areas for potential
cooperation with Russia at the U.N.?
Answer. Russia attempts to use the United Nations to advance its
narrow national interests and legitimize its authoritarian worldview.
Moscow uses its knowledge of the U.N. system, veto power, and combative
public diplomacy to block P3 positions (United States, United Kingdom,
and France) on high profile issues including Syria, Venezuela, and
Iran.In response to Russia's efforts to assert its authoritarian
worldview through the United Nations, the United States works with
like-minded partners, including the P3, to counteract Russian influence
in the U.N. system. This requires American negotiators at respective
U.N. missions to remain vigilant in identifying positions and concepts
that run counter to U.S. interests while actively engaging partners to
achieve outcomes that advance U.S. foreign policy. That said, should
Russia approach an issue in a manner consistent with U.S. interests, I
would be prepared to work with them.
Question. Russia's invasion and occupation of Crimea is illegal
under international law, period. The issue of Crimea has come before
the U.N., and, as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., you should do everything
you can to see Crimea returned to Ukrainian control in accordance with
international law. However, several reports came out last June saying
President Trump believes that Crimea is Russian because everyone who
lives there speaks Russian. This is an unacceptable position and an
affront to Ukraine's sovereignty. Do I have your commitment to defend
Ukraine's sovereignty at the U.N. regardless of what the President
says?
Answer. Secretary Pompeo unequivocally reiterated U.S. policy in
his July 2018 Crimea Declaration: ``we do not, and will not, recognize
Russia's purported annexation of Crimea.'' On February 27, in
connection with the fifth anniversary of Russia's occupation of Crimea,
Secretary Pompeo underscored the U.S. position: ``Crimea is Ukraine and
must be returned to Ukraine's control. We will never accept anything
less than the full restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity.''
Within the context of the U.N. Security Council, the United States
remains vigilant in combatting Russian attempts to normalize its
purported annexation of Crimea. We will continue to work with Ukraine
and likeminded partners to shed light on Russia's brutal occupation and
ensure Russia returns control of Crimea to Ukraine.
North Korea
Today, North Korea has greater nuclear and ballistic missile
capabilities than when President Trump entered office, and those
capabilities continue to grow unconstrained our alliance of pressure
itself is fraying, with China, Russia and others continuing to engage
economically with Pyongyang. While you won't be responsible for North
Korea policy or negotiations, if confirmed you will have significant
responsibility for several key issues related to North Korea at the UN.
Question. What do you think the criteria should be for humanitarian
exemptions for North Korea sanctions?
Answer. The United States is deeply concerned about the well-being
of the North Korean people and the humanitarian situation in North
Korea, which is the result of the DPRK regime's choice to prioritize
its unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs over the welfare of its
own people.
U.S. policy is to ensure that the strict implementation of
sanctions does not impede the delivery of legitimate humanitarian
assistance to the North Korean people. The United States will continue
to work with the United Nations 1718 Committee to closely review
requests for exemptions and licenses for the delivery of assistance to
the DPRK and expects humanitarian aid organizations to meet
international standards for access and monitoring of their programs.
Question. Do you think the recent North Korean SRBM test was a
violation of UNSCR sanctions? If it was, do you think the
administration should press the UNSC to take appropriate action? What
action?
Answer. U.N. Security Council Resolutions prohibit the DPRK from
conducting launches using ballistic missile technology. U.N. Security
Council Resolutions also require North Korea to abandon its nuclear and
ballistic missile programs. The Trump administration is engaged in a
diplomatic effort to eliminate the DPRK's U.N.-prohibited WMD and
ballistic missile program and has built unprecedented international
support for our efforts to achieve the final, fully verified
denuclearization of North Korea.
The United States cooperates and coordinates closely on North Korea
not just with our regional allies, the Republic of Korea and Japan, but
with Canada, Australia, UK, France, Germany, and our other European
allies. China and Russia share our goal of achieving the final, fully
verified denuclearization of North Korea. This resounding international
consensus has resulted in strong, unified action from the U.N. Security
Council that experts in 2016 had predicted would be impossible.
Question. Why has the administration--which professes to be
pursuing a policy of ``maximum pressure''--failed to press the UNSC to
take action on a violation of sanctions?
Answer. We continue to press countries around the world to fully
implement U.N. Security Council resolutions to underscore to North
Korea that the only way to achieve the security and development it
seeks is to forsake its weapons of mass destruction and their means of
delivery.
Question. How will you work to get the 1718 Committee to accept
more designation proposals?
Answer. The United States engages regularly with the members of the
Security Council to make our case for designation at the 1718
Committee. We will continue to engage in these discussions regularly
and seek to apply the greatest pressure possible through the committee.
The State Department also engages countries bilaterally around the
world to take action to ensure global implementation of U.N. Security
Council obligations. We are cooperating with many countries to enable
decisive action against entities involved in DPRK sanctions evasion
activity.
If confirmed I will work to ensure that the 1718 Committee accepts
as many U.S. designation proposals as possible and advances
international efforts led by the United States to achieve the final,
fully verified denuclearization of the DPRK.
Question. How will you work with both like-minded and ``the
others'' on the 11718 Committee--both multilaterally in committee
meetings and in bilateral meetings--to advance U.S. goals on DPRK? What
are the U.S. goals on DPRK?
Answer. Our goal is to achieve the final, fully verified
denuclearization of the DPRK, as committed to by Chairman Kim in
Singapore. As President Trump has said, he believes Chairman Kim will
fulfill his commitment to denuclearize.
The State Department works with the 1718 Committee and members of
the Security Council to achieve a consensus on the need to fully
implement U.N. Security Council resolutions--both in sanctions imposed
and in the need for the DPRK to eliminate its unlawful WMD and
ballistic missile programs. We use bilateral meetings with members of
the Council to present additional information we have and persuade them
to support the U.S. position on the need to continue to fully implement
sanctions on DPRK. We use the open meetings and Security Council
discussions regarding the 1718 Committee to engage countries around the
world for action to continue to hold the DPRK accountable for its
unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs and ensure global
implementation of U.N. Security Council obligations. Through the U.N.,
we are cooperating with many countries to take decisive action against
entities involved in DPRK sanctions evasion activity.
international efforts led by the United States to achieve the
final, fully verified denuclearization of the DPRK.
Question. Do you agree that any candidate for office in the United
States who is presented with information on an opponent from a foreign
power should report that to the FBI?
Answer. Yes.
Syria
Russia has repeatedly vetoed Security Council action to resolve
conflict and prevent atrocities against civilians in Syria, atrocities
in which it is complicit. Divisions within the Security Council have
also halted the body's ability to bring the conflict to a negotiated
end as the regime consolidates gains across the country. Currently,
there remains a great need for both humanitarian assistance and access
to the besieged population in Idlib, where the regime and its Russian
and Iranian backers are pounding civilians and civilian infrastructure
as the rest of the world watches in horror.
Question. Given that one of Assad's main enablers wields a veto in
the Security Council, how will you seek to use the United Nations to
help secure an end to hostilities, and address atrocities by the regime
and its backers in Syria?
Answer. The only end to the conflict in Syria is a political
solution in line with U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254.
Through regularly-scheduled meetings on Syria in the U.N. Security
Council, we will continue to work with allies to press Member States to
recognize this in practical steps taken in and outside the Council,
including deescalating the violence in Idlib and convening the
Constitutional Committee.
Until the Assad regime and Russia take concrete steps toward a
full, immediate, and verifiable de-escalation in Syria, the United
States will continue to apply pressure through all possible means to
isolate the regime and its allies. We are using a whole of government
approach in this effort, including the recent Treasury Department
designations of 16 Syrian individuals and entities, demonstrating our
commitment to promoting accountability for persons who support the
Assad regime and undermine peace, security, and stability.
Question. How will you work with members of the Security Council to
gain humanitarian access to all affected populations inside Syria?
Answer. The continuation of destruction and violence on the
civilian population and civilian infrastructure in Syria, particularly
in Idlib, is inexcusable. Through regularly-scheduled meetings on Syria
in the U.N. Security Council, we continue to press Member States on the
critical importance to maintain cross-border aid deliveries across all
agreed border crossings in accordance with U.N. Security Council
Resolution (UNSCR) 2449.
There is no substitute for cross-border operations, which are the
most transparent, most effective, and most efficient way to bring
humanitarian assistance to those in Syria who need it most. No actor on
the ground should politicize U.N. humanitarian operations, nor use it
as a weapon, as the Assad regime and Russia have done.
Iran
Iran continues to foment chaos and instability throughout the
region. From Syria and Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran and its proxies
menace our allies and partners, destabilize governments and are
complicit in atrocities and humanitarian nightmares.
Regarding Iran's nuclear program
Question. Given the way the administration's abrupt withdrawal from
the JCPOA has alienated many of our allies, what leverage does the U.S.
have at the U.N. to address Iranian regional aggression?
Answer. A key element to the administration's Iran policy is strong
diplomatic engagement with our partners and allies, including via the
U.N. and other multilateral bodies. U.S. allies and partners in Europe,
the Gulf, and Asia share our assessment of the full magnitude of the
Iranian regime's malign behavior. On the U.N. Security Council, the
United States works closely alongside other member states to implement
multilateral counter-proliferation efforts against Iran and to address
Iran's hostile regional activity. Iran's destructive actions will only
serve to further isolate it on the international stage.
Question. How can we address the fact that the arms embargo
provisions of the JCPOA will expire in 2020?
Answer. While the JCPOA does not provide for any arms embargo on
Iran, the provisions of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)
that obligate all States to prevent the supply, sale, or transfer of
arms or related materiel to Iran unless approved in advance on a case
by case basis by the U.N. Security Council expire no later than October
2020. We have made clear to the other members of the Security Council
that these important provisions should be extended. We will continue to
underscore the serious challenge Iran poses to international peace and
security and the need to prevent the onward proliferation of
destabilizing weapons to Iran.
Question. How will you engage with the IAEA to ensure that it has
adequate inspections of all necessary nuclear sites?
Answer. We remain closely engaged with the IAEA to ensure it has
all necessary resources to carry out its critical verification and
monitoring role in Iran. We have made clear that Iran must cooperate
fully with the IAEA, including by providing unqualified access to any
location requested by the IAEA. The IAEA has the authority to request
access to any location in Iran--civil or military--to verify Iran's
declarations under its Additional Protocol and Comprehensive Safeguards
Agreement when a question or inconsistency has arisen. The IAEA also
has a fundamental responsibility to pursue any new concern about
undeclared nuclear material or safeguards-relevant activities, and we
have full confidence that the Agency and its highly skilled and
professional inspectors will do so appropriately.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Ambassador Jackie Wolcott
and her team at the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in
Vienna (UNVIE) to promote and support U.S. policy on these questions.
Question. What U.N. mechanisms do you think can be the most
effective in confronting Iran's non-nuclear behavior?
Answer. Addressing Iran's malign behavior is a top priority of this
administration and crucial to the stability of the region. During the
``Ministerial to Promote a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle
East,'' held in Warsaw, Poland February 13-14, foreign ministers and
representatives from 62 nations and entities, including Israel, came
together to advance common interests around terrorism, proliferation,
and the escalation of conflicts in the region. The destabilizing
activities of Iran were highlighted in all of these areas, and Warsaw
participants discussed how we could respond to Iran's actions. A key
element to the administration's Iran policy is strong diplomatic
engagement with our partners and allies, including via the U.N.
Security Council. Iran's destructive actions will only serve to further
isolate it on the international stage.
Question. Iran continues to violate U.N. arms embargoes, supplying
weapons across the region. How do you plan to work to enforce those
arms embargoes?
Answer. Maintaining Security Council solidarity on these issues
will be a key priority if I am confirmed. Inhibiting the flow of
weapons to terrorists and rogue regimes should be a commitment around
which the word can rally, and I will be attentive to any potential
relaxation within the Council.
Question. How do you plan to address the fact that Iran continues
to test ballistic missiles in violation of the U.N. Security Council?
Answer. The Secretary has been clear: Iran must end its
proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or
development of nuclear-capable missile systems. Iran's pace of missile
launches did not diminish after implementation of the JCPOA in January
2016 and was among the many reasons the administration chose to cease
participation in that agreement. Iran has conducted multiple ballistic
missile launches since this time as it continues to prioritize its
missile development in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution
2231. We continue to relay our strong concerns to the U.N. Secretary-
General and the U.N. Security Council in response to Iran's dangerous
missile development and proliferation.
Israel
Historically, the United States has played a critical role in
standing up for Israel and combatting biased, one-sided resolutions and
other actions across the U.N., including the Security Council, General
Assembly, and organizations like UNESCO and the U.N. Human Rights
Council. The U.S. has also advocated against Palestinian attempts to
unilaterally establish permanent member status, which should only
happen after a mutually agreed two-state solution with Israel.
Question. How do you to plan to approach standing up for Israel at
the U.N.?
Answer. President Trump has declared emphatically that his
administration will always stand with Israel. If confirmed, I am wholly
committed to maintaining the longstanding, strong U.S. support for
Israel at the United Nations. The United States has consistently
opposed every effort to delegitimize Israel or undermine its security
at the United Nations, and I will continue to do so with vigor. I will
work to ensure this support is comprehensive, including in the Security
Council and General Assembly. I will work to broaden the focus of the
Security Council's monthly debate on the Middle East away from Israel,
and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and toward malign actors in the
region, such as Iran and Syria.
I will maintain the U.S. opposition to the annual submission of a
disproportionate number of unfair resolutions biased against Israel.
The one-sided approach to these resolutions damages the prospects for
peace between Israel and the Palestinians by undermining trust between
the parties and failing to create the kind of positive international
environment critical to achieving peace. The United States consistently
opposes ``foreign occupation'' language in U.N. texts and works with
Israel to explore possibilities of changing references to ``foreign
occupation'' so the references are not Israel-specific. Under my
leadership, if confirmed, the U.S. Mission to the U.N. in New York also
will focus on identifying and removing anti-Israeli statements in other
U.N. texts, and we will support qualified Israeli candidatures for U.N.
positions when appropriate. I also will continue my practice, and my
predecessors', of working constructively with our Israeli diplomatic
counterparts, and specifically the Israeli Mission to the United
Nations.
Question. Given that the United States has pulled funding for
various U.N. institutions, what leverage does the U.S. have to counter
anti-Israel bias at the U.N.? How would you advocate against anti-
Israel bias at the U.N.?
Answer. Anti-Israeli bias is pervasive throughout the U.N. system.
The Trump administration has pushed back against the unfair treatment
of Israel at the United Nations, and the United States has always
strived to counter bias against Israel within the U.N. system. As I
stated in my testimony, the United States will never accept such bias,
and if confirmed I commit to seizing every opportunity to shine a light
on this conduct, call it what it is, and demand that these outrageous
practices finally come to an end. It is a core U.S. priority to counter
anti-Israel bias and ensure that Israel, as with any other member
state, is treated fairly at the UN.
As we strive to counter bias against Israel at the United Nations,
the United States has many strengths. For example, we remain the
largest contributor to the United Nations, a permanent member of the
Security Council, and the U.N. host country to the United Nations
Organization and to the U.N. community in New York. U.S. diplomats
working at the United Nations in New York and on U.N. issues around the
world are among the most active of any country. We take every
opportunity possible to demand that not only elements of the U.N.
System, but also representatives of other member states, stop these
biased and one-sided attacks and abandon the abhorrent anti-Israel
biases that we see much too often.
Here are specific measures that I will continue if confirmed: I
will remain focused on countering anti-Israeli efforts, including
General Assembly resolutions. I will oppose premature Palestinian
attempts to join U.N. and related bodies. And, I will call attention to
the role of malign regional actors, such as Hamas, in undermining
efforts to reach a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians. I also will work to broaden the focus of the Security
Council's monthly debate on the Middle East away from Israel, and the
Israeli- Palestinian conflict, and toward malign actors in the region,
such as Iran and Syria.
If confirmed, I also will strongly support Israel's affirmative
efforts to normalize its participation within the United Nations, and
the country's positive diplomatic agenda there. I also will continue my
predecessors' work to increase Israel's representation in U.N.
positions.
Under President Trump, the United States has continually opposed
U.N. resolutions that unfairly target Israel. President Trump withdrew
the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Commission which has
repeatedly shown an abhorrent anti-Israel bias. The administration
strongly supports efforts to expand ties between Israel and neighboring
Arab states, particularly those in the Gulf.
Question. In spite of repeated violations, the ceasefire brokered
by U.N. Special Envoy Martin Griffiths around Hudaydah has held and the
Houthis have withdrawn their forces. However, prospects for a broader
peace remain grim. What steps can the U.S. take at the U.N. to ease
tensions and return the parties to the negotiating table for a
political solution?
Answer. The United States can continue diplomatic engagement in New
York and the region to ensure continued U.N. Security Council support
for U.N. Special Envoy Martin Griffiths' efforts to mediate between the
Yemeni parties to reach a political settlement to end the conflict. In
December, the U.S. Mission to the U.N. shaped the language of and voted
for U.N. Security Council Resolution 2451, endorsing the agreements the
parties reached in Sweden, and Resolution 2452, establishing and
resourcing a monitoring force to verify the Hudaydah ceasefire and
redeployments. In June, the United States called on the Houthis to
demonstrate good faith in the political process, and for Iran to cease
supplying the Houthis with weapons to attack its neighbors, and
underscored that said attacks threaten to derail progress toward a
political agreement. The United States can continue to support U.N.-led
political negotiations by renewing the monitoring mandate of the U.N.
Mission to support the Hudaydah Agreement (UNMHA) and supporting future
resolutions supporting the Special Envoy's efforts.
Question. How can the U.S. work through the U.N. to ensure
humanitarian access throughout Yemen?
Answer. The United States has continued to call on all parties to
ensure unimpeded commercial and humanitarian access to and throughout
Yemen so critical food, fuel, and medicine reaches Yemenis who need it
the most. Since October 2017, the United States has provided nearly
$721 million towards the response in Yemen, and this aid reaches
Yemenis through the U.N. and other implementing partners. In January
2018, the United States worked with the World Food Program and Saudi-
led Coalition to deliver mobile cranes to Hudaydah port to increase
throughput capacity there. We will continue to remain in close contact
with the U.N. and its agencies to monitor humanitarian access.
North Korea Human Rights
For many years, the U.S. permanent representative at the U.N. led
efforts to have the Security Council debate the human rights situation
in North Korea. Your predecessor, Ambassador Nikki Haley, pledged
during her confirmation process to work to hold such debates on an even
more frequent basis. In actual fact, however, she only worked to have
one in late 2017, and in 2018 no debate was held at all. These debates
are important events which communicate to the North Korean government
that the international community, even as it seeks a diplomatic
solution to North Korea's weapons proliferation, remains concerned
about human rights issues--and that the U.S. will not give the
government a pass in exchange for actions on other issues, including
proliferation.
Question. Will you pledge that, if you are confirmed, you will work
to hold regular debates on North Korea human rights issues at the
Security Council, and at least more than once a year?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to hold regular debates on North
Korea's human rights record and persistent issues at the U.N. Security
Council.
Question. How do you plan to advance accountability for the North
Korean regime's crimes? What avenues for accountability do you think
the United States should pursue?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to advance human rights and
accountability in the DPRK through support for documentation efforts;
fostering the free flow of information into, out of, and within the
DPRK; and increased international pressure on the DPRK to respect human
rights.
If confirmed, I will support the documentation, advocacy, and
accountability work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights field office in Seoul, as well as the work of the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Human Rights in the DPRK. I will support strong language,
including on accountability, in the annual U.N. Third Committee
resolution and will work with to ensure that the DPRK's human rights
record continues to be discussed by the Security Council.
Question. Will you pledge to use the U.S. seat on the General
Assembly's Fifth Committee to ensure that funding is not cut to the
U.N.'s offices working to collect evidence of North Korean government
abuses and crimes against humanity, including the Seoul office of the
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support and promote efforts, including
those of the Seoul office and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human
Rights, to collect evidence of North Korean human rights violations and
abuses.
Nicaragua
Earlier this month, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights documented that in Nicaragua, there was a ``disproportionate use
of force by the police, sometimes resulting in extrajudicial killings;
enforced disappearances; torture and sexual violence, as well as
widespread arbitrary or unlawful detentions, occasionally by pro-
government armed elements with the acquiescence of authorities.''
Although there have been ongoing negotiations between the Nicaraguan
Government and the Nicaraguan opposition-with the Government of
Nicaragua agreeing to release 56 activists from prison-there are groups
that have documented at least 700 people remain detained in connection
with anti-government protests.
Question. What is your assessment of the role of the U.S. U.N.
mission in addressing the Nicaraguan crisis?
Answer. It is the role of the U.S. Mission to the U.N. to be
apprised of the situation, and to foster active discussions with other
member states, including members of the Security Council, to identify
opportunities to highlight the need for increased international
attention on Nicaragua. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. has raised the
issue of government repression in Nicaragua at the Security Council,
most recently in September 2018. However, with no regular Nicaragua-
focused meeting at the Security Council, these meetings are ad hoc, and
require a minimum of nine affirmative votes to convene. Several member
states on the Council remain vehemently opposed to any public
discussion of the situation in Nicaragua. As such, these meetings often
depend on emergent events to encourage Security Council member states
to seek a meeting.
Question. If confirmed, how will you advocate for political
prisoners in Nicaragua?
Answer. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. in Geneva hosted an event in
April that featured panelists from civil society and the Organization
of American States (OAS) who discussed the deterioration of the human
rights situation in Nicaragua since the crackdown on peaceful
protesters and civil society in 2018, and the need for accountability.
The United States called for the immediate and unconditional release of
prisoners of conscience in May, during Nicaragua's session of the
U.N.'s Universal Periodic Review. If confirmed, I will continue to
advocate through U.N. bodies for the immediate and unconditional
release of all political prisoners in Nicaragua, and will support these
efforts in in other regional fora, including the OAS.
Central America
The UNHCR has provided repeated documentation about women and
children in Central America, including on its reports titled Women on
the Run and Children on the Run.
Question. Do you believe that women, children and families
migrating from Central America are fleeing conditions of violence,
including gender-based violence?
Answer. Yes. I believe that many women, children, and families
migrating from Central America are fleeing conditions of violence,
including gender-based violence.
Question. Do you believe that the United States should actively
work to address the conditions of violence driving women, children and
families to flee Central America?
Answer. Yes. I believe that the United States should actively work
to complement, and not supplant, the efforts of Central American
governments to address the root causes of violence driving women,
children, and families to flee. The U.S. Strategy for Central America
aims to address the security, governance, and economic drivers of
illegal immigration and illicit trafficking. The President has also
made it clear he believes Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador should
do more to stop the flow of illegal immigrants to the United States. We
expect the Northern Triangle governments to keep their commitments to
address the conditions of violence that contribute to illegal
immigration to the United States.
Question. Do you believe that U.S. foreign assistance can play a
role in addressing these issues? How, and what should that role be?
Answer. We believe that the governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and
El Salvador are responsible for the lives and well-being of their
citizens, especially vulnerable women and children. We expect the
Northern Triangle governments to keep their commitments to stem illegal
immigration to the United States. Political will and strong partnership
are critical to ensuring the success of any foreign assistance program.
The President has concluded that these programs have not effectively
prevented illegal immigrants from coming to the United States. We need
to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars wisely and where they will be most
effective.
Question. Do you believe cuts to U.S. foreign assistance limit our
ability to address these issues?
