[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       HAS THE UNITED NATIONS FAILED 
                           UKRAINE AND THE WORLD?

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND 
                         COOPERATION IN EUROPE

                        U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in 
                                 Europe

                              [CSCE118-8]
                              
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                              


                       Available via www.csce.gov
                       
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-562                      WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                      
            COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

                        U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION

             U.S. HOUSE                                U.S SENATE

JOE WILSON, South Carolina Chairman		BEN CARDIN, Maryland Co-Chairman
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Ranking 			ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 
    Member					  Ranking Member
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama			RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut			
EMANUEL CLEAVER II, Missouri			JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona				JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina		        THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MIKE LAWLER, New York				SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
MARC VEASEY, Texas                                

                            EXECUTIVE BRANCH
                 Department of State - to be appointed
                Department of Defense - to be appointed
                Department of Commerce - to be appointed
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                             COMMISSIONERS

Hon. Joe Wilson, Chairman, from South Carolina...................     1

Hon. Steve Cohen, Ranking Member, from Tennessee.................     3

Hon. Richard Blumenthal, from Connecticut........................    11

Hon. Marc Veasey, from Texas.....................................    15

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, from Missouri..............................    16

Hon. Victoria Spartz, from Indiana...............................    18


                               WITNESSES

Thomas Grant, Senior Research Fellow, University of Cambridge....     4

Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Ukraine 
  to the United Nations..........................................     6

Natasha Hall, Senior Fellow, Middle East Program, CSIS...........     7

                              ----------                              
. 

            COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE,
                      U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION,
                       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
                       
                                     Wednesday, September 27, 2023.

    The hearing was held from 2:05 p.m. To 3:21 p.m., room 2200 
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Representative 
Joe Wilson [R-SC], Chairman, Commission for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, presiding.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF JOE WILSON, CHAIRMAN, U.S. HOUSE, FROM 
                         SOUTH CAROLINA

    Chairman Wilson: Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe will come to order. The 
hearing today is very important in regard to addressing issues 
relative to the United Nations. I would like to welcome 
everyone. I am Joe Wilson, a Member of Congress serving as the 
Commission Chairman. We are joined today by Congressman Steve 
Cohen of Tennessee and Congressman Marc Veasey of Texas, and we 
will be having other members come and go based on different 
meetings.
    We are just so grateful to be here with such very important 
witnesses on such important issues that we face today. We want 
to thank everyone for coming today to the hearing to examine 
how the United Nations is failing those it claims to work on 
behalf of--on behalf of.
    Russia has used its permanent seat on the U.N. Security 
Council to block the international response to its full-scale 
invasion and showcase its own propaganda. It has leveraged the 
negotiations--aid negotiations to shore up its dictator allies 
and strongmen--strongarm democracies and demand deals. 
Dictators use the platform provided by the United Nations to 
present themselves as good-faith actors even as they support 
terrorism, murder innocent civilians, and spread outright lies. 
Through its human rights bodies, the United Nations has even 
promoted a false equivalency between the human rights records 
of the United States and the dictatorships of Russia, China, 
and the regime in Tehran. It is clear to me that the United 
Nations is being run by dictatorial regimes and human rights 
abusers under the rule of gun rather than the world's 
democracies under the rule of law.
    It does not need to be this way. War criminal Putin's full-
scale invasion of Ukraine has made the strongest case for 
reform of the United Nations. We are in a conflict that we did 
not choose between democracies based on rule of law and 
dictatorships, which are countries based on the rule of gun. 
Now we must think creatively to ensure that Putin and others 
cannot continue to abuse the system from within. If the United 
Nations continues to be hijacked by kleptocrats and murderers, 
the world's democracies must look at alternative mechanisms in 
international cooperation.
    When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia took the permanent 
seat of the Soviet Union. This was an informal agreement based 
on the expectation that we all had that Russia would abide by 
international law. As is so clear, it is not, and Russia has 
forsaken its claim to the seat. Nothing entitles Russia to sit 
on the U.N. Security Council. As we will hear today, it would 
not be difficult to remove the Russian Federation if the United 
States would simply pursue this option.
    I am grateful to serve as Chairman of the Middle East and 
North Africa Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee, where I have seen firsthand how war criminal Putin, 
the regime in Tehran, and the Chinese Communist Party 
weaponizes the United Nations to support dictators. For 
example, in the case of Syria, Putin has leveraged Russia's 
position in the United Nations to prop up the puppet Bashar Al-
Assad at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of the Syrian 
people living under murderous oppression. After the recent 
earthquake, the United Nations, backed by Russia, prohibited 
aid from entering through northern Syria to help areas worst 
affected by the earthquake and instead sent aid to regime areas 
that were stolen by corrupt Assad officials. In fact, according 
to the U.N.'s own report of procurement, U.N. operations in 
Syria delivered $4 million to Syria's state-owned fuel 
industry, $5 million to the blood banks operated by the Syrian 
Arab Army for the benefit of its troops, and $8.5 million to 
charities co-opted by members of the Assad family including a 
charity run by the dictator's wife, Asma, the Syria Trust for 
Development.
    I agree with President Barack Obama's Ambassador to Syria, 
Robert Ford, who said, quote, ``It is clear that the U.N. aid 
is not neutral and is being used as a weapon by the Syrian 
Government.'' End of quote.
    It is for this reason, by the Assad Regime Anti-
Normalization Act, we would impose sanctions on Asma Assad's 
corrupt charity as well as the other entities that steal from 
the people of Syria. This bill has broad bipartisan support, 
including from General H.R. McMaster and former Democratic 
National Committee Chair Howard Dean, and was drafted in 
consultation with the Syrian-American organizations who 
understand the realities of the situation.
    Unfortunately, some NGO's, such as InterAction, which has 
formal representation at the United Nations, continue calling 
for radical changes to the bill, including removing language 
that prohibits normalization of the brutal regime of Bashar Al-
Assad in Syria. This is a politicization of humanitarian 
assistance. This stance is strongly opposed by a coalition of 
Syrian and Syrian-American NGO's working on the ground 
courageously to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Syria 
and who endorse the Assad Regime Anti-Normalization Act.
    I would like to submit for the record a letter sent to me 
by InterAction sadly asking for the Assad Regime Anti-
Normalization Act to be watered down, as well as the response 
by Syrian humanitarian organizations working to help the people 
of Syria who are under oppression. Without objection, they 
shall be admitted.
    I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses 
how we can reform the United Nations into an organization that 
meets the realities of the 21st century.
    I am pleased to welcome Dr. Thomas Grant, the senior 
research fellow at Cambridge University. Dr. Grant is an expert 
in international law and has previously worked closely with 
this Commission regarding efforts to remove Russia from the 
U.N. Security Council.
    I am also grateful that we have Ms. Natasha Hall, the 
senior fellow of Middle East Program at the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies. Ms. Hall is an expert on 
U.N. aid and institutions and Russia's manipulation of these.
    We are particularly grateful for the very courageous 
Ambassador of Ukraine to the United Nations, Sergiy Kyslytsya, 
and the permanent representative of Ukraine to the United 
Nations. He has a long and distinguished diplomatic career.
    I want to thank you for the hearing today. We look forward 
to hearing from you so that we can promote positive outcomes 
for those suffering.
    I now will be yielding to our colleague Congressman Steve 
Cohen, who is going to present, and you are going to see, a 
very bipartisan concern and appreciation that we have for the 
people of Ukraine.

