[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]