Answer. We expect the governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and El
Salvador to take responsibility for the economic prosperity and
security of their own citizens, especially for women and children. In
the absence of adequate commitments and actions by these governments to
stop illegal immigration to the southern border of the United States,
the President directed the Department to redirect new foreign
assistance to the Northern Triangle. If confirmed, I will support the
administration's requests that these countries make the needed
political and institutional reforms that will guarantee the safety and
well-being of their citizens in their home countries.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you personally take to
address the issues of violence in Central America?
Answer. My understanding is Central America suffers from high
levels of crime and violence. If confirmed, I will work to urge Central
American governments to do more to reduce crime and violence broadly,
and also urge them to address the pervasive issues of gangs, human
smuggling, and corruption. I will encourage other governments and
actors to support these efforts as well.
Question. As the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is spiraling out
of control, with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees now reporting
that more than 4 million Venezuelans refugees have fled the country.
However, as the situation rapidly approaches the scale of the Syrian
refugee crisis and threatens regional stability and security, UNHCR has
received less than 10 percent of the funding it has called for in order
address the Venezuelan catastrophe.
What specific steps will you take in order to increase U.S.
contributions and secure additional funding from our partners?
Answer. I understand that since FY 2017, the United States has
provided more than $256 million in assistance for Venezuelans to
complement the efforts of host countries in the region who welcome
them, including more than $213 million in humanitarian assistance and
$43 million in economic and development assistance. The United States
is providing the lion share of contributions to the U.N. Regional
Refugee and Migrant Response Plan for Venezuela, and I understand is
actively engaging with other countries to contribute more.
Question. The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is spiraling out of
control, with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees now reporting
that more than 4 million Venezuelans refugees have fled the country.
However, as the situation rapidly approaches the scale of the Syrian
refugee crisis and threatens regional stability and security, UNHCR has
received less than 10 percent of the funding it has called for in order
address the Venezuelan catastrophe.
Do you believe the United States has provided enough funding to
support UNHCR efforts to date?
Answer. I understand that since FY 2017, the United States has
provided more than $256 million in assistance for Venezuelans to
complement the efforts of host countries in the region who welcome
them, including more than $213 million in humanitarian assistance and
$43 million in economic and development assistance. This includes
contributions to UNHCR, IOM, UNICEF, and U.N. Women through the U.N.
Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan for Venezuela. The United
States is currently providing the lion share of contributions to the
U.N. plan and I understand is actively engaging with other countries to
contribute more.
Question. As the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is spiraling out
of control, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees now reports that
more than 4 million Venezuelan refugees have fled the country. However,
as the situation rapidly approaches the scale of the Syrian refugee
crisis and threatens regional stability and security, UNHCR has
received less than 10 percent of the funding it has called for in order
address the Venezuelan catastrophe.
Do you believe that the Trump administration's decision not to
provide Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan migrants and
refugees impacts our ability to encourage other countries to
keep their doors open to Venezuelan migrants?
Answer. I understand that the authority to make decisions regarding
TPS resides with the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation
with appropriate agencies. If confirmed I will continue to engage with
our partners to encourage burden sharing, including the hosting of
Venezuelans forced to flee the crisis in Venezuela.
Question. As President Maduro refuses to give up his grip on power,
there is a growing body of evidence that his regime is involved in
crimes against humanity.
Given that Venezuela is a party to the Rome Statute, what steps
will you take in order to support accountability for crimes
against humanity?
Answer. I strongly support accountability for the Maduro regime's
human rights conduct. While the United States is not party to the Rome
Statute and does not engage with the ICC, I would support any action
that ensured a full investigation of the regime's conduct and
associated accountability.
Question. If confirmed, will you support the growing push for
accountability at the ICC?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work in close consultation with my
Security Council counterparts and the administration to determine the
course most likely to result in genuine accountability for the Maduro
regime.
Reproductive Rights
I have serious concerns around U.S. policies restricting access to
sexual and reproductive health and rights globally. On top of State
Department policies such as the use of a false justification to defund
UNFPA and the massive expansion of the Global Gag Rule, U.S.
negotiators at the U.N. have been taking an unprecedented hardline
position against including long-standing agreed language on sexual and
reproductive health access for communities worldwide. This includes the
recent and egregious threat to veto a U.N. Security Council Resolution
for survivors of gender-based violence over reference to survivor's
access to sexual and reproductive health care.
Question. Given that access to sexual and reproductive health
services, as well as the full protection of sexual and reproductive
rights, is a key component to any conversation about women's
empowerment, how will you work to ensure that the U.S. is not erecting
additional barriers on sexual and reproductive health and rights
globally?
Answer. The administration has concerns about the terms ``sexual
and reproductive health services'' and ``sexual and reproductive
rights.'' The use of these phrases by U.N. agencies and U.N. affiliates
often implies abortion. The administration will do everything possible
to protect and respect the sanctity of life around the globe.
In its advocacy for women, the administration continues to hold to
the commitments laid out in the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women's
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action as well as in the 1994
International Conference on Population and Development's Program of
Action. The United States moreover remains the largest bilateral donor
of women's health and family planning assistance worldwide. Moving
forward at the United Nations and elsewhere, the administration will
continue to build consensus with a wide group of Member States on clear
terminology that would better promote women's health without also
promoting abortion. We are committed to focusing on the health care and
health educational needs of women, men, girls, and boys, including
adolescents, while avoiding issues that do not enjoy international
consensus and do not support human dignity.
Question. President Trump has made a number disparaging comments
about U.N. member states. In tweets, he has referred to Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau as ``Very dishonest & weak,'' called Europe ``A
total mess!''
Do you personally agree with these statements?
Answer. I believe the President speaks with clarity about America's
national security interests.
Question. Is this how the U.S. should be conducting diplomacy?
Answer. This administration is determined to advance American
security and prosperity by pursuing an ambitious diplomatic agenda. It
has been an honor to conduct diplomacy between the United States and
Canada during my tenure, and if confirmed, I look forward to promoting
the President's vision for renewed American leadership at the United
Nations.
Question. How do you plan to keep U.S. alliances strong with some
of our closest partners, including those who have been the target of
the President's verbal attacks?
Answer. I know firsthand from my tenure as U.S. Ambassador to
Canada that America's alliances and partnerships have never been
stronger. During my tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Canada, I had the good
fortune to develop deep relationships with my Canadian counterparts.
Like most friends and partners, we did not always agree. However, under
those disagreements, we knew that our bond remained ironclad and that
we would work together to achieve lasting and impactful solutions to
any challenges we faced.
Iran Nuclear
The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Yukiya Amano recently reported Iran has begun ramping up its production
of nuclear fuel and is on the road to expanding its stockpiles of
nuclear material beyond the 300kg cap set in the JCPOA. In addition,
the U.N. arms embargo against Iran will expire in 2020.
Question. Can you explain what steps at the U.N. the United States
should take to curtail Iran's nuclear program and to keep the arms
embargo in effect?
Answer. A key element to the administration's Iran policy is strong
diplomatic engagement with our partners and allies, including via the
U.N. Security Council. Iran's destructive actions will only serve to
further isolate it on the international stage.
Question. Do you believe the United States has the leverage it
needs to gain international support for these efforts given our
unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA?
Answer. The United States' cooperation with allies and partners on
threats emanating from Iran remains robust. Our allies and partners,
including in Europe, the Gulf, and Asia, share the same assessment as
the United States on the full magnitude of the Iranian threat. Under
the President and the Secretary's direction, we are working with our
allies and partners around the world to counter Iran's nuclear and
proliferation threats, support for proxies and terrorist groups, and
serious human rights violations. We continue to work with nations
around the world to counter the totality of the Iranian regime's
destabilizing behavior.
Question. Will our allies who are still in the agreement support
tough measures to combat Iran's ballistic missile program and malign
regional activities?
Answer. The remaining JCPOA participants have a clear interest in
efforts to counter Iran's destabilizing activities. The United States
works closely with our European allies to address the serious threats
posed by Iran's ballistic missile program and its malign regional
behavior. For example, the United States facilitated efforts-in close
conjunction with the UK, France, and Germany-to raise concerns to the
U.N. Security Council and to the broader international community in
response to Iran's ballistic missile tests and firing of space launch
vehicles over the past year. The United States prioritizes diplomatic
engagement efforts that hold Iran accountable and further politically
isolate the regime on the world stage.
Syria Chemical Weapons Attacks
While I disagreed with many of your predecessors views, I welcomed
Amb. Haley's willingness to lambast Syria and Russia for killing scores
of men, women, and children with chemical weapons and bombs. We should
not forget that while the world has turned away from the Syria
conflict, the Russian government continues to support the Assad regime
and has ramped up its efforts to block all U.N. activities to
investigate and punish the Syrian regime for its use of chemical
weapons.
Question. Can you assure me you will use your platform at the U.N.
to champion human rights and to defend innocent civilians from chemical
weapons attacks?
Answer. As Americans, championing human rights and defending
innocent civilians are but two examples of our most deeply held values,
and two areas in which I am very passionate. If confirmed please rest
assured that I will consistently and loudly use my platform to champion
human rights and defend innocent civilians. Further, if confirmed, I
firmly commit to using all available means at my disposal to highlight
the terrible human toll inflicted by chemical weapons.
Question. Will you support the efforts of the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate and identify the
culprits beyond chemical weapon attacks in Syria and other locations
around the world?
Answer. Yes, absolutely. OPCW plays a critical role in promoting
accountability for such heinous acts, and its technical capacity must
be sustained as a deterrent to others who might be inclined to use such
terrible weapons.
Question. Will you pledge that, if confirmed, you will work with
allies to hold debates in the U.N. Security Council on the Burma
military's ongoing abuses against Rohingya and other ethnic minorities,
and seek a Security Council resolution that obligates the Burmese
government to begin complying with U.N. requests to the government,
including for access to areas in which the military has committed
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other abuses?
Answer. If confirmed, I would like to hold a regular debate in the
U.N. Security Council on the ongoing abuses against Rohingya and other
ethnic minorities in Burma, a regular meeting in the Security Council
requires consensus. Unfortunately, with China protecting Burma from
international criticism, and holding the power of a veto, regularly
scheduled meetings are unlikely. I will strive to raise the issue when
possible, and to support ad hoc meetings so that these issues remain in
the international community's focus. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. has
successfully held several ad hoc meetings with the support of other
U.N. Security Council member states, most recently in February of this
year. I intend to continue working with other member states that share
our concerns.
Question. Will you pledge that, if confirmed, you will use the U.S.
seat at the General Assembly Fifth Committee to ensure that funding is
not cut to the U.N.'s Independent Investigative Mechanism for
investigating human rights abuses in Myanmar?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use the voice and influence of the
U.S. Mission to the United Nations in the Fifth Committee of the
General Assembly to support adequate funding for the Independent
Investigative Mechanism. In addition, I note that U.N. Secretary-
General Guterres recently named American Nicholas Koumjian as the first
head of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Burma--an important
step that if confirmed I will monitor closely.
Saudi Arabia
In April 2016, Ban-Ki-Moon, then U.N. Secretary General, placed the
Saudi-led military coalition in an annex list to his annual report on
children and armed conflict, citing abuses against children in the war
in Yemen. In June, however, after Saudi Arabia threatened to withdraw
hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to vital U.N. programming
if the coalition was not removed from the list, Ban removed the
coalition ``pending the conclusion of [a] joint review'' of the report.
With the report's release pending, this issue is set to come to a
head once again.
Two years ago, the Secretary General undermined the credibility of
the children and armed conflict report and the U.N. system in general
by failing to resist financial blackmail to stay off the list of shame,
aka the list of governments that use child soldiers. The issue is now
relevant again as the report--and therefore list--is expected in the
coming days.
Question. If you are confirmed, do you commit to preventing Saudi
Arabia and any other country from using financial blackmail to pressure
U.N. offices?
Answer. Maintaining the integrity of the U.N. System is essential
to is ability to achieve its broader mission. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Secretary General and fellow U.N. Member States to
ensure that no country exerts undue influence on U.N. reports.
If confirmed, can you pledge that you will not use your post as
ambassador to the U.N. to provide diplomatic protection for Saudi
Arabia, but instead use your voice and vote to raise concerns about the
conduct of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and to press for
accountability on the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi?
Answer. If confirmed, I will serve the American people and champion
American values. The administration has been clear that the killing of
Jamal Khashoggi was antithetical to these values, and that a credible,
fair, and transparent Saudi judicial process is an essential step in
accounting for Mr. Khashoggi's murder. On Yemen, the administration is
clear-eyed about humanitarian suffering in Yemen and will continue to
work with the Saudi-led Coalition--as well as the Republic of Yemen
Government, U.N., and other actors--to support a political solution to
end that conflict.
Question. Ambassador, do you agree that the Global Magnitsky Act,
which allows the U.S. to impose serious sanctions on those who commit
gross human rights abuses, is an important tool and that U.S.
enforcement of it sends a critical message that the U.S. will not let
such abuses go unpunished? What message does it send, then, that the
U.S. has not complied with its own law when it comes to the brutal
murder of Jamal Khashoggi?
Answer. The United States was the first country to take significant
action to promote accountability in the case of Jamal Khashoggi's
murder; under the Global Magnitsky sanctions program, we aggressively
pursued individuals who had a role in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. I
must note, however, that provision 1263(d) of the Global Magnitsky
Human Rights Accountability Act--regarding a report and determination
referenced in the October and November letters to the President--has
not been delegated by the President to the Department of State or
another agency.
Question. Just this week, the U.N. Special Rapporteur released her
report into Khashoggi's death. She found Khashoggi was the ``victim of
a deliberate, premeditated execution, an extrajudicial killing for
which the state of Saudi Arabia is responsible under international
human rights law'' and that there is ``credible evidence, warranting
further investigation, of high-level Saudi officials' individual
liability, including the Crown Prince's.'' She also recommended that
the U.S. issue a Magnitksy determination as to the Crown Prince's
responsibility. If confirmed, you will be encouraging other countries
to comply with international law as well as their own laws.
Shouldn't the U.S. comply with its own law and set an example for
standing up for human rights rather being complicit in the
cover up of Khashoggi's murder?
Answer. I wholeheartedly concur that upholding U.S. law is
paramount. The United States was the first country to take significant
action to promote accountability in the case of Jamal Khashoggi's
murder; under the Global Magnitsky sanctions program, we aggressively
pursued individuals who had a role in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. I
must note, however, that provision 1263(d) of the Global Magnitsky
Human Rights Accountability Act--regarding a report and determination
referenced in the October and November letters to the President--has
not been delegated by the President to the Department of State or
another agency. In addition to Global Magnitsky sanctions, we continue
to take action on individuals connected to Mr. Khashoggi's killing. On
April 8, 2019, the Secretary publicly designated sixteen Saudi
officials under Section 7031(c) of the Department's Appropriations Act.
This designation was based on credible information that these
individuals were involved in gross violations of human rights regarding
to the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. We also continue to be clear with
Saudi Arabia that it has not yet provided a credible and transparent
accounting of Khashoggi's death. We are neither reducing our attention
on Mr. Khashoggi's murder, nor ruling out appropriate steps to promote
accountability for anyone who was involved in the murder, including at
the highest levels of the Saudi government.
Sexual Violence in Conflict
On April 23, 2019, the Security Council held an open debate on
conflict-related sexual violence. In the weeks leading up to the
meeting, Germany led a draft resolution to strengthen the international
response to the use of rape in war. In the final stages of negotiations
around the text, the U.S. threatened to veto the resolution unless it
completely removed references to sexual and reproductive health. Even
after a compromise was reached--one that omitted the language around
sexual and reproductive health, but referenced a previous resolution
that does--the U.S. doubled down and refused to accept any language
that recognized that victims of rape in war should have access to
sexual and reproductive health services. The Trump administration
believes this implies access to abortion. The resolution was ultimately
adopted without any language on access to sexual and reproductive
health services, a major blow to the global women's rights movement.
Question. Sexual Violence in Conflict: How would you respond to the
criticism that at present the United States is undermining women's
human rights at the Security Council?
Answer. In our interventions at the Security Council and in other
U.N. fora, the United States has consistently condemned sexual violence
in conflict. We work toward achieving consensus on Security Council
documents that promote women's human rights and safety in efforts to
maintain international peace and security. Through the historical
leadership of the United States and our close partners, the Council has
built a robust framework recognizing that women are disproportionately
impacted by conflict and are indispensable leaders in resolving it.
From making peacekeeping more effective to countering terrorism, the
United States is at the forefront of efforts in the Council to
integrate a recognition of women's essential roles in achieving these
goals.
The U.S. National Security Strategy and the newly-released Strategy
on Women, Peace, and Security reinforce this legacy and provide
additional reaffirmation that promoting women's human rights and
empowerment is essential to U.S. diplomacy and global leadership. Under
this administration's leadership, the Security Council for the first
time in history issued a resolution connecting respect for human rights
to international peace and security. More recently, our co- sponsorship
of the resolution on ``Persons with Disabilities in Armed Conflict,''
which was unanimously adopted by the Security Council, broke new ground
in bringing to the Council's attention the concerns of persons with
disabilities, including women with disabilities.
Question. There are decades of international consensus that women's
access to sexual and reproductive health is foundational to promotion
of their human rights. Do you agree that sexual and reproductive health
are fundamental to women's human rights?
Answer. The administration is a defender of, and donor to, programs
to improve the health, life, dignity, and well-being of women. The
United States is the world's largest bilateral donor for essential
health care and voluntary family planning assistance.
The administration strongly supports the empowerment of women and
efforts to promote their access to health care, whether or not they are
mothers, across the lifespan. The administration does so by funding
overall health and gynecologic health care, including care that relates
to sexual function and reproduction. This includes maternal health,
through promoting healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy. It also
includes the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted
infections and their complications, including HIV; the prevention and
treatment of fistula and female genital mutilation and cutting; and
other health care needs specific to women and girls that do not include
abortion.
Question. The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is spiraling out of
control, with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees now reporting
that more than 4 million Venezuelans refugees have fled the country.
However, as the situation rapidly approaches the scale of the Syrian
refugee crisis and threatens regional stability and security, UNHCR has
received less than 10 percent of the funding it has called for in order
address the Venezuelan catastrophe. What specific steps will you take
in order to increase U.S. contributions and secure additional funding
from our partners?
Answer. I understand that since FY 2017, the United States has
provided more than $256 million in assistance for Venezuelans to
complement the efforts of host countries in the region who welcome
them, including more than $213 million in humanitarian assistance and
$43 million in economic and development assistance. The United States
is providing the lion share of contributions to the U.N. Regional
Refugee and Migrant Response Plan for Venezuela, and I understand is
actively engaging with other countries to contribute more.
Question. The U.N. is a complex multilateral institution. What do
you consider the U.N.'s strengths and weaknesses? What do you think are
the most important provisions of the charter? Please provide detailed,
concrete answers.
Answer. The United Nations is the only international organization
open to all countries that holds a mandate to address major threats to
global peace and security. It possesses the ability to establish,
coordinate, and execute mandates relating to peacekeeping, humanitarian
assistance delivery, and mediation. Its senior leadership also
recognizes the need for--and is taking action on--institutional
reforms. Despite its shortcomings, the Security Council remains the
most effective global body to address challenges to international peace
and security.
The U.N. faces structural and institutional challenges, to include
U.N. General Assembly ineffectiveness, Security Council paralysis from
Syria to Yemen, and the continued election of highly problematic
countries to lead major U.N. bodies. The U.N. has been unwilling to
confront U.N. member states' anti-Israel bias. Weak oversight of U.N.
bodies remains a challenge. The burden a small number of countries bear
to fund a disproportionate share of the U.N. regular and peacekeeping
budgets does not reflect the ability of many of the 193 member states
to pay more each year.
The United States is clear-eyed about the U.N.'s many weaknesses,
and if confirmed, I will continue to identify steps to improve the
institution and push for their implementation.
Question. On what policy matters should the U.S. stand firm at the
U.N.? On what matters should we be willing to compromise and, if so,
how and how much? Please provide detailed, concrete answers.
Answer. The United States should continue to stand firm on our
overall commitment to the core values of the U.N. Charter--to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in
human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person, to maintain
international peace and security, and to promote economic advancement
for all people. While we remain committed to advancing the ideals in
the U.N. Charter, we will never surrender our interests to an
unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy. The United States will
continue to unapologetically advance its own values and interests in
the U.N. system. President Trump underscored this message during his
September 2018 address to the U.N. General Assembly, and it is our
primary orienting value as we engage with the UN.
Other countries, however, also remain focused on advancing their
own interests in the U.N. system. Because the U.N. is a global
membership body, we often cannot stop countries who pose the greatest
threats to global peace and security from running for U.N. leadership
positions. While it is the prerogative of each country to determine how
to engage at the U.N., we can determine whether the United States
should remain in these institutions. The United States withdrew from
the Human Rights Council in 2018, a body whose membership includes some
of the worst human rights abusers. We have, however, decided to remain
in a number of other bodies that include problematic countries,
assessing that our role can help improve the institution.
Question. In what circumstances should the U.S. government seek
multilateral solutions to problems?
Answer. The United Nations is important to U.S. national security
interests. Engagement in the U.N. can multiply our effectiveness and
spread the costs of international action. However, we will always look
for the most effective means to advance our national interests. In many
regards, it is in our interest to partner where we can with the United
Nations, while working to reform the U.N. in a serious and meaningful
way, particularly on peacekeeping, budget, management, and development
issues, as well as on ending the disturbing anti-Israel bias that
permeates much of the U.N. system.
Our engagement with the United Nations advances U.S. interests in
concrete ways. First, our support for U.N. peacekeeping protects U.S.
security interests while sharing costs and risks with other member
states. U.N. peacekeeping missions deploy to countries such as the
Central African Republic and South Sudan, where U.N. troops advance
U.S. interests in protecting civilians and promoting regional
stability.
Second, our engagement in U.N. bodies, including the Security
Council and the General Assembly, as well as the Economic and Social
Council in New York, highlights our priorities and holds others
accountable. For example, we have demanded accountability for the use
of chemical weapons in Syria, and we have promoted General Assembly
resolutions on North Korea, Syria, and Iran that have been adopted with
broad cross-regional support. The United States actively defends Israel
from unbalanced criticism throughout the U.N. system. Further, our role
on the Executive Board of key U.N. funds and programs--including UNDP,
UNICEF, and U.N.-Habitat--helps ensure that their work is targeted,
cost-effective, impactful, and efficient.
Third, we support the United Nations as it leads the international
response to humanitarian emergencies around the globe, such as in
Syria, South Sudan, the Lake Chad Basin, and many other places. At a
time when the world faces the risk of famine in no fewer than six
countries, as well as the largest movement of forcibly displaced
persons since the Second World War, the United Nations' humanitarian
leadership role has never been more important.
Finally, the U.N. system includes a range of technical and
specialized agencies that are central to setting international
standards and norms in numerous fields that have a direct impact on the
safety, security, and economic well-being of our citizens, including
for example in intellectual property, civil aviation, shipping,
telecommunications, and nuclear safety and security.
Question. What lessons do you think have been learned from the
ways in which the U.S. has engaged with the U.N.? Please provide
detailed, concrete answers.
Answer. In the 75 years since the founding of the United Nations,
we have learned that a close partnership with the United Nations
strengthens U.S. security, prosperity, and effectiveness. We have
learned that the United Nations can play an important role in
addressing global peace and security issues--from the Gulf to the
Balkans, and from North Korea to Iran. We have observed that the United
Nations can be a forum where individual sovereign states acting in
areas of broad agreement can pool their political and material
resources to address difficult transnational challenges.