  STATEMENT OF STEVE COHEN, RANKING MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE, FROM 
                           TENNESSEE

    Representative Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate 
your calling this hearing and particularly having this bill 
before us today and having these witnesses who are here, and I 
appreciate your attendance.
    The idea of taking Russia away from its Security Council 
seat at first blush is kind of bold, and it is bold. When you 
have to--you have to think about it, which I hope you will 
respond to--and I am sure you will in your remarks--what is the 
purpose of the U.N.? Is it a debating society? We have got 
plenty of those at Princeton and Stanford and the University of 
Memphis. Why do we need a debating society in New York that 
costs so much money? If they are supposed to be protecting 
world peace, protecting countries from their borders being 
invaded by authoritarians who are, you know, land envy, land 
grabbers, then we do not need the U.N. That is what we have 
got.
    It was Soviet Union originally, now Russia. It is not to 
say Russia's not a military force and a political force, but it 
is not what it was when it was the Soviet Union. We certainly 
know that from Putin's diatribe/soliloquy, whatever it was, in 
St. Petersburg when he conjured up Peter the Great and how it 
was wonderful when they had the Soviet Union and they needed to 
have it again. He knows Russia's not what it was, and of course 
that is part of the reason he is in Ukraine. It is because he 
would like to put the Soviet Union back together.
    Just about every kind of effort to advance peace and 
humanitarian aid, it gets killed in the Security Council 
because of Russia. It is really counter to the purpose of the 
United Nations, just like it is pretty much counter to the 
OSCE. They have violated just about all of the Helsinki 
Accords, and then they--we have stopped them from coming to 
meetings. They show up occasionally, and when they have showed 
up we just kind of talk over them. We do not allow them to 
vote. They have violated every Helsinki Accord and the idea 
that they would be voting on measures that would affect them 
and affect Ukraine's efforts to remain a free and democratic 
country is difficult. It is an analogous situation.
    I look forward to you telling us what the U.N.'s purpose 
was, what was Woodrow Wilson thinking back with the League of 
Nations, what was, you know, the whole idea of bringing the 
U.N. together, which is kind of League of Nations part two. 
What is it supposed to serve? What is the Security Council 
supposed to serve, other than, you know, bringing together 
those five powers. Maybe we could take the Russia seat and let 
it be divided among the BRICS countries minus China, who has 
got their spot, and let Brazil and India have a time. You know, 
Russia, besides its nuclear arsenal, is really not superior 
to--I guess economically and in other ways--than to India, and 
so maybe India deserves that seat. Brazil might deserve it. 
They would certainly--they would less likely be hindrances to 
the mission of the U.N.
    I thank you for having the meeting and thank you for your 
attendance. I look forward to your statements about the U.N. 
and how we can go about improving the United Nations, whether 
it is getting Russia off the Security Council or other ways to 
reform the Security Council where it does not blockade good 
measures.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I hope 
that was bipartisan. I was thinking about Everett Dirksen all 
the time I was talking.
    Representative Wilson: Thank you very much, Congressman 
Cohen. Indeed, we have been joined by Congressman Emanuel 
Cleaver from the beautiful State of Missouri, and so we are 
very fortunate.
    We will begin. What we would like to do is each individual 
will have 5 minutes and then, if you have additional comments, 
they can be provided for the record. Then, following that, we 
would be asking--members of the Commission will be asking 
questions. They, too, will be limited, including me; 5 minutes.
    With that, Dr. Grant.

 TESTIMONY OF THOMAS GRANT, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, UNIVERSITY 
                          OF CAMBRIDGE

    Dr. Grant: Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, and 
thank you, Congressman Cohen, and thank you, Congressman 
Cleaver. Thank you to the Commission for inviting me to testify 
on the question, ``Has the United Nations Failed Ukraine and 
the World?''
    My name is Thomas D. Grant. I am a senior fellow of the 
Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of 
Cambridge. I also serve on the executive board of the 
Initiative on Leadership in International Trade and Security at 
the George Washington University. My testimony today is mine 
alone and does not necessarily reflect the views of any 
organization or other individual.
    I respectfully ask the Commission to add my full written 
testimony to the Congressional Record.
    Russia's aggression against Ukraine is the most serious 
violation of the U.N. Charter in the Charter's history. Yet, 
Russia continues to fill the seat of a permanent member in the 
U.N. Security Council.
    To address this challenge, your ranking member, Congressman 
Cohen, and chairman, Congressman Wilson, have introduced a 
resolution, H.Res. 267. In H.Res. 267, Congressmen Cohen and 
Wilson recall the many agreements Russia has broken, threats 
Russia has made, and crimes Russia has perpetrated. The 
resolution would find Russia's continued presence in the U.N. 
Security Council itself to be a violation of the U.N. Charter 
and would urge our executive branch to pursue an appropriate 
remedy.
    In my testimony today, first, I will address specific 
practical reasons we should seek to curtail Russia's presence 
in the Council; and second, I will suggest how we might achieve 
that remedy.
    First, reasons we should seek to curtail Russia's presence. 
Regarding the U.N. Security Council, Russia exploits the 
Council as a bully pulpit. From the seat it fills, Russia tries 
to divert attention from its wrongdoing and it seeks to 
propagate factitious claims against the very countries and 
peoples who are the targets of Russia's aggression. Moreover, 
Russia wields the veto of one of the five permanent members in 
the Security Council. Doing, Russia blocks initiatives that 
would hold Russia to account. In particular, because Russia 
wields a veto, the Council cannot take steps on asset seizure 
and asset forfeiture and steps that would help make sure that 
it is Russia who pays for the harm that Russia has inflicted.
    To move to my second point, how we might curtail Russia's 
presence in the U.N. Security Council. The U.N. Charter 
provides for the expulsion outright of a member that has 
persistently violated the principles of the U.N. Charter. The 
problem is expulsion is subject to permanent-member veto. No 
doubt Russia would veto an attempt to expel Russia. That is not 
the end of the story.
    One of the principal organs of the United Nations has used 
credentials procedure to curtail the presence of certain 
members in the U.N. The General Assembly used credentials 
procedure to exclude Taiwan. It was in 1971 and, unfortunately, 
Taiwan remains excluded from the U.N. to this day. By contrast, 
however, in other cases the Assembly has used credentials 
procedure for beneficial effect. In 1956, it used credentials 
procedure to prevent the USSR's puppet regime in Hungary from 
participating in the U.N. Then, in 1974, it again used 
credentials procedure, this time to reject the representation 
of apartheid South Africa at the U.N.
    The U.N. Security Council has its own credentials 
procedure. Under the procedure, any member of the Council may 
raise objection against the presence of any other member. The 
vote on an objection takes place under the Council's procedural 
rules. As a procedural vote, the vote is not subject to 
permanent-member veto. If nine members vote to uphold the 
objection, then the objection stands and the member against 
whom the objection was made does not get to fill a Security 
Council seat. This is a remedy that the Council in principle 
could use in effect to curtail Russia's presence in the 
Council.
    To summarize, Russia's presence in the U.N. Security 
Council prevents necessary action in response to Russia's 
aggression against Ukraine. The U.N.'s own precedents and 
procedures suggest a remedy.
    Thank you, Chairman Wilson and members of the Commission, 
for the privilege of testifying today. I look forward to the 
discussion on this important issue.
    Chairman Wilson: Dr. Grant, thank you so much. I cannot 
wait to get a little bit further on the remedy that you 
mentioned, how positive that could be.
    We now are grateful that we have Ambassador Kyslytsya, who 
is serving this wonderful country as the--Ukraine's Ambassador 
to the United Nations. Ambassador Kyslytsya, thank you so much 
for being here today.

     TESTIMONY OF SERGIY KYSLYTSYA, AMBASSADOR, PERMANENT 
        REPRESENTATIVE OF UKRAINE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

    Mr. Kyslytsya: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to 
thank you and your fellow members of the Commission for 
initiating this discussion, which is an important topic for 
Ukraine, for the United States, and for the world.
    Let us not forget that the long list of Russia's 
occupations--in the long list of the Russians' occupations, the 
first one was the occupation of the permanent seat of the USSR, 
followed by the occupation of part of Transnistria, followed by 
the occupation of Georgia, followed by attempted annexation of 
Crimea and temporary occupation of Crimea. We have to remember 
that the first act of occupation happened in 1991 in December.
    My president has addressed the General Assembly last week 
and the Security Council, and I will submit for the record both 
speeches of President Zelensky. I would like to quote from one 
of his speeches last week where he speaks about the seat in the 
Security Council. I quote: ``this seat in the Security Council, 
which Russia occupied illegally through backstage manipulations 
following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and all of the--all 
of the U.N. actions that could have stopped this aggression, 
are shattered by the privilege granted by this seat to the 
aggressor. Veto power in the hands of the aggressor is what has 
pushed the U.N. into dead end.'' More extended version members 
of the Commission can see in the speech.
    I would like to bring you back not even to San Francisco of 
May 1945. I would like to bring you back to February 1945, and 
that's the Yalta conference. During the Yalta conference, there 
was a very memorable conversation between Stalin and Prime 
Minister Churchill. Stalin insisted that only three big powers 
should decide in the future about world affairs and that no 
other powers should be allowed to decide. To which Prime 
Minister Churchill quoted Shakespeare, and he said, ``The eagle 
should permit the small birds to sing and care not wherefore 
they sing.'' To which Stalin agreed, and he got the idea that 
the future organization will be designed in a manner that would 
absolutely give no chance to take all the powers from the 
Soviet Union. That is why invading the permanent seat in the 
Security Council was so fundamentally important for Russia.
    We can speak hours and hours about how it happened. I can 
show you the correspondence between the legal counsel of the 
U.N. and the secretary-general. As late as 19 of December 1991, 
the legal counsel of the United Nations presented the 
secretary-general with three options. He said, whatever the 
options is--will be, there is a need for the vote both in the 
Security Council and in the General Assembly. It never 
happened. You can go and you can open the report of the 
Security Council sent to the General Assembly in June 1992, 
where you will read that the letter sent by Yeltsin where he 
expressed his intention to continue the membership of the 
Soviet Union is under the chapter ``Matters Brought to the 
Attention of the Security Council But Not Discussed in the 
Council During the Period Covered.''
    That is a fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is how 
soon we in New York and in the capitals will be able to call a 
spade a spade and to start discussions--not necessarily in 
public, because some sensitive discussions should be away from 
journalism, from media, but they have to start these 
discussions. We should not really wait until the end of 
military phase of the conflict in Ukraine because let me remind 
you that the world leaders were discussing the future world 
order back in February in Yalta long before the collapse and 
the defeat--military defeat of the Hitler regime in May 1945. I 
think that that is a fundamental point, and I am willing to 
contribute to this discussion as Ambassador.
    I would like to express my profound gratitude to the U.S. 
Mission in New York because I believed that there were never 
times as today that we would cooperate so closely and that we 
would coordinate and consult each other almost daily. The last 
meeting I had with the U.S. permanent representative in New 
York was this morning at 7:45 before we left for Washington, 
DC. Thank you.
    Chairman Wilson: Ambassador, thank you very much. You and 
the people of Ukraine are indeed an inspiration to the people 
of the world.
    We are so fortunate to have Natasha Hall. She is a senior 
fellow at the Middle East Program of the Center for Strategic 
and International Studies and a person who is so familiar with 
the United Nations. Ms. Hall, thank you for your being here 
today.

STATEMENT OF NATASHA HALL, SENIOR FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM, 
                              CSIS