However, we have also concluded that the United States must
continue to push the institution to reform in order to remain relevant
in the 21st century, particularly in the areas of U.N. peacekeeping;
U.N. budget, management, and development issues; and the disturbing
anti-Israel bias that permeates much of the U.N. system. The Security
Council has too often failed to act on issues that are central to its
mandate, including the conflict in Syria. We have seen that when U.N.
solutions do emerge, however, they can occasionally inappropriately
limit U.S. sovereign decision-making. We remain concerned that the
U.N.'s members continue to elect autocratic or otherwise unsuitable
countries, or nationals of such countries, to positions of authority or
influence in U.N. bodies, reducing the ability of those bodies to
pursue their missions with credibility.
Question. In December 2018, the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the
Global Compact on Refugees--an agreement aimed at creating stronger and
fairer responses to refugee situations around the world. One year
later, in December 2019, UNHCR is convening a Global Refugee Forum at
which U.N. Member States will be making concrete pledges and
contributions toward the objectives of the Compact. As the U.S.
Ambassador to the U.N., will you plan to not only participate in the
Global Refugee Forum, but also support the delivery of concrete pledges
from the U.S. government?
Answer. The United States is the global leader in supporting
humanitarian assistance and refugees. Through the U.N., and other
global partners, we work with refugees all over the world to assist
them as close to their home countries as possible. But no single
country or organization alone can meet these needs. In order to better
address current and future forced displacement around the world, a more
diverse and broader base of actors and donors is needed. If confirmed,
I will continue to support our efforts to work collaboratively with
regard to humanitarian assistance for refugees and displaced persons.
UNSC on Russia in Central Africa Republic (CAR)
As Russia actively cultivates its economic, security, and
diplomatic footprint on the African continent--since 2015, securing at
least 20 military cooperation agreements across Sub-Saharan Africa--it
has deployed more than 200 military and private security personnel to
CAR since 2017, training locals on Russian weaponry secured through an
exemption to the United Nations Security Council arms embargo. In
congressional testimony earlier this year, the Commander of U.S..
Africa Command, General Thomas Waldhauser portrayed CAR as an example
of ``Russia's more militaristic approach in Africa,'' in which
``oligarch funded, quasi mercenary military advisors'' had secured
mineral rights in exchange for weapons.
Question. What is your view of these developments across the
continent, and more specifically Russia's influence and activities in
CAR?
Answer. Russia's activities in the region seek to present Moscow as
an alternative partner for these countries, reasserting Russia as an
international power with global reach. I believe that Russia is using
CAR as a test case to refine its larger strategy for engagement and
expanding its influence, including against the United States and other
Western powers. We continue to work to ensure that Russian activities
and efforts do not jeopardize the United States' own objectives of
supporting a durable peace, reduction in humanitarian emergency, and
the re-establishment of institutions in CAR.
Question. The U.N. Security Council will review the arms embargo
measures on CAR by the end of September, looking at progress in areas
including reform of its security sector and management of its weapons.
If confirmed, what specific issues will inform the position will you
take on the U.N. Security Council lifting arms embargo restrictions on
CAR?
Answer. The U.N. Security Council has established clear benchmarks
for CAR to guide the Security Council in reviewing the arms embargo
measures, including security sector reform (SSR), the disarmament,
demobilization, reintegration and repatriation (DDRR) process, and the
management of weapons and ammunition. I welcome these benchmarks, and I
look forward to reviewing the CAR government's progress in each of
these three areas.
Question. If confirmed, will you support another exemption for
Russia to continue its activities in the security sector in CAR?
Answer. The U.N. Security Council territorial arms embargo on CAR
requires Member States to request an exemption to donate weapons to the
Government of CAR if the donation will contribute to security sector
reform. The Government of Russia obtained arms embargo exemptions from
the Security Council for two large donations in 2017 and 2018 because
these weapons were a critical element of capacity-building for the
armed forces of the CAR (the Forces armees centrafricaines, or FACA). I
support capacity-building of the FACA because it is critical to
establishing security and stability throughout the territory of CAR.
The donation of civilian contractors to train members of the security
forces of CAR requires Security Council notification, but not approval.
International Development
The U.S. is one of the world's most generous donors of development
assistance in the world. Our model for providing assistance is driven
by needs, as indicated by the host countries where our development
missions are present, and we have set the global standard for socially
responsible international development.
Question. What role do you believe U.S. international development
missions and development assistance play in U.S. foreign policy and how
does it cut across or factor into the work of the U.S. Ambassador to
the U.N.?
Answer. A major U.S. foreign policy objective is to promote peace,
security, and prosperity around the world. U.S. international
development assistance is an integral part of U.S. Government efforts
to achieve this objective. If confirmed, I will ensure that our
development assistance through the United Nations will continue to help
advance our foreign policy interests worldwide, including poverty
eradication, good governance, rule of law, conflict prevention and
recovery--the necessary foundation for building peaceful, secure, and
prosperous societies.
Question. What circumstances could arise within the U.N. General
Assembly framework wherein you might consider or propose withholding
development assistance to a country for its conduct in the U.N. General
Assembly.
Answer. The U.S. Government will continue to take a hard look at
our foreign assistance and whether the countries that receive our aid
and benefit from our security are also working in support of U.S.
values and interests. At the U.N., if confirmed, I would continue to
hold outlaw regimes and bad actors to account. I will not accept anti-
Israel bias and will take action when U.S. contributions are
disrespected and when U.S. values are under threat. Foreign aid will go
to countries that serve American interests. The American people pay 22
percent of the U.N. budget and in spite of this generosity, the rest of
the U.N. votes with us only about 30 percent of the time. If confirmed,
I assure you I would work to ensure a return on our investment in the
U.N. system.
Question. In your testimony, you said that ``climate change needs
to be addressed, as it poses real risk to our planet. Human behavior
has contributed to the change in climate-let there be no doubt.'' I
appreciate this view and would like to better understand your views on
the threats climate change poses to global security and stability, and
how you will approach these issues with U.N. delegates from highly
vulnerable countries.
Do you support the finding of the 2018 National Climate Assessment
that climate change represents a significant security risk to
the United States?
Answer. As Ambassador to Canada, I have not been engaged with the
National Climate Assessment. If confirmed, I will support decisions
that are informed by the best scientific assessments as we develop and
implement relevant international policies.
Question. Do you support the U.S.'s application of consensus
climate change science and modelling to U.S. security assessments and
planning?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support decisions that are informed by
the best scientific and intelligence assessments as we develop and
implement relevant international policies.
Question. What, if any, rationale would justify changing the U.S.'s
historical utilization and practices around climate change science?
Answer. While I do not anticipate that these issues will arise in
the context my responsibilities at the United Nations, if confirmed, I
would support decision-making that is informed by the best scientific
and intelligence assessments as we develop and implement relevant
international policies.
Question. Do you believe members of the U.S. Intelligence Community
should operate and develop security assessments and recommendation free
from any political influence, including any scientific assessments
regarding the effects of climate change?
Answer. Yes.
Question. During your nomination hearing, in responding to Sen.
Cardin's question about U.S. leadership on climate change and U.S.
participation in the Paris Agreement you stated that ``we need to
balance the American economy with the environment.''
What do you mean, specifically?
Answer. I support a balanced approach that promotes economic growth
and improves energy security while protecting the environment. The
United States continues to be a world leader in providing affordable,
abundant, and secure energy to our citizens, while protecting the
environment and reducing emissions through job-creating innovation.
This success is largely due to the development and deployment of
innovative energy technologies, including nuclear, shale gas,
renewables, battery storage, and more efficient vehicles. By promoting
affordable, reliable, and clean energy, as well as energy efficiency,
we are creating domestic jobs and supporting overseas market
opportunities for U.S. companies. For example, the U.S. energy industry
employed approximately 6.5 million Americans in 2017 and created over
430,000 new jobs in the last two years.
Question. Do you believe that environmental protection and economic
growth represents an either/or choice for America? If yes, why?
Answer. No. By promoting affordable, reliable, and clean energy, as
well as energy efficiency, we are creating domestic jobs and supporting
overseas market opportunities for U.S. companies.
For example, the U.S. energy industry employed approximately 6.5
million Americans in 2017 and created over 430,000 new jobs in the last
two years.
Question. Given that the U.S. appears on track to withdraw from the
Paris Agreement, a process that may start in earnest this November, I
would like your thoughts on the following:
How are you preparing to explain this position to the rest of the
U.N.?
Answer. The U.S. position with respect to the Paris Agreement has
not changed and is well known to other countries. The United States
intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, absent the identification
of terms for participation more favorable to the United States. The
President emphasized concerns about the economic costs of the previous
administration's pledges under the Paris Agreement, compared to costs
borne by our major competitors. Irrespective of our position on the
Paris Agreement, the United States will continue to be a world leader
in providing affordable, abundant, and secure energy to our citizens,
while protecting the environment and reducing emissions through job-
creating innovation. The United States will continue to assist our
partners around the world to reduce emissions, to adapt to climate
change, and to respond to natural disasters.
Question. Do you think that the U.S. posture on the Paris Agreement
could create challenges for you in garnering support for U.S.
resolutions at the U.N.?
Answer. No, the U.S. position on the Paris Agreement is well-known,
and in no way diminishes our determination to use important U.N. venues
to advance our national security or, in my view, our ability to rally
support for same.
Question. Do you believe there are no consequences for withdrawing
from multi-party agreements such as the Paris Agreement?
Answer. I believe the United States should maintain its leadership
and influence in multilateral policy forums, including international
climate change negotiations, regardless of our position on the Paris
Agreement. If confirmed, I will seek to maintain U.S. leadership to
advance and protect U.S. economic and environmental interests,
including by participating in ongoing international climate change
negotiations to ensure a level playing field for all countries. We will
continue to work with other countries to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and enhance resilience in ways that drive innovation and
market-friendly solutions, while ensuring energy security.
Question. During your nomination hearing, you asserted that, ``We
withdrew from the Paris Agreement because we feel like we don't have to
be part of an agreement to be leaders.''
Do you believe the U.S. is immune to decisions made under the Paris
Agreement that will certainly have lasting and significant
effects on the global economy? During your nomination hearing,
you asserted that, ``We withdrew from the Paris Agreement
because we feel like we don't have to be part of an agreement
to be leaders.''
Answer. I support the President's decision for the United States to
withdraw from the Paris Agreement absent the identification of terms
for participation more favorable to the United States. The United
States will continue to protect and advance its interests as a Party to
the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and is continuing to
participate in international climate change negotiations to protect and
advance U.S. interests. I agree that the United States should lead and
engage in negotiations to ensure that international environmental and
climate approaches evolve in a manner that is consistent with and not
counter to U.S. interests. If confirmed, I will ensure that the United
States remains engaged on the issue of climate change to advance and
protect U.S. interests, working with other countries to help drive
innovation and market-friendly solutions, so that our efforts to
protect the environment and grow our economy are mutually supportive.
Question. How, specifically, is the U.S. currently leading when it
comes to climate change?
Answer. The United States continues to be a world leader in
providing affordable, abundant, and secure energy to our citizens,
while protecting the environment and reducing emissions through job-
creating innovation. The United States is a world leader in protecting
the environment and in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. U.S.
net GHG emissions dropped 13 percent from 2005-2017, even as our
economy grew over 19 percent.
Question. Last month, I sent a letter to Secretary Pompeo
requesting clarification of State's stance towards U.N. Special
Rapporteurs. The letter stated that: ``Engaging with U.N. Special
Rapporteurs is an essential part of U.S. global leadership and
demonstrates our commitment to addressing complex human rights issues
and the rule of law both at home and around the globe. The credibility
of the work of U.N. Special Rapporteurs depends heavily on their
ability to apply the same international standards to all countries,
including democracies. By shutting out U.N. Special Rapporteurs, the
United States risks undermining a foundational value of the United
Nations as well as human rights progress globally and will be seen as
empowering repressive regimes, like China and Russia, who seek to
delegitimize internationally accepted human rights norms.'' Could you
tell me whether there is a policy in place with regards to responding
to inquiries and visit requests from U.N. special procedures, and if
so, what that policy is? If confirmed, will you ensure that Congress is
kept in the loop on this issue?
Answer. We continue to cooperate with U.N. special procedures.
Given the broad range of mandates and requests, our policy is to
prioritize our substantive interactions to ensure that engagement
maximizes the promotion of U.S. goals and objectives. In the past three
months, we have sent six replies to inquiries from Special Rapporteurs,
working groups, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights. We continue to respond as we receive new correspondence. We
also routinely meet in person with mandate holders, as we did very
recently with Daniela Kravetz, the Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights in Eritrea.
Question. Do you believe that the United States should provide
lethal armaments to countries that have used prior transfers of such
armaments in repeated violations of the law of armed conflict?
Answer. I believe all such strategic decisions should be taken
thoughtfully, and that the administration has demonstrated just such an
approach. That does not mean that recipient nations are in any way
immune from attention to how those weapons are employed.
Question. What efforts will you make at the United Nations and with
U.N. Member States to increase the role of human rights considerations,
as well as commitments only to export arms for responsible use by
recipients, and critical assessments of legitimate defense needs of
recipients, in their arms export decisions?
Answer. The United States factors human rights considerations, as
well as commitments only to export arms for responsible use by
recipients, and critical assessments of legitimate defense needs of
recipients, into our arms export decisions. The U.N. Programme of
Action similarly includes such considerations for exports of small
arms.
Question. Will you press for a ``no undercut'' agreement among
major arms exporting states in which when one state refuses to export a
particular type of armament, other states will pledge not to undercut
that decision in their own exports without extensive consultation?
Answer. The membership of the Missile Technology Control Regime
(MTCR) and the Wassenaar Arrangement includes many but not all major
arms exporters. The MTCR has a no-undercut policy that applies to
denials of MTCR Annex (control list) items. The Wassenaar Arrangement
debated the possibility of a no-undercut provision for over 15 years,
recently deciding that such a no-undercut provision would not reach
consensus. The U.S. has no plans to introduce a no- undercut provision
for arms exports within the Wassenaar Arrangement or elsewhere.
However, the U.S. conducts bilateral discussions to prevent undercut on
specific arms exports.
What impact would a failure to extend the New START Treaty have on
the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
occurring in 2020?
Answer. The United States is continuing to evaluate the possibility
of New START extension, but our immediate and primary focus is on
securing a more ambitious and robust deal that addresses a broader set
of the challenges we face in a security environment that has
deteriorated since New START was signed in 2010. Factors that take into
account what is best for the U.S. national interest must drive our
actions moving forward on New START treaty extension and the NPT Review
Conference in 2020. States Party to the NPT should recognize the shared
interest we all have in the NPT, irrespective of the pace of
disarmament.
Could the United States argue we were still fulfilling our Article
6 requirement under the NPT if no arms control discussions are
occurring between the United States and Russia?
Answer. Under Article VI of the NPT, Parties undertake to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear
disarmament. Article VI does not specify the form of such efforts, or a
timeline. The United States has a strong record of accomplishment in
this regard, having reduced its arsenal 88 percent from its Cold War
high, through both negotiated agreements and commitments, and
unilateral measures. We continue to engage with Russia on a range of
issues relating to the poor international security environment we see
today.
Question. Will the Nuclear Ban Treaty become a more viable option
for non-aligned states if the NPT Review Conference is unable to reach
a consensus?
Answer. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is
not, and will not become, a viable option for facilitating disarmament
regardless of what happens at the NPT Review Conference. No state
possessing nuclear weapons will sign the Treaty, and the Treaty will
not result in the elimination of a single nuclear weapon. The United
States will seek a consensus outcome, but the ability to reach
consensus is not the litmus test for a successful Review Conference.
Past Review Conferences have reached consensus roughly half the time,
but the commitment of States Party to the NPT has remained strong.
Question. Please provide a complete list of meetings you attended
regarding USMCA negotiations, including any formal rounds of
negotiations. Please provide a complete list of dates, locations, and
attendees.
Answer. I was engaged in often-daily USMCA/trade-related meetings,
negotiations, and discussions during my tenure as Ambassador to Canada.
Many of these meetings and telephonic discussions were spontaneous or
arose with little advance notice following planned negotiation
sessions. They do not appear on my schedule. I attended the formal
round of negotiations in Montreal on January 29, 2018. During the
period of most active negotiations, I took part in countless meetings
and discussions related to USMCA/trade issues, working with U.S.
officials, participating in negotiations with U.S. and Canadian
officials, or traveling to discuss the negotiations with U.S. and
Canadian stakeholders. The U.S. participants in these meetings
variously included the President, USTR Lighthizer, Senior Advisor Jared
Kushner, the Secretary of State, USTR officials, State Department
officials, and Commerce officials. The Canadian participants included
Foreign Minister Freeland, Canadian Ambassador MacNaughton, senior
members of Prime Minister's Office, and other Canadian trade officials.
The list below provides further detail on my participation in scheduled
USMCA/trade related meetings.
DETAIL OF AMBASSADOR CRAFT'S PARTICIPATION IN SCHEDULED PUSMCA/TRADE RELATED MEETINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Location Attendees (included, but not limited to)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 01, 2017 Westin Hotel, Ottawa, Canada D AMB David MacNaughton (margins of joint
appearance at Canada-US State of Relationship
Conference)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 04, 2017 Ottawa, Canada Dinner meeting with AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 13, 2017 Quebec City, Canada Premier Philippe Couillard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 15, 2017 Washington, DC Dinner meeting with AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 19, 2017 Ottawa, Canada Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Secretary
Rex Tillerson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 16, 2018 Vancouver, Canada Secretary Rex Tillerson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 28, 2018 Fairmont Queen Elizabeth, Montreal USTR Lighthizer and Delegation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 29, 2018 Hotel Bonaventure, Montreal USTR Lighthizer and Foreign Minister Chrystia
Freeland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 04, 2018 Ottawa, Canada Hosted Sen. Dan Sullivan and Lt. Gov. Byron
Mallot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 05, 2018 Ottawa, Canada AMB David MacNaughton (margins of joint
appearance at Canadian Energy Conference)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 10, 2018 Quebec City, Canada Premier Philippe Couillard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 13, 2018 Ottawa, Canada Hosted Rep. Pete Sessions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 15, 2018 Bowling Green, KY Lunch with Bowling Green Chamber of Commerce and
remarks at Western Kentucky University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 22, 2018 Washington DC Dinner meeting with AMB David MacNaughton and
invited Governors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 23, 2018 Canadian Embassy, Washington DC AMB David MacNaughton, Premier Philippe
Couillard, Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan
Brouillette and invited CEOs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 26, 2018 Ottawa, Canada Hosted business roundtable with Governor Eric
Holcomb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 26, 2018 Ottawa, Canada Hosted Rep. Elise Stefanik
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 04, 2018 Ontario Legislature, Toronto Premier Kathleen Wynne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 04, 2018 City Hall, Toronto Toronto Mayor John Tory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 04, 2018 Toronto AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 05, 2018 White Sulphur Springs, West POTUS (per White House request, same morning)
Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 24, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. negotiating team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 25, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. negotiating team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 26, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. team; Trilateral Session
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 27, 2018 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 07, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. negotiating team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 08, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. negotiating team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 08, 2018 Washington DC Dinner meeting with Larry Kudlow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 09, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. negotiating team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 10, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. negotiating team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. negotiating team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 25, 2018 Minister's Office, Ottawa, Canada Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 08, 2018 Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada White House Officials (margins of G7 Summit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 08, 2018 Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada POTUS and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 15, 2018 Minister's Office, Ottawa, Canada Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 15, 2018 Ottawa, Canada Hosted Sens. Crapo-Klobuchar CODEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18, 2018 CN Tower, Toronto KY Commissioner of Agriculture Ryan Quarles &
delegation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2018 Woodbine Club, Toronto KY Commissioner of Agriculture Ryan Quarles &
delegation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2018 Washington DC--Gaylord Convention Governor Scott Walker and AMB David MacNaughton
Center (margins of Select USA Investment Summit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2018 Washington DC--Canadian Embassy AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2018 Washington DC Dinner meeting with Governor Eric Holcomb &
delegation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21, 2018 Washington DC--Gaylord Convention Governor Pete Ricketts and Canadian delegation
Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21, 2018 Washington DC--Gaylord Convention Governor Matt Bevin and Canadian delegation
Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21, 2018 Washington DC Dinner meeting with Governor Bevin and foreign
EU Ambassadors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 14, 2018 Toronto, Canada Premier Doug Ford
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17, 2018 Detroit, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and Minister Amarjeet Sohi
(margins of Gordie-Howe Bridge groundbreaking
ceremony)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 06, 2018 Washington DC AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 06, 2018 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 06, 2018 Washington DC Jarod Kushner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 06, 2018 Country Club, NJ Dinner meeting with POTUS and Jarod Kushner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 12, 2018 Stowe, Vermont Premier Wade MacLauchlan and Paula Biggar,
Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure,
Energy & Status of Women
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 12, 2018 Stowe, Vermont Premier Phillippe Couillard and Harold Fortin,
Director, Intl & Canadian Relations, Cabinet of
the Premier
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 13, 2018 Stowe, Vermont Spoke to Governors and Premiers at New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Conf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 13, 2018 Stowe, Vermont Governor Phil Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 13, 2018 Stowe, Vermont Premier Dwight Ball
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 16, 2018 Prince Edward Island, Canada Dinner meeting with Premier Wade MacLauchlan and
invited CEOs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 20, 2018 Ottawa, Canada Premier & Mrs Doug Ford (Dinner and overnight
AMB Residence)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 27, 2018 Oval Office, White House, POTUS, USTR Lighthizer, Jarod Kushner (margins
Washington DC of US-Mexico announcement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 28-30, 2018 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 04-07, 2018 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 09, 2018 Ottawa, Canada--AMB Residence Embassy's senior leadership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 10, 2018 Premier's Office, St John's, Premier Dwight Ball
Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 11-13, 2018 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 13, 2018 Washington DC AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 13, 2018 Washington DC US Chamber President & CEO Tom Donahue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 13, 2018 Washington DC Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 19, 2018 Washington DC Lunch meeting with Premier Doug Ford and AMB
David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 19-20, 2018 Washington DC Canadian negotiating team; USTR Lighthizer and
U.S. negotiating team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 30, 2018 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 01, 2018 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 01, 2018 Rose Garden, White House, POTUS, USTR Lighthizer, Jarod Kushner (margins
Washington DC of announcement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 11, 2018 White House, Washington DC POTUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 22, 2018 State Department, Washington DC Secretary Mike Pompeo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 26, 2018 Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada AMB David MacNaughton (margins of joint
appearance at Ontario Chamber of Commerce's
Economic Summit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 26, 2018 Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada Lunch meeting with Premier Doug Ford and AMB
David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 06, 2018 Ritz-Carlton Hotel, MONTREAL Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland (margins of
Fortune's Most Powerful Women Conference)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 17, 2018 Halifax, Canada Host working dinner for Congressional Delegation
(margins of Halifax International Security
Forum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 22, 2018 Calgary, Canada University of Calgary interview and discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 22, 2018 Calgary, Canada Lunch meeting with Calgary AmCham
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 23, 2018 Alberta, Canada Gave remarks and participated in trade
discussions at the World Cup Business Forum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2018 Toronto, Canada Dinner meeting with AMB Nimrod Barkan and AMB
David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 01, 2018 LtGov Office, Toronto, Canada Ontario Lt. Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 06, 2018 Covington, Kentucky AMB David MacNaughton (margins of joint
appearance at the CSG National Conference)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 14, 2018 White House, Washington DC Larry Kudlow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 18, 2018 Ottawa, Canada--US Embassy AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 17, 2019 Canadian Embassy, Washington DC AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 17, 2019 Washington DC Dinner meeting with Mick Mulvaney
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 18, 2019 State Department, Washington DC Jarod Kushner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 08, 2019 Toronto, Canada Lunch with Premier Doug Ford
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 14, 2019 Toronto, Canada Dinner with Premier Doug Ford
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 20, 2019 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 21, 2019 Washington DC Premier Doug Ford, CABC Conference on USMCA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 22, 2019 Washington DC--Marriott Marquis Governors on the margins of National Governors
Assoc Winter Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 22, 2019 Washington DC USTR Lighthizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 22, 2019 White House, Washington DC Vice President Pence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 22, 2019 White House, Washington DC Larry Kudlow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 22, 2019 Washington DC Lunch meeting with Marty Obst and AMB David
MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 28, 2019 Minister's Office, Ottawa, Canada Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 14, 2019 Toronto, Canada Dinner meeting with AMB David MacNaughton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 22, 2019 Ottawa, Canada Lunch meeting with Premier Doug Ford
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 17, 2019 Premier's Office, Toronto, Canada Premier Doug Ford
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 02, 2019 Washington DC Vice President Pence and VP Chief of Staff Marc
Short
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 30, 2019 Ottawa, Canada Vice President Pence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2019 White House, Washington DC POTUS, Prime Minister Trudeau, Secretary Pompeo,
John Bolton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. During your travel outside of Canada, and specifically
when you were in Kentucky, what procedures did you have in place to
ensure you could be reached and to engage in any classified discussions
or receive classified material?