    Ms. Hall: Thank you, Chairman Wilson, Representative Cohen, 
Representative Cleaver. I am honored to share my views with you 
today on this important topic. Thank you for the invitation.
    CSIS, I should say, does not take policy positions, so the 
views represented in this testimony are my own and not those of 
my employer. They are also informed by over 10 years of working 
on Syria, both from the humanitarian and civilian-protection 
sectors.
    Congress founded this very Commission to unite the 
countries of Europe and the United States around core values of 
human rights and humanitarian principles, but what we are 
seeing today is that authoritarian regimes and particularly 
Russia are undermining these principles around the world. For 
many, Russia's actions in Ukraine crystalize this threat. 
However, I believe that their tactics were more clearly 
distilled during the Syrian conflict. In Syria, the Assad 
regime and Russia presented a successful blueprint for how to 
exploit the benefits of these core principles while 
simultaneously undermining them. Through lessons learned in 
Syria, I believe the United States will be better able to 
confront these challenges to vital multilateral institutions 
and humanitarian assistance.
    Early on in the Syrian conflict, the Assad regime learned 
to access resources and support from the very multilateral 
institutions they sought to undermine. Taking advantage of the 
United Nations agencies' mandate to provide aid, the regime 
allowed U.N. agencies to stay in Damascus under certain 
conditions. In doing so, they extracted unprecedented 
compromises from the humanitarian community.
    For the first time, the U.N. allowed a government-
affiliated air organization with military escorts to deliver 
aid to areas that were in rebellion with the same government. 
As a result, these convoys were stopped, damaged, or diverted 
to loyalists throughout the war.
    As the conflict dragged on, control over international 
humanitarian assistance in Damascus allowed the regime to 
provide line edits to humanitarian reports and cover up brutal 
sieges, effectively flipping the scripts on the conflict 
itself. Most infamously, the U.N. failed to publicize the siege 
of Madaya until international media outlets reported on the 
starvation of children in the area.
    Seeking to stay in the good graces of the government, aid 
organizations have resorted to giving incentives to the regime 
to continue working. More recently, the Associated Press 
reported that the head of the World Health Organization gave 
gold coins, cars, and contracts to Syrian regime officials. I 
have submitted other examples as part of my written testimony.
    This is a larger story than aid diversion. These regimes 
have learned to use humanitarian negotiations to gain 
legitimacy on the international stage, as high-level U.N. and 
government officials must curry favor with them for access when 
their unsavory military tactics would otherwise cause them to 
be sidelined.
    We have seen these strategies elsewhere, including in 
Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine. For example, in Myanmar, the 
military junta has used these humanitarian negotiations to 
legitimize their role as the primary international interlocutor 
and decisionmaker regarding aid.
    Russia and China's protection of the Syrian regime and the 
aforementioned actors at the international level fuels 
authoritarian impunity in Syria and other countries. On this 
point, I have tracked the budding alliance between Russia and 
China during the Syrian conflict as they defended the regime's 
right to obstruct humanitarian aid. In fact, since 1971, 10 of 
the 18 PRC's vetoes have been to protect the Assad regime 
during the Syrian conflict. Those watching Syria closely should 
not have been surprised by China's reaction to Russia's 
invasion of Ukraine.
    Russia has also directly used these tactics with the U.N. 
in both Ukraine and Syria. The U.N. Security Council resolution 
on Syrian cross-border assistance and the Black Sea Grain 
Initiative were both initially hailed as great diplomatic 
successes to mitigate humanitarian suffering. However, Russia 
used these deals to maintain leverage over the international 
community and gain concessions. In both instances, they 
shortened the time between renewals in order to maintain 
greater control over the process. They also gradually whittled 
away the benefits of both deals. In Syria, they shut down 
border crossings. In Ukraine, they severely constricted exports 
by slowing the inspection process.
    Understanding the leverage that this granted Russia, a 
warring party, both Syrians and Ukrainians have insisted on 
finding alternatives. Russia then terminated both deals this 
summer. Still lacking alternatives, U.N. cross-border aid for 
Syrians is now back under the thumb of the very regime which 
systematically cut them off for over a decade. Ukrainians are 
now scrambling to find alternative routes while world food 
prices continue to surge. In the meantime, Russia continues to 
blame the United States for the resulting suffering. In other 
words, Russia benefits from setting the world on fire and 
blaming the West for lighting the match.
    The answer to this dilemma does not lie in turning away 
from the United Nations, which is an essential diplomatic and 
humanitarian forum. On the contrary, this is time for the 
United States to lean in. When we withdraw from the United 
Nations, China and Russia fill the vacuum. However, relying on 
stultified and manipulated U.N. negotiations to deliver peace 
and aid for years if not decades is fueling war economies and 
undermining humanitarian principles.
    What should we do about it? I would provide three very 
feasible recommendations, and I am happy to provide measures to 
actually get to these recommendations.
    First, the United--the United States should aim to remove 
humanitarian assistance from the remit of the Security Council. 
Lifesaving assistance should not be subject to great-power 
competition.
    Second, the countries where peace negotiations are stalled 
and U.N. agencies are cutoff from populations for extended 
periods, the United States needs to work with its allies to 
find alternatives. NGO's, and local NGO's in particular, can be 
this alternative. Localization of aid is more cost effective, 
and these actors often have better access to populations that 
are blocked by warring parties.
    Finally, funding for humanitarian aid should not be cut. On 
the contrary, more aid is desperately needed in Syria and 
worldwide. It needs to be coupled with a coherent strategy to 
end conflicts and counter corruption. Without that strategy, 
aid can fall prey to war economies, exacerbating the drivers of 
conflict and instability.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look 
forward to your questions.
    Chairman Wilson: Thank you, Ms. Hall. Thank you very much, 
and thank each of the witnesses.
    We have been joined by Senator Richard Blumenthal of 
Connecticut. Indeed, this is a very unique Commission. It 
includes members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. 
Senate. Then we also have wonderful staff people who are 
available to receive information to help the world understand 
how important it is that we work together as we face issues 
such as an invasion by Ukraine.
    We will now begin with the 5-minutes beginning with me, and 
they will strictly enforce it.
    I--at this time, I want to thank Ambassador Kyslytsya. 
Gosh, your courage to have to be where you are is incredible.
    I want to thank you for something that you did. You 
immediately really began by pointing out that the invasion of 
Ukraine actually followed the illegal occupation of 
Transnistria in Moldova; Abkhazia and South Ossetia of the 
Republic of Georgia; and then of course it led to the 
occupation of Crimea, 2008; and then the invasion, 2014, of 
eastern Ukraine. One thing that I regret more people do not 
recognize, 11,000 people were killed as the first occupation of 
Ukraine occurred. Then where we are today. Indeed, it is an 
indication with the threats that we have to the Baltic 
republics beginning with Estonia, then to Lithuania directly 
and Latvia, and then the claims by the Russian Federation of 
the need to realign the international boundaries of Poland. 
Your success is just an inspiration to us, but as a way to 
deter future aggression.
    With that in mind, you have a thick skin. How do you 
handle, as you serve Ukraine in the United Nations, the 
duplicity that you have to hear over and over again? How do you 
work with your other--with other countries on, indeed, 
disclosing the truth?
    Mr. Kyslytsya: Well, thank you. One thing I would like to 
mention is that if you look at the General Assembly, where 193 
countries are present, it is the picture of the world as it is. 
Unlike the pictures in your computer, you cannot Photoshop it. 
Which means that every single Ambassador, including myself and 
my American, my British, my Lithuanian colleague, we have to 
work 24/7 with every single country. Every single country there 
has its particular interests. Then we have to identify these 
interests, and then we have to decide how we find the balance 
without breaking our integrity and our national interests in 
order to be able to listen to them and, as possible, to 
accommodate their interests and engage them to work with us in 
return.
    I think that we all failed on many things. We all failed on 
Africa, for example. Everyone--the European Union, Ukraine, the 
United States--we all have to review what we do in that part of 
the world, and it requires a very continued and everyday 
interest demonstrated to all of them. It requires a lot of 
human resources. It requires a lot of ingenuity and creativity.
    The League of Nations failed because the United States was 
not there from the very outset. It never joined, and we know 
the result: The Second World War broke out. It is our enemies 
and our opponents who would like us to be not present in the 
whole of the General Assembly, because then they will rule the 
world with our presence and we would not annoy them. The thing 
is how to find this equilibrium between our immediate needs and 
the legitimate needs of many other countries around the world.
    Chairman Wilson: Thank you so much.
    Dr. Grant, on a number of visits that I had across the 
Russian Federation I was so impressed by the people I met I 
just had such high hopes. It did not surprise me that, of 
course, they would be the successor to the Soviet Union, but 
how that has just turned out so faulty with the dictatorship, 
your remedy just sounds incredible. Is any country taking a 
lead on trying to address removal of the Russian--I call it 
Putin.
    Dr. Grant: Chairman Wilson, that is a very important 
question, because to have a procedure in the abstract is one 
thing; to actually make it operate in reality on the ground, 
that is quite a different thing. It is the difference between 
legal procedure and the politics needed to actually generate 
interest in making the procedure work.
    As the Ambassador would understand, of course, Ukraine 
itself is very much in the forefront of drawing attention to 
Russia's malign activity in the U.N. Our own delegation and our 
own permanent representative have done very good work calling 
out the Russians on some of their worst behavior at the U.N.
    As to actually moving forward on the procedure, it would 
take a great deal of behind-the-scenes work. It would take a 
lot of very careful diplomatic measurement of the temperature, 
so to speak, of the various countries that you would need to 
get this operative procedural majority of nine members. Without 
the--you know, on--without being present on the ground, it 
would be presumptuous, you know, to take a guess of exactly, 
you know, how the politics is lining up.
    Short answer is I think it is on people's minds. Longer 
answer: It would take a lot of work to actually bring together 
the coalition to get that procedural vote.
    Chairman Wilson: Well, it certainly is intriguing, as many 
of us feel like we are living in September 1939 and the 
aggression by Hitler then and now Putin today.
    As we proceed, now Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee.
    Representative Cohen: Yield my time right now to Mr. 
Blumenthal, since he had not had a chance to make an opening 
statement.
    Chairman Wilson: Absolutely.

 STATEMENT OF RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, U.S. SENATE, FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal: Thank you to my colleague from 
Tennessee. Really appreciate it. Thank you to the chair.
    This is an absolutely extraordinary panel. Each of you has 
worked so hard on behalf of the humanitarian principles and 
rule of law and basic civil liberties and independence that are 
so vitally at stake in Ukraine. I have been to Ukraine four 
times in the last 18 months and have had an opportunity to meet 
with President Zelensky on numerous occasions.
    The U.N. has been AWOL in this conflict. I sat last night 
with the prosecutor general of Ukraine talking about the 
kidnapping of children, the--in effect, the detaining of 
innocent adults as well as children in Russia and Belarus. This 
seems to me an ongoing war crime in real time. I visited the 
mass graves in Bucha where innocent women and children had 
their hands tied behind their back and they were shot in the 
head. That is a past crime. What we are seeing now is an 
ongoing war crime, an atrocity.
    I wonder, you know, if I can ask all of you this question: 
Should not there be a way of raising in the U.N.--I know there 
is the International Court of Criminal Justice, an arrest 
warrant has been issued for Vladimir Putin--but should not the 
U.N. be rallying around an effort to stop this ongoing war 
crime that is happening right before the world's eyes in real 
time? Ambassador?
    Mr. Kyslytsya: The thing is that the United Nations is 
almost exclusively seen by public and by many politicians 
through the prism and the optics of the Security Council, which 
is totally blocked for a very well-known reason. We also have 
to acknowledge the power of the General Assembly, which is 
another pillar of the United Nations. The General Assembly has 
been very powerful. I mean, the General Assembly has approved 
six resolutions since March 2022, and those resolutions helped 
inform not only public but the opinion of many parliamentarians 
around the world. All those resolutions are used in the 
national proceedings in courts or in the international courts.
    Let me ask everyone present here a question, a very simple 
one. Imagine Russia is stripped of its veto right in the 
Security Council. Imagine we draft a resolution; we put it to a 
vote in the Security Council that literally reads stop the war, 
withdraw your troops; and that resolution is carried by the 
Security Council; and that resolution is sent to the Kremlin; 
and that resolution ends on the desk of Putin and he reads this 
resolution. What do you think happens next? Will he call 
Shoigu, his defense minister, and tell, oh, Shoigu, listen, 
there was a resolution by the Security Council; let's withdraw 
troops? No, it will not happen. It will not happen because we 
have to deal with a dictator who cannot give monkeys about what 
Security Council, what U.S. Congress, what the General 
Assembly, what the ICJ--the International Court of Justice--
believe, because we have to deal with someone who is beyond our 
control--unless we use real force, real hard force to stop him.
    When we discuss the future architecture of the United 
Nations, we have to think very carefully whether we will trust 
the United Nations with the leverages to deal with the kind of 
dictators who would not be able to escape the punishment if 
they do similar things.
    Senator Blumenthal: Any of the other witnesses have a 
comment?
    Dr. Grant: Senator, thank you very much for the--for the 
question and the observations.
    My only comment would be the ongoing war crimes are of 
extraordinary nature. It is the mass kidnapping of children. It 
is so beyond what you would expect any major country to have 
engaged in that it really should shine a spotlight on this 
question of Russia's participation in any of the international 
bodies that we participate in as well, including the Security 
Council, because it is simply so far beyond anything you would 
have imagined possible in the post-1945 period. You would have 
thought this sort of thing was in the distant past.
    Only I will just amplify the point you made. It is 
important, really important.
    Senator Blumenthal: Thank you.
    Ms. Hall: Thank you, Congressman [sic; Senator] Blumenthal.
    I mean, I would just say this goes back to the original 
question: What is the role of the United Nations and what is 
the role of the United States? The United Nations is a 
composition of nations and different councils and commissions. 
If the only thing stopping us is the Security Council in terms 
of stopping Russia's actions, that is one thing. I think if it 
is--if it goes beyond that, then the United Nations needs to 
maintain a neutral stance so that it can negotiate in the 
future hopefully for an end to this conflict, but also other 
conflicts that we know will happen in the future.
    I would simply say that--reiterate the representative's 
point about the General Assembly, that this is really the time 
to lean into the General Assembly and be very diplomatic with a 
number of nations on many of the recommendations that we have, 
including removing humanitarian assistance from the Security 
Council.
    Senator Blumenthal: Thank you.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Wilson: Thank you very much, Senator.
    At this time we will proceed, and I would like to go back 
to Congressman Cohen. He is just been too generous, and so--to 
defer. Can you believe he would defer to a member of the House 
of Lords? He did, Okay [Laughter.] Who have--that is startling. 
I do not mean to put down our other colleagues, but Congressman 
Cohen, please.
    Representative Cohen: My visa may expire while he is 
talking, so. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Wilson: Well, hey, you are appreciated, I can 
assure you.
    Representative Cohen: That was easy to yield my time to Mr. 
Blumenthal because he does not act in a lordly fashion.
    What has the U.N. done to stymie efforts with Ukraine, Mr. 
Ambassador? What has occurred that you would like to have seen 
done differently?
    Mr. Kyslytsya: If we go back to the end of 2021 and the 
very beginning of 2022, and we read all the reports and 
statements made by the U.S. intelligence and the U.K. 
intelligence about the imminent nature of the threat of 
invasion, we can see how reluctant the United Nations as a body 
was to address the issue and how reluctant the membership of 
the Security Council beyond the United States and the U.K. was 
to take it onboard--how the secretary-general was making 
statements publicly in the press stakeouts that he was never 
asked to intervene into the negotiations between the United 
States and Ukraine and Russia and everyone. He, however, had 
changed dramatically his position on the night of the 23rd, 
which was still the night of the 23rd--the 24 already in 
Europe.
    The thing is that the United Nations as a body, and the 
Security Council in particular--because it is the Security 
Council that is trusted--it was trusted in San Francisco to act 
on behalf of everyone on the issue of prevention of conflicts. 
It is the primary responsibility of the body of the Security 
Council to act, and it did not. That could have been done much 
better should the Security Council was designed differently 
in--and I want to go back again--in Yalta, not in San 
Francisco.
    We have to review this design, but we have to review that 
design not to undermine the strengths of democratic countries 
in the United Nations. We have to undermine the ability of 
rogue states and of dictators to manipulate with the design to 
block everything.
    Representative Cohen: Was that ever brought up in Yalta, 
the idea that one of the five might be the invader and be the 
bad guy? Or was there--was there an attitude of kumbaya?
    Mr. Kyslytsya: Well, Yalta was, as we all remember, not 
even the P5. Yalta was the meeting of two elderly gentlemen and 
one dictator. It was the United States, the U.K., and the 
Soviet Union. France was invited at a very late stage. There 
was even a discussion in Yalta whether France should even be 
allowed to have the occupation sector in Germany. China was 
invited also at a very late stage. The major deal was done in 
Yalta long before all of us landed in San Francisco, and this 
started long discussions about the language of what is now 
known of the U.N. Charter.
    I would like to remind all of us for the record that the 
first chapter of the U.N. Charter, which is called ``Purposes 
and Principles,'' through a tragic irony was written by the 
Ukrainian delegation in San Francisco. It was the Ukrainian 
Soviet Socialist Republic and the head of the delegation of 
Ukraine in San Francisco who was heading the working group that 
prepared the draft of the U.N. Charter that is today called 
``Purposes and Principles.''
    Once again, I say--and I repeat myself--that the major 
breakthroughs in the designs or architecture of the world 
security happened after the major conflicts. The war against 
Ukraine is a major conflict, and we should not really allow 
that it just happened like, you know, the military phase is 
over; let's go back to business as usual. That would be the 
most dramatic mistake.
    The United Nations plans to hold the summit next September 
that is called the Summit of the Future. Imagine, it will take 
place next September. We should work very hard not to allow 
that summit to end up like yet another summit, yet another 
marathon of statements by world leaders. If we really want to 
speak next September in New York about the future, we have to 
start a discussion about the future architecture of--global 
future architecture of security, and we have to discuss where 
the United Nations will be in the future architecture. Not to 
have the United Nations is not an option.
    Representative Cohen: You ever have the urge to punch the 
Russian ambassador? [Laughter.]
    I yield back my time. [Laughs.]
    Mr. Kyslytsya: You know, I was--I thought about it several 
times, but then I realized--[laughter]--then I realized that I 
should not allow his toxic lies to eat me from outside and I 
should not allow my emotions to eat me from inside, because 
then I would not be operational. My government sent me to New 
York not to be emotional or, you know, pathetic; my government 
sent me to New York to defend my country.
    Representative Cohen: If you ever have that thought again, 
invite Mr.--Mayor Klitschko to come help you. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Kyslytsya: Oh my God. [Laughter.] You know, I tell 
you--I mean, I tell you, not to praise myself but to praise the 
colleagues of mine who sit daily in the Security Council, that 
it is a very poisonous atmosphere in the Security Council. I 
know some colleagues who, while listening to the Russians, they 
basically--they cover their face with hands because they are so 
disgusted. They have a lot of sympathy, by the way, to the 
interpreters who have to interpret all those speeches, endless 
torrent of lies--of lies daily. That is terrible. We have to 
show our sympathy, you know, seriously.
    Representative Cohen: Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Wilson: Thank you, Congressman Cohen, even though 
you were provocative.
    We now--[laughter]--much less provocative would be 
Congressman Marc Veasey, all the way from Texas.