Answer. Discussions and material at the Sensitive But Unclassified
level were conducted/conveyed through State Department approved
communication channels directly to me whenever I was away from Ottawa.
Classified material was conveyed to me as needed when I was in
Washington through offices at the State Department using Department-
approved secure channels. A need to convey classified material to me on
occasions when I was in Kentucky never arose. If there should have been
a requirement to do so, materials would have been communicated to
nearby USG federal offices for me to access.
Question. For what period of time was there an Acting DCM at U.S.
Embassy Ottawa?
Answer. There was an Acting DCM at Embassy Ottawa from the time of
DCM Elizabeth Aubin's departure on January 5, 2018, until the arrival
of DCM Rick Mills on November 10, 2018. The duration of this gap was
unanticipated. Mr. Mills was officially paneled to the Ottawa position
in mid-April 2018, but State Department leadership elected to keep him
in Armenia as U.S. Ambassador through October 2018. The State
Department leadership and I were confident in the abilities of the
Senior Foreign Service Officers available to serve as Acting DCM at
Mission Canada during this several month period before Mr. Mills
arrived. I knew Mr. Mills was an experienced officer at the Minister-
Counselor grade, whose leadership skills would help Mission Canada, so
I chose to wait for his postponed arrival rather than begin a new
search for an alternate DCM who would not have served the Mission's
specific needs as well.
Question. While there was an Acting DCM, who was in charge at
Embassy Ottawa when you were away from post? How did you ensure that
your absence did not affect any of the operations at the Embassy or the
ability to meet the Embassy's mission?
Answer. While away from Post, I remained in communication with the
Acting DCM providing policy guidance and monitoring the Mission's
operations. When I was outside of Canada, the Acting DCM became Charge
d'Affaires, with responsibility for day-to-day operations of the
Mission. The Embassy officers who served as Acting DCM/Charge
d'Affaires under my direction were all members of the Senior Foreign
Service with experience serving as a DCM. These officers provided me,
regardless of my location in Canada or in the United States, with
regular updates through State Department communication channels on the
Mission's work as well as consulted with me on issues that required my
guidance and input.
Social Media.
As a U.S. Ambassador, you are charged with representing the
interests of the American people and communicating the viewpoints of
the U.S. Government overseas. This includes on any official social
media profiles you have. As a recent review by the State Department
Inspector General found, a number of Ambassadors have not complied with
the Department's social media policies.
Question. As a U.S. Ambassador, you are charged with representing
the interests of the American people and communicating the viewpoints
of the U.S. Government overseas. This includes on any official social
media profiles you have. As a recent review by the State Department
Inspector General found, a number of Ambassadors have not complied with
the Department's social media policies. Have you reviewed the
Department's policies?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit to following them going forward?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are some examples of the types of posts that you
understand would require review by the Department?
Answer. I understand the Department's guidance on content for
official public communications, and will abide scrupulously with that
guidance. I have reviewed the Hatch Act, the prohibition on
endorsements, and social media retention requirements, and should a
circumstance arise when additional clarity is needed, I will not
hesitate to seek Department guidance.
Question. Do you commit to seeking review of any social media posts
on a personal account that could be considered a matter of Departmental
concern?
Answer. I do not currently possess any personal social media
accounts, but should that ever change, I will abide scrupulously with
all related Department guidance.
Conflicts on Issues Affecting Fossil Fuel Industries
Alliance Resource Partners, the company that your husband Joseph
Craft is both the Chief Executive Officer and President of, is the
U.S.'s third largest coal extraction company. The company reports to
have sold 40.4 million tons of coal in 2018 (according to the Energy
Information Agency's carbon calculation formula determining that one
ton of coal produces 2.86 tons of carbon dioxide) or the equivalent of
115.5 million tons of CO2, and reports to control 1.7 billion tons in
coal reserves (or 4.8 billion tons of CO2).
Question. Do you recognize the potential for a conflict of interest
to arise based on the extensive interests and investments held by you,
your spouse, and Alliance Resource Partners?
Answer. Yes. I recognize that matters could arise that pose a
conflict of interest based on my spouse's and my financial interests. I
will remain vigilant and recuse myself from taking official actions on
any matter that would pose a conflict of interest.
Question. How, specifically, and in your own words, not just
reciting your ethics agreement, do you intend to ensure that you will
avoid participating in any matter that could give rise to a potential
conflict of interest?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will consult with Ethics Officials in
the Department's Legal Adviser's Office to ensure I am aware of the
range of issues that could pose a conflict of interest and to implement
a thorough strategy to assist in avoiding such conflicts. In
particular, I will, with the assistance of the Ethics Officials,
institute a screening arrangement that will identify my financial
interests and direct pertinent staff to refer potentially conflicting
matters to appropriate USUN officials for action. In addition, I will
personally screen matters that come before me and I will recuse myself
from those matters that would conflict with my financial interests.
Question. At your nomination hearing, you stated that you would
recuse yourself on matters ``when there is coal in the conversation.''
How do you plan to determine what matters involve coal versus non- coal
issues? How will you make that determination on climate change issues?
Who will be making that determination? Do you plan to seek review by
the Office of the Legal Adviser?
Answer. As noted above, if confirmed, I will consult with Ethics
Officials in the Department's Legal Adviser's Office to ensure I am
well-prepared to identify issues that could pose a conflict of
interest. In order to identify potential conflicts in advance, my staff
will get an agenda of meetings regarding climate or energy issues
whenever possible before I attend. If the meeting involves the coal
industry or bears on the coal industry or would otherwise pose a
potential conflict, my staff will schedule the meeting with another
USUN official. If my staff is uncertain as to whether coal interests
are at issue, my staff will contact Department Ethics Officials for
their advice. I too will also seek assistance from the Department's
Ethics Officials if I am uncertain as to whether my involvement in a
specific climate change matter would create a potential conflict of
interest.
Question. At your nomination hearing, regarding recusals, you
stated that ``we are still waiting for clarity on the fossil fuels, for
that conversation within our ethics agreement.'' Who is making that
determination? What information is being used to make that
determination, and who is providing it?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to consult with Department Ethics
Officials for further guidance on the range of issues that could affect
fossil fuels and pose a conflict of interest for me. Ultimately, I am
responsible for avoiding conflicts of interest and I will seek the
guidance of the Department's Ethics Officials and enlist the support of
my staff to assist in that regard.
Question. On any matter related to climate change that you don't
plan to immediately recuse yourself from, will you commit to seeking
guidance or approval from Office of the Legal Advisor or the Office of
Government Ethics before participating? Do you commit to providing any
such determination to this committee in each instance?
Answer. I will consult with the Department's Ethics Officials on
those matters involving climate change where there is a potential for
conflict.
Question. At your nomination hearing, in response to a question
about whether your family has oil and gas interests, you replied, ``I
do not know.''
If you do not know the extent of the Alliance Resource Partners'
and your spouse's interests, then how were you able to ensure
that the Department and the Office of Government Ethics had all
relevant information to determine there is no potential
conflict of interest?
Answer. I will ensure that I understand the nature of my spouse's
and my financial interests in order to avoid taking any actions that
would create a conflict of interest. In addition, my screening
arrangement will assist in avoiding the potential for conflicts of
interest.
Question. If you do not know the extent of the Alliance Resource
Partners' and your spouse's interests, then how can you determine which
U.N. matters you could participate in that would not present a
conflict?
Answer. I will ensure that I understand the nature of my spouse's
and my financial interests in order to avoid taking any actions that
would create a conflict of interest. In addition, my screening
arrangement will assist in avoiding the potential for conflicts of
interest.
Question. According to Alliance Resource Partners' most recent 10K
filed with the Securities and Exchanges Commission, the company owns
mineral interests ``in premier oil & gas producing regions in the
United States.'' Based on an acquisition in January 2019, ARP now owns
interests that include more than 2,500 barrels of oil equivalent per
day. ARP has also previously acquired other oil and gas minerals. Do
you commit to recuse yourself from all matters involving oil and gas
interests?
Answer. I commit to recusing from matters that conflict with my
spouse's or my financial interests, including any particular matters
that would affect ARP's oil and gas interests, and I will seek guidance
from the Department's Ethics Officials when necessary to assist in that
regard.
Question. For the record, please provide a complete list of all
Alliance Resource Partners' interests, including companies, holdings,
and industries.
Answer. Alliance Resource Partners LP is a Delaware limited
partnership listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker
symbol ``ARLP.'' As a publicly traded company, ARLP is required to make
certain public disclosures in its SEC filings. The filings include
detailed listings and descriptions of ARLP's interests, subsidiaries,
holdings, and industries. ARLP's SEC filings for the most recent ten
years can be found on its website: http://www.arlp.com/sec-filings.
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. Yes. I will work through the Department's Bureau of
Legislative Affairs to respond to Congressional requests.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If you become aware of any waste, fraud, or abuse in the
Department, to you commit to report it to the Inspector General?
Answer. I am committed to the highest standards of government
accountability. Should I become aware of any waste, fraud, or abuse I
will report it to the appropriate Department authorities to include the
Inspector General.
Question. If the Department is providing information to a requester
through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) pertaining to your office
that is also responsive to one of my requests for information, do you
commit to provide that information to my office?
Answer. Yes. I will work with the Bureau of Administration and the
Bureau of Legislative Affairs to coordinate making information
available to your office. Please note as well that the Department
publishes its FOIA releases in a virtual reading room at https://
foia.state.gov/.
Question. If the Department is providing information to a Member in
the U.S. House of Representatives that is also responsive to one of my
requests for information, do you commit to also provide that
information to my office?
Answer. I commit to work through the Bureau of Legislative Affairs
to address your requests for information. I understand that the
Department has a long standing practice of addressing requests from
Congress individually.
Question. Please list any outside positions and affiliations you
plan to continue to hold during your term of appointment.
Answer. If confirmed, as I did during my tenure as U.S. Ambassador
to Canada, I intend to remain a member of The Giving Pledge.
Additionally, as I did during my tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Canada, I
remain a Co-Founder of the Craft Academy, located at Morehead State
University. I ended any other outside positions or affiliations prior
to being sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to Canada in 2017.
Question. Have you ever been an officer or director of a company
that has filed for bankruptcy? If so, describe the circumstances and
disposition.
Answer. No.
Question. If you leave this position before the completion of your
full term or the next presidential election, do you commit to meeting
with the committee to discuss the reasons for your departure?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. As a supervisor and Chief of Mission, I take the
responsibility to provide a safe and healthy work environment very
seriously. Further, as a matter of principle, I believe that every
setting should be a safe and healthy environment for people to live,
work, and enjoy themselves. To that end, I have never received any
formal or informal complaints or allegations of sexual harassment,
discrimination, or inappropriate conduct against me in a workplace or
any other setting.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. As a supervisor and Chief of Mission, I take the
responsibility to provide a safe and healthy work environment very
seriously. During my tenure as a supervisor in various organizations,
there have never been concerns or allegations of sexual harassment,
discrimination, or inappropriate conduct made against any employee over
whom I had supervisory authority.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I absolutely agree that any targeting of or
retaliation against career employees based on their perceived political
beliefs, prior work on policy, or affiliation with a previous
administration, is wholly inappropriate and has no place in the federal
government. Based my experiences serving as the U.S. Ambassador to
Canada and preparing for the position of U.S. Permanent Representative
to the United Nations, I can say with conviction that I have the utmost
respect for the career staff at the U.S. Department of State and other
foreign affairs agencies. My team at Mission Canada is incredible, and
it has been one of the greatest honors of my life serving our country
alongside them. Additionally, based on the experience I have had while
preparing for the role of U.S.-U.N. Ambassador, I believe that I will
feel the same about the team at U.S.-U.N. as well as those I have
engaged from Main State.
If confirmed, I am fully committed to ensuring that all employees
under my leadership understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or
other prohibited personnel practices will not be tolerated. I
personally will deliver this message to my team and I will also be sure
to make myself readily available if there are any complaints or
allegations of this nature. Any allegations or complaints will be
investigated and, if the allegations or complaints are credible,
appropriate measures will be taken.
__________
Responses to Follow-Up Questions Submitted to Ambassador Craft by
Senator Menendez
Financial Interests
Question. I previously asked you the following: ``For the record,
please provide a complete list of all Alliance Resource Partners'
interests, including companies, holdings, and industries.'' You
responded by referring me to the SEC filings on Alliance Resource
Partners' website.
Respectfully, citation to a third party internet site is not
sufficient.
For the public record, please provide a complete list of Alliance
Resource Partners' interests, including companies, holdings,
and industries. This may be provided in whatever format is
easiest, but it should include a discernible list of the nature
and extent of the company's interests that is in a form
appropriate for and conducive to publishing as part of the
hearing record.
Answer. Alliance Resources Partners LP is a Delaware limited
partnership listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker
symbol ``ARLP.'' As a publicly traded company, ARLP is required to make
certain public disclosures in its SEC filings. The filings included
detailed listings and descriptions of ARLP's interests, subsidiaries,
holdings, and industries. ARLP's SEC filings for the most recent ten
years can be found on its website: http://www.arlp.com/sec-filings.
The most useful and comprehensive list of ARLP's filings are
located within the company's 2018 10-K, which is filed every year as
required. Part 1, Item 1, entitled ``Business'', lists and explains
ARLP's interests. The relevant portion of that document (entitled
``Attachment A'') is attached here.
Further, a complete list of all ARLP's subsidiary companies are
identified on Exhibit 21.1 to the Company's 2018 10-K. This exhibit
(entitled ``Attachment B'') is attached for the public record. The rest
of ARLP's 10-K can be found on this portion of its website: http://
www.arlp.com/Doc/Index?did=50142656.
[The information referred to above follows:]
Attachment A
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Attachment B
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question. What steps have you taken while serving as Ambassador to
Canada to ensure that you do not participate in any matters that would
implicate any of your or your spouse's financial interests? Please be
detailed.
Answer. I spelled out in my ethics agreement for that position the
various commitments I made to ensure compliance with my obligations
under federal ethics law. I participated in several briefings with
ethics staff, received extensive ethics training, and filed all
required financial disclosures. During my tenure as Ambassador, I have
taken great pains to avoid any conflicts between my official functions
and my financial interests and those of my husband, including related
to his business activities. Additionally, upon taking the position as
Ambassador, I instituted a screening arrangement that listed those
entities that required recusals. Pursuant to that arrangement, key
staff members were provided a copy of the screening arrangement to
assist in identifying matters that I should not participate in. When
questions have arisen regarding my involvement in activities, Embassy
staff or I have consulted with State Department ethics officials.
Question. At your nomination hearing, regarding recusals, you
stated that ``we are still waiting for clarity on the fossil fuels, for
that conversation within our ethics agreement.''
Who is making that determination?
What information is being used to make that determination, and who
is providing that information?
Answer. Prior to my nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations, I completed a nominee financial disclosure report,
which was reviewed closely by State Department ethics officials, who in
turn consulted with the Office of Government Ethics. I understand that
my financial interests and those of my husband, including companies
involved in energy and extractive resources, can give rise to a
conflict of interest. I signed an ethics agreement for this position,
spelling out those commitments I would undertake upon confirmation in
order to comply with federal ethics law. However, I also recognize that
it is impossible at this juncture to identify all of the matters that
will come before me if I am confirmed, and I plan to consult with the
State Department ethics team going forward regarding any potential
concerns about working on matters involving the energy sector.
Question. According to records you provided to the Committee, you
have participated in more than a dozen meetings with executives of
energy and oil companies. Given that you stated in your hearing that
you did not know the full extent of the interests held by your spouse
or Alliance Resource Partners, please provide a detailed explanation of
how you ensured there was no potential or actual conflict of interest
in any of these meetings.
Answer. As noted above, during my tenure as Ambassador, I have
taken great pains to avoid any conflicts between my official functions
and my financial interests and those of my husband, including related
to his business activities, and I instituted a screening arrangement to
help identify matters that I should not participate in. When I had any
question regarding my ethics obligations, I consulted with State
Department ethics officials. Looking to the future, the full extent of
the interests I hold and that my spouse holds is set forth in my
financial disclosure report. I will use my nominee report and
subsequent reports as guides going forward to ensure that I am not
working on matters involving those companies in which I or my spouse
has a financial interest. As in Ottawa, I plan to institute a screening
arrangement to help identify matters that could pose a conflict of
interest. Moreover, to the extent there are ever any questions on this,
I will consult with State Department ethics officials.
Question. Recently-released emails (attached) demonstrate that on
at least one occasion when you corresponded with U.S. government
officials on an environmental issue, your spouse, who is head of the
third-largest coal company in the United States, was also on the email
chain, and replied from his company (arlp.com) email address.
Has your spouse been included on, or participated in, any
communications regarding any U.S. Government matters related to
energy or environmental issues? If so, please provide copies of
any such communications.
Answer. The communication in question relates to an urgent request
I received from the Government of Canada for information on the status
of funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative--a project of
unique value to both the United States and Canada. In order to expedite
an answer to this question, my husband connected me to officials within
the EPA, and on December 8, 2017, I spoke with EPA Administrator Pruitt
to seek that information.
I presume that the EPA chose to copy my husband on its December 8
follow-up email to me because of his help in connecting me with the
Administrator. However, he does not play a role in official U.S.
government business, whether related to energy issues or otherwise.
Question. According to records you provided the Committee, your
spouse appears to have attended several meetings with you and energy
officials from both the U.S. and Canadian governments, as well as with
energy executives from the private sector.
Has your spouse been included on any communications (including
phone calls and emails) or participated in any meetings in
which environment or energy issues were discussed? If so,
please provide copies of any such communications. For any
meetings, please include a list of participants, topics
discussed, purpose of meeting, your spouse's role, and any
cables and notes related to such meetings.
Answer. My husband plays no role whatsoever in official U.S.
government business, whether related to energy issues or otherwise.
Question. Did your spouse participate in any of the following
meetings or phone calls? If so, please include a list of participants,
topics discussed, purpose of meeting, your spouse's role, and any
cables and notes related to such meetings.
Phone call with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on December 8, 2017.
Meeting with the CEOs of Alcoa & Rio Tinto, Premier Couillard, and
Deputy Secretary of Energy Brouillette on February 23, 2018.
Meeting with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on February 23, 2018.
Meeting with the Right Honorable Stephen Harper on July 09, 2018.
Answer. Please see the confidential supplement for this response.
Question. Documents seen by the Committee also indicate that you
may have used a personal email address to correspond with government
officials while you were Ambassador to Canada.
Was this correspondence (attached), with officials from the
Environmental Protection Agency, in your official capacity as
Ambassador?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you ever use a personal email address with a
signature referring to your title of Ambassador? If so, please explain
the purpose of doing so and a description of how you ensured full
compliance with the Federal Records Act.
Have you ever used any personal email account(s) to conduct or
correspond about any official State Department or U.S.
government business? If so, please provide copies of any such
communications, as well as a description of how you ensured
full compliance with the Federal Records Act.
Answer. Yes, there have been instances, particularly early in my
tenure as Ambassador, when use of my personal mobile device was
necessary due to recurring problems with my Departmentprovided mobile
device. In those instances, I made it my habit to copy my State
Department email to ensure appropriate record keeping. I am also aware
of a small number of instances in which my State email address was not
included in such messages. Those instances reflect honest oversight by
me, my staff, or others who initiated email communications.
Question. Committee staff understands that during the week of March
19, 2019, you were scheduled to hold a public diplomacy event at the
Manor Park Elementary School in Ottawa.
Was this event scheduled?
Was this event canceled? If so, what was the reason for cancelling
the event?
Answer. Please see the confidential supplement for this response.
Question. You stated at your confirmation hearing that you always
requested and always received approval for your travel. According to
the records you provided the Committee, it appears there are four trips
you took for which you did not receive approval from the Department to
travel: December 15-17, 2017, to DC and Kentucky; February 14-20, 2018,
to DC and Kentucky; July 20-22, 2018, to Kentucky; and September 03-07,
2018, to Kentucky and DC.
If the Department approved these trips, please provide the approval
cables.
If they were not approved, why did you travel without approval?
It appears you submitted a request for one of these trips but did
not receive an approval. Is this correct? Can you explain?
Answer. Please see the confidential supplement for this response.
Question. According to the records you provided the Committee, it
appears that you extended your travel out of the country approximately
eight separate occasions without approval, including the following
dates: October 31, 2017, in Oklahoma; January 16, 2018, in Oklahoma;
March 12, 2018, in Kentucky; May 14, 2018, in Kentucky; October 1,
2018, in DC; November 29, 2018, in Kentucky; March 4, 2019, in
Kentucky; and March 11, 2019, in Kentucky.
Please explain why you extended your travel on these occasions.
On each occasion, did you inform the Embassy and the Department
that you would extend your travel?
If the Department approved these extensions, please provide the
approval cables.
If they were not approved, why did you extend your travel without
approval?
Answer. Please see the confidential supplement for this response.
Question. According to the records you provided the Committee, it
appears that on approximately ten separate occasions you traveled to
locations not approved by the Department. These include October 29-30,
2017, in Oklahoma, when you were approved to be in Kentucky; December
27-29, 2017, in Oklahoma, when you were approved to be in Kentucky;
March 23-25, 2018, in Kentucky, when you were approved to be in
Georgia; November 28, 2018, in Kentucky, when you were approved to be
returning to post from Oklahoma; and March 3, 2019, in Kentucky, when
you were approved to be returning to post from New York.
Please explain why you traveled to locations not approved by the
Department.
On each occasion, did you inform the Embassy and the Department
that you would be travelling to a non-approved location?
If the Department approved these additional locations, please
provide the approval cables.
If these additional locations were not approved, why did you travel
to additional locations without approval?
Answer. The Department requests that chiefs of mission formally
request permission to be absent from Post for official or personal
reasons. The cables that were provided to you reflect this practice.
Chiefs of mission typically also include background on the purpose of
the travel to include an itinerary so that the Department is aware of a
chiefs of mission's plans but itineraries can be adapted and do not
trigger a formal requirement to re-seek permission to be absent from
Post. Within these guidelines, specific approval for specific locations
is not required.
Question. According to the records you provided the committee, it
appears that many of your trips outside of Canada were not approved by
the Undersecretary for Political Affairs.
Please explain why these trips were not approved by the
Undersecretary.
Answer. Approval or clearance from the Under Secretary for
Political Affairs is only required if there is a ``dual absence'' from
Post, meaning that both the Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission
are absent from Post at the same time. As a result, approval or
clearance from the Under Secretary for Political Affairs would not be
required for travel when the Deputy Chief of Mission was not also
absent from Post. Thus, the trips you reference did not require
approval from the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
Question. According to 3 FAH-1 H-1425.1 Requests for Permission to
Leave Country, absences for more than 26 workdays away from post must
be approved by the Under Secretary for Management. If there was not a
confirmed Under Secretary for Management at the time of these
approvals, we understand that standard procedure would be for the
Acting Under Secretary for Management to handle such approvals. Based
on the records you provided the Committee, it does not appear that the
Under Secretary or Acting Under Secretary for Management approved your
absence. However, the Undersecretary for Political Affairs did approve
some of your trips.
Can you explain?
Answer. Only absences during a calendar year for more than 26
workdays, i.e., during established work hours on established workdays,
require approval from the Under Secretary for Management. Given that
the allotted 26 workdays away from post were not exceeded, approval
from the Under Secretary for Management was not required. Additionally,
as noted in the previous question, approval or clearance from the Under
Secretary for Political Affairs is required for a ``dual absence'' from
Post. This approval was sought and received when required.
Question. According to 3 FAH-1 H-1425.1 Requests for Permission to
Leave Country, ``[i]n certain geographical areas where travel to
neighboring countries does not place the chief of mission, or other
U.S. representative overseas with the rank of Ambassador, beyond easy
rapid communications with the Department or post, the chief of mission,
or other U.S. representative overseas with the rank of Ambassador, may
request standing permission from the appropriate geographic bureau in
the Department to perform such short trips as may be necessary.''
Did you request standing permission from the appropriate geographic
bureau in the Department to perform short trips to the U.S. as
may be necessary? If so, please provide your permission request
and the approval documentation.
Answer. The provision you cite is discretionary (``may request'').
I did not seek this more permissive type of clearance from WHA, but
instead followed the higher, more restrictive standards that I have
documented.
Question. According to the records you provided the committee, you
spent at least 180 partial or full days in Kentucky or Oklahoma since
you became U.S. Ambassador to Canada.
Is this accurate? If so, please explain why spending this number of
partial or full days in Kentucky or Oklahoma was warranted
when, as you stated in your hearing, you ``had finally made our
residence in Ottawa a home.''
Answer. I have greatly enjoyed my tenure as Ambassador to Canada,
including living and working in Ottawa. At the same time, I maintain
residences in Kentucky and Oklahoma and have personal responsibilities
there. Travel to the U.S. included personal milestones such as
monitoring final construction of and moving belongings into a home, my
daughter's wedding, and the birth of a grandchild.
Many times travel to Kentucky and Oklahoma took place on the
margins of official travel to Washington, D.C., when proximity made it
practical to stop in Kentucky or Oklahoma, or on Friday afternoons
after I completed work at the Embassy and planned a personal weekend in
one of my other residences. During the ambassadorial training course,
the candidates were informed that weekends were their personal time,
and I occasionally used my personal time to manage responsibilities in
Kentucky and Oklahoma. This engagement in no way diminished my
commitment to serve as the Ambassador, my effectiveness in that role,
or the fondness I have for my Ottawa home.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Kelly Craft by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. Respect for the dignity and sanctity of all life has been
my guiding principle since childhood, and that principle shapes my
views on human rights and freedoms to this day. I believe firmly that
in the absence of human rights and fundamental freedoms, desperation
and discontent find fertile ground. It is on such ground that conflict
finds traction, and humanitarian crises are born and fueled.
If confirmed, I will take that principle to New York, as I did to
Ottawa, will use the full power of my voice and position to speak on
behalf of those without voice, and expose the world's human rights
abusers to the harsh light of international scrutiny.Additionally, one
of the most important ways to promote democracy is to be an active
participant in our great American experiment. Throughout my life,
starting with my father, I have learned the importance of participating
in elections by supporting candidates in whom you believe, volunteering
on campaigns in your own community, and speaking up against inequities
regardless of political repercussions.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues at the
United Nations? What are the most important steps you expect to take--
if confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy issues at the
U.N.?? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. Violations and abuses of human rights and fundamental
freedoms are serious and require attention. At present, the most
pressing of these include the massive and systematic violations and
abuses occurring in China, where over one million Uighurs, ethnic
Kazaks, Kyrgyz, and other Muslins in Xinjiang have been detained in
camps since April 2017. We remain gravely concerned by the horrors
perpetrated by the Assad regime in Syria, where hundreds of thousands
of Syrian civilians have been detained, and over 120,000 reportedly
remain missing as a result of an ongoing effort to silence calls for
reform and change. In Venezuela, the illegitimate Maduro regime thwarts
the democratic aspirations of millions through violence and repression,
all the while starving its own people. In Burma, atrocities committed
against Rohingya Muslims have recently displaced more than 730,000
Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh alone.
If confirmed, I will rally fellow U.N. member states--as did my
predecessor--to press jointly for changes in state practice and, as we
have recently done with the case of Burma, to support, on a case-by-
case basis, independent UN monitoring and investigation mechanisms to
establish accountability and end impunity. I would also continue to
press U.S. concerns regarding the violations of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, including the right to freedom of religious
belief, peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of expression.
Upholding these fundamental freedoms is a prerequisite for global
development and stability, which, in turn, helps guarantee U.S.
national security.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face at the U.N. in
advancing human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. As we have seen in the unfortunate case of the U.N. Human
Rights Council, it is often too easy for malign actors to become part
of U.N. mechanisms, only to block criticism and thwart consensus on the
need for meaningful engagement and reform. It will be critical, moving
forward, to take a serious look at reforming the functioning of U.N.
mechanisms and, if confirmed, I would be honored to lead these efforts
on behalf of the United States.
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor, and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups?
Answer. Yes. I, too, believe that a diverse workforce is key to
ensuring a productive and creative team. If confirmed, this is exactly
the type of team I will aim to foster. To that end, I will endeavor to
reflect the diversity of our great nation by striving to promote equal
opportunity for our officers, including women and those from
historically marginalized groups, if confirmed as Permanent
Representative to the United Nations.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in your staff are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I will lead by example by fostering a culture
of acceptance and inclusivity that ultimately reflects a whole-of-
mission commitment to diversity and inclusion. To achieve a diverse and
inclusive workforce I will strive to implement appropriate procedures
for support and mentoring of staff, fully comply with federal non-
discrimination laws and regulations in our throughout the entirety of
the Mission, and clearly communicate the importance of complying with
established protocols and procedures while also celebrating diversity
and differences amongst the team.
Question. Do you agree that principled engagement with the U.N. is
beneficial to our country on the whole?
Answer. Yes, I absolutely agree that principled engagement with the
U.N. is beneficial to the United States and the American people.
Question. How would you build on former Ambassador Haley's
successes at the U.N., and what would you do differently in the role,
if confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to building upon Ambassador
Haley's record of success. In particular, I believe it is crucially
important for the United States to continue demanding accountability
and performance by U.N. peacekeeping missions. Ambassador Haley's
efforts in this regard resulted in cost savings, improved mission
mandates, and sustained attention to unacceptable conduct issues.
Question. How do you leverage U.S. commitments to achieving these
Sustainable Development Goals with recent trends in U.S. funding for
the U.N.?
Answer. The 2030 Agenda is a voluntary framework for global
development that has served as a guide for the U.N. development system
in its support to Member States. If confirmed, I would work towards
ensuring that our resources are used effectively and efficiently and
that our contributions towards the U.N. development system continue to
drive development outcomes and diminish the need for foreign assistance
in the long run. The United States remains the largest single provider
of Official Development Assistance. If confirmed, I would work with
partners across the U.N. system to showcase U.S. global leadership
through our policies, partnership, innovations, and calls to action.
Question. If confirmed, do you pledge to encourage robust U.S.
funding to help advance these goals?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work towards ensuring that our
resources are used effectively and efficiently and that our
contributions towards the U.N. development system continue to drive
development outcomes and diminish the need for foreign assistance in
the long run. The 2030 Agenda calls for shared responsibility and the
mobilization and effective use of domestic resources and strong
partnerships with the private sector. I would continue to engage with
both the international community and the private sector to address both
the burdens and opportunities inherent in tackling global development
challenges.
Question. As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., what will be your
commitment to consulting with and engaging in dialogue with Congress
and civil society on critical issues, especially on the SDGs and human
rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to benefitting from the wisdom
and experience available from Members of Congress and civil society,
and will look for frequent opportunities to engage with the widest
range of available expertise.
Question. Now that we've given up our seat at the table, what is
your strategy for ensuring that we advance U.S. priorities and
initiatives at the U.N.?
Answer. If confirmed, I will firmly and vocally advance U.S.
priorities and initiatives at the United Nations, in the Security
Council and elsewhere. I do not believe that we have given up our seat,
and will work hard to demonstrate continued U.S. leadership whenever
and wherever possible.
Question. In your view, has the U.S. been more effective at pushing
back against anti-Israel bias since leaving the Human Rights Council?
Answer. The United States has been consistent over many years in
prioritizing effective efforts to push back against anti-Israel bias
around the world, including at the Human Rights Council (HRC) in
Geneva, and at the U.N. headquarters in New York. The U.S. withdrawal
from the HRC in 2018 did not change that. The myriad problems with the
HRC have been well documented, including its unconscionable bias
against Israel. Since its creation, the Council has adopted more
resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world
combined. Ambassador Haley spent more than a year trying to reform the
HRC. Her team met with more than 125 member states to press vigorously
for HRC reform. The U.S. withdrew from the HRC as promised after the
numerous opponents of HRC reform ensconced on the Council, including
some of the worst sources of anti-Israel rhetoric, blocked the reforms.
Nevertheless, the U.S. withdrawal from the HRC was not a retreat from
our human rights commitments, from Israel, or from combating anti-
Israel bias. U.S. diplomats remain in Geneva pushing back daily against
anti-Israel bias at every opportunity, and we have redoubled our
efforts to do so in New York as well. As I stated in my testimony, the
United States will never accept such bias, and if confirmed I commit to
seizing every opportunity to shine a light on this conduct, call it
what it is, and demand that these outrageous practices finally come to
an end. It is a core U.S. priority to counter anti-Israel bias and
ensure that Israel, as with any other member state, is treated fairly
at the U.N.
Question. What is your strategy for being an effective advocate for
U.S. human rights priorities and to support Israel from outside the
Council?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support Israel and pursue
a robust human rights agenda at the United Nations General Assembly's
Third Committee as well as other U.N. bodies, as the United States did
during the other periods when we were not a Human Rights Council
member.
We will also redouble our efforts to bring a balanced approach to
human rights issues to the Security Council, as we did during our last
presidency when we held the first ever session on the linkage between
human rights abuses and threats to international peace and security.
In addition to bilateral engagement on human rights, we will
continue to work to advance human rights in regional forums, like the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization
of American States, and other bodies. Similarly, we will continue to
consult closely with our allies on taking actions not only to address
the most egregious country situations, but also to challenge the anti-
Israeli bias that has infected the U.N. system.
Question. Following the U.S.' withdrawal from the Human Rights
Council, states, especially China, have rushed in to fill the vacuum.
It has already pushed through resolutions endorsing its vision of a
human rights paradigm in which States refrain from criticizing one
another. Now it is working to dissuade Council members from pursuing a
resolution criticizing its persecution of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang.
What is your approach to countering China's actions at the Human Rights
Council?
Answer. Following the U.S. principled withdrawal from the Human
Rights Council (HRC) in June 2018, the United States no longer
participates in HRC activities. This includes working, publicly or
privately, to influence the language or direction of resolutions put
before the HRC.
However, the United States has not abandoned advocacy for global
human rights. On China's persecution of Uighurs and other ethnic and
religious minorities in Xinjiang, the United States and partner
countries in Geneva hosted an event on this issue in March of this
year. The widely attended event featured testimony from experts and a
survivor that highlighted the magnitude and severity of the crisis. The
State Department and the U.S. Mission to the U.N. have also been
active, both publicly and privately in advocating for U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet to visit Xinjiang with
unrestricted access.
The United States is, and will remain, the strongest advocate for
the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
If confirmed, I will continue in the path trodden by my esteemed
predecessors, who understood how critical human rights protections are
to the maintenance of global peace and security.
Question. If confirmed, what is your strategy to more effectively
engage with smaller nations whose votes are just as important on many
issues before the U.N.?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize outreach to smaller nations
who may not have frequent opportunity to interact with the U.S.
Permanent Representative. Relationship-building will be a continuous
objective, and while that doesn't guarantee support in U.N. venues, it
does help ensure that American views and perspectives are known,
respected, and understood.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. should play a leadership
role in addressing climate change?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the United
States advances and protects U.S. economic and environmental interests,
including by participating in ongoing international climate change
negotiations to ensure a level playing field for the United States.
Question. Do you have a specific strategy to engage smaller island
nations facing the impacts of climate change? The Marshall Islands in
particular?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage proactively with the small
island states to learn more about the particular challenges they face
as a result of the changing climate.
Question. The U.N. is in financial crisis right now and a big
reason is connected to U.S. shortfalls. In December, all Member States
agreed at the U.N. to new peacekeeping rates. For the U.S., the new
peacekeeping rate dropped to 27.8% The U.S. voted in support of these
rates and the U.S. mission to the U.N. even put out a fact-sheet
touting how we benefit from them. Over the past 25 years, Congress has
lifted the cap many times. Will you pledge to work with Congress on
this issue so we can pay at the rate that the US agreed to just a few
months ago?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to working with Congress on
the issue of funding for U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Question. If confirmed, how will you use the U.S.'s Security
Council seat to support continued enforcement of sanctions to prevent
international transfers of arms that could be used in the commission of
war crimes, genocide, or terrorist attacks?
Answer. Maintaining Security Council solidarity on these issues
will be a key priority if I am confirmed. Inhibiting the flow of
weapons to terrorists and rogue regimes should be a commitment around
which the word can rally, and I will be attentive to any potential
relaxation within the Council.
Question. If confirmed, how will you use the U.S.'s Security
Council seat to support continued enforcement of North Korea sanctions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to use the U.S. seat on the
Security Council to hold the DPRK accountable for its continued
violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions through its unlawful
nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and to press for the full
implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions worldwide until the
final, fully verified denuclearization of the DPRK, as committed to by
Chairman Kim in Singapore. I will also work closely with my State
Department colleagues to ensure strong bilateral engagement with
countries to point out lapses in implementation of the sanctions, and
press for strong and continued sanctions enforcement.
Question. Do you support the work of the U.N. Panel of Experts on
North Korea, who are tasked with assessing global compliance with these
measures, investigating cases of sanctions busting, and providing
information to help strengthen enforcement?
Answer. We support the work of the U.N. Panel of Experts on the
implementation of U.N. sanctions on the DPRK, as its public reporting
helps governments around the world to stay informed and implement
sanctions imposed on North Korea. The Panel of Experts' analyses expose
ongoing violations of the sanctions regime, emphasize the obligation of
all member states to implement U.N. sanctions, and demonstrate the need
for continued vigilance against entities involved in DPRK sanctions-
evasion activity. The United States takes the Panel of Experts'
allegations of U.N. sanctions violations seriously, and engages with
countries around the world to pressure the DPRK and ensure global
implementation of U.N. Security Council obligations.
Question. Will you be an advocate for adequate funding and access
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in North Korea in the
event that a diplomatic agreement is reached on that country's nuclear
program?
Answer. The United States strongly supports the vital work of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including its efforts to
plan and prepare for a resumption of safeguards and verification
activities in North Korea if called upon to do so. While matters
related directly to IAEA funding are under the primary purview of
Ambassador Jackie Wolcott, who heads the U.S. Mission to the
International Organizations in Vienna (UNVIE), if confirmed, I will
support Ambassador Wolcott and work to ensure that the IAEA has the
resources it needs to carry out its mandate.
Question. What concrete measures will you take to protect those
individuals who are on the frontlines of defending human rights in
Guatemala?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my Department of State
colleagues to advance the protection of human rights defenders in
Guatemala, and elsewhere in the world, and hold human rights abusers to
account. We will continue to promote the uses of accountability
mechanisms such as the Global Magnitsky Act and section 7031(c) of the
2018 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriation Act, against the perpetrators of abuses. We will also
continue speaking out to condemn the wave of violence against embattled
human rights defenders and urge the Guatemalan government to prioritize
the defense of human rights in the country.
Question. This [in reference to the previous question which asked,
``What concrete measures will you take to protect those individuals who
are on the frontlines of defending human rights in Guatemala?''] is
just one example of attacks unfolding globally against human rights
defenders. If confirmed, do you commit to vocalize this broader issue
both privately and publically?
Answer. Protecting and supporting human rights defenders (HRDs) is
a key priority of U.S. foreign policy. The United States supports HRDs
as they work to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, advocate
for government transparency and accountability, promote rule of law,
and expose corruption. HRDs, as well as their families, friends, and
associates, are often harassed, detained, interrogated, imprisoned,
tortured, and killed for doing the work of promoting accountability and
protecting human rights. If confirmed, I will commit to supporting the
efforts of HRDs to promote and defend human rights and fundamental
freedoms without undue restriction and free from reprisals against them
or their families.
Question. What other specific actions do you pledge to take to help
protect human rights defenders around the globe?
Answer. The United States works to strengthen institutional
frameworks for the promotion of human rights, protection systems for
human rights defenders (HRDs), rule of law, and communications and
collaboration between governments and civil society. At the U.N., the
United States strongly supports resolutions that address the freedoms
of expression and association and the right to peaceful assembly, as
well as a biennial resolution on the situation of HRDs. The United
States also uses foreign assistance, visa restrictions, and
multilateral and bilateral engagement to promote accountability and
support partners in implementing reforms. The United States partners
with other donor governments to provide emergency financial assistance
to embattled civil society around the world, with a goal of enabling
these individuals and groups to return to their vital work of
advocating for the advancement of human rights and fundamental freedoms
in their countries. If confirmed, I will commit to supporting the
efforts of HRDs to promote and defend human rights and fundamental
freedoms without undue restriction and free from reprisals against them
or their families.
Question. Do you believe that the crimes in Burma amount to crimes
against humanity or genocide?
Answer. I am deeply concerned about and appalled by the Burmese
military's ethnic cleansing of Rohingya and the ongoing humanitarian
crisis, as well as the military's egregious human rights abuses
throughout Burma. The process for deciding whether and when to make a
determination that certain acts may amount to genocide, crimes against
humanity, or ethnic cleansing, has historically been reserved within
the Executive Branch to the Secretary of State. If confirmed, I will
seek to advise the Secretary on such a determination as it fits into
the Department's overarching objectives of easing the humanitarian
crisis, seeking accountability for those that committed atrocities,
deterring future such atrocities, and addressing root causes of
violence.
Question. Will you pledge to support international actions that
seek to address the ongoing genocide in Burma in your position?
Answer. If confirmed, I would use my position to work with like-
minded countries and regional partners to press the government of Burma
to grant unhindered humanitarian and media access to Rakhine State and
areas experiencing violence, pursue accountability for those
responsible, and implement reforms that will prevent the recurrence of
atrocities and other human rights violations and abuses. I would also
continue to support established U.N. mechanisms, including the
International Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Myanmar, and the U.N. Special Envoy to Myanmar. The
United States has played a key role in creating and funding these
mechanisms and has supported their efforts to seek justice for victims.
Question. In what ways will you engage on the Security Council to
promote this issue?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support and lead efforts at the
Security Council that advance the Department's overarching objectives
of easing the humanitarian crisis, seeking accountability for those
that committed atrocities, deterring future such atrocities, and
addressing root causes of violence. Specifically, I would encourage
other donors to give generously to humanitarian efforts; continue the
United States' leadership on multilateral accountability efforts; and
press the government of Burma to undertake overdue reforms in Rakhine
State to enable the voluntary return of Rohingya and prevent future
crises.
Question. If confirmed, how do you propose to use your position to
resolve the Rohingya refugee crisis?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the Department's efforts to
engage, influence and lead actions of the international community,
including with like-minded states, non-traditional partners, and
international organizations, to resolve the Rohingya crisis and advance
U.S. interests and values in Burma. I will seek to support efforts and
mechanisms at the United Nations to foster accountability for human
rights abuses and violations in Rakhine State and other areas of Burma.
These include the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the
U.N. Special Envoy to Myanmar and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the
human rights situation in Myanmar.
Question. What measures will you employ to ensure that the
Government of Bangladesh and Burmese government are consulting with
Rohingya refugees regarding their futures?
Answer. Thanks to Congress's leadership and generosity, the United
States is the leading contributor of humanitarian assistance in
response to the Rohingya crisis, having provided nearly $542 million
since the escalation of violence in August 2017. If confirmed, I would
work to ensure that any repatriation of Rohingya is voluntary, safe,
dignified, and sustainable. Further, I would use forums at the United
Nations to highlight the ongoing plight of Rohingya refugees, the
generosity of Bangladesh in hosting more than one million refugees, and
the urgent need for Burma to address the root causes of the crisis to
create the conditions that would allow for voluntary, safe, dignified,
and sustainable returns.
Question. A High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic
Growth called by the U.N. Secretary-General in 2016 concluded that
investments in health have a nine-fold return and accounted for about
one quarter of economic growth between 2000 and 2011 in low- and
middleincome countries, having an outsized impact for women, who make
up about 70% of the health and social workforce worldwide.
Simultaneously, the world faces a projected shortfall of 18 million
health workers by 2030, which threatens to derail the tremendous
progress the United States has spearheaded in saving lives around the
world and also leaves us more vulnerable to infectious disease threats
like Ebola. How will you prioritize U.S. leadership at the U.N. to help
spur the investments needed in health employment to drive global
economic growth and women's economic empowerment while simultaneously
tackling our greatest global health challenges?
Answer. The United States welcomed the Report of the High-Level
Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth; we continue to
support its important recommendations regarding measures to address the
global shortfall of trained health workers. The Commission's work has
helped guide action that advances employment and economic growth in
low- and middle-income countries. The U.N. action has been led by the
World Health Organization.
Answer. WHO's Global Health Workforce Network is a key mechanism to
implement the Commission's recommendations through WHO's five-year
action plan. We support these efforts to help countries grow their
health workforce and share data on workforce issues for decision
making.
Question. Over the last two years, the United States has staked out
positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights during
negotiations on important resolutions and outcome documents that have
alienated our allies. The most egregious example was during the
Security Council resolution on Sexual Violence in Conflict that the
United States almost vetoed until two last-minute changes. The first
was removal of the mechanism that would have allowed women who had been
victims of sexual violence in conflict access to health care and other
forms of redress. The second was removal of the words "sexual and
reproductive health and rights." As someone that has worked closely
with our Canadian allies the past two years, you understand the time
and commitment it takes to get consensus on diplomatic agreements. Can
you commit to this committee that you will work closely with our allies
to ensure these important resolutions and outcome documents will be
given the appropriate attention and that you will protect the rights of
women and girls around the world?
Answer. The United States is committed to promoting the rights and
well-being of women. In negotiating U.N. documents, U.S. delegation
members often include senior officials and subject matter experts who
seek to work constructively with other Member States toward achieving
consensus.
The administration has concerns about terminology related to sexual
and reproductive health that do not enjoy international consensus. The
use of these phrases by U.N. agencies and U.N. affiliates often implies
abortion. The administration will do all it can do to protect and
respect the sanctity of life around the globe.