        STATEMENT OF MARC VEASEY, U.S. HOUSE, FROM TEXAS

    Representative Veasey: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    This is--I think this is a very interesting subject, 
obviously, just because of some of the dynamics that are 
happening right now in the international community and, you 
know, here in our own country and even in different parts of 
the world. We are trying to make sure that we shore up support 
for Ukraine being able to push back on Russia's unlawful 
invasion of the country, and so a lot of these questions about 
the U.N. and the role that they are playing I think is a--is a 
very important question to discuss.
    I was really hoping that you could kind of talk about how 
the structure and dynamics of the U.N. change so that 
democracies are more often able to ensure that international 
law is upheld. I do not know if Dr. Grant could maybe touch on 
that some, or Mrs. Hall.
    Dr. Grant: Congressman Veasey, thank you very much for that 
question. It is really important. That is a large part of what 
we are talking about today, exactly what do we do with this 
structure that the United States has invested so much into over 
78 years, literally billions a year, and magnify that across 
almost three generations. Our commitment's very long and deep, 
so we would like to find a way to make it work.
    Difficulty is we--the United Nations has developed into a 
forum with 193 participating states. A great deal of emphasis 
has been placed simply on having an open forum for everybody on 
an equal footing. Now, as far as it goes, that is probably a 
good thing in a world with so many complexities and potential 
conflicts. You want a chance for everyone to have a place to 
speak and express a country's concerns. The difficulty, though, 
is with that many participants, and some of which are 
dictatorships, some of which are--thankfully, only a small 
number of which are close to Russia, it is difficult to achieve 
the consensus that you need on bodies that are very much 
consensus-driven.
    The Council, because of the permanent-member veto, can only 
take the legally binding Chapter VII measures with the 
concurring votes of the permanent members. Now, that inbuilt 
limit is a good thing in the sense that it makes sure the U.N. 
does not do too much, but it is not a very good thing when you 
have a crisis where you need the U.N. to do something. Which--
and going back to Congressman Cohen's question, what has the--
what have--what has the organization actually done since the 
all-out invasion began in 2022 of Ukraine. I mean, one thing 
which might also go to Chairman Wilson's question about 
measuring the politics and the support for action, the Security 
Council very quickly voted on procedural grounds--so that is a 
procedural vote not subject to veto--to convene an emergency 
special session of the General Assembly. Now, the emergency 
special session is called on request of the Council by 
procedural vote; it had not happened for close to two 
generations. That is the first time--it does not happen every 
day. Been over 40 years since that had happened. The Council 
did rally to the extent necessary to call the Assembly into 
emergency special session.
    The second thing that we saw is once the Assembly convened 
in that special procedure, it did adopt these six successive 
resolutions supporting Ukraine, and every one of those 
resolutions has really big majorities. That gives me some 
cautious optimism.
    Of all those six resolutions, one that really stands out 
for practical reasons is the November 2022 resolution, which I 
think merits a close look. In that resolution, the Assembly 
called for the creation of a special register of war damages to 
keep a tally on the harm Russia is inflicting on Ukraine, on 
Ukraine's citizens, and on other interests that have been 
adversely affected. That is unique. You do not see that every 
day. The register of damages is--it is a modest step. It is not 
enough in itself. It is a necessary preliminary step to start 
saying, look, this war that Russia has perpetrated has had 
enormous costs in human terms, and I am afraid to say you can 
financialize that as well, and as a step in that direction. 
Again, cautious optimism, but still some optimism that that 
sort of measure could be taken.
    Representative Veasey: Yes. Really quickly because the time 
is expiring here, do you think that there is hope for a renewed 
grain deal, especially with some of the success that Ukraine 
has had against the Black Sea Fleet?
    Ms. Hall: Yes. I actually just heard more on this this 
morning. It is at an impasse, and this speaks quite a bit to 
the Russian extortion that I am talking about because 
apparently there has been a deal to work with a subsidiary of 
the agricultural bank in Russia to be able to export their 
food, grain, fertilizer. The Russians do not want to accept it, 
and they would like to work through the agricultural bank in 
Moscow, and so it is currently at an impasse. I think this sort 
of points to a larger problem: that we rely on the U.N. quite a 
bit in a multipolar world, and prior to Russia essentially 
blowing up the deal this summer the secretary-general was 
essentially waiting on those negotiations to address a whole 
range of humanitarian issues throughout the world, hoping that 
it would get the Russian deal prior to that. We also do not 
want, you know, peace or humanitarian aid to be held hostage to 
such negotiations. It is also looking like the Ukrainians--and 
I am sure the representative could speak more to that--are 
starting to find effective alternatives. Yes.
    Chairman Wilson: Thank you very much, Congressman Veasey.
    We now proceed to Congressman Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri.