In its advocacy for women, the administration continues to hold to
the commitments laid out in the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women's
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, as well as in the 1994
International Conference on Population and Development'sProgram of
Action. The United States moreover remains the largest bilateral donor
of women's health and family planning assistance worldwide.
Question. UNFPA has long counted on U.S. generosity and guidance in
expanding its programs. From a maternal health clinic in the Za'atari
refugee camp in Jordan that delivered 10,000 babies without a single
maternal death, to leading the U.N. system's efforts to end child
marriage, U.S. bilateral efforts are amplified by UNFPA, and the other
way around. UNFPA has been on the forefront of working with the private
sector to deliver on a world that ends obstetric fistulas and providing
access to contraceptives for any woman who desires them. Will you
commit to actually going to see the work of UNFPA as Ambassador to the
U.N. and giving this committee a real answer as to why the U.S. has
defunded a program that does not provide access to abortion and
continues to call out forced abortions and female infanticide as human
rights abuses?
Answer. As we discussed in during our visit in your office, I am
wholly committed to maternal and child health programs and
organizations across the globe. If confirmed, I will look into the
questions you posed and welcome further discussion.
Question. A May 2019 report of the Safeguarding Health in Conflict
Coalition documents at least 973 attacks on health workers, health
facilities, health transports, and patients in 23 countries in conflict
around the world in 2018--from the DRC to Yemen, Syria, to the
Philippines. At least 167 health workers died and at least 710 were
injured. This marks an increase in the number of documented attacks
compared to 2017, when the Coalition reported 701 such attacks. What is
the role of the United States in ensuring compliance of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 2286 passed in May 2016 to document and conduct
investigations of attacks on health workers and facilities?
Answer. The United States has repeatedly urged member states to
renew their commitment to the implementation of U.N. Security Council
resolution 2286, which the Security Council passed unanimously in 2016.
The Security Council demanded that the international community mobilize
in an effort to prevent attacks on health services in armed conflict
and hold those responsible for such attacks accountable. Three years
later, however, a staggering number of attacks on health facilities,
health workers, ambulances, and patients continue to take place across
the globe. Impunity for such violations and abuses must come to an end.
The United States strongly supports efforts to promote access to
humanitarian relief, including medical care, for civilians in
situations of armed conflict. If confirmed, I will work with other
members of the U.N. Security Council to ensure the full implementation
of resolution 2286.
Question. What more can and should be done to ensure that health
workers and the civilians they serve are protected in humanitarian
emergencies?
Answer. The United States is a leader in promoting the safety and
security of humanitarian personnel as well as the protection of U.N.
personnel. Last year we co-sponsored a General Assembly resolution on
this matter, which we felt sent a message of concern and solidarity to
the many courageous people who risk their lives to deliver humanitarian
assistance to the millions of people across the world who suffer as a
result of natural disasters and armed conflict, and other crises.
Humanitarian health workers put their own lives in jeopardy to save the
lives. The U.S. acknowledges that there have been far too many
casualties and deaths among humanitarians who were working to reach
people in need, in particular in Syria, Afghanistan, and South Sudan.
To underline our message, the U.S. routinely calls on parties to
armed conflict to comply with their obligations under international
humanitarian law, and to take every action to provide unhindered access
to humanitarian organizations and to respect their independence and
neutrality. Humanitarian workers cannot be perceived as affiliated with
any side of the political divide, as such perceptions present risks to
workers, their beneficiaries, and life-saving programs. Respecting
humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence
are essential for the effectiveness of humanitarian aid, as well as for
workers' personal security.
Question. International Human Rights NGOs play a critical role in
highlighting abuses and pressing for accountability in many forums
including the United Nations. Will you commit to working closely with
human rights and humanitarian civil society organizations and to
briefing the NGO Working Group on the Security Council (as almost all
your predecessors have done?)
Answer. The United States strongly supports the participation of
civil society organizations in the work of the U.N. and giving them a
voice in the U.N. system. As a member of the U.N. Committee on Non-
Governmental Organizations, the United States works to ensure that NGOs
that meet the applicable criteria gain U.N. accreditation to
participate in U.N. fora and events and contribute to the U.N.'s work.
Because of the membership and increasing politicization of the
committee, obtaining U.N. accreditation has been particularly difficult
for human rights and humanitarian organizations. The practice of some
committee members of blocking certain organizations based on their
political views restricts which NGOs obtain U.N. accreditation.
Moreover, some U.N. member states block the participation of human
rights and humanitarian organizations in highlevel U.N. meetings and
summits by establishing a "no objection" procedure. If confirmed, I
will support efforts to increase the participation of civil society,
including human rights and humanitarian organizations, in the U.N.'s
work and to eliminate the abusive "no objection" procedure.
Additionally, the U.S. Mission to the U.N. has welcomed engagement with
NGOs, including through the NGO Working Group on the Security Council,
and I would look forward to continuing that productive relationship if
confirmed.
Question. Armed conflict, political instability, climate change,
and other factors have led to an unprecedented growth in global
humanitarian needs. U.N. agencies like the World Food Program (WFP),
U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR), U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), and U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA) are leading the global response, providing
food, shelter, medical care, education, maternal health care, and other
forms of life-sustaining aid to tens of millions of people around the
world. The U.S. helped create these agencies, and has long been the
largest donor to U.N. humanitarian appeals. Do you believe that it is
important for the U.S. to continue to work with the U.N. to address
humanitarian crises around the world?
Answer. I understand that the United States continues to be the
single largest donor of humanitarian assistance, having provided more
than $8 billion in FY 2018, and the preponderance of our humanitarian
assistance is provided through multilateral channels--most of them U.N.
agencies. With the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees having reported
this week that displacement has doubled in just the past 20 years, U.S.
policy goals for humanitarian assistance increase in importance. These
go beyond saving lives and easing suffering through efficient and
effective humanitarian assistance, to include increasing burden-
sharing, driving reforms in the humanitarian system, and funding more
activities and programs that demonstrate coherence between relief and
development. The U.N. is a major focus of these efforts.
Question. Due to the ever-increasing scale of needs in recent
years-brought on by conflict in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, South Sudan, DR
Congo, Myanmar, and Afghanistan, among other places-UN humanitarian
appeals are chronically underfunded. If confirmed, will you press for
the U.S. to continue to provide robust financial support to the work of
these activities, and will you push other countries to do the same?
Answer. Yes, I will. I understand that the United States continues
to be the single largest donor of humanitarian assistance, having
provided more than $8 billion in FY 2018. With the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees having reported this week that displacement
has doubled in just the past 20 years, U.S. policy goals for
humanitarian assistance increase in importance. These go beyond saving
lives and easing suffering through efficient and effective humanitarian
assistance, to include increasing burden-sharing, driving reforms in
the humanitarian system, and funding more activities and programs that
demonstrate coherence between relief and development.
Question. On December 19, 2018, the U.N. General Assembly voted to
endorse the Global Compact on Migration (GCM). The U.S. was one of the
few countries that voted against. The GCM paves the way for an ordered
international response to migration and would serve as a template to
ensure the rights and dignity of migrants around the world. Do you
support U.S. opposition to the GCM?
Answer. I understand that the United States does not support the
Global Compact on Migration (GCM) or the process that led to it because
they included goals and objectives inconsistent and incompatible with
U.S. law, policy, and the interests of the American people. As the U.S.
national statement on the GCM noted, "While the United States honors
the contributions of the many immigrants who helped build our nation,
we cannot support a `Compact' or process that imposes or has the
potential to impose international guidelines, standards, expectations,
or commitments that might constrain our ability to make decisions in
the best interests of our nation and citizens." Further, I understand
there is lack of consensus among U.N. member states regarding the GCM.
When it came up for endorsement at the U.N. General Assembly on
December 19, 2018, the United States, the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Israel, and Poland voted against it, another 12 other countries
abstained, and 24 did not vote.
Question. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) is an important United Nations agency in the
mainstreaming of human rights throughout the U.N. system, and is tasked
with promoting and protecting human rights in all U.N. member states.
The U.N. Special Procedures system plays a vital role in protecting
human rights via the work of Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts
and Working Groups, among other such mechanisms. On January 4, the
Guardian reported that the U.S. Department of State has quietly ended
its cooperation with these experts. Will you commit to ensuring that
the U.S. delegation collaborates and supports the work of the OHCHR and
that of special procedures mandate holders, including in cases when
they are investigating potential human rights violations in the United
States?
Answer. We continue to cooperate with U.N. special procedures.
Given the broad range of mandates and requests, we prioritize our
interactions to ensure that engagement maximizes the promotion of U.S.
objectives. In February, the Department met twice with the
SpecialRapporteur for extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions,
at her request, to discuss the Global Magnitsky sanctions program and
her inquiry into the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Over the past several
months, Department officials and our Missions in New York and Geneva
have also met with numerous mandate holders, including: the Independent
Expert on the Central African Republic; the Special Rapporteurs on
Burma as well as Freedom of Religion or Belief, among others.
Question. All 193 U.N. member states are subject to a Universal
Periodic Review (UPR) of their human rights record once every 4.5 years
by the U.N. Human Rights Council. This presents a valuable opportunity
to hold all member states accountable for their human rights track
record. Will you champion continued participation in this process?
Answer. Yes. The UPR process is a valuable tool: each of the 193
U.N. member states reviewed has the opportunity to state actions taken
to improve the human rights situations in their countries, and to
provide an assessment of the human rights situation in other countries.
We take this process seriously, as we view it as a powerful means to
shine a spotlight on human rights violations and abuses, recommend
concrete actions to prevent such violations and abuses, and to follow
up on implementation of recommendations.
Question. The U.S. is coming up for its third review under the UPR
in April/May 2020 [the 36th session of the UPR working Group]. Will you
commit to supporting U.S. cooperation with the review?
Answer. Yes. The United States is rightfully proud of its human
rights record. It has served and will continue to serve as a model for
other nations. Our previous reports have discussed that record,
including areas of strength, such our record on core freedoms of
speech, association and belief. We have also previously addressed a
range of challenges, including issues of discrimination and topics
related to civil liberties in the context of national security. The
U.S. UPR report is just one element of a broad U.S. effort to engage
broadly, substantively, and constructively on human rights issues.
Question. The U.S. has been a leader and important voice at the
U.N. in support of the work of human rights defenders (HRDs) worldwide,
publicly calling out states that violate their rights, including in the
context of counter-terrorism. Currently we are witnessing increasing
physical and legislative attacks on HRDs across the world--they are
frequently detained, tortured and even killed because of their work. If
confirmed, will you commit to increasing political support given by the
U.S. Mission to HRDs, using opportunities at the U.N. to publicly
denounce states for violations whenever and wherever they occur, and
ensuring that HRDs have access themselves to U.N. mechanisms?
Answer. The United States supports the U.N. Declaration on the
Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society
to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, more commonly called "The Declaration on Human
Rights Defenders." To do their vital work, human rights defenders
(HRDs) must be able to exercise their fundamental freedoms of
expression, movement, and association, and their right to peaceful
assembly. Their work is a critical safeguard against threats from
repressive powers, corrupt actors, autocratic regimes, and backsliding
democracies. An open, empowered, and fully functioning civil society,
inclusive of all types of HRDs, is critical to healthy democracies.
Where their ability to work freely is weakened, human rights abuses and
violations, discrimination, and corruption flourish. If confirmed, I
will commit to supporting the efforts of HRDs to promote and defend
human rights and fundamental freedoms without undue restriction and
free from reprisals against them or their families.
Question. As Yemen is now the biggest humanitarian disaster in the
world, a direct result of the three-year long Saudi and UAE coalition-
led war, it is imperative that the Security Council take immediate
action to not only improve the situation on the ground but make sure
that human rights violators are held to account. Resolution 2451 was
adopted by the Council at the end of last year, but it did not mention
accountability. If confirmed, will you push for a follow-up resolution
that calls on those who committed gross human rights violations to be
held to account?
Answer. The United States encourages all parties to the conflict to
adhere to international human rights law, and supports efforts to
ensure that violators are held accountable, including by allowing media
and NGOs access to Yemen to report on and document allegations of human
rights abuses. The Department of State and USUN continue to support the
efforts of U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths to mediate
between the parties to reach a political settlement that will end the
conflict and dire humanitarian crisis. In December, the United States
shaped the language of and voted in favor of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 2451 to endorse the agreements the parties reached in Sweden
to build momentum for their implementation. The timing and content of
follow-on Resolutions will be driven by the U.N. Special Envoy, and the
United Kingdom, which is the penholder for Yemen in the Council. If
confirmed, I will continue to support language that facilitates and
supports the Special Envoy's efforts on the U.N.-led political track to
end the conflict.
Question. The conflict raging in Libya has shown blunt disrespect
of International Humanitarian Law, with actions by parties that could
amount to war crimes under international law. Would you commit to
promoting the protection of the human rights of the civilian population
affected by the current conflict even if that would mean criticizing
actions by parties to which the President has recently expressed
support?
Answer. The ongoing fighting in Tripoli has exacerbated an already
troubling situation for human rights in Libya. A ceasefire in Tripoli
and a return to U.N. political mediation are necessary to address the
deteriorating humanitarian situation, support human rights, and build
democratic institutions. If confirmed, I will stand against impunity,
and support efforts to bring to justice those responsible for
atrocities in Libya. Accountability not only provides justice for
victims of past violations and abuses, but also signals that future
violations and abuses will not be tolerated.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Kelly Craft by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Thank you for your commitment to look into the evidence
used to underpin the determination against the U.N. Population Fund
(UNFPA) under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment; I look forward to hearing more
about the results of your examination. I also appreciate your
commitment to meet with the Executive Director of UNFPA. Will you
further commit to discussing with UNFPA leadership the ways in which
UNFPA can change its programming in order to avoid another negative and
devastating Kemp-Kasten determination? Will you also commit to meet
with the Executive Director of U.N. Women expeditiously upon your
arrival at the United Nations, should you be confirmed?
Answer. I understand your deep concerns related to these issues and
admire your leadership with regard to promoting women, girls, and
families. If confirmed, I will look into the questions you posed
regarding UNFPA. I would also welcome the opportunity to meet with the
Executive Director of U.N. Women, if confirmed.
Question. On March 30, 2017, the State Department made a negative
Kemp-Kasten determination against UNFPA because UNFPA ``continues to
partner with the [National Health and Family Planning Commission] on
family planning.'' Unfortunately, UNFPA's work in conflict areas and
places of instability has become more critical since the determination.
UNFPA programs provide vital health services and protection services.
If confirmed, will you look into ways that the U.S. government can work
with UNFPA to continue to provide these services, even if the Kemp-
Kasten determination is sustained?
Answer. As we discussed in during our visit in your office, I am
wholly committed to maternal and child health programs and
organizations across the globe. If confirmed, I will look into the
question you posed and welcome further discussion.
Question. Do you believe that climate change is a real and present
threat to our health, environment, economy, and way of life?
Answer. I believe that climate change needs to be addressed, as it
does pose very real risks for our planet and all its living creatures.
Question. On March 5, 2019, 58 intelligence leaders, combatant
commanders and national security officials as well as former
secretaries of Defense and State who served in Republican and
Democratic administrations wrote a letter to President Trump concerning
national security threats related to climate change. Do you agree with
these military leaders and former officials that climate change is a
threat to the national security of the United States?
Answer. I am aware of this letter, including that it was signed by
former intelligence leaders, combatant commanders, and national
security officials. I agree with them that climate change poses very
real risks and must be addressed.
Question. Do you believe the United States should be working with
the global community to address the economic, environmental and health
impacts of climate change?
Answer. I believe that there are numerous international venues
where climate-related issues can and should be discussed. If confirmed,
I look forward to participating in some of these discussions, where I
will underscore American ingenuity and innovation as important tools to
mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Question. During your verbal testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on June 19, 2019, you said that if confirmed, you
would be an advocate in addressing climate change. Please describe how,
if confirmed as the United States Representative to the United Nations,
you would advocate for effective climate change action.
Answer. If confirmed, I will use important U.N. venues, including
the Security Council, to highlight American leadership on climate-
related issues, underscoring a balanced approach that unlocks research
and innovation while safeguarding the American economy. I believe this
model offers the best hope for tackling climate change and its related
challenges.
Question. In 1992, the United States ratified the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international
treaty with a global objective to ``stabilize greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.'' In
2015, members of the UNFCCC, including the United States, adopted by
consensus the Paris Agreement, aimed at limiting global warming to less
than two degrees Celsius, and pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5
degrees Celsius. On April 22, 2016, the United States became a
signatory to the Paris Agreement, and accepted it by executive order on
September 3, 2016. Do you support the United States' involvement in the
Paris Agreement? If not, how do you suggest the United States
contribute to efforts to reduce global emissions contributing to
climate change?
Answer. I agree with the President, who examined the Paris climate
agreement and determined that it was a bad deal for the United States.
While the U.S. made a significant and serious commitment in that
agreement, others, including China and India did not make similarly
stringent commitments. The United States does not need to be a part of
such an agreement to show real leadership on climate change, and if
confirmed I will focus the U.N.'s attention on the power of American
ingenuity and innovation to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Question. On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced his intention
to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. In accordance
with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective
withdrawal date by the United States is November 4, 2020. The United
States is still obligated to maintain certain commitments under the
UNFCCC, such as continuing to report its emissions to the U.N. If
confirmed, will you ensure that the United States continues to meet its
obligations under the Paris Agreement?
Answer. The President has made it clear that the United States will
withdraw from the Paris Agreement, absent better terms for the United
States. It is my understanding that while the United States remains a
Party to the UNFCCC, the United States is not taking on burdens or
financial pledges in support specific to the Paris Agreement.
Question. During his June 2, 2017, President Trump also announced
his intention to negotiate our way back into Paris or ``negotiate a new
deal.'' If confirmed, would you support efforts to negotiate an
agreement for the United States to remain in the Paris accords?
Answer. As the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, I have not been engaged
in internal U.S. deliberations on this matter, so I do not have further
information to share on this subject at this time. Irrespective of our
position on the Paris Agreement, the United States will continue to be
a world leader in providing affordable, abundant, and secure energy to
our citizens, while protecting the environment and reducing emissions
through job-creating innovation.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Kelly Craft by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. What can and should the United States do to lead an
international response to the outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic
Republic of Congo? What role should the United Nations and MONUSCO play
in that response?
Answer. The U.S. is a leading donor and we are providing extensive
technical support to responders in the DRC and neighboring countries. I
firmly commit to continue our active engagement with our international
partners to ensure sufficient financial resources are dedicated to the
crisis, and also to ensure sufficient Ebola vaccine supply is available
if the outbreak escalates. U.N. system-wide involvement is critical to
address the complex humanitarian crisis in Ebola-affected areas of the
DRC. MONUSCO secures routes for humanitarian access, provides escorts
and some protection for humanitarian personnel, and operates security
evaluation centers to assess threats along with a Tactical Operations
Center to manage responses to violence.
Question. Does the United States Government still support a two
state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you personally
support Israeli annexation of the West Bank?
Answer. This administration continues to work towards a
comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians
that offers a brighter future for all. The President has said very
clearly that the United States will support any solution that the
parties can live with. That includes a two-state solution, if the two
parties agree. I understand that no plan for annexation of the West
Bank has been presented by Israel to the administration.
Question. How does the United States' withdrawal from United
Nations agencies and going deeper into arrears by not paying our
assessed contribution help the United States maintain influence at the
United Nations and push back on China's attempts to increase its own
influence?
Answer. The United States Government remains the largest
contributor to the United Nations. Already this fiscal year, for
example, the Department has contributed $550 million for the U.N.
regular budget. China, the next largest contributor, has provided $335
million. During the current U.N. peacekeeping financial year, the
Department has provided nearly $2 billion for U.N. peacekeeping
operations. China has provided approximately $900 million.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that U.S. national interests
are well represented at the United Nations.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Kelly Craft by Senator Tom Udall
Question. In January the Department of Defense stated, ``The
effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with
potential impacts to DoD missions, operational plans, and
installations.''
DoD followed up this conclusion with a lengthy discussion on
possible impacts to almost two-thirds of military bases throughout the
world, including Kirtland Air Force Base and White Sands Missile Range
in New Mexico, and McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas.
Do you disagree with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General
Dunford that climate change is, ``in the category of sources of
conflict around the world and things we'd have to respond to?''
Or with former Secretary Mattis who said, ``Climate change is
impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are
operating today?'' If so, why do you disagree?
Answer. I believe that climate change is a complex global
challenge. If confirmed, I will continue to work to protect U.S.
national security interests and address complex security and
environmental challenges.
Question. Will you recommend to the President, the Secretary of
State, and the National Security Advisor, that they seek an
authorization from Congress as required by the Constitution before
entering into any hostilities with Iran?
Answer. The administration does not seek war with Iran. The
President, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of State
have been clear about this. However, we have been equally clear that if
American citizens or interests are threatened or attacked, we will
respond in an appropriate fashion. Any action we take with respect to
Iran will be lawful. As the situation with Iran continues to evolve, we
are committed to engagement with Congress, especially regarding matters
of national security.
Question. Will you recommend to the President, the Secretary of
State, and the National Security Advisor that the United States seek
the approval of the U.N. Security Council prior to entering into any
hostilities with Iran?
Answer. The administration does not seek war with Iran. The
President, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of State
have been clear about this. However, we have been equally clear that if
American citizens or interests are threatened or attacked, we will
respond in an appropriate fashion. A key element to the
administration's Iran policy is strong diplomatic engagement with our
partners and allies, including via the U.N. Security Council. Iran's
destructive actions will only serve to further isolate it on the
international stage.
Question. Do you agree with statements made by Secretary Pompeo in
Poland that ``You can't achieve stability in the Middle East without
confronting Iran.?'' Or would you endorse statements from Prime
Minister Netanyahu in Poland that we're ``sitting down together with
Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran.''?
Answer. Addressing Iran's malign behavior is a top priority of this
administration and crucial to the stability of the region. During the
``Ministerial to Promote a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle
East,'' held in Warsaw, Poland February 13-14, foreign ministers and
representatives from 62 nations and entities, including Israel, came
together to advance common interests around terrorism, proliferation,
and the escalation of conflicts in the region. The destabilizing
activities of Iran were highlighted in all of these areas, and Warsaw
participants discussed how we could respond to Iran's actions.
Question. Do you believe that closing the southern border, as
President Trump proposed, is a realistic option under any current
circumstances?
Answer. President Trump is committed to securing our southern
border, as am I. There is an urgent border security and humanitarian
crisis at our southern border. A comprehensive approach is necessary to
further improve security on the border. I understand that the State
Department is engaged in an ongoing dialogue with our Mexican partners
to ensure coordination and to exchange information on joint efforts to
secure and modernize the border, and if confirmed, I will prioritize
efforts to address these issues to resolve the crisis.
Question. Our southern border increasingly looks like a war zone,
like Germany with the Berlin Wall or the DMZ on the Korean peninsula.
We have border patrol agents harassing and separating families, and
caging children. Members of the military supporting a made up
emergency. When the reality is that U.S. border communities are just as
safe--and often safer--than anywhere else in our country. This --is
reminiscent of how enemies treat one another. Is Mexico the enemy of
the United States? Do you believe our country is ``full'' as the
President has said and that we should not accept any more asylum
seekers or immigrants?
Answer. Mexico is a vital and valued partner of the United States.
We work together on a wide range of issues, including trade, border
security, stemming the flow of illegal immigration and cooperation on
counternarcotics. Illegal immigration is a challenge shared across the
globe and, if confirmed, I will work with all our partners on this
issue.
The United States is a welcoming home for immigrants. In the last
year alone, we welcomed more than 1.1 million legal immigrants to our
country and our communities. The United States is proud of this legacy.
We are also proud to be a nation of laws and a nation with recognized
and respected borders.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. should separate children
from their families when they arrive here seeking asylum, in order to
deter them?
Answer. Illegal immigration is a challenge shared across the globe.
The Department of State promotes safe, well-managed, and legal
immigration. If confirmed, I will work with all of our partners on this
important issue. For more information on U.S. immigration enforcement
policies, I would refer you to the Department of Homeland Security.
Question. Do you agree with 5 former U.S. Southern Command generals
who wrote a statement earlier this year saying, ``cutting aid to the
region will only increase the drivers [of migration] and will be even
more costly to deal with on our border''?
Answer. The President has made it clear that he believes that
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador should do more to stop the flow of
illegal immigrants to the United States. We expect the Northern
Triangle governments to keep their commitments to stem illegal
immigration to the United States. Political will and strong partnership
are critical to ensuring the success of any foreign assistance program.
We need to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars wisely and where they will be
most effective.
Question. Would you recommend to the President to cut Central
American funding which is designed to stop the root causes of the
problems in these countries that are leading to these asylum seekers?
Answer. We are following the President's decision to stop
obligations of new funding to the countries of El Salvador, Honduras,
and Guatemala. He has made it clear that these countries need to do
more to stop the flow of illegal immigrants to the United States. The
governments of the Northern Triangle need to take immediate and
concrete action to demonstrate their commitment to addressing the
crisis at our southern border. The President has concluded that these
programs have not effectively prevented illegal immigrants from coming
to the UnitedStates.
Question. In January the Department of Defense stated, ``The
effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with
potential impacts to DoD missions, operational plans, and
installations.''
Answer. DoD followed up this conclusion with a lengthy discussion
on possible impacts to almost two-thirds of military bases throughout
the world, including Kirtland Air Force Base and White Sands Missile
Range in New Mexico, and McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas.
Question. Do you disagree with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff General Dunford that climate change is ``in the category of
sources of conflict around the world and things we'd have to respond
to''? Or with former Secretary Mattis who said, ``Climate change is
impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are
operating today''? If so, why do you disagree?
Answer. I believe that climate change is a complex global
challenge. If confirmed, I will continue to work to protect U.S.
national security interests and address complex security and
environmental challenges.
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. Our national laboratories provide technical expertise and
unique facilities and capabilities that are critical to strengthening
the global nonproliferation regime and protecting our national
security. If confirmed, I will work with Ambassador Wolcott at the U.S.
Mission to the International Organizations in Vienna (UNVIE) and other
colleagues at the Departments of State and Energy, the National Nuclear
Security Administration, and other agencies to ensure that we leverage
our national laboratories to advance strong nonproliferation policies
and programs, including those that train IAEA inspectors.
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? 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. Whether particular multilateral treaties advance U.S.
interests must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. During my tenure as
Ambassador to Canada, I have not had occasion to review closely the Law
of the Sea Convention or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. If confirmed, I would intend to consider these treaties
in more detail in the context of any deliberations the administration
might have regarding them. With regard to the rights of persons with
disabilities, the United States remains a strong supporter of the
rights of persons with disabilities, and was pleased to co-sponsor the
June 19 U.N. Security Council resolution on the Protection of Persons
with Disabilities in Conflict. With regard to the Law of the Sea
Convention, I will support examination of the issue of U.S. accession
to the Convention, bearing in mind the national interests of the United
States, including in the context of challenging Chinese actions in the
South China Sea, and taking into account concerns that have previously
been raised.
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. This administration strives to comply with international
law in all of its counterterrorism efforts. This includes adherence to
the United Nations (U.N.) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The U.N. Security Council
(UNSC) has affirmed through various resolutions that Member States must
ensure measures taken to counter terrorism comply with all of their
obligations under international law, and in particular international
human rights law. In addition, the United Nations Global
Counterterrorism Strategy (U.N. GCTS), a General Assembly resolution
adopted by consensus in 2006 and reviewed every two years to guide U.N.
counterterrorism work, emphasizes respect for human rights and the rule
of law as one of its core pillars. These resolutions underscore that
respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law are
complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counterterrorism
measures. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the United States
complies with all of its international law obligations and promotes
full implementation of UNSC resolutions and the U.N. GCTS, especially
their provisions on respect for human rights.
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? If so, please explain how preventing interaction between U.S.
and Cuban citizens, by banning U.S. citizens from the right to travel
does so?
Answer. On June 4, the administration took action to curtail non-
family travel, or ``veiled tourism,'' by U.S. travelers to Cuba through
updates to regulations administered by the Departments of Treasury and
Commerce. Specifically, these changes end group people-to-people travel
and prohibit travel by passenger and recreational vessels like cruise
ships, yachts, and private aircraft to Cuba.
Unfortunately, U.S. travelers' money spent in Cuba under authorized
people-to-people categories using the modes of travel mentioned above
often benefitted the Cuban military, which owns enterprises that
dominate the country's tourism sector and include many popular
restaurants, hotels, and other sites. These are the same people
supporting illegitimate dictator Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and
repressing the Cuban people on the island.
This administration believes the best way to support the Cuban
people's quest for freedom is to increase pressure on their government
by cutting off its sources of funding, and we are determined to do so.
Lest anyone forget, tourism to Cuba has long been prohibited by
statute, as memorialized in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000. U.S. travelers wishing to travel to Cuba may
do so for lawful purposes, such as visiting family, supporting the
Cuban people, or undertaking humanitarian efforts, or participating in
academic exchanges, and the changes announced earlier this month do not
restrict their ability to do so.
I would refer you to the Departments of Commerce and Treasury for
further details.
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. Yes. I share the administration's efforts to support the
Cuban people through the expansion of internet services while
discouraging changes that would only deepen the Cuban regime's control
over the Cuban people's actions and access to information. If
confirmed, I would encourage freedom of expression, independent media,
and internet freedom so that the Cuban people can enjoy the free and
unregulated flow of information.
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. It is the policy of this administration to amplify efforts
to support the Cuban people, including through the expansion of free
enterprise in Cuba. Given the statutory limitations on the provision of
assistance for Cuba, the U.S. government currently provides such
support through public diplomacy initiatives that facilitate
cooperation and the exchange of information.
For example, the U.S. government supports professional exchange
programs like the International Visitor Leadership Program, to expose
Cuban entrepreneurs to a variety of business models and networks that
support small business growth.
Question. Will you abstain when the U.N. General [Assembly]
Resolution pertaining to the statutory U.S. embargo on Cuba is brought
up for a vote?
Answer. The United States has consistently voted against the U.N.
General Assembly Resolution condemning our embargo on Cuba. The
resolution distracts from the true problems facing the Cuban people and
shifts blame away from the Cuban Government's own policy failures. I
will continue to stand up for the human rights and fundamental freedoms
of the Cuban people, even if it means standing alone at the United
Nations.
This annual resolution incorrectly singles out the United States as
the cause of Cuba's economic, social, and political issues. The Cuban
economy, however, will not thrive until the government permits a free
labor market, empowers entrepreneurs, respects intellectual property
rights, allows unfettered access to information via the internet, opens
its state monopolies to private competition, and adopts sound macro-
economic policies.
Question. Do you support the New START agreement with Russia and
how will you work with Russia to ensure that the agreement is followed?
Will you recommend to Secretary Pompeo and President Trump that the
United States work to extend the New START treaty with Russia?
Answer. The President has charged his national security team to
think more broadly about arms control, to include additional countries
and a broader range of weapon systems. New START's limits on Russia's
strategic nuclear force, establishment of data exchanges, and its
verification provisions contribute currently to U.S. national security.
The administration is reviewing whether to seek an extension of the
Treaty. Central to that review is evaluating whether extension is in
the U.S. national interest in the evolving security environment,
including considerations related to Russia's ongoing development of new
strategic offensive arms, nonstrategic nuclear weapons, and serial
noncompliance with its arms control obligations, as well as China's
continuing nuclear modernization.
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 advocate to the Trump administration that they
support 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. The administration has made clear that it does not intend
to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT). The administration will therefore not request reconsideration
of the Treaty by the Senate. The Stockpile Stewardship Program is an
essential tool in our efforts to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable
stockpile. I am always prepared to learn more about this program and
its accomplishments from NNSA and, if confirmed, will work closely with
Ambassador Wolcott and her team at the U.S. Mission to International
Organizations in Vienna (UNVIE) to support U.S. efforts and policy in
this area.
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. The right to organize a labor union is part of the
fundamental rights of assembly and association and expression. Ensuring
U.S. trade partners respect internationally recognized worker rights
and adhere to high labor standards promotes a level playing field for
U.S. workers and helps create stronger trading partners for the United
States. If confirmed, I will support workers' rights, including their
ability to form and join independent trade unions of their choice.
Question. Are settlements that break up the possibility of a future
contiguous Palestinian state harmful to achieving a two state solution
in your opinion? And, 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? Will you recommend to the President and Secretary
Pompeo that the United States oppose further annexation of the West
Bank and that the United States continue to support a two-state
solution?
Answer. As the President has said, while the existence of Israeli
settlements in the West Bank is not in itself an impediment to peace,
further unrestrained settlement activity does not help advance peace.
With regard to West Bank annexation, as Special Representative
Greenblatt said, we do not believe it is helpful to contemplate
unilateral steps by any of the parties before theUnited States has
presented our vision for a lasting and comprehensive peace. I
understand that no such annexation plan has been presented by the
Government of Israel to the administration.
Question. Venezuela experts believe that the most likely positive
outcome short of regime change would probably involve the Maduro regime
coming to an agreement with the legitimately elected National Assembly
in some sort of governing coalition to stabilize the freefall in
Venezuela. Will you support such an effort at the U.N., and how will
you work to bring this about?
Answer. The goal of the administration is the restoration of
democracy in Venezuela. This can only happen through free and fair
elections. Maduro is incapable of overseeing a democratic transition,
as we witnessed with the illegitimate 2018 elections. He and his
associated undermine democratic institutions and harms those who
support them. Maduro has used the promise of ``negotiation'' to delay
real change time and again. Maduro's refusal to step down and let a
transitional government take over is the only thing preventing the
suspension of sanctions, preparations for free and fair elections, and
the formation of a transitional government.
During my tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Canada, I engaged frequently
with Interim President Guiado's Ambassador-designee, including hosting
a lunch in his honor with our regional counterparts to help legitimize
him within the diplomatic community and provide a space where we all
could better understand the situation on the ground in Venezuela as
well as highlight the issues facing neighboring countries as they
accept and support refugees fleeing the country. In addition, I
continuously pressed the Canadian government to credential
theAmbassador-designee so he could fully take up the mantle of
leadership related to his duties.
If confirmed, I intend to work with members of the Security Council
and other member states to highlight the need for immediate and
impartial humanitarian assistance, aid for Venezuelans who have fled to
neighboring countries, and the protection of Venezuelans against abuses
of their human rights by the Maduro regime. I will also work with any
partners who share the desire to see the people of Venezuela get the
government they want, as well as the opportunity to rebuild economic
opportunity and prosperity.
Question. India recently tested an anti-satellite weapon, creating
debris throughout low earth orbit that could endanger the international
space station and other assets in outer space. What is your plan to
address the proliferation of various weapons that could pollute orbits
with debris and cutoff access to space as a result? How will you work
with the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to achieve
this result?
Answer. The United States is aware of Indian Government statements
that its ASAT test was designed to mitigate space debris hazards, and
that the test was conducted at a low altitude to limit resulting
debris. We also note Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement
that India remains against an arms race in space. We will continue to
closely monitor the remaining debris from India's ASAT test to ensure
the safety of assets on orbit and human spaceflight activities such as
the International Space Station. The issue of orbital debris is an
important concern because a safe and sustainable space environment
allows current and future generations to reap the benefit that space
provides.
The United States remains committed to working in the U.N.
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space as well as in other
bilateral and multilateral engagements such as the U.N. Office for
Outer Space Affairs to mitigate the operational effects of orbital
debris. As part of our strategic partnership, the United States will
continue close engagements with India on shared interests in space,
including collaboration on scientific and technical issues, safety and
security, and human space exploration.
Question. What is your assessment of current negotiations ongoing
at the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space? What are
your proposals to improve our working relationship with this body?
Answer. The U.S. believes that COPUOS should continue to remain a
key multilateral forum for fostering constructive discussion which
strengthens the safety, stability, and sustainability of outer space
activities. In this regard, we welcome the committee's recent adoption
at its 62nd session of 21 Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability
of Outer Space Activities, which were agreed on the basis of consensus
after eight years of extensive work by a wide range of delegations.
American private sector and governmental experts took a leadership role
in this work.
The Trump a dministration is committed to taking a leadership role
in follow-on work by COPUOS on the practical implementation of the 21
voluntary, non-legally binding guidelines and will engage in additional
bilateral and multilateral discussions with spacefaring nations to
improve spaceflight safety. If confirmed, I will work closely with
Ambassador Jackie Wolcott and her team at the U.S. Mission to
International Organizations in Vienna (UNVIE) to support and advance
U.S. priorities in this area.
Question. How will you address the international threat of election
interference from Russia with our allies at the United Nations, and
will you utilize the U.N. Security Council to highlight Russian
election interference before the 2020 election?
Answer. Foreign efforts to undermine democratic processes are
unacceptable and require a whole-of-government response. The Department
of State works closely with other departments and agencies, as well as
closely with Allies and partners, to protect our nation against
potential interference in our election processes.
As the lead foreign policy agency, we communicate to governments
that their behavior is unacceptable, work with our interagency partners
to impose costs in response, and build international coalitions to
deter foreign interference activities and to share best practices.
Wherever appropriate and necessary, the United States works with
like-minded partners to push back against Russian efforts in the United
Nations that run counter to our national interests.
Question. What measures will you take to address Brazilian plans to
deforest large areas of the rainforest, as well their efforts to reduce
the rights of indigenous people who live in the Amazon region and its
tributaries?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to maintain U.S. leadership to
advance and protect U.S. economic and environmental interests,
including by participating in ongoing international climate change
negotiations to ensure a level playing field for all countries. While I
am by no means an expert on the deforestation issue you note, I pledge
to explore the matter, including potential U.N. intersections.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Kelly Craft by Senator Tim Kaine
Saudi Arabia
Question. During your nominations hearing, you committed to do
everything possible to make sure that the investigations the U.N.
called for into the murder of Saudi citizen and Virginia resident Jamal
Khashoggi, and the accountability that would follow such
investigations, are actively pursued by the U.S., no matter where the
investigations lead or who is deemed culpable saying, ``We should
definitely always request accountability. I have full faith in the
special rapporteur. We will follow wherever this investigation leads us
to.'' How specifically will you support the Special Rapporteur's
recommendations to the Human Rights Council, the Security Council or
the U.N. Secretary-General to conduct an international follow-up
criminal investigation to determine individual liability and identify
options towards judicial accountability on Khashoggi's execution? Do
you agree with the report's conclusion that the State of Saudi Arabia
is responsible for this murder? Will you commit to briefing me within
six months, or following any significant U.N. action taken on this
report, whichever comes first?
Answer. The Department shares your conviction that those
responsible for this horrific act must be held accountable. The United
States was the first country to take action to promote accountability,
when on October 23 the Department placed visa restrictions on those
suspected of involvement in the murder. On November 15, the
Administration imposed financial sanctions on Saudi officials who had a
role in the murder under the Global Magnitsky sanctions program. On
April 8, the Secretary further designated Saudi government officials
under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2019. The Department will
continue to utilize these tools as appropriate. The United States
supports U.N. Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard's mandate to
investigate extra-judicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.
Department officials met with Callamard as she drafted her report on
Jamal Khashoggi's killing, and we are reviewing her report closely. I
would be pleased to brief you on any updates at the first appropriate
moment.
Question. In December 2017, the Trump administration pulled out of
the Global Compact on Migration (GCM), a framework of best practices
for nations to deal with the new reality of migration patterns, akin in
its approach to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S.
became the sole nonparticipant in discussions to shape and finalize the
compact. Since its adoption in December 2018, GCM signatories have been
meeting and leveraging the convening power of the U.N. to apply
pressure to put words into action. For example, in March, Ecuador, the
Philippines, and Bahrain convened 89 U.N. member states, including the
UK, Russia, Canada, Mexico, and Germany, focused on making the compact
a reality at the local level. In January, Ethiopia, which hosts
Africa's second-largest refugee population, changed its law to allow
refugees to access primary education, health services, some job
markets, and financial services. This is an example of the tangible
outcomes that stem from U.N. norm-setting agreements/discussions like
the Global Compact on Migration. Do you support the administration's
decision to pull out of the Global Compact on Migration? Will a goal of
yours be to have the U.S. rejoin the Global Compact on Migration?
Answer. I understand that the United States does not support the
Global Compact on Migration (GCM) or the process that led to it,
because they included goals and objectives inconsistent and
incompatible with U.S. law, policy, and the interests of the American
people.As the U.S. national statement on the GCM noted, ``While the
United States honors the contributions of the many immigrants who
helped build our nation, we cannot support a `Compact' or process that
imposes or has the potential to impose international guidelines,
standards, expectations, or commitments that might constrain our
ability to make decisions in the best interests of our nation and
citizens.'' Further, I understand there is lack of consensus among U.N.
member states regarding the GCM. When it came up for endorsement at the
U.N. General Assembly on December 19, 2018, the United States, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, and Poland voted against it, another
12 other countries abstained, and 24 did not vote.
Question. The administration pulled the U.S. out from the U.N.
Human Rights Council (UNHRC) last June. While the UNHRC is not a
perfect institution and complaints of anti-Israel bias are real, U.S.
membership on the Council has delivered a number of positive results
over the years such as: dispatching a team to investigate atrocities
committed by ISIS in Iraq; bringing attention to the dire human rights
situation in Iran; authorizing a groundbreaking investigation into
human rights violations in North Korea; and taking action on a variety
of other human rights crises in Myanmar, Yemen, South Sudan, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Burundi, and Eritrea, to name a few. Will you commit
to reassess the U.S. posture towards the UNHRC and to telling me if you
would recommend the U.S. rejoin within six months of your tenure, if
confirmed?
Answer. The United States withdrew from the U.N. Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) because of concerns related to its focus and
composition, We noted then that ``Countries that aggressively violate
human rights at home should not be in a position to guard the human
rights of others'' and that the Council's persistent, unfair bias
against Israel detracts attention and resources away from the HRC's
mandate to promote universal respect for the protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms. If meaningful reforms are undertaken by
member states that address our longstanding concerns with the Human
Rights Council, we would consider the possibility of reengaging at that
time.
The United States has, for decades, led global efforts to promote
human rights, including through multilateral institutions. We will
continue to pursue a robust human rights agenda at the United Nations
General Assembly's Third Committee as well as other U.N. bodies, as we
did during other periods we were not a HRC member. We will also
redouble our efforts to bring human rights issues to the attention of
the Security Council, as we did during our 2018 presidency, when we
held the first ever session on the linkage between human rights abuses
and threats to international peace and security.
Question. Do you support a two-state solution to the Israel-
Palestinian conflict and will you commit to working in support of such
a solution if confirmed? Do you agree that the United States could not
support a state that promotes different rights for different people be
it ethnicity, religion or otherwise? Do you agree that the United
States should always stand for and champion equal rights for every
person?
Answer. This administration continues to work towards a
comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians
that offers a brighter future for all. The President has said very
clearly that the United States will support any solution that the
parties can live with. That includes a two-state solution, if the two
parties agree. As a general matter, the Administration believes that
all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, as
stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Promoting human
dignity and liberty represents the very best of our traditions and
values.
Question. In 2018, the administration ended all U.S. funding for
the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), an
organization that provides critical services including education,
health care, and food aid to destitute Palestinian refugees in the West
Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, and Jordan, with over 50% of its budget applied
towards education. While other donor countries covered the shortfall,
UNRWA has not had sufficient funds for emergency assistance to respond
to the ongoing economic crisis in Gaza or to expand its lauded
education program to reach more students. Do you support UNRWA's
mandate to provide critical services to destitute Palestinian refugees?
If so, do you support the Administration's decision to defund
U.S.contributions to UNRWA?
Answer. We made have made it clear that the United States will no
longer bear a disproportionate share of UNRWA's costs. While several
donors increased their contributions in 2018, including UAE, Kuwait,
Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, UNRWA's business model--which is tied to an
expanding community of beneficiaries--is unsustainable. Palestinians
deserve better than a service provision model that operates in
permanent crisis mode. We are ready to explore with key regional
partners how the United States can assist in transitioning UNRWA
services to host governments, or to other international or local non-
governmental organizations as appropriate.
Question. One of the emblematic institutions created to address
corruption and impunity in Guatemala is the U.N.-backed International
Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Since 2007, CICIG has
identified more than 600 elected officials, businesspeople, and
bureaucrats in corruption and broke up 60 criminals' networks in the
country. On January 7, 2019, President Morales announced that his
administration would unilaterally cancel the international agreement
that established CICIG, defying Constitutional Court orders in what
amounts to a technical coup. Do you agree that CICIG has contributed
significantly to combating the culture of impunity and corruption in
Guatemala in the last 12 years? Do you pledge to support the continued
work of CICIG, and other justice and anti-corruption mechanisms in
Guatemala at the U.N.? Will you raise concerns about attacks on CICIG
or other mechanisms and support measures to defend these bodies?
Answer. I understand that CICIG made contributions to anti-
corruption efforts in Guatemala, and that over time CICIG also showed
both flaws and limitations. Rule of law, reduced corruption, an end to
impunity, and respect for democratic principles are key to security,
stability, and prosperity, not only in Guatemala, but throughout the
region and the world. The United States will continue to work with the
authorities and other partners in Guatemala on these and other matters
of mutual importance.
Question. Do you agree with the spirit and substance of the San
Jose Action Statement? What action do you plan to take at the U.N. to
address forcible displacement around the world, which currently affects
nearly 71 million people?
Answer. The United States supports regional actions to respond to
mixed migratory movements.If confirmed, I am committed to working with
governments and other partners, such as the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees and International Organization for Migration, to increase the
capacity of asylum systems in transit and destination countries and
promote safe, well-managed, and legal migration.
Question. UNHCR and other U.N. bodies face difficult choices in how
they navigate the political landscape in Syria to reach vulnerable
populations and deliver humanitarian assistance. Since 2016, some of
these organizations have faced accusations that pro-regime bias affects
the assistance they deliver and the information they provide
beneficiaries, including refugees. Will you push for greater
transparency on neutrality of U.N. operations in Syria?
Answer. We are aware of these reports and follow them very closely.
The State Department and USAID places the highest priority on ensuring
that the funding it provided to partners is used wisely and effectively
to reach millions people in need of humanitarian assistance each month
in Syria, and that humanitarian agencies observe the principle of
neutrality. The Syria context is extremely challenging and is subject
to elevated risks. To mitigate risk and coordinate relief, State
Department and USAID meet regularly with U.N. and other partners to
discuss programming, issues that impede humanitarian activities, and
partners' risk mitigation mechanisms.
We continue to call on the Syrian regime to provide full,
unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access throughout Syria for the
nearly 12 million people in need of support, who make more than half of
Syria's population.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Kelly Craft by Senator Edward J. Markey
Question. As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., what will be your
commitment to consulting with and engaging in dialogue with Congress
and civil society on critical issues?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to benefitting from the wisdom
and experience available from Members of Congress and civil society,
and will look for frequent opportunities to engage with the widest
range of available expertise.