    STATEMENT OF EMANUEL CLEAVER, U.S. HOUSE, FROM MISSOURI

    Representative Cleaver: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me followup with that issue raised by Mr. Veasey. You 
know, I find myself going back and forth on the issue of 
Russian participation or membership on the 15-member Security 
Council. I do not--you know, I do not think they have merited 
participation on the Security Council. I am not even sure they 
have merited being in the United Nations since they have 
already violated Section 24. I am just curious, is there--is 
there more damage being done because we have--we are simply 
kind of ignoring their violations as it relates to the Security 
Council? Is the danger greater if they are not a participant? 
Anyone.
    Dr. Grant: Congressman Cleaver, that is a really important 
question. If we are talking about a remedy, we have to make 
sure the remedy's not worse than the thing that we are actually 
trying to address.
    Looking at downsides, well, the thing is, people value the 
U.N. as this universal forum. The thing is, within the U.N. the 
General Assembly, in a plan that actually succeeded in removing 
Russia from a voting presence in the Council would still be 
open. You would not be talking about a complete mute switch on 
all Russian participation. To take the South African apartheid 
example in 1974, they could still get in the building. They 
could still put papers in the system and receive papers. They 
could not vote, and in a way, that seems like a sensible 
approach.
    You would not want to completely isolate even the worst 
country in the history of the world; you would want some 
channel. I hear your question to go to that concern, that at 
least, you know, we have some channel. I think this--the remedy 
of sort of a pause on their participation would preserve that 
opening so they are not completely boxed into a corner for the 
future.
    Mr. Kyslytsya: If I may, before we reach the stage of 
expulsion or removal of the Russian Federation, that is the 
case with all the problems. We have to acknowledge the 
existence of the problem, whatever the problem is. You can ask 
your staff members to make a compilation of statements of the 
member states of the United Nations of how many of them looked 
into the eye of the Russian ambassador and said, Mr. 
Ambassador, your actions are not compatible with the criteria 
of the membership, in a formal session. I can guarantee you 
that you would have less than half a page to report to you, 
because it is one thing that we have this discussion in this 
setting; it is another thing that we have a discussion with the 
expert community, journalists, members of the parliaments. If 
you go on record and if you look into the record of the 
Security Council formal meetings, it is only me who starts--it 
is only I, sorry, who start every statement in the Security 
Council who says, I acknowledge the presence of the Russian 
Federation in the Soviet seat.
    We have to reach the point where we are able to call a 
spade a spade. We have to brave--to be brave enough to say: Mr. 
Ambassador of the Russian Federation, the actions of your 
country are totally incompatible with your status. We have not 
reached this point, unfortunately.
    You know, one of the things I would like to bring your 
attention to, I mean, there are many, many--more than 100 
groups of friends in the United Nations. I have a whole list. 
There is a very important group of friends on defense of the 
Charter of the United Nations. Do you know who are the founders 
of this group of friends? Belarus, North Korea, Iran, 
Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela. The level of hypocrisy in 
New York is extraordinary--extraordinary--and it takes real 
courage for many Ambassadors to be able to call a spade a 
spade. I am sorry if I repeat myself.
    Representative Cleaver: Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Wilson: Thank you very much, Congressman Cleaver.
    Now we are joined by Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, who has 
a very unique perspective. She was born in the Soviet Union. We 
are so grateful for her relocation to Indiana with her 
Ukrainian heritage. Congresswoman Spartz.