Question. How will you ensure that the U.S. retains its influence
on the U.N. Security Council in the long term and doesn't risk
alienating other member states that have traditionally been U.S. allies
in the promotion of human rights, democracy, and peace and security?
Answer. If confirmed, it will be a high priority will be to
establish strong working relationships with the entire Security
Council, with particular attention to my British and French
counterparts, as well as sustained outreach to the elected membership
to ensure that American influence remains central to the Council's
activities.
Question. The current administration has promoted a more
transactional view of foreign aid. Jon Lerner, who served as Ambassador
Haley's deputy, recently stated that by allowing member states to vote
in opposition to the U.S. position sends the message there is no price
to be paid for crossing us. Do you agree with his idea that foreign aid
should be directly linked to whether nations supports us at the U.N.?
Answer. I believe that cooperation with the United States,
including support on important votes at the United Nations, should be a
factor we consider when reviewing our foreign assistance commitments. I
also believe that we should engage our counterparts to build
relationships before votes take place. If confirmed, I am committed to
fostering relationships with my counterparts at the United Nations and,
when needed, will remind them that U.S. foreign assistance should not
be taken for granted.
Question. In countries around the world, there are criminal
penalties associated with exercising sexual and reproductive health and
rights. LGBTI people are criminalized for who they love and are
regularly prosecuted or incarcerated for consensual same sex sexual
conduct or in places like Indonesia, Chechnya, and Egypt. There are
also women who are in jail in places like El Salvador and Senegal for
having miscarriages or abortions. These are gross human rights
violations.
Meanwhile, in February, Ambassador Grenell announced an initiative
to support the decriminalization of same sex conduct abroad. This was
echoed by a tweet by the President just a few days ago ``honoring''
pride month. This appears to be inconsistent with the administration's
posture towards LGBTI communities abroad. Just a few weeks ago, the
Department had barred missions and embassies abroad from displaying the
Pride flag alongside the American flag. Last month, the Secretary
expanded the global gag rule, which has shuttered HIV clinics serving
gay men and transgender people abroad. The United States continues to
erase trans people in international agreements, substituting words like
``gender equity'' with ``equality between girls and boys.''
How can the administration claim to support LGBTI rights externally
while undermining the rights of LGBTI people through its policy
and diplomacy?
Answer. The Department has been clear and consistent in affirming
that human rights are universal, and that no one should face violence,
criminalization, or severe official discrimination because of their
LGBTI status or conduct. We will continue to stand up and speak out in
support of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of LGBTI persons
in all corners of the globe, including in Indonesia, Chechnya, Egypt
and other contexts as well, and to press for perpetrators of human
rights violations and abuses to be held accountable. Further, the
Department will continue to provide strong U.S. programmatic and
emergency support for LGBTI human rights defenders and civil society
organizations working to counter violence, severe official
discrimination, and criminalization of LGBTI conduct or status.
Question. As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, would you raise
concerns about laws that criminalize same-sex relationships and women's
personal health decisions in public and private settings?
Answer. Department policy focuses on deterring and responding to
violence against LGBTI persons, supporting efforts to decriminalize
LGBTI status or conduct, and working to prevent and combat severe
official discrimination. President Trump's National Security Strategy
explicitly states that the United States will support efforts to
advance women's equality and protect the rights of women and girls.
This administration will do all we can to protect and respect the
sanctity of life all across the globe. As the world's largest bilateral
donor of women's health and family planning assistance worldwide, the
United States remains committed to helping women and their children
thrive. If confirmed, I will continue to work to advance these policy
issues at the U.N.
Question. The Senate--particularly members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee--have been very active in bringing attention to and
calling for action to address the Rohingya crisis. There are now over
900,000 Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, including half a million
children, who have fled horrific violence. In a joint statement last
week, the U.S. and Bangladeshi governments made clear the need to
``address the root causes of the crisis, and to create the conditions
necessary for the voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable
repatriation.'' Given the current environment in Burma, prospects for
such returns seem a long way off.
As we approach the two-year anniversary of the extreme violence
against the Rohingya that happened in August 2017, what will
you prioritize at the U.N. to support the needs of those who
have been displaced and to advance a sustainable, long-term
resolution to the crisis?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support U.S. efforts that
will improve the situation for Bangladeshi host communities, Rohingya
refugees, others internally displaced, and all people in Burma,
including accountability for those responsible for the atrocities
committed. If confirmed, I will continue to call on the government of
Burma to fully implement the Annan Commission recommendations,
including recommendations related to access to citizenship and freedom
of movement. If confirmed, I will also support efforts and mechanisms
at the United Nations to foster justice and accountability for human
rights abuses and violations in Rakhine State and other areas of Burma.
These include the Fact Finding Mission for Myanmar, the Independent
Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the U.N. Special Envoy to Myanmar,
and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in
Myanmar.
Question. As ethnic cleansing does not have legal implications, nor
does it seem to comport with the existing evidence documenting crimes
against humanity or genocide, do you support a legal determination on
the atrocities the Burmese military has committed against the Rohingya?
Answer. Describing the circumstances of the Rohingya as ethnic
cleansing does not prejudge any potential further analysis on whether
other mass atrocities took place, including genocide or crimes against
humanity. If confirmed, I will not let this matter fade from the global
agenda.
Question. Do you believe that these crimes amount to crimes against
humanity or genocide?
Answer. I believe there must be accountability for those
responsible for the horrific treatment of the Rohingya population. I
note that U.N. Secretary-General Guterres recently named American
Nicholas Koumjian as the first head of the Independent Investigative
Mechanism for Burma--an important step that if confirmed I will monitor
closely.
Question. Will you pledge to support international actions that
seek to address the ongoing genocide in Burma in your position?
Answer. I support the Secretary-General's attention to this issue,
including by appointing a qualified American to lead the Investigative
Mechanism. If confirmed, I pledge to follow this matter closely, and
particularly the humanitarian condition of Rohingya refugees and the
status of the ongoing investigation.
Question. In what ways will you engage on the Security Council to
promote this issue [violence against Rohingya in Burma]?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Security Council partners to
ensure that Burma remains on the agenda, and that meaningful sessions
are used to return international attention to the ongoing suffering of
the Rohingya people.
Question. The United Nations Fact Finding Mission, the U.S.
Government, and several non-governmental organizations have documented
the Burmese military's killing of tens of thousands of Rohingya, cases
of summary executions, mass rapes, and burnings of villages, which led
to the displacement of over 700,000 to neighboring Bangladesh. Today,
over 900,000 Rohingya refugees reside in makeshift camps in Bangladesh
without access to formal education, employment, healthcare, or freedom
of movement. Meanwhile, the absence of adequate lighting and lack of
secure, gender-segregated latrines and washrooms have exacerbated the
risks of gender-based violence, particularly for women and girls.
In your position, how will you ensure that the basic human rights
of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh are met, including
rights to food, livelihood, health care, and freedom of
movement and education?
Answer. Thanks to Congress's leadership and generosity, I
understand the United States is the leading contributor of humanitarian
assistance in response to the Rohingya crisis, having provided nearly
$542 million since the escalation of violence in August 2017, of which
nearly $464 million is for programs inside Bangladesh. This money funds
programs that save lives. It helps provide protection; emergency
shelter; water, sanitation, and hygiene; healthcare; psychosocial
support; food and nutritional assistance; non-food items; site
management and development; education, and access to livelihood
opportunities to approximately one million beneficiaries in Bangladesh,
most of whom are Rohingya women and children from Burma, and the
related needs of Bangladeshi host communities. If confirmed, I will
support efforts of the United Nations and its partners to ensure that
human rights and humanitarian needs of Rohingya refugees are met, while
durable solutions are being pursued, given that conditions in Rakhine
State are not yet conducive for voluntary, safe, dignified, and
sustainable returns.
Question. Additionally, given that the most effective way to
permanently resolve the Rohingya refugee crisis is by restoring their
citizenship in Burma and ensuring safe, dignified and voluntary
repatriation process, how do you propose to use your position to
resolve the Rohingya refugee crisis in a more permanent manner?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the Department's efforts to
engage, influence, and lead actions of the international community,
including with like-minded states, non-traditional partners, and
international organizations, to resolve the Rohingya crisis and advance
U.S. interests and values in Burma. I will support efforts and
mechanisms at the United Nations to foster justice and accountability
for human rights abuses and violations in Rakhine State and other areas
of Burma. These include the Fact Finding Mission for Myanmar, the
Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the U.N. Special Envoy
to Myanmar, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights
situation in Myanmar. If confirmed, I will also continue to call on the
government of Burma to fully implement the Annan Commission
recommendations, including recommendations related to access to
citizenship and freedom of movement, and to create the conditions that
would allow for voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable returns.
Question. What measures will you employ to ensure that the
Government of Bangladesh and Burmese government are consulting with
Rohingya refugees regarding their futures?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with U.N. bodies, like-minded
countries, and other partners to call upon the governments of
Bangladesh and Burma take into account Rohingya refugees' views
regarding their futures in the development of long-term plans. I will
also work to ensure that any repatriation of Rohingya is voluntary,
safe, dignified, and sustainable and would use my position to
underscore this international tenet. If confirmed, I will highlight the
ongoing plight of Rohingya refugees, the generosity of Bangladesh in
hosting more than one million refugees, and the urgent need for Burma
to address the root causes of the crisis to create the conditions that
would allow for voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable returns.
Question. What are your views on these two commissions for justice?
As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, how would you imagine the
U.S. Government should interact with the commissions? How would you
ensure and support effective international measures for justice and
accountability?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support credible domestic and
international mechanisms that genuinely hold accountable any
individuals responsible for atrocities in Burma and that seek justice
for victims of human rights abuses and violations. Those impartial
investigations must prioritize the safety and security of victims and
witnesses. In addition, I will work with allies and likeminded partners
to support efforts and mechanisms at the United Nations to foster
accountability for human rights abuses in Rakhine State and other areas
of Burma.
Question. How do you propose to protect and promote democratic
norms and ideals in a country where the military is conducting human
rights abuses with impunity and the space for civic engagement is
shrinking?
Answer. I believe the United States plays an irreplaceable role in
partnering with the people of Burma in their quest to transition from
military dictatorship to a civilian-led democracy. If confirmed, I will
call for the establishment of civilian control of the military and
support efforts to address the root causes of violence in all regions
of Burma. As justice and accountability are essential for Burma's
democratic transition, if confirmed, I will also support efforts aimed
at holding accountable those responsible for the violence, atrocities,
and crimes in Rakhine State as well as in other areas in Burma.
Question. Do you support robust sanctions pressure to enhance our
diplomacy with respect to North Korea?
Answer. Yes. Sanctions on North Korea are indispensable to the
effort to secure its final, fully verified denuclearization.
Question. When other Security Council members say that new U.N.
sanctions on North Korea aren't needed because the United States
doesn't seem willing to enforce the current multilateral regime, how
will you respond?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take every opportunity to reinforce to
my Security Council counterparts the continuing necessity for rigorous
and enforced U.N. sanctions on North Korea.
Question. Do you agree that CICIG has contributed significantly to
combating the culture of impunity and corruption in Guatemala in the
last 12 years?
Answer. Yes, though over time CICIG showed both flaws and
limitations.
Question. Do you pledge to support the continued work of CICIG, or
other justice and anti-corruption mechanisms, in Guatemala?
Answer. Rule of law, reduced corruption, and an end to impunity are
key to security, stability, and prosperity, not only in Guatemala, but
throughout the region and the world, and the United States will
continue to work with committed Guatemalan partners to build capacity
to fight corruption
Question. Will you raise concerns about Morales' attacks on CICIG
or other mechanisms and support foreign policy measures to defend these
bodies?
Answer. It is important that the Guatemalan government respect
democratic institutions, rule of law, and separation of powers as
mandated by the Guatemalan constitution. The United States looks
forward to working with the Government of Guatemala on these and other
matters of mutual importance.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Kelly Craft by Senator Jeff Merkley
Question. In your nomination hearing, you pledged to Senator Todd
Young (R-IN) that the administration would ``consult'' with Congress
prior to making a decision to use military force against Iran. You did
not directly answer Senator Young's question on whether the
administration would seek explicit authorization from Congress for the
use of military force against Iran. Do you agree that the 2001 and 2002
Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) do not provide
authorization for the use of military force against Iran? If so, will
the administration consult with Congress and seek its explicit approval
for the introduction of U.S. armed forces into hostilities with Iran?
Answer. The administration has not to date interpreted either the
2001 or 2002 AUMFs as authorizing military force against Iran, except
as may be necessary to defend U.S. or partner forces engaged in
counterterrorism operations. The President, the National Security
Advisor, and the Secretary of State have been clear about this.
However, we have been equally clear that if American citizens or
interests are threatened or attacked, we will respond in an appropriate
fashion. Any action we take with Iran will be lawful. As the situation
with Iran continues to evolve, we are committed to engagement with
Congress, especially regarding matters of national security.
Question. If confirmed, will you advocate for the United States to
make a genocide determination on the atrocities committed against the
Rohingya?
Answer. We are deeply concerned about and appalled by the Burmese
military's ethnic cleansing of Rohingya and the ongoing humanitarian
crisis that has ensued. The process for deciding whether and when to
make a determination that certain acts may amount to genocide, crimes
against humanity, or ethnic cleansing, has historically been reserved
to the Secretary of State.
Regardless, as Secretary Pompeo has said, ``the most important
thing we can do is get both accountability and behavior change.'' If
confirmed, I will continue to support the U.N. mechanisms designed to
investigate and preserve evidence as part of our collective effort to
get justice for the victims and their families.
Question. In your nomination hearing, you stated that the United
States is committed to human rights. In what specific U.N. forum or
fora--outside of the U.N. Security Council--will you advocate for human
rights now that the United States is no longer member of the Human
Rights Council?
Answer. The United States has, for many decades, led global efforts
to promote human rights, often through multilateral institutions. We
will continue to pursue a robust human rights agenda at the United
Nations General Assembly's Third Committee as well as other U.N.
bodies, as we did during the periods we were not a Human Rights Council
member. We will also redouble our efforts to bring human rights issues
to the attention of the Security Council, as we did during our
presidency when we held the first ever session on the linkage between
human rights abuses and threats to international peace and security.
In addition to building on a history of bilateral human rights
engagement, we will also continue to work to advance human rights in
regional forums, like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, the Organization of American States, and other multinational
and multi-stakeholder bodies. Similarly, we will continue to consult
closely with our allies on taking actions to address the most egregious
country situations.
Question. If confirmed, will you pledge that the United States will
maintain its voluntary contributions to the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty Organization (CTBTO) and the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) as
well as refrain from any action to un-sign the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT)?
Answer. The administration has made clear that it does not intend
to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
(CTBT). The administration will therefore not request reconsideration
of the Treaty by the Senate. However, we will continue to support the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory
Commission (CTBTO PrepCom) and its development and operation of the
International Monitoring System (IMS) and its supporting systems.
The President's budget continues to fully fund our assessment to
the PrepCom, and the U.S. assessed contribution far outweighs other
State Signatories, many of which are chronically in arrears.
Question. If confirmed, will you work to reverse State Department
policy that interprets a child born of a married same-sex couple abroad
as being ``out of wedlock'' under the Immigration and Naturalization
Act (INA)? During your tenure as Ambassador to Canada, how many
children born abroad in Canada, of legally married U.S. same-sex
couples, have been denied in their applications for U.S. Passports at
U.S. consulates in Canada?
Answer. We are committed to treating every U.S. citizen who seeks
our assistance overseas fairly and in accordance with U.S. law. There
has never been and there is not now a Department of State policy that
classifies children of same-sex couples differently for citizenship
purposes than other children born abroad. In adjudicating citizenship
acquisition for children born abroad, the Department treats any child
who is biologically related to only one parent in a marriage as having
been born out of wedlock. This interpretation is consistent with the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions regarding transmission
of citizenship and definition of birth in wedlock and represents
longstanding policy.
Regarding the second part of the question, the Department does not
track whether a child's parents are same-sex so we cannot provide that
data. However, I can assure you that the Department applies the law
consistently worldwide, including in Mission Canada during my tenure as
ambassador. The Department makes citizenship determinations for all
children born abroad using the same criteria under the INA, regardless
of the sex or sexual orientation of their parents, and does not
discriminate against same-sex couples or their children.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Kelly Craft by Senator Cory A. Booker
Question. Given the volatile security environment due to the Ebola
crisis, will you ensure that MONUSCO's mission budget is not cut?
Answer. I share your concern about the Ebola crisis in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and am committed to maintaining a
close and careful eye on the situation there. If confirmed, I will use
the voice and influence of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in
the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly to support appropriate
funding for the MONUSCO mission budget.
Question. What additional should the U.S. take into consideration--
in concert with MONUSCO--to protect health workers and secure treatment
facilities in the region?
Answer. The United States is working closely with the U.N. and
MONUSCO, the DRC, the WHO, and other partners to address the critical
need to protect health workers and treatment facilities, while avoiding
perceptions that could exacerbate community resistance. MONUSCO
provides several types of security assistance to the Ebola response,
including securing humanitarian access, protection for personnel,
assessing threats, and operating a Tactical Operations Center to
address security incidents. The United States also prioritizes local
engagement to address community feedback, increase ownership of
response activities, and address broader needs for community acceptance
and ensure humanitarian access.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. should call for a suspension
of the drawdown, given the current political crisis in Sudan? Do you
believe UNAMID's exit plan for next year is still appropriate?
Answer. The United States is closely following developments in
Sudan. UNAMID's current mandate, which expires on June 30, expresses
support for a joint recommendation by the Secretary-General and the
African Commission Chairperson on drawdown provided there is no
significant change in security and key indicators are met. The United
States is closely engaged with Security Council members and considering
all options that will bring long-term peace and stability to Darfur. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that U.N. peacekeeping missions are as
effective and efficient as possible, and are working to advance U.S.
peace and security interests in each case.
Question. If security conditions in Darfur or Sudan more broadly
deteriorate significantly, what would you do, as the U.S.
representative at the U.N.?
Answer. The United States' commitment to the people of Darfur and
Sudan in general has remained steadfast since the outset of violence in
the early 2000s, and we have played a leading role at the U.N. in
bringing attention and coordinating international response to the
crises there. We have consistently advocated for an end to violence,
dialogue between the government and opposition groups, justice and
accountability for civilians who have borne the brunt of violence, and
solutions to the root causes of this protracted conflict. If confirmed,
I will ensure the United States remains a leading voice in the U.N. for
long-term peace, stability, and security, and use the tools at my
disposal in the U.N. to press for positive change in Darfur and Sudan.
Question. Do you think the U.S. has a lead role to play with
respect to Sudan, as is it did during the height of the Darfur crisis
or in facilitating the Comprehensive Peace Agreement?
Answer. Yes, the United States continues its role as a leading
nation in coordinating efforts to achieve peace in Sudan, working with
its partners in the region, the Troika (U.S., UK and Norway) and with
the U.N. and African Union (AU). In early June, the State Department
appointed Ambassador Donald Booth as U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan to
help lead U.S. efforts in support of long-term peace and stability in
Sudan. We are working closely with the AU, Ethiopia, and other partners
to support a mediated resolution to the current crisis in Sudan and the
formation of a civilian-led interim government.
Question. What do you believe to be the role of the United Nations
in investigating the use of force against peaceful protestors in
Khartoum? As ambassador, how would you approach the current situation
in Sudan?
Answer. Sudan's Transitional Military Council (TMC) is responsible
for the safety and security of its citizens, and for the actions of its
security forces. We call on the TMC to hold those responsible for the
brutal attacks perpetrated by the security forces, led by the Rapid
Support Forces, to account. We have called for a credible and
independent investigation of the recent attacks against civilians in
Sudan. Regrettably, the Sudanese Transitional Military Council has
rejected offers for a multilateral investigation, and said that its
Attorney General is investigating the attacks. While we await their
findings, this rejection of an impartial multilateral support
undermines the credibility of this effort. Separately, we have
supported the deployment of U.N. monitoring teams to investigate
allegations of human rights violations and abuses in Darfur.
If confirmed, I would support the continuation of such efforts in
Sudan and any other U.N. engagement that was consistent with U.S.
approaches and policies.
Question. What role should the U.S. play in promoting greater
respect for ensuring the safety of humanitarian organizations and their
workers?
Answer. The United States is a leader in promoting the safety and
security of humanitarian personnel as well as the protection of U.N.
personnel. I believe the United States should continue to be a strong
supporter of the U.N. Department of Safety and Security, which has
enabled more than 1,000 high-risk humanitarian operations in active
conflict zones. We will continue to press for more efficient,
effective, transparent, and accountable humanitarian assistance,
including through U.N. security management. In addition, in 2018 the
United States was proud to cosponsor General Assembly resolution 73/137
on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and the protection
of U.N. personnel. That resolution sent a message of concern and
solidarity to the many courageous people who risk their lives to
deliver humanitarian assistance to the millions of people across the
world who suffer as a result of natural disasters, armed conflict, and
other crises. I believe the United States should continue to play such
a leadership role. That includes continuing to call on parties to armed
conflict to comply with their obligations under international
humanitarian law, and to take every action to provide unhindered access
to humanitarian organizations and to respect their independence and
neutrality.
Question. What is your plan to reaffirm a U.S. commitment to
international humanitarian law (IHL), including the protection of
humanitarian action?
Answer. The United States is a leader in promoting the safety and
security of humanitarian personnel as well as the protection of U.N.
personnel. We are also a leader in promoting compliance with
international humanitarian law, and we will continue to reiterate our
strongest condemnation of all violations of international humanitarian
law. We will continue to insist that all States comply strictly with
the obligations applicable to them under international humanitarian
law, and emphasize the need for all parties to armed conflict to take
all required measures to avoid civilian casualties and to protect
civilian populations. In addition, the United States will continue to
be a strong supporter of the U.N. Department of Safety and Security,
which has enabled more than 1,000 high-risk humanitarian operations in
active conflict zones. Finally, we will continue to use the U.N. as a
forum for securing access for humanitarian organizations.
Question. Do you agree that we must incorporate climate change into
our national security strategy, and will you do so to the fullest
extent of your ability if confirmed?
Answer. I believe that climate change needs to be addressed, as it
does pose very real risks for our planet and all its living creatures.
If confirmed, I will promote the American ingenuity and technological
innovation that for decades has made the United States a leader in
tackling the challenges of our natural environment--all while
safeguarding our nation's economic wellbeing.
Question. Early in Ambassador Haley's tenure, USUN appointed a
civil society delegate representing an organization (C-Fam) with a
history of extreme anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and advocacy, and with a track
record of making outrageous claims to justify efforts to restrict
access to even the most basic reproductive health services globally.
Can you assure me that you will not appoint representatives of
organizations that promote harassment, discrimination, violence, or a
nonrights based approach as U.S. civil society delegates at the U.N.?
Answer. If confirmed, I will not tolerate harassment,
discrimination, or violence of any kind. There is no place for that
sort behavior in the workplace or any other setting.
__________
Correspondence Received in Support of
Ambassador Craft's Nomination
Letter from J.D. Irving, Co-Chief Executive Officer, J.D. Irving,
Limited
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter supporting Amb. Craft's nomination, from Gordon D. Griffin,
Global Vice Chair, Denton's, U.S. LLP, Atlanta, GA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter Sent to Ambassador Craft by Senators Edward J. Markey, Jeff
Merkley, and Sheldon Whitehouse\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These questions and Ambassador Craft's responses are located in
this transcripts section on Additional Questions Submitted for the
Record.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]