     STATEMNET OF VICTORIA SPARTZ, U.S. HOUSE, FROM INDIANA

    Representtative Spartz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for being here. I apologize for being late. We are dealing with 
a lot of fiscal issues, and as a CPA, unfortunately, who 
understand finances--[laughs]--and understand numbers are very 
important.
    As someone who grew up in the former Soviet Union, Ukraine 
now, I, you know, had to get involved with a lot of foreign 
policy issues that I did not plan to get involved last year. 
When I--you know--you know, I know enough to be dangerous about 
numbers, so I am very dangerous with numbers, but I had to go 
on the ground to understand a lot of things and issues that 
were happening in Europe, around the world in foreign policy. 
Now, you know, I would not claim that I know enough to be 
dangerous about Javelins, but when I do not know about Javelins 
I talk to people who know. The same; when I do not know, I talk 
to people on the ground.
    I was very shocked, very surprised, and very disturbed to 
see what the United Nations is and how lack of their presence, 
and the money was spent, and where people were really dying. 
People are dying in Ukraine; I have not seen them. We had a lot 
of refugees in Poland; I have not seen them. I went to the 
Middle East to a lot of countries like Syria, Yemen, and a lot 
of other ones too. It is sad for me to see.
    It was interesting for me, when we talk to some of our 
allies they say, Victoria, we are not giving money to these 
corrupt organizations. You know, American people are very 
generous, but we are not fools and we want to make sure that 
the issues we support, you know, actually go to the people. 
They are dealing with some real serious life-and-death 
situations.
    I just kind of--this hearing is very timely. I appreciate, 
Mr. Chairman, really to looking at that because we are actually 
doing funding now. Guess what? Congress has authority where we 
spend money. We do not use it--[laughs]--as wisely as we 
should. I actually have amendment that passed through the Rules 
Committee and is going to be on the floor to actually not to 
provide unauthorized programs by Congress money to U.N. All 
funding that was not authorized by Congress should not be 
provided by secretary of State to the U.N. I have not seen them 
serving the people. I have not seen them using American money 
of American taxpayers wisely. We borrowing a lot of money, so 
we want to make sure. It is my responsibility as a 
Congresswoman, you know.
    I have some thoughts, but I also want to get your thoughts. 
I know you have shared that. You know, if you think--because, 
you know, American taxpayers spend a lot of money to a lot of 
these international organization. They failed not just Ukraine, 
you know. You know, there is a huge discussion in the reform. 
You know, they were set up for different purposes after cold 
war. Ultimately, we have a major war like that and we have 
millions of people dying in Africa, then it means this 
organization's not working and we need to be serious.
    What thoughts you have how Americans, and we as Congress, 
we can be wiser and better with money? Maybe we will just go 
through each of you to make sure, because, ultimately, every 
mission is driven by money. How we can do better? There are a 
lot of lives that are lost because maybe we are not doing as 
good job, too. Ms. Hall?
    Ms. Hall: Yes. Thank you for your remarks, Congresswoman 
Spartz. I appreciate that.
    As someone who has seen aid manipulation firsthand and I 
have reported on it for years, I think it is one thing to 
continue to monitor U.N. aid, which is something that I have 
advocated for, but the resources to do that are missing. We 
actually need additional resources to do that.
    The other element that is missing--and this is--this is the 
critical element--is what the U.S. Government and its allies 
are willing to do together with that information. That has also 
been sorely lacking.
    I think that unless resources are devoted to such an 
investigation and it is, again, followed up with diplomatic 
actions in concert with the U.N. and other NGO's, I think--
    Representative Spartz: Well, there is 30 seconds. Do you 
think maybe we should not be funding them and look how we can 
use money better versus giving them the money? Is it a fair 
question?
    Ms. Hall: Well, I think it is--
    Representative Spartz: We are no good at oversight. We can 
barely keep up what is happening. Saying that we do oversight 
better is just--
    Ms. Hall: Well, then I do not understand what the--what the 
alternative is at this point.
    Representative Spartz: It is not to give money to U.N. and 
give it--look at how we can do for different causes. Is it a 
solution, you think, viable?
    Ms. Hall: In very complex settings like Syria, no, it is 
not. At this moment it is definitely not, and it would cause 
unnecessary human suffering.
    I think that to make decisions like that, we need 
monitoring that we currently do not have in place. It would not 
be expensive, but it is very necessary.
    Representative Spartz: I have--my time is expired, but if 
Mr. Chairman can lend me a few seconds for you to answer, what 
do you think a solution that is feasible? We can talk 
oversight; it is not working. How can we do better?
    Ms. Hall: Well, we do not do oversight.
    Representative Spartz: Mr. Grant and Mr. Kyslytsya, can you 
please just quickly, if the chairman give you a few seconds to, 
because it is important for me because we will have a debate on 
this issue.
    Dr. Grant: Yes. Ms. Hall and I, I think, agree. 
Representative Spartz, I think we all agree on the target and 
the objectives. Ms. Hall and I might differ a little bit about 
means and methods. I think you do have to put it on the table 
that we might be taking the money off the table for the simple 
reason that people's imagination tends to be focused by their 
direct interests, and if you talk to an individual or a company 
or a bureaucracy you as a CPA understand that bottom line 
matters. I think somewhere in the background there does have to 
be at least some clarity that the money could go away if they 
do not get better at what they do.
    Represenative Spartz: Appreciate it.
    Mr. Kyslytsya, if you can--
    Mr. Kyslytsya: All right. I am not going to comment or 
defend the United Nations--you can ask the United Nations to 
defend themselves--as well as I am not going to speak on behalf 
of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. That is their job to 
do.
    What I can say is that the complete withdrawal or major 
withdrawal of the United States from the U.N. system is what 
our enemies want to see. That is guaranteed. That is 
guaranteed. There are money in this world that would replace 
the American money but that would come with a tail price, and 
then it would be very difficult to buy back certain areas of 
the world. You know, so the complete withdrawal is not the 
option.
    However, I do agree with you that monitoring is very 
important.
    Representative Spartz: What kind of monitoring we can 
provide? Monitor, monitor. Please give me--we monitor here, 
nothing gets monitored. We understand, but what--
    Mr. Kyslytsya: This is not a format for these discussion, 
but we can have this many-hour discussion on that issue.
    What I can also say, that it is true that at the initial 
stage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine the response of the 
United Nations system was sluggish for many reasons. Well, 
first of all, because the whole history of humanitarian 
response of the United Nations was in Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America. They were never ready to respond in the European 
context. It is an entirely different system. It is an entirely 
different set of protocols how to respond in Ukraine compared 
to Somalia--no prejudice--where you just drop the bags of rice 
from the overflying aircraft, right? It is an entirely 
different system.
    They are improving, and they are--finally came to the 
conclusion that to operate in Ukraine you do not really just 
give cash money to people; you go to the government and 
government provides you with e-registry and the electronic 
platform so you have the whole list of households, because the 
banking system is operating. The IT system is operating, unlike 
in some other parts of the world.
    I think that it is a very difficult issue, and our enemies 
in the United Nations, they do not sleep. They work very hard 
with all the members of the United Nations. That is why, 
unfortunately, an important part of the membership of the 
United Nations see Russia as the defender of their 
socioeconomic needs and rights, because Russia and some other 
countries just give out--give money.
    Representative Spartz: Right. They do it through Wagner 
Group, not through U.N.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think money should be 
on the table in the authorization. I appreciate you being 
generous with your time. Thank you for having this hearing. I 
appreciate your input.
    Chairman Wilson: Thank you very much, Congresswoman Spartz.
    As we are getting close to a conclusion, I do have a 
question for Ms. Hall. That is I want to thank you so much for 
citing the atrocities that occurred in Syria. The Russian 
Federation, the example that they made of Aleppo of total 
destruction of military, civilian targets, populations, how sad 
that we did not really follow how heinous that was. With that 
in mind, we can learn from history. What suggestions do you 
have for any changes in the United Nations itself?
    Ms. Hall: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Wilson.
    Also to respond to Ms. Spartz, I mean, I have written, as 
you know, dozens of pages on what to do about this in terms of 
monitoring assistance and then working with the United Nations 
to ensure that it is--it is directed toward those who need it 
most, but more specifically so that it is not manipulated in a 
way that allows the regime to flip the script on the United 
Nations.
    I would reiterate what the representative from Ukraine, His 
Excellency said about this not being the time to withdraw from 
the United Nations. As I mentioned, the General Assembly is 
extremely important. By withdrawing those funds from the United 
Nations at this point, we will lose friends that we dearly, 
dearly need as we approach what is a multipolar world. It is 
going to be a very intense competition, as I am sure you know.
    Chairman Wilson: Well, thank you very much.
    Indeed, Ambassador Kyslytsya, the people of the--the 
bravery of the people of Ukraine is an inspiration to the 
world. It was sad to me that war criminal Putin had a treatise 
on the Kremlin website in August 2021 explaining that Ukraine 
did not exist, and how people missed that I am not sure. Then, 
of course, then he falsely claimed that the reason this--that 
there needed to be an invasion was because he did not want NATO 
to have a significant boundary with the Russian Federation. 
Then, because of the bravery of the people of Ukraine, he is 
got it--with Finland, 830 miles, he has NATO. Then not only 
that, Sweden coming--200 years of neutrality. Again, I believe 
it is due to the inspiration of the people of Ukraine. A 
country with 200 years of neutrality, but extraordinary 
manufacturing capability. Again, we just want to praise the 
people of Ukraine.
    I want to conclude with it is been very concerning to me 
different myths and disinformation that is being sent. I would 
like to go briefly over some myths, and then when we conclude 
any and all Members of Congress who are still here, we want to 
come and get a picture with our witnesses, so if you will stay 
in place.
    I want to quote Luke Coffey of the Hudson Institute. He 
wrote, myths that need to be addressed: the vast majority of 
aid to Ukraine never leaves the United States and instead 
supports American jobs. Quote, there are--``likely'' have 
``never been more accountability in place for U.S. foreign 
assistance'' with the U.S. Ukraine Oversight Interagency 
Working Group of ``more than 160 officials across across 20 
Federal oversight agencies'' monitoring U.S. aid to Ukraine. 
Quote, ``According to the Kiel Institute for the World's 
Economy, Ukraine's aid tracker, total European commitments are 
now more than double those of the United States.'' Finally, 
quote, ``Russia is China's junior partner. A defeated Russia 
means a weaker China.'' Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida 
said, quote, ``The security of the Indo-Pacific region cannot 
be separated from European security.'' End of quote.
    With that in mind, I want--again, I want to thank the 
witnesses. I want to thank the OSCE/Helsinki Commission staff 
for their preparation. Just we wish well the courage and 
bravery of the people of Ukraine. With that, we are adjourned.
    [Sounds gavel.]
    [Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the hearing ended.]

                                  [all]